Sitting of 26 February 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o?clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  TRANSAS GROUP BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Wednesday 5 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Health Services (Afghanistan)
    Linda Gilroy: What recent discussions she has had with non-governmental organisations about rebuilding health services in Afghanistan. [98726]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): My officials are in regular contact with NGOs in both Kabul and the UK. NGOs continue to have an important role to play in service delivery, especially as Government capacity is still weak. They have helped to immunise children against polio and measles, and have saved an estimated 30,000 lives. The Department for International Development has financed a number of these health activities.
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept that the continuing insecurity, especially outside of Kabul, hampers reconstruction and aid work? In its discussions with NGOs and aid agencies, has her Department explored their concerns about the capacity of joint reaction teams to bring that much-needed security?
    Ms Keeble: I begin by paying tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done with the Save the Children Fund to raise money for a clinic in Afghanistan. I certainly agree that improving security is one of the key challenges. The aim of the teams to which she refers—they have since been renamed provincial reconstruction teams—is to extend the authority of the Afghan Government, and to help to secure the development of
    242
    a stable environment in the regions. We have been talking to the NGOs about this matter, and I believe that we are due to have further consultations this week.
    Joan Ruddock: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Minister for Women's Affairs in Afghanistan that jobs for women are now absolutely critical, especially given that so many widows are supporting children? Will my hon. Friend undertake to ask her officials to speak to the Minister in Kabul about the possibility of providing funds for some of the many projects that she has identified?
    Ms Keeble: I agree about the importance of tackling gender equality issues and job opportunities for women. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the Minister for Women's Affairs, and we will certainly take forward discussions in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. Perhaps we can correspond about that issue.

    Iraq
    Bob Spink: What aid is planned for Iraq following the resolution of the current political situation. [98727]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The people of Iraq are already suffering a humanitarian catastrophe. Some 60 per cent. of the people in this naturally wealthy and highly educated country are dependent on handouts from the oil for food programme. One third of children in Baghdad-controlled Iraq are chronically malnourished. If the UN authorises military action to force Saddam Hussein to comply with his disarmament obligations, it is essential that great care be taken to minimise any harm to the people of Iraq, who are already very vulnerable. This means very careful targeting of military action, and ensuring that order is maintained, that food distribution is quickly resumed, and that the health, water and sanitation infrastructure is rehabilitated as soon as possible. Planning is in hand for all of this. My greatest worry is that there is not yet agreement that the UN should have the lead role in a post-conflict Iraq. Without that, there would be significant legal and other difficulties for the working of the international humanitarian system.
    Bob Spink: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that very comprehensive reply. Last week, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and I travelled to northern Iraq, and we visited the Parliament, refugees and hospitals. The Iraqi Kurds, who asked us to speak for them, support the Prime Minister's moral policy, but they do need protection and aid. Is the Secretary of State aware that only one third of the oil for food programme is getting through to Kurdistan, and what can be done about that? Will she ensure that during and after any conflict, food and medical aid will continue to get through to Kurdistan, and does she agree that Turkish troops must be kept out of Kurdistan, unless the Kurdish leaders specifically invite them in, for humanitarian reasons?
    Clare Short: I agree that, if there is to be military action, it is essential that the authority of the UN be

    243
    upheld. If such action is to be authorised by the UN, making sure that the people are protected, and that feeding continues, will be crucial. The people are in very bad shape, and 60 per cent. of them are dependent on oil for food, which would be likely to break down. It is a very large-scale operation, and it would be essential to act quickly to keep food moving in Kurdistan and in the rest of the country, and to get the medical infrastructure working. In fact, the people of Kurdistan, which has the same UN sanctions and oil for food as the rest of the country, are in much better shape. That shows the way in which Saddam Hussein has manipulated the UN regime against the interests of his people. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about Turkish troops, and I shall make sure that that is conveyed to the appropriate authorities.
    Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend will know that I paid a separate visit to northern Iraq, where the main concern is that Saddam Hussein may again use chemical weapons against the Kurds. People especially want to know what protection we can give them against those possible chemical attacks. Chamchamal is the mountain top on the road down from Kurdistan to Kirkuk. From there, one can see Iraqi troops on the hills, and they have rockets. The fears of the Kurds are very strong indeed. Will my right hon. Friend say what practical protection we are offering the Kurds?
    Clare Short: I agree that the risk, in both Kurdistan and Baghdad, that chemical and biological weapons will be used by Saddam Hussein in a way that inflicts harm on Iraqi people is one of the most serious that we face. I assure my hon. Friend that those risks and dangers are being carefully thought through and that we are trying to minimise them, but I am afraid that no one can give an absolute guarantee that they can be prevented. However, every effort will be made to bring help to any people who might be affected.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: On 12 February, the Secretary of State told the International Development Committee that the military had not taken into account all the humanitarian risks that might result from military action. What did she mean when she said that she had struggled to be listened to by the military? Has communication improved?
    Clare Short: I take the old-fashioned view that it is right to tell the House of Commons the truth, and not to pretend that all is well. If there have been delays in the military giving consideration to humanitarian risks—and there have—I have to tell the House of Commons that that is the case. There has been improvement, but getting agreement on a UN lead is absolutely key, and that is not in place. More work needs to be done to face up to all the eventualities.
    Mrs. Spelman: Briefings given to hon. Members for today's debate by non-governmental organisations working in and around Iraq express concern that the Secretary of State has not been working closely with them in preparation for the humanitarian consequences of a war in the area. I recognise the sensitivities of military planning, but will the right hon. Lady explain why there has been so little consultation or sharing of
    244
    information with NGOs, many of which have years of experience of working in Iraq and extensive experience of humanitarian relief and rehabilitation?
    Clare Short: One of the least attractive aspects of some NGO behaviour is the attempt to grandstand and appear in the media when there is a crisis. We have had close relationships over a long period of time with some NGOs working in northern Iraq and with an even smaller number in Baghdad-controlled Iraq. My officials have met representatives of NGOs to talk about the present situation. As I made clear to the Select Committee, NGOs would not be operational in the early stages, as they are not the first call to get things right, but we are in contact with them. I really do not think that anyone should grandstand on these issues.
    Mrs. Spelman: The whole House is aware of, and sympathetic to, the doubts and concerns that the Secretary of State has publicly admitted about the prospect of war in Iraq. However, does she accept that the effect of those doubts has been to prevent her from engaging properly in all attempts to discuss what humanitarian plans would be in place to mitigate the consequences of war? Does she also accept that, ironically, that could have grave consequences for the people of Iraq?
    Clare Short: No. I think that the hon. Lady is engaging in cheap and inaccurate point scoring—another example of grandstanding about this crisis. She put this proposition in a debate some time ago, and I answered her fully. Her simplistic view that we should get on with the war, after which my Department and a few people can clean up, is ill informed. I and my Department have been fully engaged in trying to get the world to face the humanitarian risks and make preparations. I have explained that to the hon. Lady before, but she goes on with her cheap point scoring.
    Mr. David Heath: In her discussions with those planning the military contingencies, has the Secretary of State discussed the imperative of ensuring that Basra is occupied at an early stage, is maintained as a safe haven—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is so much noise in the House that it is unfair to those who are listening to the question.
    Mr. Heath: Has the imperative that Basra should be maintained as a safe haven and a port of supply been considered? Is there an arrangement that might ensure that that is secured, thus avoiding displaced people finding their way into states that are incapable of supporting them?
    Clare Short: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is detailed thinking about Basra, and I do not think that I can say any more than that.
    Michael Fabricant: What contingency plans she has in place for aid to Iraqi displaced persons following possible conflict with Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [98728]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): My Department is holding regular discussions with international organisations about contingency planning for a range of eventualities in Iraq. In the event of substantial population movements, we would expect the International Committee of the Red Cross to be the lead international agency in helping internally displaced people and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to take the lead in providing assistance to refugees. In addition to our regular contributions we are giving an extra £3.5 million to support UN contingency planning for humanitarian relief in Iraq.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister very much for that helpful answer, but she will be aware that the UNHCR is predicting that possibly 3 million people will be displaced following a regime change. I fully understand that neither the United Kingdom nor the United States can act alone, but what steps is her Department taking to encourage the UN and other powers to ensure that those people can be cared for after a regime change, which, I believe, is now inevitable?
    Ms Keeble: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in addition to any scenario that has been predicted, there are a substantial number of internally displaced persons—between 1 million and 2 million—now in Iraq as a result of the appalling regime there. I do not want to speculate on the outcome of any action, but our Department, as my right hon. Friend has said, is putting every possible effort into strengthening the UN role and response to deal with any humanitarian crisis afterwards.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The Secretary of State told the House on 30 January that, if there is a war in Iraq, and without good organisation, there would be a humanitarian nightmare if large-scale ethnic fighting broke out in Iraq. What action is the Department taking to ensure such organisation in the event of the nightmare of an attack on Iraq?
    Ms Keeble: Quite a number of scenarios are being considered, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a great deal of work to try to make sure that those eventualities do not occur and that we prevent the nightmare that my hon. Friend mentions. We are currently working very closely with the UN to consider what those scenarios might be and to ensure that we have a properly supported UN system in place to take the lead.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is the Government's position that resolution 1441 already provides the authority to use force against Iraq. If that force is used in those circumstances and UN authority and agreement has not been reached for the post-conflict administration of Iraq, it will be absolutely essential that the Department for International Development is fully involved in assisting with the civil administration of Iraq
    246
    to ensure that the American military are in that position for the minimum amount of time. Will the Minister assure the House that her Department is making every effort to ensure not only UN agreement, if possible, but the full deployment of all the Department?s resources to make sure that post-conflict Iraq is administered in a way that will ensure a peaceful settlement there?
    Ms Keeble: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has hit on one of the key problems that we face: the legal position of the humanitarian assistance that is provided after any conflict that might take place. We are working very hard to resolve those issues and to strengthen the position and role of the UN. We are also obviously taking careful cognisance of the humanitarian problems that could unfold. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no Department is more focused on that than the Department for International Development and no person in the Government is doing more on that than my right hon. Friend.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Ken Purchase: What progress her Department is making towards rebuilding Afghanistan. [98729]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Rebuilding Afghanistan will require strong Afghan leadership, large amounts of aid and policy support for the long term. Much has been achieved: the election of the Transitional Administration; the establishment of revenue and budget systems; the introduction of a new currency; 2 million refugees have returned; 3 million children are now in school, a third of whom are girls; and millions of children have been vaccinated against polio and measles.
    There is much more to be done, however, and achieving security outside Kabul is key to speeding up progress.
    Mr. Purchase: I thank the Secretary of State for that encouraging answer and the description of all the work currently being done. Does she agree that education must be at the heart of that work? Opportunities for education—especially tertiary education through the universities—are the greatest encouragement that we can give to young people in Afghanistan to remain to help rebuild that country. Will she do all that she can to encourage European and British universities to link with those in Afghanistan, and particularly those in Kabul, to bring those opportunities to thousands of young people in Afghanistan and help them to rebuild?
    Clare Short: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Expansion of rights to education is a human right, but getting girls to school is also profoundly developmental for any country. Girls who have been to school change their country as they grow up. Our focus is therefore on securing universal primary education, and on ensuring that girls are included. A tradition exists of high-quality higher education in Afghanistan, which is being

    247
    redeveloped. I take my hon. Friend?s point, however, and I will look into the question of links with our universities, which I have not yet examined.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Despite what the Secretary of State says, she must know that only half the money decided necessary by the World Bank has been pledged to Afghanistan so far. Despite the Prime Minister's promises not to abandon the people of that country, that is precisely what is happening. The USA and her Government have moved on and plan even worse destruction for Iraq. Because she knows that that is true, will she seriously consider joining many of her colleagues and the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby tonight to avert a new disaster?
    Clare Short rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State will not reply to that. It was out of order.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I very much appreciate the work of my right hon. Friend and her Department, but how much collaborative and cooperative working is being undertaken by her Department with any US Government Departments?
    Clare Short: In general, in international development, as in many other things, the US tends to take quite a unilateralist approach. It has a big commitment in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but it tends to operate on its own. The UK leads increasingly on rebuilding the institutions of the country, and on building its management of the economy and its capacity to provide services to its people. We collaborate, but we operate in different ways generally across the world, and we try to make sure that that is complementary.

    Millennium Development Goals
    Helen Jones: If she will make a statement on progress towards the millennium development goals. [98730]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The world is on track to meet the overarching millennium development goal of halving the proportion of people in poverty by 2015. That will mean 1 billion people having lifted themselves out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015. However, progress is not even across the world. Large parts of Africa are not on target, and better progress is possible on many of the goals. In short, the world is making progress, but with a greater effort we could do much better.
    Helen Jones: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but she will know better than anyone that achieving those goals will require a substantial increase in resources. What are the Government doing to make progress towards a target of spending 0.7 per cent. of GDP on development
    248
    assistance? What is being done to encourage our European partners to do the same, bearing in mind that they agreed to that back in 2001?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. We have about $52 billion in the international development system. When one reflects on the fact that 1.2 billion people live in abject poverty, half of humanity lives in deep poverty and how much we spend on public services in our countries, one realises that that is a pathetic amount, although it is increasingly effectively deployed. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is working internationally to mobilise commitment to an international financing facility that would double the amount of aid available to $100 billion, which is increasingly getting support across the international system. That was the estimate made at the Monterrey conference of the amount needed to support countries to meet the millennium development goals, and we must all work to support the Chancellor in that effort.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is still far too much noise in the Chamber.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I greatly admire much of what the right hon. Lady is doing to reduce poverty in the world, which was the subject of the question that she has just answered. What more will she and the Government do to remove from office a man who is bringing an increasing percentage of his population into starvation and poverty? I refer to that tyrant, Robert Mugabe.
    Clare Short: There is no doubt that the situation in Zimbabwe is serious and brutal. Seven million people need food aid. Projections suggest that the rest of the region will probably recover next year, but that things will get worse in Zimbabwe. There are only 11.2 million people in the country now and 9 million of them will need food aid next year.
    As the hon. Gentleman will know, international law says that it is not legal for countries to seek to remove individual rulers. However, it is highly likely that the people of Zimbabwe will shortly bring down the leadership of Robert Mugabe. We will then all work to help the people to take their country forward again.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Among the millennium development goals is a significant reduction in HIV infection. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to achieve that reduction, it is important that the global fund for health is a success? Although it is welcome that the US has committed significant extra money over the next five years, there is a problem in the short term. This year, the fund does not have the money to deal properly with the commitments for round 3, which is due later this year. Will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done to ensure that the fund can go ahead with round 3 distributions this year?
    Clare Short: I agree that the global fund for health is important, but I am afraid that it is not being as well led as it might be. Its role is to provide drugs and commodities for the treatment of tuberculosis, HIV and malaria, but health care systems must be in place to

    249
    deliver them. A twin-track approach is therefore required. Unfortunately, the leadership of the fund has over-committed and is operating separately from health reform agendas. The US has just committed the money that it promised originally. However, I am holding back from any further commitments until there is a more clearly targeted effort to collaborate in the strengthening of health systems. Rather than simply giving more money, I am in dialogue with the fund about doing a better job.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I commend the Secretary of State for the excellent work of her Department. Does she agree that the best way to reach vital targets is to encourage each developing country to move towards its own benign governance, the rule of law and a market-based economy? Ultimately, nothing else is sustainable. Will she say a little more about the capacity building measures of her Department to try to bring about such end results?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—to achieve a growing economy, effective modern governance is needed, as well as a respect for human rights and democracy; also needed are a treasury that works, procures properly and is not corrupt; a central bank that works; and a macro-economic framework that allows the local private sector and inward investment to work. That is why, in developing countries, we put such stress on the building of effective and modern state institutions with democratic accountability. Progress is being made in many countries but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, some are not on that path. We have to make greater efforts.

    Education (Developing Countries)
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What steps she is taking to improve girls' access to education in developing countries. [98732]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since 1990, the number of primary schoolchildren who are out of school has decreased from 130 million to 115 million, so progress has been made. However, the number of children who are out of school is still unacceptably high. Globally, girls still represent 56 per cent. of children currently out of school, and 66 per cent. in south and west Asia. We are working with a variety of partners to help to accelerate progress on girls' education. We plan to spend £1.3 billion on basic education over the next five years.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging response. She will be aware of the Global Campaign For Education, which is about to report on girls' education—its main campaign focus for 2003. Is she aware that the campaign will be holding a seminar in Portcullis House on 8 April, where my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) will be on the panel? Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging the campaign and congratulating the people involved on their excellent work?
    Clare Short: I am happy to congratulate anyone who is committed to driving forward the implementation of
    250
    the millennium development goal to get all children in the world, including girls, into basic education. In the poorest countries, girls tend not to be in school. Getting girls to school and a generation of them through primary education brings the biggest development effect in any country. Girls who go to school as they grow up marry later, have fewer children who are more likely to survive, increase household income, get their own children into school and access health care. That is fundamental to progress in development in the poorest countries.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [98741] Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26th February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Dr. Starkey: Thanks to this Government's increased spending on the NHS, Milton Keynes general hospital in my constituency has increased nursing staff by 27 per cent. since April 2000 and a new 28-bed unit is due to open at the end of next month. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that Milton Keynes has been designated as a housing growth area, and it is estimated that we will need an extra 400 hospital beds to cope with the needs of the new population. Will he ensure that all Departments take into account the extra needs of Milton Keynes for public services to deal with the needs of our population and look at ways of funding that through the council tax and other funding mechanisms?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will indeed take that into account in allocating resources. That is why in the primary care trust in Milton Keynes there has been, I think, a 10 per cent. real-terms increase. It is not just the number of nurses in her area; over the past few years, 40,000 extra nurses have been employed in the national health service. There are substantially more operations for heart, hip and cataract and there are more doctors and more consultants. That is all a result of the record investment in the national health service—an investment that the Labour party, at least, is committed to keeping.
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that any country that supported resolution 1441 should support the second resolution that naturally flows from it?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I certainly do agree with that.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister recently said he would support action without a second resolution only if there was an "unreasonable veto" in the Security

    251
    Council. Given his answer to my first question, is not the logic of his position now that any veto would be unreasonable?
    The Prime Minister: It certainly would be an unreasonable veto if Iraq is in material breach and we do not pass a resolution, because resolution 1441 made it absolutely clear that Iraq had a final opportunity to comply. If it is not complying, it is in breach. Therefore, that is why I believe that a second resolution should issue and it is also why I believe that, in the end, it will issue.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: We all in the House obviously want to see a majority in the Security Council on that second resolution, but the Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday that it is essential that Saddam Hussein knows he faces a simple choice: voluntary disarmament or disarmament by force. Given those remarks, is it now the Prime Minister's position that he will support action even if there is no majority for a second resolution?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that we will have support for a second resolution. As I said in answer to questions yesterday, I do not think that it is helpful to speculate on what might or might not happen. I believe that the logic of our position is very clear. Indeed, Dr. Blix has said today:
    "At the moment it is not even clear whether the Iraqis really want to co-operate."
    That situation is very clear, and that is why I believe that our strategy of putting down the resolution and then bringing people round to the proposition that this was the final opportunity for Saddam to disarm—he has not disarmed—is so important. However, I point out that, at the present time, we are not at conflict and that Saddam still has the opportunity, if he were to take it, of full compliance. So far, he has not done so.
    Kevin Brennan: With the inevitable focus today on the possibility of war with Iraq, does the Prime Minister understand the concern of those of us who have been in Northern Ireland this week that the moment of truth for the peace process is also imminent there? What assurances can he give the House that the prize of peace in these islands will not be lost in the gathering clouds of war with Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that I can give some reassurance on that score, since I have had meetings both in Northern Ireland and here with the main parties concerned with the Northern Ireland peace process. I am due to have further meetings over the next few days, including with the Taoiseach and the main political parties. I can assure my hon. Friend that, whatever the difficulties, we have come a long way in Northern Ireland over the past five or six years. I shall certainly continue to do everything that I can to bring the process to the right conclusion and a fruitful and just one for all the people in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, unless the United Nations weapons inspectorate were to
    252
    conclude that the inspection process itself had failed, it would be quite wrong for this country to participate in pre-emptive military action against Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: I would put it in this way: it is for the inspectors to give us evidence as to the facts that they find, but what is crucial, because this is what the Security Council has laid down, is that there is full, complete, unconditional and immediate compliance by Saddam. That is what we all agreed when resolution 1441 was passed. Let me read to the right hon. Gentleman what he himself said last November:
    "I think that the present resolution that has been passed can be interpreted obviously, as giving further cause for military intervention if there have been material breaches."
    The definition of the breach is that there has to be full co-operation, and if there is not, resolution 1441 says that Saddam is in breach. I would have thought on the basis of what the right hon. Gentleman said last November that he would agree with me.
    Mr. Kennedy: If the Prime Minister is not prepared to rule out precipitate military action against Iraq, is not the greater consequence and danger that the international coalition against terrorism on which he and everybody else lay such rightful importance would itself he shattered?
    The Prime Minister: Surely the right way to proceed is through the logic of the resolution that we agreed last November. The simple case is that, unless the United Nations carries through what it agreed last November, it is the authority of the UN itself that will be undermined. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that no one, surely, could accuse us of taking precipitate action when we have been trying for 12 years to get Saddam to give up his weapons of mass destruction, it is six months since President Bush addressed the UN and four months since the UN resolution, and still he is not in compliance. If the right hon. Gentleman wants any indication of the nature of the regime, I hope that he and others will listen to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has come back from northern Iraq and will I think give powerful testimony as to the true effects of the regime under Saddam Hussein and exactly what is happening in Iraq today.
    Mr. George Howarth: Although my right hon. Friend will have many pressing issues to discuss during his visit to Spain later this week, will he take the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Kevan Sloan, who served 22 months of a sentence for armed robbery based on, in my view, hopelessly flawed legal proceedings? Will he impress upon the Spanish authorities the urgency of the case, since Kevan's application for deportation is due to be considered at the end of this week?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend obviously knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met him and the family of his constituent and we are in close

    253
    touch with the Spanish authorities about this matter. We will remain in close touch and I hope that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved.
    Q.3 [98743] Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Does the Prime Minister accept that the manipulative media operation that he installed at No. 10 Downing street after 1997 has eroded the electorate's trust in him? Does he also accept that that loss of trust in him personally is now carrying a huge price as it is partly to blame for his inability to convince the British people over Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: The case that we have set out in respect of Iraq is a good one. I hope that if people listen to it and study it in detail they will accept that if we do have to act and go to war it will not be because we want to, but because of the breaches by Saddam Hussein of the United Nations resolutions. I believe that the more people hear that argument and understand it, the more they will accept it.
    Q. [98744] Mr. Chris Mullin: Has my right hon. Friend heard the concern recently expressed by the Prime Minister of Ethiopia that the crisis over Iraq is distracting attention from international efforts to save the people in his country—between 12 million and 15 million—who are facing starvation? He said that insufficient food has been pledged and that it is arriving too slowly. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give that the international community will not lose sight of the impending catastrophe in Ethiopia?
    The Prime Minister: I met Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia yesterday and we discussed the situation in his country. I assured him that we will remain entirely focused on it. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development agreed a few weeks ago a memorandum of understanding that will pledge somewhere in the region of £60 million over the next few years to help famine relief and development in Ethiopia. I assure my hon. Friend that whatever other issues are going on, we remain completely committed not only to Ethiopia, but to the cause of Africa. Under this Government we will achieve over the next few years a doubling and then a trebling of the amount of aid that was going to Africa when we came to office.
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister and his Government promised that families would not have to pay steep council tax rises. Can the Prime Minister tell us by how much council tax has increased since he came to office?
    The Prime Minister: Well, I can say to him that as a result of the additional sums of money that we have given there has been an increase of 25 per cent. in the amount of money that we have given to councils over the past few years, which contrasts with a 7 per cent. cut in the amount of money that was given under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The answer is that average household council tax—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it because it hurts. The average household council tax bill has increased by 42 per cent. since the
    254
    Government came to power. Come April, council tax bills are set to rise by up to 10 times the rate of inflation. This from a Prime Minister who promised:
    "We've no plans to increase tax at all."
    In the same month the Prime Minister is going to hike up national insurance contributions. Can he tell us how much extra a typical family will pay as a result of his national insurance tax hike and council tax increases?
    The Prime Minister: A family on median earnings will pay just under £4 a week, but that is actually a good deal if it means more money for the national health service and does not mean that they are forced, as they would be under his proposals, to deal with a health service that is underfunded or, as the Conservatives want, forced out into the private medical insurance sector, which would be an absolute disaster for them, and which many of them would not be able to afford.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Well, broken promises, and he discards them very easily. The answer is that the average family will now pay £570 more—the cost to them of the tax hike through jobs and the extra council tax that they will pay, which he promised that they would not pay. This from a Prime Minister who said:
    "I vow that the promises we make on tax, we will keep."
    After 53 tax rises all those promises have been broken, so people now know that instead of listening to what the Prime Minister says they should look at their wallets to see what they are now having to pay.
    The Prime Minister: First, the tax burden this year will be less than in eight of the 11 years of the Thatcher Governments. That is just to set it in context. Secondly, I agree that we are indeed putting up national insurance contributions by 1 per cent. this April to pay for the national health service. However, the alternative is an underfunded national health service. That means that people will be forced to go outside the NHS and pay for their operations and health care in the private sector. He must explain how the health service will be improved not only through opposing the extra money for it but by imposing a 20 per cent. cut across the board in national health service spending. That would be a disaster for the people of this country, and it is why they rejected the Conservative party in the past two general elections.

    Workload
    Mr. Graham Allen: What steps he is taking to reduce his workload; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: None.
    Mr. Allen: Given his workload, will the Prime Minister tell the House and the nation what legal or statutory authority he has to commit British troops to war?
    The Prime Minister: I shall act in accordance with constitutional precedent and with the way in which this

    255
    country has always approached such issues. The Government, including me, will act in accordance with international law.
    Sue Doughty: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in Palestine fear that, in the case of military action, the eyes of the world will be distracted from them and that they are at risk of more illegal incursions by Israel? What will the Government do about that?
    The Prime Minister: As part of my workload, it is important to focus on the middle east peace process. The Government have tried to play a part in that by taking forward the process of political reform in the Palestinian Authority. I believe that it is as important as anything else in the world today to try to ensure a just and lasting settlement in the middle east, based on the two-state solution: an Israel that is confident of its security and a viable Palestinian state. We will work towards that outcome.

    Drugs Treatment
    John Mann: How many drug addicts in treatment are (a) in residential rehabilitation, (b) on a course of methadone, (c) on a course of naltraxone and (d) on a course of buprenorphine.
    The Prime Minister: The latest published Department of Health statistics show that nearly 2,000 individuals were in residential rehabilitation out of a total of 118,500 people in treatment in England in 2000–01. National figures for those receiving specific drug therapies have not been collected in the past, but they will be available later in 2003 following the introduction of a new recording system. Overall, the number of drug users who presented for treatment between 2001–02 showed an 8 per cent. rise.
    John Mann: As the Government's updated drugs strategy states that for every £1 spent on treatment, there will be a saving of £3 in criminal justice costs, can I have the money to prove that assertion in my constituency? I promise that I will return every penny of the threefold saving to the Chancellor.
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly a better offer than the Chancellor is used to on such subjects. My hon. Friend has lobbied me on the subject and we are considering the areas that the service will cover. We will focus on the 30 highest basic command unit crime areas and we want to ensure the provision of a service that tracks people from the moment of arrest, when they are tested, through bail, when they are given the option of treatment, or refusal of bail, to sentencing, when, in appropriate cases, they will be offered the prospect of treatment rather than custody. Massive resources are going into that; we are increasing the funding spectacularly in the next few years to accommodate the policy. If it works in the 30 main BCU areas, we can roll it out across the country. However, I shall again consider carefully my hon. Friend's request to be included.
    Angela Watkinson: In the light of the International Narcotics Control Board?s report, which
    256
    condemns the country's drugs policy, will the Prime Minister reconsider the reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C?
    The Prime Minister: We did that for the reasons that the Home Secretary set out. We have not decriminalised cannabis for reasons that my right hon. Friend explained well. Of course, there is a big debate about the matter, but it is worth bearing in mind that the priorities for many police officers in this country are hard drugs.
    Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware, and no doubt proud, of the Government?s track record on introducing legislation that provides protection for workers in the workplace—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman should be asking a question on drugs.

    Engagements
    Mr. George Osborne: On Iraq, does the Prime Minister agree that what lies behind some of the opposition to his policy is a caricature of President George W. Bush which is a gross distortion of the truth? Will he take this timely opportunity to set the record straight?
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that I am surrounded by advice on that particular topic. I have always found in my dealings with President Bush that he has been honest and straightforward. What is more, he chose to go through the United Nations route last year when many expected him not to. We should pay tribute to him for that.
    Paddy Tipping: Despite record high levels of police officers both in Nottinghamshire and nationally, concerns remain about the level of antisocial and yobbish behaviour. What further measures does my right hon. Friend intend to take to tackle that real nuisance?
    The Prime Minister: The Home Secretary has two major pieces of legislation for this Session: one is the Criminal Justice Bill; the other is the antisocial behaviour Bill. He and I met some senior police officers yesterday to discuss what could go into the legislation. Both Bills offer us the real opportunity to reform the criminal justice system, which urgently needs reform, and to introduce simple and easy-to-use penalties for police officers to tackle antisocial behaviour. Part of the problem they face is that the law is far too cumbersome to allow them to deal with some of the low-level disorder that makes people's lives hell in local communities. Fixed-penalty notices in particular, which are being piloted in different parts of the country, have been immensely successful in tackling that problem.
    Chris Grayling: There are increasing reports of pupils of high ability and

    257
    achievement being turned down by universities because of their social background. How would the Prime Minister justify that to the people who are losing out?
    The Prime Minister: The simple point is that I would not. If universities are doing that, they are wrong. What is more, people should go to university based on their merit, whatever their class or background. That is what should happen.[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman asked me a question and I have given him an answer.
    Geraint Davies: My constituent, Feroz Abbasi, has been detained for more than a year by the American authorities, without charge, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Court of Appeal has described that as a contravention of the principles of law. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to receive and evaluate the evidence against my constituent and to press the American authorities to charge and punish him or return him without delay back home to Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I totally understand the concern that my hon. Friend raises. The Foreign Secretary has indicated to me that he would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and the family of his constituent. It is a highly unusual and difficult situation. We have been in touch with and have visited on several occasions those British nationals who are detained in Guantanamo Bay, but the situation is difficult. The one caveat I would enter is that we are still receiving quite valuable information from people who are there. However, I agree that it is an irregular situation and we would certainly want to try to bring it to an end as swiftly as possible.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: The Prime Minister promised in 1999 that within two years everyone would have access to an NHS dentist through NHS Direct. Yet in my constituency and many others there are no vacancies on NHS waiting lists. Given that the Government are developing a reputation for saying one thing and doing another, is it any surprise that people do not trust him on the important issue of Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: I obviously do not know the exact circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. According to the briefing I have, however, almost £700,000 extra has been provided for dental services in his area. The reason we are putting so many additional resources into the national health service is precisely in order to ensure that people get proper access to it. What he will have to explain to his constituents at the next election is why he opposes the extra investment and supports a Conservative leadership that wants to cut investment in the health service by 20 per cent. across the board.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many of his Back Benchers who will support him in tonight's vote on Iraq but who cannot support war against Iraq unless there is a second United
    258
    Nations resolution? Will he make time for the House to have a debate and a vote before we commit British troops to Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: As the Foreign Secretary has already said, subject to the natural qualification that we must do nothing that would ever put the security of our troops in danger, I have no doubt at all that the House will have an opportunity to vote on this issue many times if we come to military action—and, if there is a second resolution, to do so in relation to that second resolution.
    We are not actually voting on the issue of war tonight; we are voting on the issue of the Government's strategy. I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware that many people want the second resolution, and that is exactly what I want. I assure him that I am working flat out in order to achieve it. But the best way in which we can achieve it is to hold firm to the terms of resolution 1441.
    Increasingly, the whole issue before the international community really comes down to this. When we said last November that this was a final opportunity to Saddam, when we said that there must be full, unconditional and immediate compliance, did we really mean it—or did we mean that we would come along later and say "Well, let's postpone it again"? I believe that we meant it: that we intended this genuinely to be the final opportunity. That is why I say that the onus is now on Saddam to make sure that he has indeed come into compliance with the United Nations' wishes.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: May I return to the issue of the national health service? Is the Prime Minister aware that when members of the public ring the NHS help line, they are greeted by an answering machine which tells them because of staff shortages the service is no longer manned? They are then connected to the Department of Health's inquiry service, which puts them on to a deputy patch manager who connects them with a security guard in a disused NHS building in Birmingham? Can the Government do better?
    The Prime Minister: NHS Direct handles millions of people's calls. It may be that the health service is not improving in the hon. Gentleman's area, but I can tell him from my knowledge of my own constituency and many others I have visited that the health service spending is going in, and it is making a difference. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that those who try to run down the national health service day in, day out do nothing but help the Conservative case to get rid of the health service altogether.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Is there any other Labour party, Socialist party or Social Democrat party anywhere else in Europe that supports the British and American approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein?
    The Prime Minister: Yes: for example, the Polish Government.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: If Saddam Hussein was serious about peace, surely he would have released the 605 Kuwaiti prisoners of war who have been held for the last 12 years. What message has the Prime Minister for

    259
    the young people flying out to Iraq who are going as human shields? What advice has he for any British soldier who might see them through the wrong end of a gun sight? And what will happen to those people after the war?
    The Prime Minister: I very much hope that they do not put themselves at risk, as I think they would be doing so in the mistaken view that they were helping the situation—which they would not be. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to point out that there are still some 600 missing people in Kuwait, but that number goes alongside side the literally hundreds of thousands of people who have died under the regime of Saddam. I received some of the letters that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) brought back from Iraq only today, but I urge people to read them, and to get at least some sense of the appalling brutality of the regime with which we are dealing.
    Norman Lamb: Along with the concern of so many in the country about the
    260
    possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, there is real concern among families of our troops who are already in the Gulf. Last night I received a very anxious call from a constituent who had had a letter from her son, who is in the Royal Marines 42 Commando, already in the Gulf. He wrote this to his mother:
    "If you wish to let it be known how the forgotten Commando is surviving with no newspapers, no proper shop, no forces radio station, no e-mails"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be brief. Can the Prime Minister manage an answer?
    The Prime Minister: First, as I told the House yesterday, some of those reports about the troops and their equipment are misleading and irresponsible. The fact is, the British Army is one of the best and best equipped anywhere in the world. I do not want to diminish in any way the letter that the hon. Gentleman read out from his constituent, but I bet what the vast bulk of British armed forces out there would really like to know is that if they have to go into conflict, they have a united House and country behind them.

Point of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is in an absurd position today, as a long-awaited, oversubscribed and vital debate appears to have to finish at 7 o'clock. Is there any proper reason for that, Mr. Speaker? Is there any reason why, in another place, debate will continue for as long is necessary to hear all the speakers, whereas here we are apparently subject to an arbitrary and unnecessary 7 o'clock time limit? Is there anything that can be done even at this late stage, with your help, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Government, to extend the debate to allow more people to speak on a matter of the greatest importance to hon. Members and everybody in the country?
Mr. Speaker: I am in the hands of the House, and the House has decided that 7 o'clock will be the moment of interruption. There is nothing that I can do about that. However, the right hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to say that he is right—many hon. Members have applied to speak in the debate. Before we go onto the main business, we have the ten-minute rule Bill. It would not be appreciated if hon. Members approached the Chair to ask whether there will be an opportunity for them to be called. That would be out of order on a day like this.

Needle Stick Injury
12.32 pm
Laura Moffatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the protection from needle stick injury and resulting infections of persons employed in the health care sector and of other persons engaged in activities at work which carry a significant risk of such injuries and infections; to establish requirements relating to the recording and publication of information about such injuries and infections; to establish standards relating to the supply and use of certain equipment for work which carries a significant risk of such injury and infections; and for connected purposes.
I should like to start—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is bad manners for hon. Members to hold a conversation, as the hon. Lady is addressing the House. Hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly and should not walk in front of her, as that is also bad manners.
Laura Moffatt: A needle stick injury is a puncture wound in which the needle is either whole or broken. Astonishingly, 100,000 such injuries are reported to occur in the NHS alone every year. All workers in a health care setting are at risk—nurses, doctors, midwives, phlebotomists, cleaning staff, portering staff, domestic staff, ambulance staff, community nurses and therapists. However, the problem is much bigger because public sector workers, including refuse collectors, park wardens, road sweepers, police and their support staff, gardeners, builders and teachers—in fact anyone who may come into contact with a hypodermic needle—are at risk.
The injuries themselves are comparatively superficial—it is only a pin-prick, after all—and rarely serious, but that only increases the likelihood of underreporting and failure to obtain necessary testing and treatment. I shall come back to that later. The real danger is the infections that may be transmitted, including blood-borne viruses such as HIV, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and 20 other serious blood-borne viruses. The first ever transmission of HIV to a care worker from a patient happened in the UK. So far, five staff are known to have contracted HIV in that way and, sadly, four of them are dead. The Department of Health study in 2001 found the risk of transmission following a needle stick injury to be one in three for hepatitis B, one in 30 for hepatitis C, and one in 300 for HIV.
It is astonishing to learn that needle stick injury is second only to violence and aggression as a cause of occupational injury in the NHS, but it is not only NHS staff who are affected. Between July 1997 and June 2002, the Public Health Laboratory Service received reports of more than 1,500 exposures to blood-borne viruses, of which 734 cases—140 a year—were caused by hollow
bore needles, which are the riskiest. Nurses and doctors account for an astonishing 77 per cent. of those reports.
The Royal College of Nursing is involved in an excellent monitoring study called Epinet, and is working to improve our understanding of the size of the problem and its causes. As I said, the figures show that at least 100,000 needle stick injuries occur every year. Between January and June 2002 across 19 sites, the Epinet study found that 925 incidents were reported. Figures for the six months covered show that on average per 100 beds,

263
12.74 needle stick injuries will occur each year. With under-reporting estimated at about 60 to 80 per cent., the actual figure is probably much higher than 100,000.
The highest cost of all is the distress caused by such an injury. As a nurse with 25 years' experience, I know only too well how much anxiety is caused as a result of needle stick injury. For some, it can take a year of routine testing before they know whether or not they have contracted a life-threatening infection. For most, thankfully, the test results finally come back clear, but for others the news is devastating, life-altering and sometimes life-threatening.
There are financial implications. The Safer Needles Network, which has spearheaded the campaign, has done a huge amount of work around the financial impact on the NHS of such injuries. We already know that people outside the NHS can be at risk, and they may have no idea of the level of risk that the needle with which they have been stuck could cause them.
What happens when someone suffers such an injury, whether it be high or low risk? Some of the implications are time off work, blood tests, occupational health time, vaccination, treatment, counselling, administration time on the part of managerial staff, and of course compensation. The cost to the NHS of a low-risk accident is £310. The cost of a high-risk accident could be as high as £35,000. Taken as a whole throughout the NHS, the cost of needle stick injuries is £300 million. The estimated cost of introducing safer needles into the NHS is £49 million. The figures speak for themselves.
Much of our current legislation and Department of Health guidance is about protecting patients from infected health care workers, and rightly so, but we must ensure that any public sector or health care worker who may be at risk is protected. Safer needles cannot do the job alone. Good education and training for groups at risk is a must. I commend the work of the Federation of Master Builders, which last October issued excellent guidance to its 13,000 members. In 2002, the World Medical Association called on all national medical
264
associations to work with their Governments to develop effective policies on the safe and appropriate use of injections. That is why I am pressing for change today.
Many people are involved in the Safer Needle Network. It is made up of the trade union Unison, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, clinicians, professional organisations and, of course, the manufacturers of the devices themselves, all of whom have been working extremely closely with the Department of Health, the Medical Defence Association and Her Majesty's Prison Service. I particularly want to thank Bob Wade for all the help that he has given. I should also like to thank the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) for the personal interest that he has taken in this matter, and for receiving a delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham).
The Bill deals with an important issue that needs to be taken on board by the Government. It is time to protect all workers who are at risk from used needles by improving existing health and safety legislation. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Laura Moffatt, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Ben Chapman, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Ann Keen, Anne Picking, Helen Jones, Jonathan Shaw, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, Judy Mallaber and Ms Julia Drown.

Needle Stick Injury
  NEEDLE STICK INJURY
  Laura Moffatt accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the protection from needle stick injury and resulting infections of persons employed in the health care sector and of other persons engaged in activities at work which carry a significant risk of such injuries and infections; to establish requirements relating to the recording and publication of information about such injuries and infections; to establish standards relating to the supply and use of certain equipment for work which carries a significant risk of such injury and infections; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 April, and to be printed [Bill 61].

Iraq
Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
12.42 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Command Paper Cm 5769 on Iraq; reaffirms its endorsement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, as expressed in its Resolution of 25th November 2002; supports the Government's continuing efforts in the United Nations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction; and calls upon Iraq to recognise this as its final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.
This motion means what it says. It is not an endorsement of military action by United Kingdom forces. No decision to deploy British forces in action has yet been taken. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out a few moments ago, we will put any decision on military action to the House, and the timing will be subject only to the usual caveats about the safety of our forces. It is as much in the Government's interest as it is in the paramount interest of the House that we should do that before the start of any hostilities. In addition, there will be oral statements to the House on the business of the Security Council, and a full opportunity to debate and vote on the outcome of proceedings on any second resolution.
Let me commend to the House the Command Paper "Iraq", which I presented yesterday. For the convenience of the House, this contains in one document the reports of Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei, statements on the Iraq crisis by the European Union and by NATO, my statements at three recent Security Council meetings, and, above all, the full texts of 13 of the principal Security Council resolutions on Iraq passed since August 1990.
The situation that we face is plainly grave. It is a matter that, across a range of beliefs, arouses great concern and anxiety. So in this debate I want to answer what I think are the central and continuing questions in people's minds. Why Iraq? Why now? Why not more time, more inspectors? Why a second resolution? Why not persist with the policy of containment, rather than contemplate military action? And finally, is not the west guilty of double standards, especially in relation to Israel/Palestine?
Let me deal with those questions in turn. First, why Iraq? The best answer to that question is to be found in the 42 pages of text of the 13 Security Council resolutions that form the first section of the Command Paper. There we see, paragraph by paragraph, the exceptional danger posed by Iraq, and its continued defiance of the United Nations. On 2 August 1990, resolution 660 tells Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. On 29 November 1990, resolution 678 offers Iraq a "final opportunity"—interesting words—to comply, which it fails to take. On 3 April 1991, resolution 687 gives Iraq until 18 April 1991 to make a full declaration of the "locations, amount and types" of all chemical and biological weapons and of all medium and long-range ballistic missiles. That resolution bars Iraq from ever developing biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
266
On and on the resolutions go. Resolution 688 is "gravely concerned" about the repression of the civilian population in many parts of Iraq. In 1994, resolution 949
"condemns military deployments by Iraq in the direction of the border with Kuwait",
three years after the original invasion. In 1999, nine years after the invasion of Kuwait, resolution 1284 establishes a further inspection regime
"as a result of Iraq's failure to implement the Security Council Resolutions fully".
Iraq flatly and completely refuses to comply.
Last November, resolution 1441 recognised
"the threat which Iraq's non-compliance with Council Resolutions and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and long range missiles poses to international peace and security"—
and gave Iraq its "final opportunity to comply".
So, for the United Nations, the answer to the "Why Iraq?" question is very clear. Iraq is the only country in such serious and multiple breach of mandatory UN obligations. It is the only country in the world to have fired missiles at five of its neighbours, the only country in history to have used chemical weapons against its own people, and the only country in the region that has invaded two of its neighbours in recent years.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle rose—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: As I have explained to you, Mr. Speaker, normally I take many interventions in debates. Because of the intense pressure on time on this occasion, I do not intend to do so, but I will take a few. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. Dalyell: As a question of fact and before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of documents, did the dossier that owed so much to that Californian student have the authority of Peter Ricketts and the Joint Intelligence Committee? Did the Joint Intelligence Committee authorise that dossier?
Mr. Straw: Mr. Ricketts ceased to be the secretary of the Joint Intelligence Committee about two years ago. All the information that was attributed as intelligence came from intelligence agencies and the whole of that dossier was accurate. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to ask me whether we had accepted his advice about taking the issue to the United Nations, because this matter has been the subject of 12 years of United Nations resolutions and 12 months of the most intense and proper debate in the House of Commons and in Westminster Hall.
Last March, when there was some speculation about the course of events and whether, for example, the United States would put its case to the United Nations, my hon. Friend said:
"Incidentally, if there is to be any action, it should be taken through the United Nations." —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 70WH.]

267
Several other colleagues who have put their names to the amendment agreed. All I say is that on this matter we have listened carefully to what the House has said. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has talked to President Bush and much discussion has taken place about putting the matter to the United Nations. That is exactly what we did and, on 8 November 2002, we obtained a Security Council resolution. All we are asking now of the international community, Iraq and this House, is that we follow through on the words that were agreed by the United Nations on 8 November and by this House on 25 November.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Straw: No.
The next question that I raised was, "Why now?" All the resolutions of the Security Council, 12 years of them, also help us answer that question.
Saddam's aim is that "now" shall never arrive. His tactics all along have been to prevaricate in the hope that by exploiting people's natural anxieties about military action he can string out the process for ever and keep his arsenal for good.
Let us look at the recent evidence. On 10 September last year, Iraq declared—I was there in the General Assembly when this was said—that it would never, ever readmit weapons inspectors under any circumstances. Then President Bush made his important and most welcome speech to the General Assembly. Four days later, Iraq said that it would after all readmit weapons inspectors, but made its offer subject to 19 spurious conditions of the kind that it has often come forward with. Fortunately, those were rejected.
There were then two months of intense negotiations inside the Security Council. In response, the international community united, resolution 1441 was passed unanimously and the Security Council agreed to back its diplomacy with the credible threat of force. The inspectors finally entered Iraq on 27 November, looking, as the resolution required, for full, active and immediate co-operation from Iraq.
But since the inspectors' return the story has been all too familiar. We saw first a 12,000-page Iraqi declaration, which Dr. Blix called
"rich in volume but poor in new information … and practically devoid of new evidence."
There have been concerted Iraqi efforts to prevent unrestricted interviews with scientists. The issue of interviews with the scientists is not a trivial matter. It is the most important way in which we can arrive at the truth of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes.
Iraq refused any interviews to begin with. Since the weapons inspectors pressed the Iraqis, there have been three private interviews, all within the closing days up to Dr. Blix's report on 14 February, and, despite what we see in some newspapers about increased co-operation by the Iraqis, not one interview has been granted since.
268
Time after time after time the Iraqis seek to impose conditions that make free and fair interviews almost impossible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in a moment.
There have been categorical Iraqi denials that the al-Samoud missile has a range in excess of the 150 km limit prescribed by the United Nations, an assertion since disproved by an independent panel of experts from the five permanent members of the Security Council and by UNMOVIC.
Crucially, there have been no answers to the outstanding disarmament issues listed in UNSCOM's final report to the Security Council in February 1999.
As a result, as Dr. Blix himself indicates, in 15 weeks, the inspectors have not been able to close a single outstanding issue. There have been no answers to what has happened to the 8,500 litres of anthrax; no answers to what has happened to the 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent; no answers to what has happened to the 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; no answers to what has happened to the 1.5 tonnes of the completely deadly VX nerve agent or to the 6,500 chemical bombs identified by Dr. Blix on 27 January. The intimidation of scientists and their families so that they do not give full evidence has continued.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On 6 February, the same day as the dodgy dossier was exposed as a fabrication, the Prime Minister said on "Newsnight", in front of a studio audience, that the only circumstances in which force would be used without a further UN resolution were if the inspectors concluded that they could no longer do their work and if a further resolution was passed by a majority in the Security Council but was subject to an "unreasonable" veto by a single country. Is that still the position of the United Kingdom Government or has it changed again?
Mr. Straw: I heard the interview too. What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also made clear was that our policy is 100 per cent. support for and full implementation of resolution 1441. What the hon. Gentleman is now trying to do— having got resolution 1441 and having signed up to it, having asked for the United Nations to be brought in, having asked us to take the United Nations route—is to rewrite the terms of the resolution.
Mr. Hoyle: Can my right hon. Friend explain why we have the motion today and not next week, following the statement by Dr. Blix on Friday? We would all like to know why it is so important.
Mr. Straw: We have sought to have as many debates as possible, and, on the entirely proper request of hon. Members on both sides of the House, to do so on substantive resolutions, so that hon. Members are not voting on an Adjournment, but are voting on the substance of the issue. Normally the complaint is that we have not had a debate soon enough. I plead guilty to the fact that we have not delayed this debate. We are

269
having it today because we thought it entirely appropriate, given that we have submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council. As made clear in my opening remarks, once there is a conclusion to the Security Council proceedings—and it may well be before that, too—we shall have a further debate and a vote in the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so the House will have to excuse me if I do not give way.
The next question that I raised was about more time and more inspections. I understand why there are calls for more time and more inspections, but Saddam has not shown that he is ready to break with the past. That is exactly what Dr. Blix said today. At present, it is not even clear whether the Iraqis really want to co-operate. In these circumstances, in the absence of active and immediate Iraqi co-operation, more time will not achieve anything of substance. Nor, without that active co-operation, can it be a question of more inspectors.
It took just nine inspectors to verify the disarmament of South Africa's nuclear weapons programme at the end of apartheid. It did not take 12 years. It did not take hundreds of inspectors. It did not take endless Security Council resolutions. It took three years, nine inspectors and no resolutions. Why? Because South Africa was complying with the inspectors.
It is critical that, in respect of Iraq, we all accept one reality above all, which is that what grudging concessions on process there have been from Saddam have been secured only because of the military build-up. What is the difference between the circumstances now and the circumstances when resolution 1284 was agreed at the end of 1999, the resolution that set up the organisation of weapons inspectors, UNMOVIC? There is some difference in terms of the powers of the weapons inspectors. But the only significant, material difference is that, back at the end of 1999, the world said, "Let us try giving them more time. Let us try by a completely peaceful route to secure the disarmament of Iraq. Let us plead with the Iraqis to do the decent thing. Let us impose some sanctions, too, and hope that they will work."
Saddam's answer was to slam the door in the face of the international community. The only reason for the difference between Saddam's refusal to co-operate with one dot or comma in resolution 1284 and his very reluctant co-operation on some process today, his statement that he will co-operate, is the build-up of the credible threat of force, something clearly recognised by the United Nations charter.
I was glad to note that President Chirac of France—and I pay tribute to him—conceded in an interview last week in Time magazine that it was the military build-up that had made the difference. There is a logic that follows—
Paul Flynn rose—
Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I always do. I do not know why.
270
There is a logic that follows from what I have said that cannot be avoided and is for everybody in the international community. We are now close to the crunch point. Saddam must either embark immediately on voluntary and full disarmament or the Security Council must face up to its responsibility to see that he is disarmed by force. That is the truth. That is the reality.
Paul Flynn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way.
My point is in connection with what my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech, which seems to contradict what he told the House on 7 November. When he was asked what "serious consequences" in resolution 1441 meant, he replied:
"consequences up to and including military force"—[Official Report, 7 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 436.]
Is it not right that anyone who votes for the main resolution today will in fact be voting for war?
Mr. Straw: For one moment, I was worried that I had said something inconsistent back in November—that sometimes happens, even with me—but on this occasion I agree entirely with the words that I uttered then. Indeed, I could not have been more accurate. I wanted then to spell out to the House what "serious consequences" meant. I wanted to tell the House without any dubiety that in voting to support resolution 1441, which we did by a huge majority, we were voting to recognise the serious consequences that would flow from a further material breach by Saddam Hussein, up to and including the use of force.
I repeat for my hon. Friend what I said at the beginning of this debate. The United Nations is responsible for its resolutions, but the House as a whole is responsible for the motions that it passes. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's invitation that we should seek a mandate for military action, we are not seeking one today because the Government have not yet got to that point. If we do reach that point, we will come back and seek a vote, through a debate in this House, on a substantive motion.
Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: No. I am so sorry, but as my hon. Friend knows, there is great time pressure.
The next question is why do we need a second resolution now? Resolution 1441 required Iraq's full, active and immediate compliance, as indeed did resolution 687, which was passed 12 years ago. Fifteen weeks after 1441, Saddam's response has been neither full, nor active, nor immediate. He has not complied, and not a single member of the Security Council says otherwise. In place of active voluntary co-operation, we have had a string of cynically timed concessions that are calculated to divide and to delay.
We saw more token concessions last night. According to the newspapers, Iraq has now told Dr. Blix that it has—and I quote—"found" a bomb. Iraq has found a bomb containing biological agents—it simply popped up from some gooseberry bush. Some will be tempted to regard this as evidence that Saddam is being successfully contained, and that the inspectors should be given

271
endless time. However, this latest "find" is the same old game of dribbling out small concessions at the last minute.
Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
Mr. George Galloway rose—
Malcolm Bruce rose—
Mr. Straw: It is completely ludicrous for the Iraqi regime to talk of "finding" weapons of mass destruction, as if it were someone else who made a 12,000-word declaration, claiming that the country had no weapons of mass destruction.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: The conclusion—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Secretary of State wish to give way?
Mr. Straw: I have given way to serious people on both sides of the House.
Sir Robert Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that this is not a point of order, but I must listen.
Sir Robert Smith: I seek the advice of the Chair on whether it is in order for the Government to table at this late stage a business motion to suspend the 7 o'clock deadline, which would allow the Secretary of State time to take interventions.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Straw: The conclusion that we ought to draw from this overnight admission by Iraq is that we are right to say that it does have weapons of mass destruction, that it has lied about them, that it has tried to hide them, and that it is determined to keep them behind a charade of cynical concessions. Unless we bring this game to a halt, it will go on for as long as Saddam wants. I will not be surprised if, by the end of the week, Saddam is offering concessions on the proscribed al-Samoud missiles—having said that he will never destroy a single one—in the hope, once again, of playing for time. However, if the words "final opportunity", in operative paragraph 2 of resolution 1441, have any meaning, it is that this time we must not let Saddam lure the international community into endless indecision. Resolution 1441 called for disarmament "immediately". We have waited 110 days already, which is stretching the meaning of "immediately" to breaking point.
I ask our friends in France and Germany—who share our goal of Iraqi disarmament, and who fully support resolution 1441—why Saddam is more likely to cooperate actively, fully and immediately in the further
272
120 days that they now propose than he was in the past 110. What does he need 120 days for: to have a look for the weapons that he says he has not got, in case he has overlooked something; to search the homes of scientists for the incriminating papers that he ordered them to hide there; to tell those scientists to attend interviews and tell the truth that, through intimidation, he has instructed them to conceal?
Mr. Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall give way in one second.
No. Saddam would use a further 120 days to bring the authority of the United Nations lower week by week, to tie the weapons inspectors in knots, and to create further divisions within the international community. We know that this is what he will do, because it is what he has always done.
Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall also give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Worse, this delay would send Saddam the clearest possible signal that his strategy is succeeding. It would tell him that the international community lacks the will to disarm him, and it would tell all those who threaten our security that Saddam Hussein has broken the United Nations as an instrument for defending peace through the force of international law.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: I give way to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
Mr. Robathan: The Foreign Secretary is making a most powerful speech, but in the light of everything that he and the Prime Minister have said, can he clarify for the House, for the people of Britain, who are confused, and for the members of our armed forces, who may be about to lay their lives on the line for this policy, whether there are any circumstances in which this crisis can be resolved with Saddam Hussein's being allowed to remain in power? Is it not a fact that our objective is, and has to be, regime change in Iraq?
Mr. Straw: There are such circumstances, as it happens, and the important point is this. We are committed to implementation of 1441. I do not like the Saddam Hussein regime—I regard it as one of the most revolting and terrible regimes in the world—but the focus of 1441 is not regime change per se, but the disarmament of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
In his statement yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out that if there is full, active and immediate compliance by Saddam Hussein with the full terms of 1441 and the other resolutions referred to, Saddam would remain in government, but his power would be greatly reduced because those weapons of mass destruction would have been removed.
Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On the question of timing and taking a decision, can he tell me why half the UN staff involved in the oil-for-food programme have been withdrawn?
Mr. Straw: I cannot tell my hon. Friend directly, but I am happy to look into the matter. They certainly have

273
not been withdrawn on any advice given by us. I have been involved in discussions with the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the humanitarian crisis that has existed in Iraq for the past 12 years, and about the circumstances that would arise if military action had to be taken. All the Security Council partners are of course concerned about that issue, and so is the Secretary-General.
Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: No. With the greatest of respect, I have given way a good deal.[Interruption.] I am sorry; I would love to give way, because I always enjoy doing so.
Time is pressing, so let me turn to the next question, which in many ways is at the heart of the amendment. Why not persist with the policy of containment, rather than contemplate military action? After all, some argue that Iraq has not invaded any of its neighbours or used chemical and biological weapons in the past 12 years, and that these weapons have either been destroyed, or do not present a sufficient threat to Iraq's neighbours or to the wider world to justify the use of force to remove them if Saddam refuses to do so peacefully.
I understand the containment argument, even if I do not agree with it. However, let no one be under any illusions: the policy of containment is not the policy of disarmament as set out in resolution 1441 or any of the preceding resolutions. There can be no stable, steady state for Iraq unless it is properly disarmed, and nor can there be stability for the region and the international community. What may appear to be containment to us is rearmament for Saddam.
We do not need to speculate on this, as we have witnessed it. A de facto policy of containment existed between 1998 and 2002 following the effective expulsion of inspectors by Iraq, and Iraq's refusal to comply with resolution 1284.
Far from keeping a lid on Saddam's ambitions, that period allowed him to rebuild his horrific arsenal, his chemical and biological weapons, and the means of delivering them against his enemies at home and abroad. UNMOVIC inspectors chart in their recent reports, which are before the House, how Iraq has refurbished prohibited equipment that had previously been destroyed by UNSCOM, the earlier inspectors. That equipment included rocket motor casting chambers and chemical processors. UNMOVIC has also found that Iraq used the four-year absence of inspectors—the so-called period of containment—to build a missile test stand capable of testing engines with over four times the thrust of the already prohibited al-Samoud 2 missile. All this happened during containment. There is no steady state—the choice is between disarmament or rearmament.
Thankfully, the so-called policy of containment ended on 8 November last year. Containment requires a degree of trust in Saddam that we cannot risk and which runs contrary to all the evidence. It means leaving Saddam as a standing example that defiance pays. We cannot allow Saddam further time and space to
274
strengthen his capabilities and to rearm further. Only disarmament—the aim of all these UN Security Council resolutions—can deal with this issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: I turn now to the next question. I am often asked, "Isn't the west guilty of double standards, especially in relation to Israel and Palestine?" [HON MEMBERS: "Yes."] Some of my hon. Friends say yes. I accept, as does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that there has been a considerable amount to this charge, and to the perception of double standards, which extends well beyond the Arab and Islamic world. However, we deal with this charge not by ignoring outstanding UN obligations, but by working even harder to see all of them implemented. The key ones on Israel/Palestine—242, 338, 1397—impose obligations on three sets of parties—on the Palestinians to end terrorism, on the Arab countries to end support for terrorism and to recognise the state of Israel, and on Israel fully to co-operate in the establishment of a viable state of Palestine with borders broadly based on those of 1967.
Llew Smith:rose—
Mr. Neil Gerrard rose—
Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mr. Straw: In difficult circumstances, we are working actively to implement this UN policy, including the early publication of the roadmap.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan:rose—
Dr. Jenny Tonge rose—
Richard Burden rose—
Mr. Straw: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).
Richard Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I welcome the Government's efforts to restart the peace process. However, the allegations and anger about double standards are not only to do with the lack of talks. They arise from the fact that, when a house in Gaza is destroyed, perhaps with the people in it, the destruction has probably been caused by an F-16. That aeroplane has probably been supplied by the US and may have parts supplied by Britain. Moreover, when the olive grove is destroyed, the destruction is probably carried out by a bulldozer bankrolled from the US. If we are to avoid the allegation of double standards, we must get talks going, and ensure that UN resolutions are upheld and respected.
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, I entirely agree with that. We have to ensure the full application of international law by Israel, and—as I have told our friends in the Palestinian authority—we have to ensure as well that the Palestinians take even further action to stop the terrorist organisations in their areas. There is no

275
alternative to that. The Arab states must also end giving terrorist organisations active support, finance and supplies.
Llew Smith rose—
Mr. Gerrard rose—
Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Dr. Tonge rose—
Mr. Straw: All those things must happen, but we are committed to ensuring the implementation of the Security Council resolutions in respect of Israel and Palestine.
Mr. Gerrard rose—
Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr. Straw: In difficult circumstances—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary does not appear to be giving way.
Mr. Straw: We are working actively to implement this UN policy, including the early publication of the roadmap.
It must also never be forgotten, however, that the obligations on Saddam are singular, unilateral, and not for negotiation by him. We increase, not undermine, respect for the authority of the UN as a whole—and the prospects of a peace settlement in the middle east—if we implement fully the resolutions on Iraq, and do not shy away from their consequences.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: No, as I am coming to my closing remarks.
Mr. Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way specifically on this matter?
Mr. Straw: I will.
Mr. Kaufman: I thank my right hon. Friend. I think that the House will concede that I have been as outspoken as any hon. Member in condemning Israeli policy, and I shall continue to be outspoken on the matter. Given that, does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein gives a twopenny damn for the Palestinians, the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs is living in self-delusion?
Mr. Straw: As ever, I agree with my right hon. Friend. I knew that it was a wise move to give way to him.
276
International terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are the crucial strategic questions of our time. Our answer to these threats will determine the stability of the world for decades to come. This is an awesome responsibility. It calls for courageous leadership. And it requires the vision and foresight to act decisively and, if necessary, with military force.
Once Saddam's invasion of Kuwait had been turned back by the international community, the international community, with our agreement, put on hold the military option, preferring of course to resolve the continuing crisis peacefully, first through weapons inspections and then, from December 1998, through a policy of containment. However, neither of those approaches has worked.
Following the adoption of resolution 1441, Saddam has now to be under no illusions that there will be no further resolutions calling for containment, no further attempts to tinker at the margins rather than to remove his weapons. This has to be a moment of choice for Saddam and for the Iraqi regime.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews rose—
Chris McCafferty rose—
Mr. Straw: However, it is also a moment of choice for the UN. As I told the Security Council on 5 February, the UN's pre-war predecessor, the League of Nations, had the same fine ideals as the UN. Yet the League failed because it could not create actions from its words: it could not back diplomacy with a credible threat and, where necessary, the use of force. Small evils therefore went unchecked, tyrants became emboldened, then greater evils were unleashed. At each stage good men and women said, "Not now, wait, the evil is not big enough to challenge." Then before their eyes, the evil became too big to challenge. We had slipped slowly down a slope, never noticing how far we had gone until it was too late. We owe it to our history as well as to our future not to make the same mistake again.
This is the hardest issue that I have ever had to deal with. I know that it causes very great anxiety to the British people and to Members of this House. It does to all of us. However, the issue of what we do about tyrannical states with poison gases, nerve agents, viruses and nuclear ambitions, and which defy international law and the principles of the UN, will not go away. We have to face the issue. We have to give Saddam Hussein a categorical choice, and after 12 long years he has to give us his answer now.
I commend the motion to the House.
1.17 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: The Opposition support this motion. In many ways, it is a rerun of the debate in this House on 25 November last year, in which we also supported the Government motion. This motion poses no new questions or challenges. We have therefore tabled no amendment.
None of us wants war. For those of us who have spent a significant part of our political lives working to establish peace, it is a desperately sad prospect. However, sometimes conflict is necessary in the short

277
term to achieve peace through the defeat of aggression, and sometimes it is the threat of conflict that can establish peace.
The current situation that exists in Iraq today is not peace. It is conflict waiting in the wings. It has been there for the past 12 years. As the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, that is what containment has meant. To prolong it in the absence of genuine disarmament would be to prolong the uncertainty and suffering of the people of Iraq. It would leave the conflict and the crisis unresolved. It would also send a message to Saddam Hussein that the urgent requirement to disarm was no longer urgent, that the determination to secure immediate compliance with resolution 1441 was no longer immediate. It would not be peace. It would be the procrastination of a conflict that would be more vicious and more damaging when eventually it came.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I will give way in a moment, but I want to make a few introductory remarks.
I believe that the Prime Minister's last push for peace is important. It is the language that Saddam Hussein understands. It is based on the clear understanding that Saddam Hussein only begins to comply when his feet are held to the flames and the heat begins to take effect. Equally, it is based on the knowledge that, the moment the heat is turned off, he returns to his old threatening ways, as we have heard from the Foreign Secretary.
The peaceful disarming of Hussein may, in the event, not be possible, but I believe that it has been right to try to do it. The Foreign Secretary has painted a very pessimistic picture in that regard today, but we know that, if there is to be a peaceful outcome, it will happen only if the determination of the international community to resort to force if necessary is clear and unambiguous.
Saddam Hussein has always taken ambiguity as a sign of weakness, so the last push for peace depends on his understanding clearly that there is no way out other than to disarm, and that the final opportunity that the Security Council signed up to in resolution 1441 means precisely what it says.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public opinion would be greatly reassured if Her Majesty's Government undertook to ensure that, before UK and US troops attacked Iraq, a specific resolution authorising war was tabled to the Security Council, and that a specific resolution was put before the House of Commons as well?
Mr. Ancram: If my hon. Friend checks the resolutions that are already before the House in the Command Paper, he will find that there is plenty of cover in every one of them.[Interruption.] I will come to the reason why I say that in a moment because it is very important; but we have supported the idea that a substantive motion should be put before the House, and we have
278
also supported the second resolution before the UN because, although we do not believe it to be legally necessary, it is desirable to have it.
Mr. Barnes rose—
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I will in a moment.
I want to ask whether the Government have asked France—politely, of course—what it understands by the phrase "final opportunity". I took the trouble to look up the French version of resolution 1441, and it talks about the "dernière possibilityé". Although my French may be a little rusty, I believe that both phrases mean exactly the same thing. The French signed up to resolution 1441, but when I saw their counter-proposal, which they tabled on Monday, it seems anything but final in the proposals and demands it makes. It must give Saddam Hussein a very real hope that he might just get away with it once again, and with his weapons intact.
I hope that France and those who are tempted to support her position will think very clearly about the importance of the message that they signed up to in resolution 1441, as it is crucial to the last push for peace. It is worth recalling that the Arab League, the European Union and every member of the Security Council, as well as all the parties in the House, expressed their support for resolution 1441.
Mr. Kilfoyle: A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was the Conservative party's policy to seek a substantive motion in the eventuality of hostilities breaking out. Will he confirm whether that substantive motion would be tabled in the House before the commencement of hostilities, not after?
Mr. Ancram: We in the Opposition will obviously not be as aware as the Government are of when military action is likely to start. We have made it clear that, ideally, we would like that to happen before any such action, but there may be circumstances—the hon. Gentleman was a Defence Minister, so he must know this—where military action, for all sorts of security reasons, might have to begin before the House can debate it, and we should be very careful to do nothing that undermines the ability and security of our armed forces by setting improper and unworkable conditions.
Mrs. Gillan: The concern in the country about any future action against Iraq runs right across all sectors of our community, not least among the 1.5 million Muslims who live in the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend support me in a request to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will meet Dr. Siddiqui—my constituent and the leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain—to listen to the views of those Muslims as expressed through the Muslim Parliament?
Mr. Ancram: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised that issue. The Foreign Secretary will have heard what she said, but it is vital in the days and weeks ahead that hon. Members on both sides of the House

279
continue to make it clear that this is a conflict not with Islam, but with a gangster who has weapons of mass destruction and who needs to be dealt with.
Today's debate will be one of deep but conflicting views. I have the greatest respect for those who hold strong and principled views on this difficult issue, even if those views may differ from mine, but I have no time for those who might seek to play politics with this issue, although it would have been easy to do so. It is far too serious for that. I also have very little time for those who have sought to face both ways. I look down the Benches to my left, at the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Yesterday and today, he criticised what he called the pre-emptive draft resolution. Is this the leader of a party which, ever since resolution 1441 was passed, has insisted on a second resolution? Indeed, is this the leader of a party whose foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), told the House last year that
"legally, no new resolution is required for the use of force to implement resolution 687."
He went on to say
"that from a political and diplomatic point of view, a new United Nations resolution is essential".—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 43–44.]s
Well, he was talking not about a second resolution, but about the resolution that turned out to be 1441, which he had already said was not legally required for force to be used. It really is time that the Liberal Democrats decided what their position on such resolutions is. Is this the party leader who told the recent anti-war rally that he would not support military action without a second UN resolution, only two weeks after his defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), when asked, in my presence, whether he would feel bound by a second resolution endorsing military action announced that his party's foreign policy would not be dictated by the UN? What a tangled web! The House has a right to know the clear and unambiguous position of the Liberal Democrats, and I hope that we will hear it today.
Mr. Paul Marsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: No, I will give way to the hon. Member for Hereford if he wishes to explain what he meant when he was talking to all those students the other day.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that invitation. It simply demonstrates why the official Opposition are so concerned about the Liberal Democrats: this party has been calling for support for our troops in the Gulf. As for what I said during Westminster Day, it has never been the case that the UN is the sole repository of international law. Indeed, if we had waited for a UN resolution, we would not have deployed troops into Kosovo—an action by the Government that this party rightly supported.
Hon. Members: More.
Mr. Ancram: I am even more confused about the Liberal Democrat position than I was before the hon.
280
Gentleman intervened, but it is absolutely clear that they behave like weather vanes: every time the wind changes, they change direction, too.
Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman asked the Liberal Democrats to have a clear and unambiguous position on this issue. Is he aware that, if the Liberal Democrats had a clear and unambiguous position on this issue, it would be the only issue, ranging from street lighting to council tax, on which they had such a position?
Mr. Ancram: I accept from the right hon. Gentleman that what I said was the triumph of hope over experience.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: No. I want to make further progress because many hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Paul Marsden rose—
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ancram: Many hon. Members have genuine fears and concerns, and the Government must take them seriously. I have to tell the Foreign Secretary that the public have been confused too often by the changing focus of the Government's arguments. It is now time they clarified their objectives and made the case more clearly.
All that I can do is set out my position and that of my colleagues. I believe that Iraq poses a threat to international peace and security, and, therefore, to us. That is why we support the Government today. The UN believes that Iraq poses a continuing threat to international peace and security, which is why 17 resolutions, including 1441, have been passed under chapter VII of the UN charter, which deals specifically with threats to the peace and permits military action. That was the point that I made when the matter was raised earlier. The draft resolution tabled on Monday in the UN Security Council refers specifically to chapter VII. The threat flows neither from the evil of Saddam Hussein nor from the existence of weapons of mass destruction, but from the combination of the two.
Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
Mr. Ancram: Other countries have weapons of mass destruction but they manage them responsibly. There are other evil and murderous leaders, but they do not possess weapons of mass destruction, nor have they shown readiness to use them even against their own people. Saddam in possession of weapons of mass destruction is, in the eyes of the United Nations—not just in the eyes of the House or of those on these Front Benches—a present and current threat to international peace and security. We would fail the people whom we represent if we were to turn a blind eye to that.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that the disparity between the

281
treatment being meted out to Iraq and that being meted out to North Korea sends a worrying signal to all countries who fear that they will be bullied by the United States? Is not it a cause for concern that everyone in the world is seeing North Korea being treated with kid gloves while Iraq is treated with an iron fist? Is that not an invitation to all other countries that are threatened to try to obtain nuclear weapons?
Mr. Ancram: No. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I was in China last week and I talked to the Chinese Foreign Minister, about North Korea in particular. The point was made to me—this is an important distinction—that whereas Iraq has been subject for many years to mandatory resolutions, North Korea has until recently been abiding by agreements that had been made. What is happening in North Korea is a matter of great concern, but we must be absolutely clear that to confuse that with what is happening in Iraq would be dangerous in terms of the consequences that could follow.
Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
Mr. Barnes rose—
Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman has just advanced two reasons for his party's support for military action, if necessary, in Iraq: first, the weapons of mass destruction that are likely to be present in that country; and secondly, the nature of the regime. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present in the House—the Foreign Secretary certainly was—when the Secretary of State for International Development said that it was illegal, and not permitted under international law, for one country to seek the removal of another country's leader. If his party's policy relies on that argument, it is doing a gross disservice to the people of this country.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has not considered the matter fully. What is clear, as we have made plain for some time, is that a sole objective of regime change would be outwith the bounds of international law. But that is not the case in this instance. We are seeking the removal and elimination of weapons of mass destruction that are a threat because they are in the hands of a gangster who uses them not only to threaten his own people but, as we know, to threaten the countries around him. That is why the United Nations believes that he poses a threat to international security and peace.
I understand the doubts that are expressed about whether we have sufficient evidence to proceed in the direction that the Government have outlined. It would help to meet doubts, of course, if weapons of mass destruction could be disclosed or discovered now. I continue to hope that, as far as is consistent with maintaining the integrity and security of our intelligence, the Government may yet produce more tangible evidence than they have done so far. What we know already, however, is that the elements of such weapons of mass destruction and the programmes for
282
developing them existed in 1999 when the last team of UN inspectors had to leave Iraq. We heard details from the Prime Minister yesterday of the spine-chilling extent and nature of those weapons: the anthrax, the nerve agents and the thousands of special munitions. We know from UNSCOM and from previous Iraqi declarations—let us not forget that—that those weapons were there then. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must believe that they are there now. It is not for the inspectors to prove that they are still there; it is for Iraq to demonstrate credibly that they are not. That is not my demand: Hans Blix made it clear on 27 January, and set it more broadly as the test as to whether Saddam Hussein was genuinely seeking to comply with resolution 1441.
Angus Robertson rose—
Mr. Ancram: Although we have not found a smoking gun, we learned in the presentation made to the UN Security Council by Colin Powell on 5 February that there is a lot of smoke. There is no killer fact, but there are vast amounts of circumstantial evidence that the elements of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles are still there and are still being developed. Those are weapons which, in malign hands, can threaten us directly. As a lawyer, I do not underestimate the importance of such evidence, and those who do are gambling with our future security.
Angus Robertson rose—
Mr. Ancram: We supported resolution 1441 because it gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. He has not taken that opportunity. He has failed to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of that resolution. For that reason, we support the draft second resolution, because it makes clear that when the UN Security Council says that non-compliance will lead to serious consequences, it means what it says.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
Mr. Ancram: My colleagues and I want peace. We see military action as a last resort. That is why we will support the Government in the Lobby tonight. We do not see tonight's vote as the final say of this House on this matter, however, and nor should it be. We will also want a further debate on a substantive motion at the first practical opportunity should military action become necessary. I welcome the undertaking that the Foreign Secretary has given in that regard.
In the interim, however, we need greater clarity on a number of important issues. We need more clarity on the timetable. At what moment will the second resolution be put to the vote? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that Hans Blix will have reported to the UN Security Council before any vote is taken? That is an important point, to which he may wish to respond now.
Mr. Straw: The answer to that is yes. Dr. Blix is in charge of his reports, not us. He is due to make a report to the Security Council under the provisions of

283
resolution 1284, which is his basic authority, on Friday 28 February. I understand that there will be a further report at some stage next week, before any vote.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that clarification, which will reassure many people. Although I do not have a suspicious mind, will he also say what efforts the Government are making to win the backing of the Security Council, including the three African members, Guinea, Cameroon and Angola, whom the French Government entertained royally in Paris last week?
Mr. Straw: As will be expected, we are in active discussion with all our partners in the Security Council. As it happens, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my noble Friend Baroness Amos, is currently visiting the Cameroons, Guinea and Angola.
Mr. Ancram: I am relieved to hear that.
Given that it is accepted by all that Saddam Hussein is not complying and is not showing the change of attitude that Hans Blix was seeking, what further information—perhaps this will be answered by the Minister in his winding-up speech—will be required to trigger or justify a postponement of a vote? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a last-minute agreement by Saddam Hussein to dismantle his illegal missiles will not be enough? I think that that was what the Prime Minister was implying yesterday, but we would like some clarity on the matter.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question that I would have asked the Secretary of State had I been given half a chance? I will put it to the right hon. Gentleman as he may well have information that Labour Members do not. If the weapons inspectors report that Saddam Hussein is complying with their demands, but it is revealed that the original Iraqi declaration was false and misleading, will it be the position of the Opposition that that would legitimise war?
Mr. Ancram: I was in the United Nations when Hans Blix reported on 27 January. The test that he set is correct—that Saddam Hussein must show that his attitude has changed and that he is prepared to comply directly with the requirements of resolution 1441. That is not a question of time; it is a question of attitude. Hans Blix will be able to report on whether what is happening in Iraq convinces him that such a change of attitude has taken place.
Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the danger of cynical, last-minute gestures by Saddam that are designed purely to save his own skin. Given that Saddam has demonstrated over a long period that he is a mass murderer and a compulsive liar, would my right hon. Friend agree that, in practice, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction will also require the removal of Saddam and his hated regime?
Mr. Ancram: We are all aware that, unless Saddam Hussein decides voluntarily to disarm, the likely
284
outcome of the removal of weapons of mass destruction will be the removal of Saddam Hussein. That brings me on to my next point, and I will take no more interventions because I know that many hon. Members want to speak in this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday for information on contingency planning for the administration of Iraq after Saddam. I asked for such information as long ago as September. It is of grave concern that such information has not been forthcoming. With potential military action imminent, it is incredible that such contingency planning is not well advanced—although we were told yesterday that it was being discussed in the United Nations. We must be assured that there is no question of a long-term military administration and that early steps will be taken to see in place an administration that represents the interests and concerns of all parts of Iraq and all factions within it.
A key objective must be the preservation of the integrity of the sovereign state of Iraq. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any break-up of Iraq would create enormous tensions and instability in the region? Does he also agree that, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has a highly educated population and a suppressed but strong middle class? Within a relatively short period, it should be possible to establish a stable, representative and effective administration in Baghdad.
We need to know more about contingency plans for ensuring that immediate, adequate and effective humanitarian aid is available to the people of Iraq. That prospect would do much to reassure people in Iraq and the region, should military action prove necessary. The Secretary of State for International Development has shown a marked reluctance to come to the House to talk about this—she is not even in her seat today. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) will give us some information when he replies to this debate.
Mr. Straw: With great respect, the Secretary of State for International Development has been extremely concerned about this issue and very forward in telling the House what she is doing about it. To my certain knowledge—because I heard her say it between 11.30 am and 12 noon today—she has spelled out what she is doing and the work in which she is involved.
Mr. Ancram: I have to admit that I was not here for that, but for a very good reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who spoke on my behalf, tells me that he received no information from the Secretary of State for International Development, other than a stream of abuse.
There is another important question on which we need reassurance. Everything that we are being asked to support is on the basis of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. We are told that they are well hidden. Are there contingency plans to ensure that, in the event of the toppling of Saddam Hussein, such material does not fall into the hands of terrorists or weapons dealers, or simply remain as a hidden arsenal that will be available to others in future? Even if we cannot be given the details, can we be reassured that clear plans exist to

285
ensure that weapons of mass destruction and programmes to develop them will be well and truly eliminated by whatever action is taken?
I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about progress on the other area of concern in the region—the nearer middle east. It is essential for the reassurance of other countries in the region that that issue is not put to one side during the next few weeks.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
Mr. Ancram: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not give way. I really must draw my remarks to a close.
This is one of the most serious debates to be held in this House for many years. The Prime Minister faces momentous decisions in the days and weeks ahead. We have always made it clear that, so long as he is acting in the national interest, we will support him. That support has never been unconditional. We have been critical from time to time of the Government's failure to set out its case properly.
Mr. Paul Marsden rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
Mr. Ancram: Some crucial questions remain to be answered and I have sought to pose them today. Most important is to do what is right. No international crisis is ever simple. No international questions are ever black and white. What is right and moral is sometimes difficult to discern. As I am sure we shall hear in this debate, matters are open to different interpretations. However, I am clear in my mind that, in the light of what we know, the direction and position of the Government in relation to this crisis is right. That is why, although it is not always the most comfortable or easy course, I believe that we owe the Government our support today. In the interests of the long-term security of our people, that is right. I urge my hon. Friends and right hon. Friends to support the motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind all right hon. Members and hon. Members that M r. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speeches.
1.46 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, To leave out from "destruction" to end and add
"but finds the case for military action against Iraq as yet unproven."
The amendment stands in my name and the names of 115 hon. Members and right hon. Members from all sides of this House. Let us make no mistake. The Government motion before us talks—rightly—of the United Nations process. I welcome that. However, if the Government motion is passed unamended by this House, a signal will have been given that this House endorses the timetable that is now upon us—which will lead, I fear, inexorably to war within the next three to four weeks.
286
Three main arguments appear to be mounted in support of early military intervention in Iraq. The first is: "They have had the time to comply: they don't need more time." Actually, Iraq has had 11 weeks since the weapons inspectors went in this time round. Let us not forget that, from 1991 to 1996–97, the weapons inspection process produced substantial results. Substantial amounts of chemical and biological warfare capacity were destroyed by the process. I would argue that a strongly supported weapons inspection process—one that is given the time to complete the job—is what the international community should be arguing for.
Jim Knight rose—
Mr. Smith: I have only eight minutes, so I will carry on.
The second argument is that there has not been full and complete co-operation with the weapons inspection process. That is true. However, there has been a substantial amount of co-operation. Are we seriously saying that, because Saddam Hussein has complied by 70 per cent. rather than 100 per cent., that is a cause for going to war?
Mr. Straw: There is no basis whatsoever—from any sentence of the Blix reports or any other evidence—for saying that Saddam has complied by 70 per cent. or by any fraction approaching that.
Mr. Smith: I have to disagree with my right hon. Friend. Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein has not given full co-operation and is not complying completely. However, in such a situation, we must ask ourselves whether the degree of co-operation that he has given and which has undoubtedly been extorted out of him by the pressure from the international community falls so far short of what is required that it is a cause for going in and wreaking substantial havoc and destruction on Iraq. That case, as yet, is not made.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Smith: The third major argument that is used is that we will give comfort to Saddam Hussein by sending the wrong message. That is true only if we fail to maintain the pressure on him. There may well be a time for military action. I do not take the view that military action is never, ever likely to be required. There may well be a time when it becomes necessary.
Kali Mountford rose—
Mr. Smith: At the moment, the timetable appears to be determined by the decision of the President of the United States and not by the logic of events.
The other argument that has been made is that those of us who urge caution are failing to be strong and that, by doing so, we are somehow appeasing a tyrant. That is the shallowest argument of all. Strength does not lie simply in military might. Strength lies in having an unanswerable case. It lies in making the right moral choices. It lies in maintaining the pressure, and it lies in securing the fullest possible international agreement.

287
That is where our efforts should now be directed, but I fear that we may be cutting short those efforts by the timetable that is now upon us.
Kali Mountford rose—
Mr. Smith: Let us not forget what we are talking about. We are talking about going to war. We are talking about thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of innocent lives being lost. We are talking about casualties almost inevitably among our own forces. We are talking about instability across the whole middle east. We are talking about making the achievement of a solution to the Israel/Palestine question infinitely more difficult. We are talking about the alienation of moderate Muslim opinion across the world. One does not undertake such things lightly. One must have the clearest possible reasons for doing them, and I do not believe that those reasons are there.
This may be the last chance before our forces are committed to military action that the House has to make our view known. It grieves me that I am seeking to amend a motion tabled by my Government—a Government whom I applaud and support. However, these are serious times and the House must make a serious judgment. We must say here today in this Chamber that now is not the time, that the case has yet to be fully made and that war, with all its consequences, cannot be the present answer.
Kali Mountford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the ease of the debate and so that interventions are taken for debate to take place across the Floor of the House will you clarify that, when interventions are taken, time is added to the time allowed for the speeches?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I can confirm what the hon. Lady says. Taking up to two interventions provides an additional two minutes for the speaker.
1.54 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: In the previous debate on this topic, the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to the Government motion. We have done so again today and it sets out our party's position. There is no question but that we share the doubts expressed in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and in his speech. We will support him and others in the Lobby. On the assumption that the amendment is not passed, we will vote against the Government's motion.
We welcome the opportunity that this debate provides to discuss the critical issues facing the country. After three months and repeated requests for a debate, it has been a long time coming. However, it comes at a key moment in the development of the international situation.
We must send out an absolutely clear message. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed and his evil regime with it. Nobody disputes that. The question for us is how we go about that. Throughout the process, we have
288
supported the United Nations and urged our Government and the United States of America to work through it. The international community is taking on Saddam Hussein because he defies international law, so it is absolutely essential that, as we tackle him, we follow the United Nations route; otherwise we will undermine the very principles and institutions in whose name we act.
It has not always been clear that that the United States of America has recognised that requirement. Even in the past 24 hours, the United States President has restated his belief that a second resolution against Iraq is not required before military action can begin. That is a lonely view in the world but, sadly, an important one.
We acknowledge the United Kingdom's role in persuading the United States Administration to pursue their case via the United Nations in the first place. However, all of us must be concerned about the threats made to members of the Security Council if they ignore America's will, and concerned that, if they do, the United States will go its own way.
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Moore: In similar vein, the Prime Minister has introduced the concept of an "unreasonable veto". This, too, is a dangerous notion. Will it allow other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to disregard a future use of the British veto? This pick-and-mix approach to international diplomacy is bad for Britain and it is worse still for the international community.
There is no doubt that the possibility of military action has been the catalyst for the return of the weapons inspectors and for the co-operation received from the Iraqi regime so far as it goes. However, there must be a difference between getting the military forces ready and using them. Much of the anxiety in the public's mind at present is because the United States' and the United Kingdom's rhetoric suggests that, once the build-up is complete, the military will go into action. Many fear that there is an unstoppable momentum towards war that is accentuated by the attempt to force the pace with a new draft resolution. Never mind the United States Administration's ambivalence about the role of the UN and even the need for a second resolution. We must have a credible threat of force, but not a certain threat of force; otherwise the international order has everything to lose and Saddam Hussein has nothing to gain except by pre-emptive action of his own.
Kali Mountford: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but is his point not inconsistent? How can there be a credible threat to Iraq if we make it clear at the outset that the threat is not credible because we are not prepared to use it? Is that not an inconsistent position?
Mr. Moore: That is not what I was saying. If the hon. Lady will bear with me and listen to the rest of my case, I hope that that will become absolutely clear to her.
International law is clear that war can only ever be justified as a last resort. In upholding it, we must show conclusively that that is so and that we will go to war

289
only if all other diplomatic and political options have been exhausted. That is far from being the case at this point.
The current action against Saddam is justified by resolution 1441. The resolution was a supreme effort of international diplomacy that took eight weeks of patient negotiation. It was unanimously agreed and was all the stronger for that. It put a clear onus on Saddam, marked out the fact that this was his final opportunity, and gave a warning in respect of further material breaches and the serious consequences that would flow from them. Saddam Hussein must know that that involves the real possibility of military action, but we do not believe that the current resolution that was drafted and put before the United Nations is sufficient to justify any such development.
The weapons inspectors are the key to dealing with Saddam. They have got clear instructions; indeed, they could not be more specific. So far, the outcomes have been mixed, co-operation has been patchy and the inspectors have not been helped by the slow build-up in their resources and numbers, but can anybody doubt their seriousness, purpose or independence? It is their judgment that is crucial in this debate. Overnight, we have seen the release of new information—an important development that would suggest that the regime is cooperating with them—but we face an early test this weekend regarding the al-Samoud missile system and Iraq's willingness to dismantle it. Overall, this is a finely judged case, but in the circumstances, we must surely listen to the chief inspector when he says:
"Eight years of inspections, four of no inspections, then 11 weeks and call it a day? It's a little short".
Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that this is a case not so much of the al-Samoud missiles, which are the delivery system, as of the nerve and biological agents that could be delivered? Those agents could be delivered by all sorts of other means, including manned aircraft and many others. Merely to focus on one particular aspect of the offensive capability of the Iraqi regime is wholly naïve.
Mr. Moore: I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to listen carefully to what I am saying. I was not saying that the requirement was the only one with which Saddam must comply, but I pointed out that it was an important test of his willingness to comply. It is for the chief inspector and his colleagues to judge this matter. The chief inspector has said that he should be able to reach that judgment within months—not hours or days, but months. He must be given sufficient time.
Angus Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the interview given by Dr. Hans Blix to Die Zeit newspaper? In the interview, which will be published tomorrow, he appeals again to be allowed a number of months to complete his task. Should not the international community listen to his advice and give him some months to complete that task?
Mr. Moore: Alas, I am not as well connected with the editorial desks of foreign newspapers as the hon. Gentleman, but I will take his word for it. His intervention reinforces the point that 1 was making: the
290
inspection regime needs a number of months to carry out its work and we should not be short-circuiting it at this point.
Prior to the passing of resolution 1441, we relied on containment and deterrents to look after Saddam.
Phil Hope: It is hard to understand the Liberal position. First, we heard the hon. Gentleman's party leader saying at the "stop the war" demonstration that he did not support the war, but the Liberal Democrats' amendment says that they would support war if it were sanctioned by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. What is their position?
Secondly, is it not the case that, if the United Nations passes a second resolution, the Liberal Democrats would support military action against Iraq within weeks, not months, which contradicts what he has just said?
Mr. Moore: May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman not listen to what the spin doctors from Millbank, or wherever they are now located, say about what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) has said. He said not that he was opposed to the war, but that we were in favour of resolving the situation through the United Nations and that war must be the last resort after all other options had been exhausted. That is a world away from the hon. Gentleman's characterisation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Moore: I am sorry, but I have given way numerous times and I intend to continue.
At this point, the weapons inspectors are still in Iraq and are still saying that they have a worthwhile job to do. In response to the draft resolution tabled by the British and American Governments, the French have offered an alternative, supported by Germany and Russia. It talks about needing a clear programme of action, reinforced inspections and timelines for inspection and assessment. The Foreign Secretary drew attention to the contrast between Iraq and South Africa, but surely one of the key differences is that, in South Africa, the very points that the French memorandum sets out—a clear programme and timelines for inspection—were contained in the inspection regime. We must not dismiss that out of hand, as the Government appear to have done.
If we are to proceed to war, we must be a lot clearer about what the objectives might be. There is currently an enormous lack of clarity. It is not clear whether war would be only for disarmament purposes or for regime change. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both referred to regime change in previous contributions. Those mixed messages do not instil confidence in the international community—
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene on the subject of mixed messages?
Mr. Moore: Tempted as I am to draw attention to the mixed messages of the hon. Gentleman's party—some Opposition Members are signed up to the amendment while others are not, and Front Benchers who talked

291
previously about not needing a second resolution now favour one—it would be as well to leave the matter to one side.
Apart from the objectives, we must also reflect on the consequences of any action. The most important starting point will be the humanitarian aspects of the situation in Iraq and in neighbouring countries. As yet, it is not at all clear what humanitarian preparations the Government or international bodies are preparing for. In the context of the situation in Afghanistan, where the President has complained about lack of follow-up to the conflict that occurred there a couple of years ago, that issue is very worrying.
We must also not lose sight of the dangers in the middle east conflict and its potential to spill over in what is already a very sensitive and difficult time, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) made clear. As the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury put it, the prospect of upsetting and putting at risk the support of moderate Muslim opinion throughout the world is very serious and we must not overlook it. There are many things that we must sort out. In doing so, we must be clear what we are setting out to do.
Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many Muslims he thinks Saddam Hussein has killed?
Mr. Moore: With due respect to the Foreign Secretary, that is not the point at issue—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on his feet responding to the intervention.
Mr. Moore: It is beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein's evil regime has murdered thousands of his fellow citizens. That is not the point. The point at issue is the consequence of any action in the middle east that is not supported by international resolutions. The Foreign Secretary must think very carefully about that.
Many things have got to be sorted out. In sorting them out, we must be clear about what we are setting out to do and how we will deal with the consequences. We are far from having reached that position at this point. It is important that, in due course, if there is to be a further resolution, we must have a debate in this House and a vote when UK armed forces are to be committed. At the key moment, when another UN resolution has been passed, that is absolutely vital. This debate cannot suffice.
We believe that the decision by the British, Americans and Spanish to table a new resolution at the United Nations is premature. All of us want to see the Iraqi regime disarmed and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction destroyed.
Dr. Julian Lewis: That is like feeding the crocodiles.
Mr. Moore: Under the existing resolution, the weapons inspectors are carrying out a clear mandate to inspect and to report to the Security Council. They must be given sufficient time to carry out and to complete
292
their task. War can only be a last resort once all other political and diplomatic options have been exhausted. We have not reached that point. The case for war has not been made.
2.10 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I will not repeat what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary said so eloquently yesterday and today, but I want to put on record that I support my Government—not out of loyalty, although that is not a bad reason, but because I think that they are right, and I want to add a few points.
First, supporting the Government today does not mean that one is in favour of war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes it does."] It does not mean that, as the media and—I was about to say idiots, but I had better not—Liberal Democrat Members say. War can be avoided by one simple act—Saddam Hussein complying with the resolutions of the United Nations. All the pressure—not just our pressure, but the pressure from everywhere—should be on Saddam Hussein, not on Blair and Bush. The pressure should be on Saddam Hussein to comply with the resolutions. I am no fan of President Bush, but the hyperbole of the attacks and the comparisons that he has suffered is incredible. That does no one's cause any good. The United Kingdom and United States Governments are working through the United Nations. We have heard that the weapons inspectors have found non-compliance on anthrax, on nerve agents and on long-range missiles. The evidence is now overwhelming, and we should be supporting the Government.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the majority of those who oppose Government policy, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that the Liberals and, I would add, the Scottish National party, are attempting to use this issue—an issue of life and death—for party political purposes. As I said yesterday, that is irresponsible opportunism. They should be aware that Saddam Hussein is cleverly exploiting everything that they do, including my ex-right hon. Friend's patsy interview with him on television. I saw the marches that some of my colleagues took part in. They were reported with joy and glee on Iraqi television and they gave great succour to the dictator. I saw no placards on those marches saying, "Saddam must go". I saw no mention of the 2 million dead in the two wars, the Kurds who were gassed, the Iraqis who were exiled, or the hundreds of children who starve each day now because of Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the sanctions. Yet each day that passes without action to disarm Saddam Hussein means that more of those children will die and more members of the opposition will be persecuted. My colleagues should remember that there are consequences of inaction, as well as of action.
Simon Hughes: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will know that both sides of the House have condemned Saddam Hussein for years. Surely he understands that those of us who marched, and were proud to march, did so because we believe that when advisers to the Security Council—experts—say that they want more time and

293
that they might be able to achieve disarmament if they had it, that is a road to disarmament by peace that must be preferable to a road to disarmament by war.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman and those who support him are not just na?ve; they are being duped. They are also inconsistent, and I shall point to another inconsistency. Members on the Opposition Benches and others who oppose the deployment of troops now urge us to give more time to the inspectors, but the inspectors would not be there had we not deployed the troops, and we would not have deployed the troops if we had taken the advice of some Opposition Members. That credible deployment of force needs to be maintained and intensified to make Saddam Hussein realise and understand that we are serious.
In conclusion, I have repeatedly asked critics of Government policy—I have asked them here, I have asked those with whom I have appeared on the media, I have asked people in my constituency who come to see me—what credible way they propose to disarm a brutal dictator. I get no reply and no credible alternative. I therefore believe that we should support the Government. We are not here just as people to do the bidding of everyone who writes to us; we are here to make our own judgment about what is right and what is wrong. I think that the Government are right and that, as there is no credible alternative, we as elected representatives have a responsibility to go back to our constituencies to explain the Government's policy, to bring people along with us, to support the Government and to get rid of a brutal dictator.
2.16 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am as strong a supporter of the Atlantic alliance as anyone in this House. I believe that the continued maintenance of that alliance is absolutely vital to our security, to that of other European nations and to that of the United States itself. I have no hesitation, in the right circumstances, in facing up to my responsibility to vote for the use of military force in the defence and support of vital national and international interests, so long as it is plain that it is a necessary last resort and all other means of proceeding have been satisfactorily exhausted. So I begin—obviously, I trust—from no anti-American, left-wing, peacenik position in approaching—the problem.
Today's debate is the time to put down a marker to say that the other approaches—the diplomatic, deterrent policy and the use of threat in order to get compliance—have not yet been exhausted. I find myself attracted to the motion tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), in that if we ask ourselves today whether the case for war has yet been established, the House should say that it has not and that there is still a case for giving more time to other, peaceful alternatives for enforcing our objectives.
Dr. Julian Lewis: How much more time should Saddam Hussein be given?
Mr. Clarke: We should take as much time as is necessary to achieve disarmament, and we should resort to warfare once it is plain that all other methods are exhausted.
Dr. Lewis: Another 12 years?
Mr. Clarke: We have had 12 years, in two or three of which people have done nothing at all. We have had 11 weeks of the present policy and we must judge whether a few weeks more are required.
294
Let me make clear the origin of my doubts about the very persuasive case that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary sometimes put. I cannot rid myself of doubts that the course to war upon which we are now embarked was decided on many months ago, primarily in Washington, and there has been a fairly remorseless unfolding of events since that time. I am not alone in having heard and met American politicians of great distinction who gave the impression that a change of regime in Iraq was determined upon long ago and that the use of military force in a pre-emptive strike was justified in order to achieve that. I believe that in most cases the motives have been worthy and they genuinely believe that they are ridding themselves of an evil regime. I do not believe the conspiracy theorists. One can go on to hear theories about the installation of democracy in the Arab world, unfinished business from a previous Administration, and a reaction to the understandable state of political opinion in the United States of America in the aftermath of 11 September.
If war happens in the next few weeks—that is a genuine possibility—hon. Members must ask themselves whether it is legitimate to believe that such action had already been determined and had been remorselessly unfolding for many months. Many people believe that. It is why middle England and those of moderate political opinions have so many doubts. To many of my constituents, the answer to the questions, "Did Washington determine such action many months ago?" and "Could the President seek re-election without war and the removal of Iraq's president?" is as obvious as the reply to "Does the emperor have clothes?" The Government must respond to that formidable case.
However, I praise the Government for their actions: first, they put themselves in the classic Churchillian position, followed by every subsequent Government, of being America's closest ally in a great diplomatic crisis to gain the maximum possible influence over the exercise of power. I trust that any Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of this country would have done that. Secondly, they went to the United Nations and led it towards the path of diplomacy and peaceful coercion, which, I trust, the House would prefer if it achieved the desired effect. The result was resolution 1441, for which I voted. It plainly paves the way to war, if necessary, in setting out the conditions for endeavouring to put together an international coalition that would enforce the United Nations' will when all other means had been exhausted.
The resolution turns on the question whether a material breach has occurred. Although other concerns cannot be brushed aside, the revolting nature of the Iraqi regime and its cruelty, much though we deplore it, is not a legal basis for war. We must concentrate on whether there are weapons of mass destruction, whether disarmament can be induced and, if not, whether force will be used to effect it.
The Government introduce other matters to strengthen their claim. Even today, the Prime Minister asked us to listen to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). I shall do that, doubtless with a sense of shock and shared anxiety about the Iraqi regime's outrageous behaviour. The word "attitude" has also been used today, as though the Iraqi regime's attitude to disarmament is a new and exciting concept.

295
However, the question that we must ask is whether a material breach has occurred. To me, that means considering whether demonstrable evidence exists to show that biological and chemical weapons are held in conditions and circumstances in which they pose a current threat to neighbours or to us. There is no evidence of links with al-Qaeda and I do not believe that Iraq poses a threat to New York or London. To claim that is to insult our intelligence. However, I wish to know whether demonstrable evidence exists of sufficient quantities of weapons to pose a threat. I doubt that.
I am glad to say that Iraq's army is degraded and in a weaker position than in 1991. I do not believe Saddam Hussein; he probably has material around Iraq that he has not disclosed and we need to pursue that rigorously. However, is it in a condition to be deployed as a threat to anybody? That has not yet been demonstrated and we should not go to war until it has.
Use of threat and reverting to the policies of international diplomacy and deterrence that we used in the cold war have been successful. Every speaker so far has conceded that coercion has moved Saddam. That shows that the policy is working. It does not mean that we have reached the stage of abandoning deterrence, coercion and threat and deciding that the weather is unfortunately getting warmer in Iraq, that 250,000 people, including a large part of the British Army, are there and either we must bring people home in the next few weeks or they must open fire.
Any war will be won easily. I am glad that if we go to war, it will not take long. However, we should consider alternatives because of the consequences of war. How many terrorists will we recruit in the greater, longstanding battle against international terrorism? It will be far harder to win. What will we do to the stability of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Egypt? What sort of leadership will replace that which might be deposed? The Government never address those questions satisfactorily, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said. However, they will have to live with the answers.
The next time a large bomb explodes in a western city, or an Arab or Muslim regime topples and is replaced by extremists, the Government must consider the extent to which the policy contributed to it. That is why hon. Members should pause and why, unless evidence is produced for a breach and a material threat, my judgment today is that we should not go to war. I therefore support the amendment that the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury tabled.
2.25 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: It may surprise some hon. Members, even Labour Members, to know that my instincts are those of a party loyalist. The Foreign Secretary laughs, but I suggest that he examine the record. I have long taken an interest in the subject, and although my view has been consistent, I, like the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), have noticed the Foreign Secretary's inconsistency and the various attempts to shift the goalposts. I therefore support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South
296
and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and 113 others who joined us.
When the Foreign Secretary opened the debate, he gave the impression that we would have the opportunity later to hold a substantive vote on whether this country commits troops to action in Iraq. At the very least, the Government could get their act together. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), the appointed chairman of the Labour party, made it clear on "Today" this morning that the Government will go ahead without a substantive vote. He said that that was in accordance with a tradition that was hundreds of years old.
Mr. Straw: I also heard the interview to which my hon. Friend refers. My right hon. Friend the chairman of the Labour party made it clear, as on other occasions, that a substantive vote would take place in the exact terms that I set out earlier. It is our hope and intention that that happens before any military action occurs. That is in the Government's interest as well as that of the House. Let me also give a separate undertaking that the result of the proceedings on the second resolution will be the subject of a debate and a vote in the House on a substantive motion.
Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not want to disagree with the Foreign Secretary, but my understanding, from sitting in the studio and listening, was that the party chairman made an unequivocal statement. I accept the Foreign Secretary's view, but I should like to dispose of the myth that having a substantive debate before troops are committed somehow prejudices their security. If we have not already signalled a firm intention to attack Iraq, I do not know what we have done. The President of the United States has to go to Congress under the war powers Act. Surely the House should also be allowed to express an opinion.
The Foreign Secretary said two things in answer to the question, "Why Iraq?" He subdivided them into two further points. First, he claimed that Iraq posed an exceptional danger, and he gave defiance of the United Nations as the second reason. Many arguments have been presented about defying the UN. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary mentioned UN resolutions that referred to all countries in the middle east, including Israel, and specifically to making that region a nuclear-free zone.
Although there are differences of opinion, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe presented very well the case against a thoroughly emasculated Iraq posing an exceptional danger. Like him, I anticipate that the overwhelming force in place to deal with Iraq is of such a nature that a campaign would, hopefully, be relatively short and sharp. What we cannot guarantee, however, is the amount of collateral damage that would ensue— apart from the wholly undesirable political outcomes, of course.
The Foreign Secretary asked the rhetorical question, "Why now?" People who think that it is a matter of us running out of patience misunderstand the mechanics of what is going on. The decision was made not in Downing street or the Foreign Office, but in the White House. We are all Philadelphia lawyers now and know

297
all about the fascinating weapons of mass destruction, but anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of American military doctrine since Colin Powell and the first Gulf war knows that we are missing the obvious. It has taken until now, and it is still not finalised, to mobilise and deploy the troops and units needed to hold a campaign that accords with an American military doctrine that is nearly coming to a conclusion. Oddly, hon. Members will have noticed from today's new reports that space has been allocated in the middle east for only seven of the 70-odd British planes. The hard reality is that it will be an American military campaign.
The reasons for the campaign are complex. It is not just a matter of oil or of the President avenging daddy's unfinished business; the ideological hawks in the US Administration have set out their stall for many years. They have set out, transparently and consistently, the different hopes and aims to which they aspire. I mentioned the undesirable outcomes. We must not forget, as our Prime Minister confirmed at the Dispatch Box when his Back Benchers heckled him, that North Korea will be next. We can write the script: Iran, Syria, Libya. People in Iran must be worried, and we do not know where it will end. That is not conjecture; the objectives of the new pax Americana have been set out clearly and unequivocally.
We should leave it to Hans Blix and el-Baradei to make the definitive statement on weapons of mass destruction and let the United Nations decide whether a material breach has taken place. There are two prerequisites for British public opinion on that.
Phil Hope: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Kilfoyle: No, I will not.
The first prerequisite is that a United Nations resolution is essential. It must be based on credible evidence, and that will not be provided by the political imperatives of the US or UK Governments, or anyone else for that matter. I recommend that people read Senator Riegle's report, published by his Senate Committee, on where the biological weapons originated. It is a matter of congressional record and anyone can get a copy. There were 73 separate consignments, including everything from botulinum toxin to other horrors, such as anthrax. Those were exported to Saddam by the United States. None of us is lily white. I know that that does not help to deal with the problem, but it ill behoves people to stand up as purer than Caesar's wife on the issue.
I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider the fact that it is extremely unlikely that we will be afforded an opportunity to debate the problem substantively. I hear what the Foreign Secretary said, but I also heard what the Labour party chairman said. I wage that it will be extremely problematic for Members of this House to connect with public opinion in our constituencies, parties, the nation at large and internationally, and to express our views. We can do that now only by accepting the amendment. It rules nothing out; it asks only that we consider that the case is not yet proven. That gives all concerned the leeway to make their case. Hon. Members should not miss out on the opportunity to reconnect with the overwhelming consensus of the British people.
2.35 pm
Mr. Michael Portillo: I draw attention to my registered interest.
I begin with the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. During the weekend following 11 September 2001, I was at a dinner party in Islington. While the corpses were still being taken out the wreckage of the World Trade Centre, the majority of people at that party were convinced that America had it coming. They thought that in the preceding years, the United States had arrogantly thrown its weight about in the world. My view is the opposite. The background to 9/11 was a decade in which the west had failed to show fixity of purpose and had neglected to offer deterrence to its enemies. The United States, in particular, had repeatedly come under attack from extremists without offering any effective response.
In the 1990s, there was the first attack on the World Trade Centre. That was followed by the bombing of American barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombs at American embassies in east Africa, and then the attack on the US warship Cole. Those outrages represented a classic escalation. In retrospect, each inadequate response to each outrage showed a lack of determination that was taken as a sign of weakness, and that emboldened our enemies.
Lynne Jones: What is the connection between the incidents that the right hon. Gentleman describes and the activities of the Iraqi Government?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady should have waited for my next paragraph.
In parallel, the west was failing to respond to the escalation of activities by Saddam. He failed to co-operate with United Nations inspectors immediately after the Gulf war. There were further atrocities against his people and violations of the no-fly zone. He harassed the inspectors until they were forced to leave. The west again made no adequate response to any of those things. If there is a criticism of the Prime Minister, it is that he, in common with others, did not seek to take effective action in 1998 and 1999, but that does not make him wrong today.
Mr. Tony Banks: That is a bit rich coming from a member of a Government who supported Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Portillo: I am explaining the history of the west's lack of response. Of course that includes the Government of whom I was a member, but I am analysing the important point at which we now stand.
Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Portillo: Let me make some progress.
During the 1990s and beyond, Russia and France undermined the sanctions regime. They advertised to Saddam the infirmity of purpose of the west. Both Saddam and al-Qaeda, separately, could take comfort from the clear evidence that the west was not willing to take firm action. That is the connection between al-

299
Qaeda and Saddam. I think it reasonable that after 11 September 2001 the United States reviewed its security and the failure of deterrence. It concluded that if we continued to let Saddam to get away with things and to go his own way, our vulnerability would increase.
The world has its fair share of wicked leaders and terrorists, and they will do whatever they can get away with. They listen to what we say but, more to the point, they watch what we do. As the Prime Minister rightly says, if the civilised world is not prepared to make its words stick now, its determination will always be doubted because political will is crucial.
Paul Flynn: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall a question that sought to persuade the Government to beef up the International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme? Does he also recall the answer in which the Government said that they had full confidence that Iraq, as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, would abide by its international obligations and not work on a nuclear weapons programme? According to the response, the Government had no intention of doing what the question asked, which was to increase the weapons inspections. That answer was given in the House on 19 April 1990 by the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a prominent member and of whose record he seems so proud.
Mr. Portillo: I think I have covered that point. I must admit that, in my view, Members who persist in saying "We have been wrong over a period of 12 or 13 years, and we must therefore be wrong to try and put our mistakes right now" are on very weak ground.
In an important sense, Saddam and Bin Laden are co-belligerents. They share a hatred of the west, and a belief in the efficacy of terror. Let me add that if Britain tried to stand aside—here I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—that would not spare us from the terror. A display of weakness will bring more terror, not less; and I think it is a dangerous myth to believe that terrorism is in some way beyond deterrence.
The Prime Minister's task has been made more difficult—I admit this—because America has not been willing to say much about the middle east peace process. I think that the United States is strictly correct to reject any link between Iraq and the regional peace process, but there are many indirect links. Certainly, I believe it might have been easier for the Government to try to establish direct connections between Iraq and the Palestine Liberation Organisation than to try to establish them between Iraq and al-Qaeda. It is clear that Saddam is the hero of the Palestinian suicide bombers.
Many today have focused on the dangers to the region if there is a conflict. Of course there are dangers, but I say that if Iraq is disarmed there are opportunities too. The United States will then engage in the middle east peace process; but it will do so with an unambiguous hostility to terrorism. A new Palestinian leadership will then understand that terrorism will not work, and that therefore political engagement may.
300
Prime Minister Sharon may be ruthless in war, but he would also be ruthless in peace. The peace will require Israel to give up land, positions and settlements, and Mr. Sharon is the man to force such an outcome on the Israelis.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, Iraq is a potentially rich country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said today, it is a country with a middle class and educated people. If economic and political freedoms are returned to Iraq, that can have a powerful effect on a region in which those liberties are largely absent. Perhaps Iran too will flip towards the moderates.
This crisis has cost the west dearly in terms of the damage to its institutions. New institutions may be required. I am a great supporter of NATO, but it is damaged, and in any case it is geographically very limited. I believe that we should look for a new organisation, not to replace NATO but to stand alongside it. The aim of that organisation would be to counter terrorism, and its focus would be global. The United States, Britain and Australia would certainly be founder members of the new organisation; perhaps its headquarters would be in Prague or Madrid. Whatever the precise form of that new organisation, I believe that its time has come.
2.43 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Last August, at the invitation of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), I wrote an article in The Spectator setting out my reservations about a possible war on Iraq. Six months later, I stand by every one of the arguments I advanced then. They included my concerns about the effect on Muslim opinion; about the need for any action to take place under United Nations authority; about the apparent double standards involved in enforcing UN resolutions on Iraq while neglecting those on Israel and the Palestinians although I recognise that the resolutions on Iraq are mandatory, while those on Israel are not; about the danger of Iraq's spreading any such war, with the consequent perils of a middle east in turmoil and serious economic consequences; about the hazards of war—including the certainty of civilian casualties; and about the role played in such a conflict by the most unappetising United States Administration I have ever known. I repeat that I said that then and believe it still.
If tonight's vote were a vote of confidence in George W. Bush—appointed by the United States Supreme Court rather than being elected by the American people—I would be the first into the No Lobby. Under Bush the United States is a bad world citizen—bad on global warming, bad on the International Criminal Court, and bad on steel tariffs. What we are debating today, however, is not a vote of confidence or otherwise in Bush, or even a vote about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—although I support and trust my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The issue at stake in this debate, and in whatever action follows from it, is the United Nations as the only upholder of world order, however faulty and inadequate the United Nations may be.
In my Spectator article I emphasised the primacy of the United Nations, a primacy stated in clause IV of the Labour party constitution. As it happens, it was

301
included in that constitution on the initiative of one Anthony Wedgwood Benn, who at that time was a staunch supporter of the United Nations rather than the toady to Saddam Hussein that he has since become.
The fact is that the United Nations has passed a series of mandatory resolutions on Iraq following that country's serial aggressions and violations of human rights, and Iraq has violated every one. Since I expressed my concerns last summer the Security Council has passed resolution 1441. 1 must say that the constant moving of the goal posts is a sign of the inadequacy of some of the arguments being advanced. First, Members said "Let us have a resolution"; we got a resolution. Then some Members said "Let us have a second resolution"; a second resolution has been tabled. Now there is a motion on the Order Paper referring not just to a second resolution but to lots of other conditions, including a debate in the House before military action. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has conceded that as well. At what point do we have a consistent position? At what point do we lay down conditions and say that those conditions must be met?
Resolution 1441 reiterates all the previous resolutions since 1990, and lays down a process for its implementation together with a statement of the consequences if it is not obeyed by Saddam Hussein. The resolution could not be clearer; I assume that all Members have read it. While a further resolution may be regarded as desirable—and my right hon. Friends are attempting to obtain one—it is certainly not indispensable. Resolution 1441 lays down all the necessary conditions.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Kaufman: What happens if resolution 1441 is not implemented? Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the consequences for world order—
Mr. Salmond rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously not going to give way.
Mr. Kaufman: As I was saying, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the consequences for world order if resolution 1441 is turned into a flouted expression of unfulfilled requirements. What he said was incontrovertible. If Saddam can get away with the games he is playing, stringing out the process until it is vitiated and nullified, the consequences for world order will be catastrophic. I cannot understand my colleagues who argue that, given a little or a lot more time, Saddam will suddenly display a change of heart. It is what Hugh Dalton used to call the doctrine of unripe time, and it is the basis of the amendment.
Yet there is a further consequence. I have expressed in clear terms my distaste for the present United States Administration. Only with immense difficulty and effort has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister persuaded Bush and his cronies to take the United Nations route. The House should have no doubt that if that UN route fails on this issue, the Bush Administration will wash their hands of the UN altogether and go it alone whenever they believe that their national interests are at stake.
302
Neither we nor any other ally will be able to influence Bush otherwise. That may be a despairing argument for voting for the Government motion tonight, but it is realistic and, I believe, incontrovertible. Moreover, if the role of the United Nations is set aside, we have no hope whatever of solving the agonising Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. Even now, it is possible for our Prime Minister to persuade Bush to participate in the initiatives necessary to obtain peace in the middle east. Success in this issue may persuade Bush that there could be success in that issue too. However, I do not believe that a middle east peace process would be possible if the United States retreated into self-interested isolationism, which is only too prevalent in the White House and the Pentagon. Every hon. Member will search her or his conscience in deciding how to vote tonight. I have searched mine and, as I said, all my colleagues will have done so. Even though all our hearts are heavy, I have no doubt that it is right to vote with the Government tonight.
2.50 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the article by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was excellent. I hope that he was suitably paid—perhaps there will be another commission shortly.
The Chamber is a marvellous place, and is at its best in a debate such as this one. I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), whom I proudly supported when he stood for the leadership of my party. I also listened to the Foreign Secretary. Strange to say, I find myself in great disagreement with my right hon. and learned Friend, but in total agreement with what the Foreign Secretary said today and what the Prime Minister said yesterday. This is the second debate on Iraq that I have listened to in two days. Yesterday, I sat in Church house, Westminster as a member of the General Synod of the Church of England and listened to a debate on Iraq.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman would have been well duffed up in that debate.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is using unparliamentary language about being duffed up. In fact, in a debate in which I did not take part, I listened to a series of speeches from good, well-intentioned men and women who, for the most part, were misguided and did not understand the realities of what they were talking about.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I will not.
I listened in particular to three Church of England bishops who effectively paraphrased the words of St. Augustine—"Make us tough, but not yet." All of them underlined the appalling nature of the despicable regime in Iraq, but were not prepared to face up to the consequences, which the Prime Minister, as a national leader, has had the courage and calmness to do. I make no apology to any Opposition Member or anyone in the House for saying that I believe that the Prime Minister

303
has behaved in an exemplary fashion since 11 September in the field of foreign affairs. I cannot say the same for him in other fields.
Bob Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I will not.
The Prime Minister has given a lead, although that has not been easy for him. We must all accept that his party has an honourable tradition of pacifism, so it cannot have been easy for him to make certain speeches before certain audiences. I remind Government Members who disagree with him that he has made one fundamental mistake in his six years in Downing street. He has relied too much on spin, which has undermined his credibility and made people less trusting of him. I believe that that is one factor in the unease of the nation as a whole. However, I wish to tell Government Members and people outside the House that in this particular area the Prime Minister has behaved with probity and great courage. He deserves support as a national leader of considerable renown.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's praise for the Prime Minister's role in the issue since 11 September 2001. With all the effectiveness of Government machinery, spin doctors and publicity, why is there still a huge majority in the opinion polls against going to war? Why did the biggest ever demonstration in British history take place on 15 February, when a lot of ordinary people who had never been on a demonstration before marched through the streets of London because they do not believe that there would be a just war?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I have seen people march before on Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament demonstrations, including the Prime Minister in the past—[Interruption.] Perhaps not a million people, but the numbers approached that. The hon. Gentleman spoke about spin. I said that, paradoxically, that has helped to destroy the Prime Minister's credibility, which I greatly regret.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
Sir Patrick Cormack: I have limited time at my disposal, so I will not give way again.
I wish to say two things in particular. Yesterday, in the exchanges after the Prime Minister's admirable statement, I put it to him—the Foreign Secretary made this point this afternoon—that if we allow the international community to be set at naught by a tyrant whose evil, if not without parallel, has not been exceeded in the past half century or more, the United Nations will go the way of the League of Nations. At stake—this was implicit in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)—is the credibility of the international order in standing up uncompromisingly to evil. Like everyone else, I hope that we will not have a war, but action against Saddam Hussein will be wholly justified if he continues to flout the will of the international community.
304
In that context, let us remember that the weapons inspectors are not employed as weapons discoverers. They are there to inspect what Saddam Hussein declares. He has repeatedly made false declarations, and the evidence is before us. The Command Paper that the Government provided for every Member as background reading for this debate makes it plain that time after time this man has thumbed his nose at the international community and has wrought terrible havoc on his own people. I urge Liberal Members to go to the National Liberal Club and look at the portrait of Mr. Gladstone. They should remember those amazing speeches that he made during the Bulgarian atrocities in which he talked about clearing out the Turks
"bag and baggage from the province they have desolated and profaned."
If anybody has desolated and profaned the province over which he rules it is Saddam Hussein.
We are now at a critical juncture in the history of this new century. If we allow this evil tyrant to get away with it, we will advance into the century with no credible international organisations and with our own credibility, and therefore the defence of our very people, at risk. I urge the House to reject the well-meaning amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and support the Government without any equivocation in the Lobby tonight.
2.58 pm
Mr. Bruce George: The approach to war is dangerous for combatants and non-combatants, and poses enormous problems for ordinary Members of Parliament. We are buffeted by pressure and arguments on all sides but, at the end of the day, we are impelled to make a rational decision. I have looked at the resolution, and shall vote on it, and not one that may be made in future. There is nothing exceptional about that—I do not feel prejudiced, nor is my conscience undermined by decision to go into the Lobby with the Government and the official Opposition.
I have long believed that the US and the UK should go down the Security Council route. I have unequivocally supported all those who supported 1441, and I have strongly supported, at the United States Congress, as has the Defence Committee, a further resolution—not that it is necessary legally, but it is certainly necessary politically to gain endorsement and justification from a larger number of individuals and nations than have hitherto given support. The Defence Committee went to Washington and New York a couple of weeks ago. We met the Senate Armed Services Committee and senior people from the National Security Council, the Department of Defense and the State Department. There was hardly anybody whom we met, bar the commissionaire in the Watergate hotel, whom we did not press strongly for a second resolution. I am delighted that efforts are being made to achieve that.
Is Saddam co-operating fully with 1441 and the other 16 or 17 resolutions? Of course he is not. Dr. Blix and others have said that he is co-operating reluctantly with the process, but he is not co-operating in substance. It has been said endlessly, and I repeat, that UNMOVIC's role is not to search down holes or in caves but to verify

305
whether Saddam Hussein has been compliant. Dr. Blix said that in his speech to the United Nations; and the Defence Committee was privileged to listen to him privately for one hour and five minutes the day before he made his presentation and, I am sure, before he had written it.
During his formal presentation, Dr. Blix said:
"The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions."
He continued:
"Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it.
Iraq must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."
So the inspectors are seeking assurances, which up to now have not been provided.
The example of the al-Samoud missile is well worth considering. There are three variations of it, two in existence and one on a drawing board. It is obvious from what Dr. Blix has seen that Iraq is in material breach in relation to the missile, which in 13 out of the 40 tests has shown that it is capable of flying farther than the distance laid down for it by the United Nations.
If one considers each of the flagrant breaches, the obfuscations, the untruths and all the evidence that has been provided, one reaches the inescapable conclusion that Saddam Hussein has hidden, is hiding and is not compliant. One asks how much longer should one search. Yes, weeks more—there must be flexibility—but if anyone argues that Dr. Blix should be given 10 or 12 months to complete the job, I am afraid they are barking.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Bruce George: I give way to someone who falls into that category.
Mr. Salmond: Surely the logic of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman has just spelled out is that if the arms inspectors—Dr. Blix and his colleagues—ask for more time, they should be given it.
Mr. George: As I tried to explain earlier, there is a great deal of flexibility in the system. The Prime Minister has succeeded in persuading the United States to go down the Security Council route. I fear that there will be an opportunity for Dr. Blix to search further and longer, but it must not be for an indefinite period.
Bob Spink rose—
Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman has only been in the Chamber for half an hour, and has already intervened once. I have no intention of giving way to him.
There are many hon. Members who are not persuaded by the evidence so far presented, and I respect their views. It would be much easier for Members of Parliament and our Prime Minister to succumb to domestic and international pressure, but when I asked
306
the Prime Minister a rather convoluted question before the Liaison Committee, about what factors he would take into account before he made a decision, he said:
"is it right and is it do-able"
He believes, and others believe, that the route he is taking is right.
If we look at the Prime Minister's record so far, it is clear that he faced a lot of opposition to the UK intervening in Sierra Leone. He was right. There was a lot of opposition in all parts of the House to intervention in Macedonia. He was right. On Kosovo, there was even more opposition. He was right. On Afghanistan, he was right. Therefore I am prepared to give his judgment further endorsement. I have heard no reason why his perspective should be trashed, as many have suggested.
I approach war, if it is to take place, with trepidation. It is not something to which anyone looks forward. The more one speaks to military personnel, the clearer it becomes that war must be undertaken as a last resort. I hope very much that there will be a second resolution and that pressure will be put on Saddam Hussein. I, like many others, have said over the months that the only way to put pressure on him so that war will be superfluous is to let him see that the various countries of the world are so united that he has no option. Ironically, the greater the pressure, the less likely he is to resist.
There was an amazing demonstration a week ago; it was extremely impressive. I have read a number of biographies of Keir Hardie. There was a massive antiwar demonstration on 2 August 1914, organised by the Independent Labour party. On 3 August 1914 overwhelming support was given in this place by the parliamentary Labour party to the British expeditionary force. One of the very few who opposed the Labour party was the great hero of the Labour party, Ramsay MacDonald. The following day war was declared.
Although one must pay serious attention to public opinion, ultimately—this sounds an appalling argument, using Burke, who was not a democrat—we owe our constituents our judgment. I have spoken to so many people, been to so many meetings and read so much documentation, and my own view is that Saddam Hussein is not to be trusted. I hope that there will be a second resolution, and I hope that the pressure on him will be so enormous that there will be no need to go to war. That is what I yearn for.
3.7 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: Hearing my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is an exhilarating experience. He is like a bottle of 1970 port, which improves with maturity. Today he showed, as he always does, sound judgment. He brings to these debates an engaging Barchester view. We get a report from Church House, and it is not irreverent, as mine would be—all gas and gaiters. He is serious in his criticism of the Synod of the Church of England and says that it is seriously misguided, as it is, and as are so many of those who have signed the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
I was saddened by the amendment and by the fallacious arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman. First, he said that Her Majesty's

307
Government were not giving Iraq time, as though 12 years since the end of the Gulf were not time enough. One should recall that the ceasefire at the end of the Gulf war was conditional on the full implementation by Iraq of UN resolutions. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that perhaps there was not total co-operation, but possibly 70 per cent. —a figure challenged by the Foreign Secretary, and rightly so. There is virtually no evidence of any significant co-operation with the arms inspectors or of compliance with UN resolution 1441. The right hon. Gentleman then said that the Government were anxious that his amendment might give comfort to Saddam Hussein. Nothing gives greater comfort to Saddam Hussein than the infirmity of purpose and the divisions that we have seen in the House of Commons.
Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman said that Saddam Hussein believed that caution was appeasement and that this was an utterly wrong belief on the part of the President of Iraq. It is perplexing, naïve, simplistic and highly dangerous to think, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that Saddam Hussein is open to moral persuasion. Strength is the only thing that he understands. The right hon. Gentleman might think that strength lies not only in military might, but Saddam Hussein and his ilk most certainly do not agree.
The notion of peaceful coercion, as advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is a thoroughly dangerous illusion. It is a contradiction in terms. The earlier sedentary intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) put it very well: it is like feeding the crocodiles. That was his comment to the Liberal spokesman, and it was highly pertinent. If we wish to deter the dangerous process of weapons proliferation, and particularly the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the way to do it is to deal effectively with Saddam Hussein and to do it fast. Time is not on our side; that is why he is trying to string us along. The faster military action is taken, the better. We all know that it will be much harder for the allied forces in the summer season. We cannot keep them marching up and down the frontiers of Iraq, and there comes a time when enough is enough. That time is approaching fast. If effective action is taken, it is much less likely that the dictator who runs Korea will maintain his weapons programme, and other potential proliferators such as the Iranians and the Libyans will be deterred, too.
Unity of purpose is absolutely crucial, however. We learned that when facing down the dictators during the cold war. I find it so sad that the allies who brought succour to the beleaguered people of West Berlin in 1948—the United States, the United Kingdom and France—should not be wholly together and that France should be diverging its purposes today. I recall, too, as will many other hon. Members, the deployment by the Soviets of SS20 ballistic missiles. We faced down that crisis in the face of public opposition and opposition in some quarters of the House, especially in the Labour ranks. We did so, and there was unity of purpose in the alliance, not least on the part of the federal German Government, who were courageous then, but today seem frankly to be on the other side. That grieves me.
308
It is also interesting to note that those with the firmness of purpose that we seek are those who have suffered most from dictatorship. It is not we western Europeans who are showing total resolution—this Government are, to their credit—but the central and eastern Europeans: the Poles, the Czechs, the Bulgarians and others. The Poles remember what happened to their people at the time of Solidarity when martial law was imposed by Jaruzelski. The Czechs remember the Soviet tanks rolling into Prague in '68. The Hungarians remember what happened to Imre Nagy in 1956. It is sad that the Liberal party has become so wayward today.
Saddam Hussein knows that those who are not against him are for him. It is therefore crucial for the future of our alliance and the security of our continent that the European members of the alliance as a whole should get behind the United States as we are, see that resolution 1441 is fully implemented—and fast—and that Saddam Hussein is seen down.
3.14 pm
Mr. George Galloway: How extraordinary that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) should pray in aid of this war what happened in Britain in 1914. That war was one that neither side wanted to fight, but because they had both turned up for the show, they thought that they had to go through with it. Yes, my right hon. Friend is right: despite Keir Hardie, the first world war was fought and there are a lot of white crosses in France and the low countries to prove it—an anthem for doomed youth that killed the flower of European civilisation.
We were told here that this was not a resolution for war, and that it was the last push for peace. Well, listening to the consensus between the two Front Benches, it sounded awfully like war to me. I do not know what it did for the enemy, but it didn't half frighten me. It is entirely possible that the teenage scribblers who made that spin earlier this week on the Prime Minister's behalf that today's resolution was about peace, not war, have not read George Orwell's "1984". After all, the same teenage scribblers told us last week on the Prime Minister's behalf that this was going to be a six-day war, drawing on the illusion of the apparent triumph of the Israeli armies over the Arabs in 1967. They entirely missed the point that, on the day that the six-day war ended, the 35-year war began. That is precisely the point that the supporters of this amendment—which merely asks us to conclude that the case for war has not yet been proven—are making. However short and sharp this war is—I place on record that I do not believe that it will be either short or sharp—its consequences, its reverberations and its seismic impact will disfigure life in this country and around the world for as long as the Members here present are still with us.
This is a defining moment. For the first time in many years, Parliament has an opportunity truly to shape world events. I have spent the last months talking virtually daily to American broadcasters and journalists, and I can tell the House that if this Parliament sends the message tonight that the British people are not with this adventure, it will have a decisive impact on opinion in the United States of America. We are always told that it is too early to vote on war until it is too late. This is our last opportunity meaningfully to

309
affect the course of these great events, and hon. Members are fooling themselves if they do not acknowledge that. We all know what the public want. Every Member knows what their constituents would like to read about them in the newspapers tomorrow. Every Member on the Labour Benches knows what the members of their constituency party would like to read about them tomorrow. Let me quote our leader:
"The people are the masters. We are the servants of the people. We will never forget that, and if ever we do, the people will very soon show that what the electorate gives, the electorate can take away."
Those words were spoken by our Prime Minister when that new dawn broke in 1997.
This debate is about one man, and it is not the man they want us to think it is about. This is about George W. Bush.[Interruption.] I know that they do not like to hear this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, this is the most distasteful American Administration that he has seen in his long lifetime. This is an American presidency that people on the Labour Benches would not have been seen dead with. This is an Administration who made Texas the execution chamber of the world, who broke all the international treaties, who walked away from every international effort held dear by Labour Members.[Interruption.] They don't like it up 'em because they know that what I am saying is the truth. They are standing against Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu, Thabo Mbeki and with George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. That is the bottom line.
This matter can be resolved by the man prayed in aid by the Foreign Secretary eight times in the course of his address—Dr. Hans Blix. The Foreign Secretary may not know it, but in the German press tomorrow, Dr. Blix will ask for exactly what our amendment this evening asks. It is no good pretending to be with the UN and Hans Blix and then slapping him in the face when he asks for more time to complete the job that he has already begun and which is bearing fruit.
There is no doubt that the United States Administration would like to go forward into this war. There is no doubt in Labour Members' minds and hearts, however much they protest, that that born-again, right-wing, Bible-belting, fundamentalist Republican Administration in the United States want war, but they cannot have their war without the support of Great Britain. The vast majority of people in Great Britain are against the war. We know that to be true: we are asking Parliament to reflect it. We have a great opportunity this evening and I hope that my hon. Friends will not throw it away.
3.22 pm
Mr. John Gummer: There comes a time in one's life when one finds oneself in peculiar company. The feeling is probably mutual, and others will be as embarrassed as I, but that should lead people to listen carefully to the group that has come together to point out something that should be self-evident—that the case for military action against Iraq is yet unproven. First, it is unproven to the British people. They are not convinced, and my right hon. Friend the Member for
310
Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has been assiduous in pressing the Prime Minister to convince the British people. He has failed so far to do so.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer:No, I really will not. Secondly, the wider world has not been convinced. Of course, we could be right to go to war even if neither of those groups were convinced, except that there has to be life after war. That is the problem. If we go to war in circumstances in which neither our own people nor the wider world are convinced, we will not be seen for what we believe ourselves to be, which is merely the handmaid of the United Nations and the enforcer of peace in circumstances in which there was no alternative.
The alternative is the issue. There can be no just war unless it is the only possibility. That is the number one explanation of the basis on which a nation may go to war. It defends itself because it can do nothing else. It goes to the aid of someone else because that person is being attacked. However, it must have an absolute assurance that it could not do anything else. That is why it is right to suggest that the case for military action against Iraq is as yet unproven.
Hans Blix believes that he can make great gains if he is given time. Of course, he cannot have a veto on the matter. I do not support those who suggest that he can go on asking for more time for as long as he likes. However, it is not unreasonable when a man has had 11 weeks in this stage of the process to give him some more time. People argue that Saddam Hussein has had enough time, but I am not asking for time for him: I am asking for time for Hans Blix, which is rather different.
We are now in a situation in which the western world—to some extent, the whole world—has devoted large resources to press, to squeeze and to demand of Saddam Hussein. We have not yet gone as far as we could, short of war. Much of what is being done could be enlarged, short of war, inexorably to press Saddam Hussein so that he knows that it is not the preamble to a gradual reduction of pressure, but the slow and certain steps that will lead in the end to war.
Jim Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I will not. The issue for us is whether we should, at this moment, lose sight of the important and necessary precondition for a just war by taking action before it is utterly clear to the world that it is the only possible route.
I turn now to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. There is no Member of Parliament who does not know that this war is war by timetable, and the timetable was laid down before the United States had any intention of going to the United Nations. I speak as one who has been a supporter of strong military action. After all, I supported the Cruise and Pershing missiles, and other strong nuclear weapons, when the Prime Minister was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I do not, therefore, accept any suggestion that I am being weak in these circumstances. The truth is that it must be seen by the world that when, or if, we invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq, we do so not because of some prearranged

311
timetable, connected with ulterior motives, but because we and the world are convinced that there is no alternative. That is the message that should be given to those who argue the case from moral grounds.
I would have a great deal of sympathy for the Prime Minister if he said, "I am a politician. I do not listen to clergymen and others on political issues. I am the politician, and I can therefore make those decisions." It is a serious matter that almost without exception those for whom morality is at the centre of their vocation do not believe that the conditions for the just war are yet fulfilled. I would hope that a Prime Minister who believes in the moral case would at least hesitate in his timing when he finds himself opposed by those who are not themselves against war, but who know better what the conditions of the just war are. Those conditions are not yet fulfilled.
One of the problems that beset us is the fact that some people mistake impatience for necessity. Of course we are impatient to get rid of this horrific man, to destroy this regime which has destroyed so many others, to rid the world of a despicable dictator. But we do ourselves wrong if we do not choose the moment when the case for war has been made to those who afterwards must make us able to make the peace.
3.29 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I speak as someone who supported military action by our Labour Government in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and before that supported military action in the Gulf war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. My only criticism is that the Americans and British at that time did not finish the job, because my understanding is that regime change then would have been permissible under international law.
I have to say however that, sadly, I am simply not convinced that all-out military action in Iraq can be justified at this time and on the scale envisaged. I do not doubt for a minute the sincerity and morality of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, or those who support them. I share their concerns about weapons of mass destruction, about the vile and murderous Iraqi regime, about terrorism and about the need to uphold the United Nations. And I recognise, as we all must, that every alternative course of action before the House today is likely to result in protracted misery and a large number of deaths for the people of Iraq. The Government argue that these concerns justify virtually immediate military action, and that they would be resolved by that military action. I find those claims less and less convincing.
In relation to weapons of mass destruction, I do not believe that the Government have made a case that the existing policy of containment, backed up by increased coercion and inspection, is bound to fail.
I do not believe that the Government have made the case that, after 12 years of not protecting the Iraqi people from their vile and oppressive regime, it is now a moral imperative that we do it within the next few weeks. In any case, we are saying that regime change is not one of our objectives.
I do not believe that we have made the case that there is any connection between the current Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda.
312
In relation to upholding the authority and reputation of the United Nations, I ask whether anything could undermine the authority of the United Nations more than the United States announcing in advance that unless the United Nations agrees with its policy the United States will ignore the United Nations. The United States cannot claim to be the sheriff executing a warrant that its court has not granted it.
Even less convincing are the claims of the United States about the enforcement of international obligations, when we consider its failure to implement Kyoto, join the International Criminal Court or obey the World Trade Organisation. It is tending to behave rather like a maverick state. A small maverick state is a bit of a nuisance. It is a real problem for the rest of the world if the only remaining super-power turns maverick. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was wise and sensible to recognise the danger of that prospect and to try to reduce it by reining in the activities of the United States and getting it to go along the United Nations route. He deserves great credit for what he has achieved. But there is a danger of following the example of the Israeli Labour party, which joined the Sharon coalition to restrain him and ended up by getting nothing but the blame at the end of the process.
It may be that the United States is strong enough to shrug off any consequences of the actions it intends to take. Britain may not be in as strong a position.
If there is a war, it is likely to be quick. It may not be, but it is likely to be. Even if there is a quick win, what will the result be? I am sure that the Iraqi people—those who survive—will welcome the overthrow of the current regime, but we have no answers to the question of how Iraq will be governed, who will govern it and whether the internal struggles that might result will spill over into neighbouring states in a way that might be a threat to international peace and security. I am sure that the ruling elites in the neighbouring states will welcome the overthrow of Saddam, but what of their peoples? They will see double standards: action to uphold UN resolutions on Iraq, but no action to uphold UN resolutions on Israel and Palestine. Many will regard that as anti-Islam. From my personal knowledge of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, I know that there is not one jot of truth in that view in terms of British Government policy; however, I cannot necessarily say the same for the United States.
People in the middle east recognise that the current Administration in the United States are in power partly because of the support of Christian fundamentalists, some of whom publicly believe that the borders of Israel should be extended to take in all the land of the Palestinians. That leaves millions of Muslims angry, and moderate Muslims in despair, because they feel let down by nation states and the United Nations. As we know, an additional minority will resort to terrorism. Military action against Iraq will be a principal recruiting sergeant for terrorism, and al-Qaeda will be delighted if the United States and Britain go to war.
There are also wider consequences: the threat to the fragile world economy, and a boost to the right-wing United States unilateralists, who think that the new

313
world order should consist of them issuing the orders. The rest of the world will, in future, be waiting nervously to see who will be the next target for such treatment.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: No. Meanwhile, nothing will be done to strengthen the United Nations' ability to act as the United Nations. Nothing will be done to counter terrorism, to contain the spread of weapons of mass destruction, or—most important of all—to give the UN the power to undermine and remove tyrannous regimes, which is currently beyond its competence.
With all that in mind, I do not believe that there is a case for immediate military action on the scale envisaged. It will inevitably lead to the loss of life of, and permanent physical and mental injury to, British troops and innocent Iraqi people. That cannot be justified at this time, and certainly not without the explicit prior consent of the United Nations and this House of Commons. Even then, I, for one, would be doubtful of the consequences.
3.37 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I should make it clear at the outset that my hon. Friends and I will support the Government in the Division Lobby this evening. The Government have said that this motion is not a vote for war, but we are under no illusion about the fact that it is a further step along a route that might end in war. We do not support such a motion lightly, therefore, because we are well aware of the consequences that might flow from it. Indeed, all right hon. and hon. Members will be deeply conscious of the fact that thousands of servicemen are on their way to the Gulf, and we know what the consequences for them may be. I remark parenthetically that among those going to the Gulf are the two Irish regiments: the Royal Irish Regiment and the Irish Guards. Consequently, well in excess of 1,000 people from Northern Ireland—and, indeed, a not insignificant number from the Republic of Ireland—will shortly be deployed in the Gulf.
Time is pressing, and I want to make just a few short and simple points. We have no doubt about the nature of the regime in Iraq. I was amazed at the comment by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who referred to Texas as the execution chamber of the world. Does he know nothing about Iraq? Does he know nothing about what has happened in Baghdad in the past 30 years? That was an appalling statement for him to make, and he needs to look at the regime that he has befriended a little more clearly.
We have no doubt about the threat, about the wars that have been started, or about the weapons of mass destruction that have been accumulated, and which continue to be there. There is also no doubt about what the United Nations requires. There are United Nations resolutions that require Saddam Hussein to disarm. There has certainly been a failure to comply. There was a material breach before 1441, and there is a material breach now.
What should we do? That is the question. It is only the credible threat of force that has achieved the little progress that there has been, and that has made Saddam
314
Hussein permit the admission of inspectors. That comes after the failure of earlier UN resolutions. All the resolutions in the 1990s failed. The UN and the world community allowed themselves to be bluffed and manoeuvred out of Iraq. Against that background, 1441 had to be clear, and backed up by a credible threat of force. That credible threat has to be maintained.
The paradox is that, in order to obtain compliance with UN resolutions, there has to be the threat of force. Unless Saddam Hussein complies, it is inevitable that that force will have to be used. The time involved may be long or short, but hon. Members who have supported the UN and its resolutions, including 1441, must be aware that, as a consequence, they must support the credible use of force, right down to the point of its use. If they fail to do so, they will weaken the UN gravely.
The UN has been weakened badly enough by the failures of the 1990s. It has again set its hand to trying to carry through its will in this matter, and it must succeed. If not, enormous damage will be done to the possibility that the UN can be credible in the future, and that will have implications for world peace. The paradox is that those who want peace and a UN that succeeds in the world must therefore support the Government, right down to the use of force if that becomes necessary.
I appreciate that some people find that difficult to live with. Some of those who are reluctant to go down the route that I have described are well meaning, and others are engaged in wishful thinking. We have seen some evidence of that in the debate.
Other people are influenced by less noble motives. I have been distressed by the degree of anti-Americanism that has been expressed in the debate, and the personal hostility to the President. I consider that wholly misplaced. I have been appalled at some of the comments about President Bush, and at the false caricature of him that has been presented. I base that opinion not only on the fleeting personal acquaintance that I have had with him, but on what he has said and done over the past couple of years, which I have looked at closely.
The record is clear, especially in the period since 11 September. The US has moved slowly, deliberately and proportionately. That is the evidence of the past year and a half. I have listened to the caricatures of President Bush that have been presented, and I think that hon. Members should get away from the propaganda—coming from elements in the American Democrat party—that they have swallowed. They should look at things a little more clearly.
People have been concerned about what will happen in Iraq and the region if force has to be used. However, we must realise that the region is highly unstable. That is another of the lessons of 11 September: it brought home to us just how unstable the region is. We need to think about the causes of that instability, and about how we can resolve or do something to improve the situation there.
This is a complex issue, and I cannot go far into it in the couple of minutes remaining to me, but we need to ask ourselves what we can do about it. If there were no oil in the region, there would be a series of failed states there. The region has failed to deal with the challenge of modernisation.

315
I emphasise that I am talking about the middle east region as a whole and the Arab states there, not about Islam. A distinction must be drawn between Islam and what is happening in the middle east in respect of a particular and virulent strand of that religion. That strand is a distortion of Islam.
We need to ask why modernisation has failed. Saddam grew out of the Ba'ath socialist party, although he is, in fact, a crude anti-Semitic nationalist. Why have such people obtained and retained power? How do we change that?
I am not just talking about regime change, but asking how we change the culture in the middle east and the orientation of those states because, until we do that, we will not achieve stability. Just talking about the problem in Israel and Palestine is not terribly helpful. That problem cannot be dealt with in isolation. It is part of the instability generally, and dealing with that instability generally will make it easier to deal with Israel and Palestine; but we cannot deal with that in isolation.
The issue this evening is whether we support the Government in what they are doing—whether we want the UN resolutions to be enforced. That is the challenge. The resolutions have got to be complied with or enforced—if not complied with, then enforced—and that has to be done as and when we can to maintain the threat, and it may have to be done soon.
3.45 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: Most people would agree that war can be justified only when all other options have been exhausted, and it is my view that we have not reached that point. There is still an alternative to war: the weapons inspection process, set in place by UN Security Council resolution 1441 last November.
Dr. Blix made the point—as did the Liberal Democrat spokesman earlier—that there have been eight years of inspections since 1991, followed by a four-year gap, and that there have now been inspections for just so many weeks. As Dr. Blix says, with characteristic understatement, to call it a day after just 13 weeks is a little short. It is indeed; I would go further and say that it is wrong.
During his statement to the House earlier this month on contingency preparations, I suggested to the Secretary of State for Defence that the threat to world security from Iraq is less while the weapons inspectors are in place. In many ways, my views have been strengthened by the reports of Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei.
In essence, as the House is aware, Dr. Blix is largely positive about what he calls Iraq's co-operation on process, but he has identified shortcomings in Iraq's cooperation on substance. In that respect, the tone of his report of 14 February was significantly more optimistic than that of 27 January. As Dr. Blix told Time magazine, if the reality changes, he has to register that to reflect the potential opportunity for progress that has opened up.
The truth is that the weapons inspections process has far from outlived its usefulness. Weapons inspections are still a viable alternative to military action, and the
316
process should be pursued until either it is concluded successfully or it is clear that the inspections cannot usefully continue.
As an aside, I would make a point in response to the argument that inspections have taken place for 12 years. After all, it is legitimate to ask what has happened during those 12 years. Has Iraq attacked, or threatened to attack, its neighbours or the wider world? When we talk about those 12 years, we should not pretend that they were 12 years of total failure. From an international viewpoint, there was the effective containment of Saddam Hussein, and containment in those circumstances is not necessarily a bad policy.
I do not want the House to misunderstand me; it is clear that Saddam Hussein is brutal dictator. I am not advocating that the status quo should exist in perpetuity, and we must deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Salmond: I very much agree with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but, if I remember correctly, President Clinton made exactly the same point about the success of the arms inspections at last October's Labour party conference, and many members of the current Cabinet were nodding vigorously behind him.
Dr. Strang: We are in broad agreement that, certainly, the inspections process should not be concluded at this point.
Turning to the future, I am not in a position to assess the strength of opposition that the Iraqi regime can mount against the military might of the US, supported by Britain and any other states that might fight alongside us. But regardless of the intensity and duration of a war in Iraq, it would not be surprising if sustaining a new regime within a framework acceptable to the victors was far more demanding in terms of resources and what could be achieved politically. Reports of the plans for Iraq after military action show the scale of what we have in mind.
Neither would I want to guess what support there is for Saddam Hussein in Iraq—possibly the vast majority will welcome his overthrow—but it is certainly true that many people in the wider world will deeply resent a military attack, especially if it is not explicitly authorised by the UN. A leading figure in the international Muslim community who was visiting Edinburgh last year told me that an attack on Iraq will be seen by many Muslims throughout the world as an attack on a second Muslim country after Afghanistan. It would certainly not be a surprise if the new regime in Iraq were a target for Muslim radicals throughout the world.
More broadly, without a second resolution we can be confident that war on Iraq would be detrimental to the international coalition against terrorism that has been built up since 11 September 2001. Some states that are now co-operating would reduce or even cease their involvement. Some individuals who are currently cooperating with the police and the security services, or who have the potential to do so, would be discouraged from doing so. As has been pointed out, a bloody war in Iraq could be a factor in encouraging more young Muslims to adopt a misguided and radical approach and to support and participate in terrorist acts.

317
What are the options before us? We can all agree that the most desirable outcome is full Iraqi co-operation with weapons inspectors and the peaceful dismantling of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That would be a victory for the United Nations and for the stance taken by the United States and our Prime Minister. A second scenario is military action that is not endorsed by the United Nations. Some may say that resolution 1441 gives authority for military action, and if Iraq is in breach, any resulting military action can be described as being authorised by the UN. However, France, China and Russia made it clear when that resolution was passed that they did not consider their support for the resolution as constituting endorsement of future military action. Given the views of those three states, the realpolitik is that an attack on Iraq will be seen by the world as authorised by the international community only if it is backed by a further resolution from the United Nations. If military action is clearly endorsed by the UN, I imagine that most Labour Members will go along with it. While many people worldwide would resent the attack, explicit authorisation by the UN would reduce the scale of opposition.
Phil Hope: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Strang: I am sorry, but I would rather not because of the time remaining.
A second resolution would demonstrate unequivocally to Iraq and the wider world that any military action was based on international agreement and was properly authorised by the only institution in the world that has the authority to do so: the United Nations.
I respect the motives of my right hon. Friends, and I do not question the seriousness of the issues about which the Foreign Secretary spoke this afternoon. However, to register my concern that the US and British Governments are, on the face of it, rushing to war too quickly, and to make it clear that military action without further explicit UN support is unacceptable, I intend to vote for the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
3.52 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: This may be the last opportunity to vote on a substantive motion before British forces are committed to war. If so, those of us who disagree with a war policy will find it much more difficult to express our views. It is therefore important that we take advantage of this debate to do so.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has spoken about anti-Americanism, which troubles me, too. I am disturbed by the fact that I cannot support the American position on this matter. I have always attached huge importance to the relationship with the United States. I have longstanding and close relations with that country. I am bound to say, however, that I believe it to be wrong on this matter. I understand the American position, which is not crude or unworthy of respect. It is not about oil or about completing what a previous President left undone; in fact, I think that he was right to stop the Gulf war when he did in 1991. This is different.
318
Since 11 September, the United States has developed a different sense of vulnerability. In the context of that sense of vulnerability, it has developed the philosophy of a pre-emptive strike against those who may pose a threat to its security. I understand that. I happen to think that it is wrong, but it is not an unworthy attitude. At the same time, I also have a great deal of respect and understanding for the position of the Prime Minister. In that regard, I agree with much that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said. It is right that we should stand by our allies; after all, we expect them to stand by us. However, we need to keep in mind the fact that the United States is the one country capable of taking unilateral action. It is therefore all the more important that we should bind the United States into the multinational organisations that try to regulate the world.
War is wrong. I want to explain my reasons for saying that in four brief ways. First, a Security Council resolution is highly desirable, but it does not make what otherwise is wrong, right. It may provide legal cover, to use the phraseology of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), but that is not sufficient.
Secondly, I am deeply troubled by the morality of what we are about to do. Here I find myself adopting the language—although perhaps less eloquently—of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). As we were reminded by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), war involves injury and death—maybe of thousands—and the devastation of a country. We really must not do that unless all other policy options are closed. Above all, we must not do that unless we can properly invoke the doctrine of self-defence. I accept that the doctrine of self-defence has to be given an enlarged meaning: one does not wait until one is attacked. However, one must be able to say that the risk to one's own country, to the country of one's friends and allies, or to the world is imminent and grave. In all conscience, I do not think that we can say that about Iraq. The policy of deterrence has worked these past 12 years and I believe that it will continue to work in future. I am therefore not satisfied as to the morality of our action.
Simon Hughes: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member's last point. Does he agree that a risk that is clearly imminent and grave is the terrorist risk, which is most likely to be precipitated by precipitate action by us?
Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree; that is my third point. The consequences of any war are likely to be grave. They include the risk of increased terrorism, to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. They also include: turmoil in the middle east; the fact that Islamic opinion throughout the world will be deeply affronted; and the certainty that we will be involved in, and preoccupied with, the affairs and administration of Iraq for years to come. Those are the predictable consequences of what we are about to do; the unpredictable consequences are probably just as grave. The risks are disproportionately great when one considers any possible benefits of conflict.
Hugh Bayley: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the risks of terrorism. What

319
would be his strategy for dealing with the risk that the Iraqi regime could pass dangerous chemical or biological agents not, perhaps, to al-Qaeda, but to secular Islamic extremists?
Mr. Hogg: I would pursue a vigorous policy of inspection, but I would also make it plain that, if there were any evidence of the risk that the hon. Gentleman mentions, Saddam Hussein would be the subject of attack because the principle of self-defence would properly be invoked—as it was when military action was taken in Afghanistan.
Lastly, it is very dangerous to take a democratic country to war unless the population gives its wholehearted assent. I do not believe that that assent has been given. We shall be taking this country to war when the country does not support war. That is a perilous venture.
For all the reasons that I have outlined, I am against war. I shall vote for the amendment and I shall vote against the Government's position. I very much hope that many other right hon. and hon. Members will do so as well.
3.59 pm
Ann Clwyd: In 1991, I stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and described what I had seen on the mountains of Iran and Iraq when the Kurds fled from the bombardment of Saddam Hussein. I am afraid that people have very short memories. The scenes were appalling and typical of the attacks made by the Iraqi regime on its own people. The victims include Arabs as well as Kurds. They also include Assyrians, Turkomans and the Shi'as in the south of the country who were forced to flee from the marshes into Iran.
I have spent the past two days travelling and I have come back for this debate so that I can tell the House what I have seen and heard. As the House knows, I have continually argued the case over the years for indicting the regime for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. I am grateful to 201 of my colleagues on both sides of the House who supported my proposal. I believe that the regime should be removed and that it could have been removed by using international law and indictment. It is a great regret to me that this country, which could have led the way, did not do so. After two years of our making the case and providing evidence from the victims of the regime, the Attorney-General felt that there was not sufficient evidence. I do not know how much evidence one needs, because it abounds. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have the evidence, and the Kurds captured documents from the torture centre that they eventually liberated. Thousands of their citizens died there.
On my latest visit, I opened the first genocide museum in Iraq. It was snowing and quite dark on that day and people had come from all over the area. Their relatives had died in that torture chamber. Inside the museum were photographs that the Kurds had taken. The images were of skulls and shreds of clothing, and of the type of thing that one sees in genocide museums elsewhere in the world. I have been to similar museums in Rwanda and Cambodia, and I have seen the holocaust exhibition in
320
London, but I am afraid that, on this occasion, I just cried. I do not think that I have ever cried in public before, but I did so because the regime's victims were all around me. One old woman came up to me with a piece of plastic and pushed it into my hand. I unwrapped it and saw three photographs. They were of her husband and two sons who had died in that torture centre.
People had written things on the cell walls. Sometimes the writing was in blood and sometimes it was just marks to cross off the days of the week. Inside one cell is a statue of a Peshmerga, whose face looks upward towards a grill through which the light comes. I was told that that Peshmerga had died in that cell and that he was always looking towards the light, because he hoped that, one day, he would be out in the daylight again.
The victims were all around me, and I have been involved for 25 years—including before I became a politician—with the Iraqi opposition. For those 25 years, I have heard the tales of Saddam Hussein's regime and its repression of the Kurds and other minorities. People seem to think that that all came to an end in 1991, but that is a big mistake. Repression, torture and ethnic cleansing have continued throughout the time since then.
On my latest visit, I met some of the victims of torture who had, in the past few months, come out of the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad under the so-called amnesty. One man told me stories that I hardly like to repeat, but we at Indict have taken victims' statements over the past seven years. This victim was a youngish man who said that he had been in prison for eight years. He said that almost every day, people were executed at that prison—not one person, but hundreds. When there was an attack on Uday Hussein's life some time ago, 2,000 prisoners in the prison were executed on the same day. That is the reality of Saddam's Iraq. When I hear people calling for more time, I say "Who will speak up for those victims?"
I shall recount only two stories told by the same man. He told me that a university professor gave birth at the Abu Ghraib prison while he was there. Apparently, because of the very poor diet of thin soup and bread, she did not have enough milk to feed the baby when it was born. She begged the guards for milk, but they refused to give it and the baby died. She held that baby in her arms for three days and would not give up the body. At the end of the three days, because the temperature in the prison was very hot—some 60° C—the body began to smell. They took the woman and her dead baby away. I asked the former prisoner what happened to her and he said that she was killed.
The man then talked about a young boy aged 15 who had done something or other and was in the prison, and fainted during one of the torture sessions—he was beaten so hard that he fainted. The guards pinned him up to the frame of a window and crucified him on the window frame while he was still alive. When he came to, he was crying out for water, but nobody would give him water. One of the other prisoners threw water in his face, but that prisoner was himself taken away and beaten.
Ethnic cleansing goes on all the time. I visited a UN camp where there were hundreds of recent victims of ethnic cleansing who had been kicked out of Kirkuk. The men, women and little children in the camp had been told that they had 24 hours to get out of Kirkuk because they would not agree that they were not Kurds,

321
but Arabs, as part of Arabisation. In other countries, we have taken action against people responsible for ethnic cleansing, so I say to my colleagues, please, who is to help the victims of Saddam Hussein's regime unless we do?
I believe in regime change. I say that without hesitation, and I will support the Government tonight because I think that they are doing a brave thing.
4.7 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: No one would doubt the sincerity and long-standing commitment of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) to the Kurdish people. I only wish that I could believe that many of those who are planning military action have the same sincere concern about the hopes and aspirations of the Kurdish people. Although I oppose military action, as I am about to outline, I hope that the question of Turkish deployment in the Kurdish areas is well understood by the people who are planning military action, as well as the consequences that might follow.
There is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and one on which I disagree with him strongly. The point of agreement is that, without any question, people should understand that this debate is going to be the crucial one as far as war is concerned. The shadow Foreign Secretary said—perhaps this admission would not have been made by the Foreign Secretary—that the resolution before the United Nations and the Government motion are cover resolutions. That is how he described them. I took that to mean that although they do not mention war or military action—even the new UK resolution at the Security Council does not do that and the Government's motion certainly does not do so—if they were passed at the Security Council and here, they would be taken as a green light for military action. No one who votes or does not vote tonight should be under any illusions that this is the opportunity to slow down the process if people want to do that. If that opportunity is not taken, it ain't going to come again.
There is another reason for that which we should understand as well. The procedures of this place do not always allow for the sort of vote that we are fortunate to have this evening. Not for the first time in his fairly short time as Speaker, our Speaker has taken an unusual course in selecting a genuine all-party amendment that gives hon. Members a chance to vote on an issue of principle that goes across the parties. I am proud to speak for my party and for Plaid Cymru in supporting and co-sponsoring the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). That type of amendment will not necessarily be allowed to emerge again under our procedures, so let us make no mistake—this is the opportunity for hon.
Members who wish to do so to vote to slow up the march to war.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin said some fairly savage things about President Bush. I do not agree. I can understand that view in terms of the policy of the American Administration, but I tend to look at the matter slightly differently. I see that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is looking puzzled. He is probably the only Member who was a Member of Parliament when Barry Goldwater ran for
322
President of the United States in 1964. He ran under the argument that America could win a pre-emptive war against the Soviet Union if it was strong enough in nuclear weapons. His slogan was, "In your heart, you know he's right". The Democrat reply was, "In your guts, you know he's nuts". Thankfully for all of us, the Democrats were successful in that election. I am not arguing that that is President Bush's position, but when I listen to Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and other people who are central to that Administration, the words of the Democrat party in 1964 are very meaningful to me—in my guts I think they are nuts. They are trying to apply a management school theory about dominating companies and markets to international politics. They argue that America must exert its power in every sphere of influence, regardless of any consequences. That argument, which would have been regarded as extremism only a few years ago, now holds sway in key parts of the American Administration.
I differ with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin on the reason why that argument is central to the Administration. It is due not to a deep-laid plot by George W. Bush, but to the consequences of 11 September and the trauma and fear that has gripped the American people since then. This is not anti-Americanism. America is a country that was founded out of the intellectual strength of the Scottish enlightenment.[Laughter.] I hear some laughs. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should understand where the American constitution and its checks and balances came from. America understands it. The founding fathers would be birling in their graves, to use a Scottish phrase, if they could see what is being done in the name of America and the American constitution in terms of the pre-emptive, aggressive policy that is emanating from the American Administration. It is possible for that policy to become central to the Administration only in an atmosphere of fear.
That is where the Prime Minister is heavily culpable. As the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury told the Prime Minister yesterday in a telling intervention, it is the job of a candid friend to tell his friend the truth in times of crisis. That is particularly so in this case given that the friend, America, is gripped in the trauma of the aftermath of 11 September, 18 months ago. The fact that the Prime Minister has failed to do that is his central culpability, because he was in a position to put the brakes on that sort of policy, and he still is in such a position. Unfortunately, however, he has exchanged that position of influence to become a prisoner of the policies that emanate from some of the extreme people in the American Administration. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is no longer in charge of these events and that events are controlling him. To return to the "Newsnight" interview that I mentioned earlier in an exchange with the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister was specific in front of a studio audience about there being one set of circumstances, and one only, in which he would argue for the use of force.
That was if the weapons inspectors said that their process had ended. According to the transcript, the Prime Minister said that if the majority of the Security Council adopted a second resolution and it was blocked by one country's unreasonable veto, he would consider

323
the use of force. It is significant that neither the Prime Minister yesterday nor the Foreign Secretary today was prepared to stand even on that position. The Prime Minister is no longer in control of events; they are controlling him.
Let us consider morality. The Prime Minister is a religious man and I respect that. It does him great credit. I have nothing like his record of church going or observance. However, I, too, have faith and conviction. I believe that if an immoral and unjust war takes place, with thousands of casualties and the spilling of innocent blood, the person responsible for arguing for it will answer one day to a much higher authority than the House of Commons.
4.15 pm
Mr. Roger Godsiff: All hon. Members know that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a brutal dictator who has committed genocide and used poison gas against his people. He launched a war against Iran that resulted in more than 1 million people being killed. He invaded Kuwait and, when he left, caused an environmental disaster by torching the oilfields. I have no doubt that he has weapons of mass destruction and I fully accept that he has not complied with United Nations resolutions. With the rest of the civilised world, I believe that the Iraqi people would be well rid of such a person.
However, do my comments explain the reasons for America and the United Kingdom making a preemptive strike? I regret to say that I am not convinced. I fully support working through the UN, although I can envisage circumstances in which the USA, the United Kingdom or any other country took unilateral action, for example, if they perceived their national interest to be under threat. After 9/11, the civilised world united in its determination to combat and root out international terrorism. We rightly identified al-Qaeda as the main proponent and rightly took action against the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were harbouring that organisation.
Since our action in Afghanistan, we have realised that we failed to obliterate al-Qaeda, and America appears to have lost the plot. Instead of pursuing terrorists, who live in the shadows and kill indiscriminately in the shopping malls of Tel Aviv and the bars of Bali, we are seeking a change of Government in Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who will not comply fully with UN resolutions. That is an unconvincing justification for a dangerous course of action.
President Bush referred to Iraq, North Korea and Iran as the axis of evil. What will we do about North Korea, which is ruled by an equally ruthless dictator and also has weapons of mass destruction? Everybody knows that the Chinese will not allow the Americans to interfere in North Korea's affairs. What will we do about Iran?
As I have said previously, 50 per cent. of the electorate in my constituency are Muslims. My support for the American ethos and my belief that, overall, America has been more a force for good than evil in the world does not always win me great support among my Muslim constituents. However, I must tell my many friends in
324
America that I believe that they are about to make a disastrous mistake. With great respect to them, I do not believe that they understand the Islamic world. The current American Administration does not appreciate the consequences in the Muslim world of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. If America, supported by the United Kingdom, launches a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Saddam Hussein will overnight become a hero—a martyr—of the Muslim world despite the fact that he is not a hero now because he runs a secularist rather than a fundamentalist regime.
What will be the consequences in adjoining countries? We need to remember that bin Laden comes from the Saudi royal family. He left Saudi Arabia to form the al-Qaeda organisation because he believed that the house of Saud was giving America too much support by allowing it to have bases in a country that is home to the great places of worship for all Muslims. What will happen if a regime change takes place in Iraq and the house of Saud comes under attack from within its own country? Will America commit itself to stationing a large number of troops, for however many years, in Iraq and Saudi Arabia? If so, what will that do to opinion in the Muslim world? What will happen to the Mubarak regime in Egypt? I accept that it is not a pleasant regime, but it is pro-western and greatly vulnerable to attack from within. What will happen to that country?
I strongly support the war against international terrorism, but America, Britain and the rest of the western world would be well advised to give more attention to why international terrorists emerge. They do not suddenly come out of the sky. International terrorists are born in the squalid, teeming refugee camps of Gaza, the west bank and along the Azad-Kashmir border. Young people living in those camps are without a country, a job, a future or any hope. They are vulnerable recruits for those people who say, "You will get your reward in the next world. Just join us in the jihad against America and the west." They will join having been told that America pursues double standards and that, when convenient, will use UN resolutions to justify a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. They will also be told that when, I regret to say, it suits America and other countries in the west, a blind eye is turned to UN resolutions on the building of settlements by the Israeli Government all over the west bank and on India not carrying out a plebiscite to allow the people of Kashmir to determine their own future.
I am not by nature a rebel. It gives me no pleasure to say that I cannot support my Government in the Lobby tonight. I am proud of the enormous amount that they have achieved since coming to power. I do not support or have any love for Saddam Hussein. I want the man to go and to go soon. But—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's time is up.
4.23 pm
John Barrett: Politicians are often accused of being out of touch with the electorate, but I have never felt so much at one with the ordinary man and woman on the street as I felt when we marched together as part of the 1 million who took to the streets on 15 February. Many had been moved to participate in

325
a march for the first time in their lives. Others, like myself, who had been on many marches for a variety of reasons over many years, noticed something very different with that march. It was not only the sheer volume of people who took to the streets or the fact they came from all walks of life, but the strength of their plea to be heard. They wanted the Government to listen to their views. To see a young mother from my constituency with her young child summed up for me how the protest had moved individuals in a way that I had never witnessed before.
This House must show that it is listening to the people of Britain: listening to their concerns, their fears and their hope that a peaceful solution can be found rather than our engaging in war. A war with Iraq could well escalate into a much wider regional conflict, and will surely result in increased terrorist activities in this country, in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Many who were on the march, and many in the House, believe that the case for war has not yet been proved, that the inspectors should be given more time, and that all other options have not been exhausted. War must always be a last resort. Today's debate may be our last chance to register our concerns in the House before military action starts, and I want to record my view that the Prime Minister and George Bush are wrong. The Prime Minister may well believe absolutely in what he says, but he has not convinced me, he has not convinced many other Members of Parliament, and he has not convinced the vast majority of people out there in the country.
I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents by post, e-mail and telephone. To a man and to a woman, they say that they do not believe a case has been made for going to war. I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed and I would not absolutely rule out the use of force, but, after four years without weapons inspectors, to say that after 11 weeks we must call it a day and go to war is wrong. Hans Blix and the inspectors should have all the time they need. The UN Security Council is not united. One reason is that the pace is being forced by the British and American Governments. Strong-arm tactics and financial inducements will not strengthen any second resolution; they will weaken it.
George Bush has made clear that if there is no second resolution, he will take action anyway. That has left many feeling that the decision has already been made, and that what is happening now is just covering up for the fact that the final troop deployments are not yet in place. Negotiations with Turkey are in their final stages, and today we have heard of RAF jets stuck in Cyprus. The final pieces of the military jigsaw are not yet in place, but they will be in a few weeks, and that is when many expect military action to start.
While other nations are pushing for peace and putting their energy into trying to make the inspections work, what we are seeing from our Government is a push for war, not a push for peace. Recently we have heard much about the moral case for war and the suffering of the Iraqi people—the number who have died over the years during which Saddam has been in power—but the moral case is seriously weakened by the fact that Iraq has obtained deadly pathogens from France, the United States and Germany, including anthrax, gas gangrene and west Nile fever.
326
What happens when the war is over? Who is in the frame for any future administration? Included in the list of potential leading lights in the regime to follow the toppling of Saddam Hussein are people who would make the Butcher of Baghdad look good. According to an article in the Sunday Herald, they include General Nizar Al-Khazraji, who is suspected of leading the chemical attack that killed 5,000 Kurds in Halabja in 1988, and who is alleged by some eyewitnesses to have kicked a Kurdish child to death during the height of Iraqi repression in that year.
The danger of any military action spreading throughout the region is another reason to avoid all-out war if at all possible. If Saddam can involve other countries in any conflict, he will; and the double standards that have been applied to Israel will become even more obvious as the Israeli Government continue actions that, were they taking place in Iraq, would have justified military action for many.
There has been talk of Saddam Hussein's going into exile, but if he went into exile in, say, Sudan, would that not be used as a legitimate reason to take action against that country for harbouring him and, possibly, terrorists? The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a very emotional speech. I agree that if Saddam is toppled he should go on trial, not into a life of luxury.
Saddam's past history has been cited as a reason for taking action now, but many countries—some of which are now our strongest allies—have been at war with us in the past. While a recent past record is important, it is not reason enough to go to war. The war on Iraq is also constantly linked to the war on terrorism. I ask, where is the link? Where is the evidence?
Before we go to war, any Government should have the support of the people and the support of their representatives. Today they will see what their representatives think, but tomorrow we should be aware that the people outside are still not convinced.
4.29 pm
Alan Simpson: For me, one of the most powerful passages in the United Nations charter is not in the detail of any of its chapters but in its opening preamble:
"We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".
The preamble did not seek a pretext for other wars, and did not seek to justify a little ritual slaughter when the mood took us. It was a declaration by the international community at the end of the second world war that we had to pursue a path where the avoidance of war and its human consequences had to be a global priority.
Against that background, I regard today's motion and the war rhetoric surrounding it as a low point in contemporary British politics. They mark the disconnection of the House from the society we claim to represent. The realities of the wider world are clear—the case for a war against Iraq remains unproven. I shall therefore vote for the amendment, and against the motion. We should look at the sorry state of our current Parliament. Increasingly, we appear to have a Government who are looking for a pretext for war, rather than its avoidance. We appear to produce

327
dossiers of mass deception, whose claims are dismissed as risible almost as soon as they are released. We have the embarrassment of a Prime Minister whose arguments chase from one discredited case to another in the search for something that will convince the public of the case for a war in which they do not believe. If anything slightly relieves the pain for Labour it is the condition of the shadow Cabinet, whose members appear to have given up the will to live and believe that they can only be redeemed if they offer to bomb earlier and more often. That is not, however, the position of the overwhelming majority of the British public.
I have just returned from a visit to the United States and Canada, where I was part of a citizens weapons inspectorate. We went to the Edgewood research base just outside Washington, where we attempted to ask its personnel for rights of access to inspect the site and for an account of the weapons of mass destruction that they were working on. They openly acknowledged working on anthrax, plague, botulinum, ricin and cholera. If such weapons were found in Iraq, they would immediately become the basis on which President Bush would declare war.
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Alan Simpson: I shall join everyone else in saying no to the offer.
All those weapons are illegal under current chemical and biological warfare conventions. That is a measure of discrepancies, if not hypocrisy, in our approach to the role and rights of inspections as a way of stabilising and securing international confidence in the removal of weapons of mass destruction. That site also manufactures non-lethal biochemical weapons, which Defence Secretary Rumsfeld referred to in his testimony to Congress on 5 February, when he acknowledged the US intention to use such weapons in any war on Iraq. Those weapons, too, are illegal under current conventions. Perhaps the most frightening thing for me was not the stark openness of that work but the attitude of the pro-war protesters who followed the inspectors round. Their banners and slogans said much about the popular culture created largely at the behest of the American Administration and the American press. "We tried to give peace a chance and got 9/11," said one. Another said, "Give war a chance." Perhaps the most frightening of all said, "Today Iraq, tomorrow France."
Those were measures of the visceral feelings of gung-ho militarism that characterise the debate taking place in the USA. We ought to think carefully before wandering even partially down that path. Those are President Bush's people, who stood up following the last report of the weapons inspectors and said that the objections made by a succession of countries that did not accept that a convincing case had been made for war were not objections in principle, but the objections of countries holding out for a bigger bribe. It is clear that the US view of the UN is that it is simply a body to be bought or bypassed.
Our view must identify with the 30 million people worldwide who say no, war is not the answer, nor is it acceptable. It is not justified in the current
328
circumstances and it would be a horrendous gift to one group and one group only: al-Qaeda. From the evidence of the past 50 years, we know that containment works and inspection works. That is the basis on which the United Nations has worked at its best. We ought not to dismiss the value of that work.
In relation to Iraq, have we found weapons of mass destruction that threaten to destroy the west? No. Have we had any threat from Iraq to destroy the west? No. In those circumstances, we should listen to our other allies in the United Nations—to Germany, France, Russia and perhaps to China—and to the inspectors. Their claims for more time, rather than more troops, are the voices that we should hear. We need inspections, not invasions.
The west and the UK must find the courage to speak out in favour of the peaceful settlement of international conflict and tension, rather than the presumption that we can drift into a war that would do nothing but scar the entire century. We owe a duty to our children and our society to find the courage to ally ourselves with those whose voices urge a peaceful solution to the issue, not a descent into warmongering.
4.37 pm
Tony Baldry: Understandably, we have heard a great deal this afternoon about the military campaign. In the few minutes available to me, I shall say a few words about the humanitarian campaign. In a statement to the House a few days ago, the Prime Minister said that there needs to be
"a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 36.]
The Economist recently observed that many aspects of war hanging over Iraq are unpredictable, but one is not—the unusual vulnerability of the civilian population. There are two reasons for that. First, about 60 per cent. of the population, or 16 million people, are 100 per cent. dependent on central Government for basic needs. They survive only because the Government of Iraq provides them with a food ration each month. Secondly, after two wars, decades of mismanagement and 12 years of exacting sanctions, there is no fat to rely on.
It is therefore essential not to see the military campaign and the humanitarian campaign in two separate boxes. As both Kosovo and Afghanistan have recently shown us, it cannot simply be a matter of fighting a military campaign, then announcing "end ex" and starting a humanitarian campaign the next day. Those planning military action must think about the humanitarian consequences of that action, not least how to minimise the impact of conflict on civilians. I emphasise that that is particularly important in Iraq, where huge numbers of people live in abject poverty, many families are clinging on by their fingertips, and 60 per cent. of the population is dependent on the UN oil for food programme.
Any attack on Iraq is bound to involve aerial bombing to take out military infrastructure. How confident can we be that military commanders will seek not to bomb hospitals, residential areas and vital energy sources? Targeting must take account of the vulnerability of the existing infrastructure and the

329
weaknesses of the sanitation and water systems, for example. Every indication is that people in Iraq are just about scraping along, but any sustained disruption of sewerage systems or clean water supplies will almost certainly speedily result in disease, illness and death in large numbers in the civilian population. We have to ensure that everyone involved—the military in particular—thinks through the consequences for the men, women and children on the ground.
There are undoubtedly optimistic scenarios of what might happen, involving a short, well-targeted bombing campaign on key objectives, followed by a dash by coalition forces to seize Baghdad and Basra, the collapse of Iraqi resistance, the surrender of Iraqi troops and speedy regime change. It might be like that. It is to be hoped that any fighting—if, in due course, it comes to fighting—will be the shortest necessary to achieve the desired objectives. But history is littered with optimistic assessments that it would all be over in a matter of weeks by generals and politicians who then found themselves dug in for months or years. Military planners and humanitarian advisers have to plan for all scenarios, not just the most optimistic. I reiterate that any scenario will impact on a civilian population that is in poor shape anyway, and that any disruption of the oil-for-food programme will leave many people without the basic necessities of life. It is right that we should be cautious, because it was not easy to persuade the US military in Afghanistan to have regard to humanitarian considerations. Nine million people there were having to be fed by the World Food Programme before any military campaign began.
It is also important to reflect that this is all happening at a time when there are enormous strains on the international humanitarian system. When the Secretary of State for International Development recently gave evidence on the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa to the Select Committee, she expressed her concern that the scale of humanitarian feeding operations around the world was reaching such a level that she questioned whether the system could cope. Her concerns echoed identical points raised with the Committee only a little while ago by James Morris, the head of the UN World Food Programme. Yesterday, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia gave evidence to the Select Committee. He made it clear that, notwithstanding recent generous commitments of food aid to Ethiopia—including those from the United Kingdom—unless further substantial amounts were provided by June, there would be a serious humanitarian situation in the Horn of Africa.
So there are already monumental food aid requirements in the Horn of Africa, throughout southern Africa and in Afghanistan. It would, therefore, be difficult for the international community to take on a further substantial food programme. There are problems with the funding of the World Food Programme, with the supply of food, and with the capacity of institutions logistically to continue to manage a massive and ever-expanding programme. The political will to do so will also be much more difficult to achieve if the international community is divided. It will be difficult to get co-ordinated European Union action on humanitarian relief when some of the larger EU member states are at considerable variance with others as to the appropriate way forward on Iraq. Countries such as France and Germany do not want to be seen to
330
be preparing for the humanitarian campaign in a conflict to which they are opposed. If there is a conflict, it is essential that the oil-for-food programme continues to operate in the short and medium term.
What thought are our military commanders and political planners giving to the issue of refugees? In the last Gulf conflict, there were an estimated 1.8 million displaced people in Iraq, out of a population of just over 26 million. Unlike in Afghanistan, most people in Iraq live in urban centres. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there could be 900,000 refugees—100,000 in need of immediate Assistance—and probably a further 500,000 displaced people in camps on the borders. It is impossible to predict just how many refugees there might be, because there are so many different potential scenarios. The UNHCR and the international community must plan for a range of possibilities and a range of numbers.
In addition to refugees, there will also be large numbers of internally displaced people in Iraq. This prompts another important question. In Afghanistan, the UN Secretary-General appointed Mr. Brahimi as his personal representative. The co-ordination of the humanitarian effort in Afghanistan is clearly under the auspices of the UN and senior UN agencies answerable to an experienced co-ordinator appointed by and answerable to the UN Secretary-General. What is going to happen in Iraq? After any conflict, will the humanitarian effort be co-ordinated by the UN? Numerous, unattributable, press briefings would tend to suggest that the intention is for the President of the United States to appoint a senior general to run Iraq, post-conflict. That would be a mistake. Afghanistan has shown how difficult it is for humanitarian relief agencies to relate to and work with the military, when the military act in any other role than as clearly designated and approved UN peacekeepers—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.
4.45 pm
Mr. John Hume: This is a time to do a lot of thinking about the future. Our generation is living through the biggest revolution in the history of the world—the technological, telecommunications and transport revolution. As a result, our world is a much smaller place than the world of the past. Therefore, we should recognise that we are in a stronger position to shape that world. As we enter this new century, our primary objective should be to make it the first century in the history of the world in which there is no war and no conflict.
Let us not forget that the victims of every war are the innocent civilians. Some 10 million were killed in the first world war and 40 million in the second world war. If innocent civilians are killed in a war against Iraq, their families will say, "Hussein is right and the terrorists are right. Those really are our enemies." We should be using our energies to create a peaceful and just world. If we use as much energy to do that as we would to fight a war, we would succeed far more quickly.
I ask Americans to remember the philosophies of their founding fathers. The ancestors of the present-day United States were driven from all their former countries by conflict, persecution, starvation and

331
injustice. They decided that they did not want such things to happen in their new land—and we should remember the size of that land and how many states it has. What was their philosophy? It is one that the world needs again today and it is summed up on the American cent as "e pluribus unum". It is also writ large on the grave of Abraham Lincoln and it means that from many, we are one. The essence of our unity is respect for diversity. That is a message of real peace for the world, and I know that because of where I come from. We need respect for diversity and difference, because all conflict, no matter where it is, is about difference, be it of religion, race or nationality. The answer to difference is to respect it, because it is an accident of birth. We must get that message out.
Europe learned that lesson a while later than the United States. Who could have forecast, 50 years ago, during the worst century in the history of world, with two world wars—and 10 million killed in the first and 40 million killed in the second—that the peoples involved would gather together in a united Europe? But they have, and that is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution. Therefore, we should study how they did it and send that message to the world. The first principle of the European Union is exactly the same as that of the founding fathers of the United States—respect for difference and diversity—and it is backed up by institutions that respect difference and diversity, including the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the Parliament.
In the European Parliament, they work together in their common interests on areas of agreement rather than disagreement, on socio-economic development. They spill their sweat together, not their blood, and break down the barriers of centuries. That is a philosophy for the world. In today's smaller world, instead of sending soldiers, bombs and guns to kill human beings, we should send that philosophy. Because of the enormous influence of the United States and Britain in that smaller world, we could make a huge impact on it and create the first century in which there is no war and no conflict. If we used our energies to do that instead of in creating war, we would succeed far more quickly.
4.50 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: I profoundly disagree with what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has just said. To suggest that the lesson of the second world war is that one should not go to war is to fly in the face of the real lesson of that war, which is that when faced with dictators one should deal with them sooner rather than later.
What we face is, as always, the problem of democracies when dealing with dictators. I subscribe to the paradox of freedom. The paradox of freedom, sometimes called the paradox of tolerance, is that one must tolerate all but the intolerant, because if one persists in tolerating the intolerant, then the tolerant will disappear, because the conditions for toleration will cease to exist.
Let me say on the question of weapons of mass destruction the following: Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of anthrax, which it states it
332
unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision, or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
Those are not my words. They are the words of Dr. Blix in his report to the Security Council as recently as 27 January this year. They did not come from a dissertation. They did not come from a student thesis. They did not even come from a Government dossier. They are fact.
I was rather sad about the refusal by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who I am sorry to see has already vacated his place, to let me intervene when he was talking about the presence in north America of a biological plant, a plant that he said produces and deals with substances that are banned under the 1972 biological weapons convention. He compared that to the situation in Iraq. I have interesting news for hon. Members. There is a plant like that in this country. It is called Porton Down. Under the provisions of the 1972 biological weapons convention it does what such plants are allowed to do, which is to work on minuscule amounts of toxic substances in order to develop antidotes to them.
Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the United States refuses to allow international inspectors into some of its chemical plants, and is therefore breaking the chemical weapons convention?
Dr. Lewis: I am not aware that the United States is breaking any such convention. I should be very happy to hear specifics from the hon. Gentleman.
What I can say is that it is wholly inappropriate and irresponsible to take a legal, permitted ability of countries that have signed the BW convention, which is to carry out research on small amounts of deadly weapons in order to develop antidotes, and compare it with what Saddam Hussein has done, which is to produce huge quantities of such weapons, use them, lie about them and, even when forced to admit that he had them all along, fail to account properly for what he did with them.
I am surprised by some of the remarks that are made by people who profess to support resolution 1441. In a debate like this I would have expected resolution 1441 to be quoted time and again. I do not think that it has been quoted at all, so I shall briefly quote it now. The resolution decides that Iraq
"has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions"
and provides the
"final opportunity to comply"
not the pre-final, not the pre-pre-final, not the opportunity before the opportunity before the

333
opportunity before the opportunity that might one day, in 12 years' time, be the final opportunity, but the
"final opportunity to comply".
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: No, I will not. I am very happy to give way to people who have given way to me.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: No. The resolution requires
"that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA".
What is meant by active co-operation? It is a recognition that there is no prospect whatsoever of inspectors detecting the quantities of chemical and biological weapons that Saddam had to admit were manufactured unless he actively helps them to find them. There is no prospect of more time enabling greater discoveries.
Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: No. The question is whether Saddam will actively assist the inspectors in finding his unaccounted stocks, and the answer to that is clearly in the negative. That is why Saddam is in breach, and why we have to look very carefully at the recommendation that we should continue to give more time. The comparison is made between 11 weeks now and 12 years in the past. The fact is that during every conflict in which this country has engaged, one could have heard arguments analogous to those that we have heard today. Plenty of people argued that it was wrong to take action against the Nazis, until it became so late that the action that had to be taken proved much more costly than that which could have been taken earlier. Had such action been taken earlier, it would have been denounced as unwarranted and pre-emptive.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing rose—
Dr. Lewis: It must be said that in subsequent conflicts and confrontations, many of the very same people who are arguing against action now were arguing against it then. Those who said, in advance of the action that was eventually taken against the Hitlerite regime, that no action was justified get a bad press, because they are now regarded as having had no reasonable arguments. Let me assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if we could revisit the debates that took place in this House in the 1930s, we would hear arguments for appeasement just as sophisticated as those put forward today. Those arguments were wrong then, and they are wrong now. It will be a grave mistake if people think that the cause of peace is served by always avoiding conflict. Sometimes, the only way to bring about peace is to face up to the need for conflict, and this is one of those occasions.
4.58 pm
Donald Anderson: We are now in a phoney peace. War drums are rolling, and I approach the next few weeks with a deep sense of foreboding, but
334
also with a great deal of respect for those in my party and in the House generally—experts, former diplomats—who come to a different conclusion, including even my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who made a passionate speech but offered not a scintilla of criticism of Saddam Hussein.
It is clear to me that the threat of force has indeed produced some results. The concessions made by Saddam Hussein just before the publication of Dr. Blix's report were predictable and, indeed, predicted. The fear is that a series of future benchmarks would equally lead to some grudging and minimal concessions, just before such reports were made. It is clear that force is the only language that Saddam Hussein understands, but there are many uncertainties. Different judgments will be made about the very grave cost-benefit analysis that has been made. I therefore view with respect those who take a different view. I am much less happy with those on either side of the argument who have absolutist convictions.
How did we get to this point? First, the pressure on Saddam Hussein did not begin on 8 November last year. He was defeated after he invaded Kuwait. There was a ceasefire resolution. He remains in breach of that resolution. Over the period of the 1990s, Saddam Hussein prevaricated, concealed, lied and obstructed the work of the inspectors.
I pose two critical questions. Why not give Saddam Hussein more time? Why act now?
The obvious retort to the first question is, time for what? If Dr. Blix asks for more time when he appears before the Security Council. in my judgment he should be given it. However, inspections will have limited relevance without proactive co-operation from the regime.
This is not a treasure hunt. The test is whether the Saddam Hussein regime is co-operating with the weapons inspectors. Resolution 1441 was wholly unambiguous. It required a complete declaration. Clearly, there were major gaps in the dossier produced on 8 December. Failure to comply and co-operate fully would be a further material breach.
There have been 12 years of diplomacy. It is 12 years to the day since Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to retreat from Kuwait. There have been years of inspection and sanctions. How long can that go on? Resolution 1441 talked of
"immediate, unconditional and active co-operation".
Do any colleagues in the House believe that what has happened over the four months since 1441 was passed amounts to
"immediate, unconditional and active co-operation"?
The second question that I posed was, why now? Clearly there is valid concern about extending the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Its implications for international law are potentially very dangerous indeed. The US has been only too ready to push the doctrine to the limits. There has not been sufficient debate on the subject, but we have to accept that weapons of mass destruction pose new challenges that current international law does not meet.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Donald Anderson: No.

335
If Saddam Hussein were to obtain nuclear capacity—and he came fairly close to doing so—and then invaded Kuwait, he could, from an almost impregnable position, challenge the international community to dislodge him. North Korea is relatively invulnerable now, for similar reasons. Equally, Saddam Hussein's hostility to the west means that there is a very serious danger that, at some time, he could pass chemical and biological weapons to terrorist networks.
Would any war be a just war? As a Christian, I welcome the contributions from the archbishops. It is right that they should draw our attention to just war principles, but that invites questions about their role. Those principles are there to make us think morally, but they have certain ambiguities. The archbishops acknowledge that those who must make the decisions have access to information that better enables them to answer questions such as, "Have all other options been exhausted? Will a war be effective?" In the final analysis, we are dealing not with absolutes but with judgments, based on the available facts, including intelligence facts.
Is war inevitable in the next few weeks? We have left Saddam Hussein a number of exit doors, and thus far he has refused to use them. The tempo of Dr. Blix is increasing. He has demanded that the missiles be destroyed. How will Saddam Hussein respond to that test? What has happened to the 1.5 tonnes of VX agents, the 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals and the more than 30,000 special munitions? We know that the Iraqis are normally punctilious in their record keeping. If they have destroyed those munitions, fine, there must be records and evidence, but none has been produced in the past four months.
As for the scientists, the human factor is the weak link. Of course there is an aura of extreme intimidation of those scientists. If there is nothing to hide, why has Saddam Hussein gone to such trouble to prevent the scientists from being interviewed openly?
How should we operate in the next few weeks? We have to realise what is at stake: of course, it is the credibility of the UN, which has given a final opportunity. There can be no debate about the word "final". What should happen? Clearly, we have to focus on disarmament, not on regime change. We have to maintain maximum pressure, and not be forced by a military timetable.
Finally, my view is that the Prime Minister took a strategic decision to stand alongside President Bush, and that has had positive effects. It was a courageous decision. It has given my right hon. Friend unique leverage, which should now be used to ensure that diplomatic options are pursued to an end. War is truly the last resort, but after 12 years, that "final opportunity" cannot go on indefinitely.
5.6 pm
Patrick Mercer: I should like to pay tribute not only to the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) whom I follow in the debate, but to the enormously powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is sadly no longer with us.[Interruption.] Anyone who could doubt the
336
moral elements of those remarks would clearly be challenged to make a more arresting or clearer case for what has been going on in Iraq at the moment.
During the last Gulf war, I, as usual, was stuck in Northern Ireland, but I saw many of my colleagues disappear to fight in the Gulf, with a spring in their step and with a light heart. They felt that they were going to be involved in a cause that was supported by the nation and a war that was justified and had moral, religious and political backing. Most of them, of course, had not seen battle before, but when they came back they were a different generation. Very few of them were killed in action. Some were killed, sadly, by the American air force, and a very few were killed by the enemy.
I am conscious of the fact that I am in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who was actually there, but I do not think that any of them who had killed a fellow man approached life in the same way again.[Interruption.] I hear the word "good" coming from the Labour Benches—quite right. Any hon. Member who has seen the pictures that have been shown recently of the killing on the Basra road cannot doubt what the consequences of war are.
I can clearly recall teaching a young naval officer at the staff college who had had the miserable opportunity of firing eight missiles into Iraqi gunboats. He freely admitted that the first one was challenging. There was a sense of elation when his missile struck home, and every member of the crew was killed. When he got back to his ship, the reaction began to set in. By the time that he was flying against his sixth, seventh and even eighth target, he was heartily sick of the whole prospect.
No hon. Member wants war, and the House needs to remember that, if we go to war, some of our young men and women will not come back, and probably tens of thousands of our enemies—I use the term advisedly—will die in this war. Some of them will be guilty, some innocent.
To that end, after much thought and much soul searching, despite the Government's wholly inconsistent arguments, I have come to believe that war has got to be credibly threatened, that the forces have got to be put in place, and that nothing except a cohesive and unified approach to war may allow peace to prevail.
I referred to the inconsistent arguments. Where has the argument about terrorism gone? Until a few weeks ago, it was one of the linchpins of the Government's case. Today, interestingly, no Front-Bench Member mentioned it. One or two speeches have referred to terrorism, and it is interesting to note that, without doubt, the events of 11 September have caused America to think in the way she is thinking at the moment. Let us think about this: although Australia helped in the campaign in Afghanistan, what really impelled that country to stand firmly behind the United Kingdom and the United States were the events in Bali.
So far this country has remained relatively untouched by such terrorism. I ask the House to remember exactly what happened 10 days or so ago. There was a major alert. For the first time in 10 years, light tanks were seen at Heathrow airport, troops were patrolling fly lines, and it was clear that there was a severe threat. Let us bear in mind the fact that, so far, in this country, only one policeman has been killed in the war on terrorism.

337
The House is naïve, however, if it does not remember that our intelligence agencies cannot give us the clear and unequivocal evidence necessary.
I do not believe that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to his neighbours, to surrounding countries or to British possessions overseas. I am convinced, however—I may be alone in saying this—that he is behind much of the terrorist activity that goes on throughout the world. I believe, as I have said previously, that the House is unnecessarily hung up on the name bin Laden. I would not for one moment try to suggest that there is a direct connection between 11 September and Baghdad. Let us look again, however, at the evidence that Mr. Powell produced of the link between Baghdad and other terrorist groups that are active inside this country. Let us read between the lines and see exactly what the intention of this tyrant with his weapons of mass destruction is. It cannot be stated openly, and I have challenged the Government on several occasions to prove the link. They have so far been unsuccessful, but I beg the House to understand that this threat is imminent and it is one that we have not yet experienced, despite this nation's understanding of the campaigns of the IRA and other terrorist organisations.
I end on this note: if we are to avoid war, we must try to be unified in our credible threat of force. The regime with which we are dealing is an evil one, which is bent on destruction. I fear that we must accept that, as we pursue this course, we will be more and more vulnerable to the sort of terrorism that I have mentioned. We must not be cowed or bullied, however, and we must stand up to terrorists as well as tyrants; only by being unified can we succeed.
5.14 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: Like others who are waiting to be called to speak, I have listened to every speech and have tried to understand the way in which people have been reading between the lines. Although the sentiments of many hon. Members who spoke to the amendment are compatible with my own, I differ from them in my understanding of what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said.
Some hon. Members have had virulent words to say about George Bush but not about Saddam Hussein. I understand their fears and concerns—perhaps not those to do with George Bush, but certainly those to do with people around him, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Some mornings, I have got up and thought, "My God. We're going to war today." There is tension because we could, at any time, find ourselves dragged into a war.
I shall vote for the motion this evening. I have been asked to take note of the Command Paper, which is a factual and straightforward document. It reminds us that the story began in 1991—in particular with paragraphs 7 to 14 of part C of resolution 687. Had that resolution been followed at the time, the Government of Iraq would have reported in full on its weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Mike Wood: Would my hon. Friend confirm that resolution 687 also calls for the
338
creation of a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the middle east, which would entail the end of Israel's nuclear arsenal?
Mr. Griffiths: Of course I will confirm that. Having read the resolution, I am not surprised by my hon. Friend's point. However, it was Saddam Hussein who launched an unprovoked attack on Kuwait, so the world community was justified in wanting to see his weapons of mass destruction destroyed. Under resolution 687, the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council were given 45 days to set up a special commission, and a further 120 days to lay out the process of verification of the report made by Saddam Hussein. We know that by 1999, after a great deal of harassment, the inspectors decided that they could not carry on with their work and withdrew.
In the meantime, there was the no-fly zone policy, which provided for containment. It seemed to me that Saddam Hussein was quite happy with that. It left him, his family and his collaborators in power, living a life of wealth and luxury that the vast majority of his citizens could not even begin to dream about; and it meant that he was able to terrorise and kill people as he pleased, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) graphically described. Thousands died every year in a state that did not comply with a United Nations resolution that could have solved the problem. The resolution could also have solved other problems in the wider middle east, by creating a nuclear-free zone. I think that all of us would like to see that.
At the outset of this debate, the Foreign Secretary reassuringly said that there would be another vote in this House at, or around, the time that the second resolution was being put to the United Nations. I also got a clear feeling that there would be a vote before we went to war. I will support the motion tonight, but there should be a second United Nations resolution and a vote in this House to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein. There is a possibility of sorting out this terrible démarche peacefully. However, there are moments when my heart begins to stop because of the actions of, in particular, the people around George Bush, who would lead us into a war.
Several speakers have deliberately overlooked a crucial point: the inspectors still have an important role in reporting to the United Nations about the credibility or otherwise of their efforts in Iraq. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"If Saddam is willing genuinely to co-operate, the inspectors should have up to July, and beyond July—as much time as they want."—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 125.]
With those words echoing in my mind, I am happy to support the Government in the knowledge that we shall have further opportunities to debate the issue. If Dr. Blix reports that he is receiving co-operation from Saddam Hussein's regime, he will be given the time that he needs to carry out the inspections and to reveal the weapons of mass destruction. We can be thankful that the issue has been pushed to this point.
Like many people, I believe that the consequences of any war are incredibly difficult to judge. I have been involved in encouraging efforts to find a resolution to the Christian-Muslim conflict in Indonesia, where people are deeply fearful that a war in Iraq could result

339
in a total upset of the work being done to try to maintain good relations between Muslims and Christians in that country. The Government of Indonesia believe that it would be extremely difficult to control extremists and prevent them from getting the upper hand there. We already have the experience of the Bali bombing.
There is a tremendous amount at stake in the debate and the votes that follow it. However, from what my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said—particularly from what the Prime Minister said yesterday—I believe that the inspectors will have the time to resolve the problem peacefully. In that context, I am very happy to support the Government tonight.
5.22 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton: The Prime Minister's position last July when he first talked of supporting President Bush in regime change in Iraq was followed by an apparent failure to recognise the growing public disquiet at what is effectively a headlong rush to a preemptive strike on Iraq. The world does not feel a safer place than it did last July.
I am disgusted—I know that my constituents are, too—by the propagandist manoeuvrings to which we as a people and as a Parliament have been subject. It does not matter how often the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary mouth the words "weapons of mass destruction", "anthrax" and "VX"; so far, none has been found and no intent to use them has been displayed.
Yesterday, I asked the House of Commons Library for a briefing note. While the Prime Minister continues to speak of weapons of mass destruction, it is important that we examine the scientific evidence for the likelihood of their being there. The Library says that
"it is impossible to completely prevent the deterioration of chemicals regardless of the environmental and storage precautions taken."
Dr. Julian Lewis: What about anthrax?
Mrs. Calton: I shall be coming to anthrax in a moment.
The Library briefing continues:
"Thus water contamination can be a problem, even if the available water is very small. Fluctuating temperatures that cause condensation can cause a problem."
Various obstacles were encountered in ensuring the stability of chemical and biological agents and preventing their deterioration even when the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom had their own chemical and biological weapons programmes. In some instances, the addition of a stabiliser to a nerve agent or other chemical agents to prevent decomposition or deterioration can lengthen their lifetime.
"The British Government alleged in its dossier on Iraq's WMD programmes that Iraq had the knowledge and capability to add stabiliser, although there are question marks as to whether Iraq actually succeeded in deploying such a capability."
Those are not my words, but those of the Library.
Undoubtedly, by the time of the Gulf war in early 1991, Iraq had developed advanced chemical and
340
biological weapons programmes, but few sources believe that Iraq continued to produce such weapons during the 1990s while the UN inspection process was under way, even though the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme came to light only in 1995. Therefore, between 1991 and 1998, Iraq would have been dependent on existing stocks produced prior to 1991, which would have deteriorated to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the nature of the agent in question. Thus the main question mark over Iraq's current capability centres on whether it resumed the production of chemical and biological weapons following the departure of the United Nations Special Commission in December 1998.
Glen Rangwala, an Iraq analyst at Cambridge university, has compiled views on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities. His website examines the claims for each of the various weapons and makes very interesting reading. He says:
"If Iraq had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in 1998, it must consist of items produced prior to 1991. Not even the British government claims that Iraq was engaged in the active production of chemical or biological weapons in the period of weapons inspections (1991 to 1998)".
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Lady tell us whether the person whose work she is quoting is a scientist or a political academic whose main interest is the politics of the west bank?
Mrs. Calton: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I understand that the academic in question has a scientific background, but I would be very happy to ensure that she gets the full details of the information that I have. It would certainly be very surprising if he were simply an analyst without any scientific background.
Glen Rangwala goes on to deal with anthrax. I asked the Library about anthrax because the Government have always indicated that anthrax is measured in litres and I was interested in that point. It seems that Iraq has almost always deployed anthrax as wet anthrax. In those circumstances, it is extremely unlikely that that anthrax is still a weapons-grade material. There have been arguments about the storage of anthrax, which is why we need weapons inspectors to examine the situation. A report published on 9 September 2002 states:
"wet anthrax from … the 1989–90 period—if stored properly—would still be infectious."
None the less, it would have to be stored properly, and the suggestion that it can be moved around is very difficult to support.
The document goes on to deal with sarin and cyclosarin, and says that both those chemicals would have deteriorated rapidly. US experts have considered chemical warfare agents that are less than 50 per cent. pure to be militarily ineffective. Indeed, the CIA has said that it is extremely unlikely that those materials are more than 18 per cent. pure.
I understand that my time is short, so I shall make my point. We are talking about weapons of mass destruction that involve chemical and biological agents. The weapons inspectors must be in there to see whether indeed those materials still exist. If they do not exist, and

341
everything has been produced since 1998, then yes, there is an issue, but it is not clear that there is an issue in terms of weapons of mass destruction. Until we are absolutely certain about the way forward—about whether we are talking about old deteriorated weapons of mass destruction or ones that have been made more recently—we should certainly not be going to war.
5.30 pm
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate.
It is important to re-emphasise that those of us who are opposed to war in this House and across our nation are not friends of Saddam Hussein. We were against him when he invaded Iran, we opposed him when he invaded Kuwait and we spoke out against him when he used chemical weapons against his own people. Unfortunately, the UK and US Governments supported and armed him in the 1980s. I am surprised that no apology was forthcoming from Conservative Front Benchers for supporting Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons against his own people. The American Administration is extremely well informed about Iraq's weaponry. As The Scotsman pointed out last Friday, Donald Rumsfeld probably still has the receipts. Like many opponents of military action, I am proud to say that we have been friends of the Iraqi people over two decades of Saddam's rule and we remain their friends today. We are concerned about the tens of thousands of lives at risk through an attack on Iraq. That is the real moral issue that we must all face.
The overwhelming majority of people in Britain support us in sharing that sceptical view. In my constituency, my party membership is unanimously opposed to war, including the former Member of Parliament for Govan and Cabinet Minister Bruce Millan. Among the general public, people from all walks of life are openly talking about opposition to war, including Govan's most famous son, Sir Alex Ferguson. Given that we have seen more than 70,000 people gather in Glasgow alongside 1 million in London to demonstrate their opposition to war, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench if they are listening to the people of Scotland and of Britain. I have not found anyone outside this House—no one among the real people whom we seek to represent—who is in favour of war. People here and around the world are clearly against war. There is no groundswell of support for military action.
The 52 African Governments expressed their opposition at their recent summit. If Al Gore had been elected President by the Supreme Court Judges instead of George W. Bush, we would have an American Administration opposed to war. Our own policy on Iraq demonstrates that the Government are not at the heart of Europe, but in the heart of President George Bush. The policies of our key European allies, led by President Chirac and Chancellor Schroder, are more in line with British opinion than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The French President expressed that clearly when he said,
"there is no reason … to change our logic, which is the logic of peace and switch to a logic of war".
342
I do not doubt my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's good intentions but I disagree profoundly with his support for President Bush. I am suspicious of the genuine motive for the American position. Saddam Hussein is as great a monster today as he was 20 years ago. The only difference is that he was our monster then.
Iraq has the largest oil reserves in the world today. The American Administration is brimming with oil interests. Almost every key member, from President Bush downwards, has been heavily involved in the oil industry. The United States should not try to buy support in the United Nations Security Council. The 15 nations should be given enough objective evidence to reach a fair and independent assessment of the situation in Iraq.
The international coalition is being built with bribery and by bullying smaller nations such as Chile and Cameroon. That starkly contrasts with the joining of forces to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The business press always gives the bottom line on what is really happening. Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that America was preparing to pay a high price for support in its bargaining with Turkey. The Financial Times stated that
"this time America's allies are waiting to be bought off",
and that the cost would be dear in "hard cash" and "IOUs".
It is sad to see America's loyal ally, Turkey, "haggling furiously". From a first US offer of $2 billion to $3 billion and an initial Turkish demand for $92 billion, it appears that a settlement of $16 billion has been reached. Is that any way to pull a stable international coalition together? Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, puts matters more starkly. He believes that it is
"no longer a war against terrorism, it is in fact a war to dominate the world".
I recently spoke to Americans who opposed military action. They made it clear that their biggest problem is not President Bush but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If he did not support United States policy, any backing for war would collapse across the Atlantic. Those who argue that President Bush would go to war alone, without our Prime Minister's support, are wrong. President Bush needs Prime Minister Blair to sell the war in the United States. That is shown in the efforts to prove a tenuous link between al-Qaeda and Saddam, based on the presence of an al-Qaeda group in northern Iraq. It is disappointing that the fair-minded Colin Powell could present that to the United Nations as evidence.
We all know that al-Qaeda terrorists operate in Britain, the United States and many other nations. Clearly, that does not mean that our Government or any other support al-Qaeda. The claim has no credibility. Saddam and Osama bin Laden are implacable opponents. They oppose each other as much as President Bush opposes them both. We should not look for a spurious link to terrorism as an excuse for war against Iraq.
The UN weapons inspectors are in Iraq for a reason. The international community sent Dr. Blix and the skilled inspectors to do a job. They should be allowed the time that they need to complete it.

343
I end with a quote from the leader comment in The Guardian today:
"To go to war now would be to act without the freely given consent of the vast majority of nations; without the support of key allies; without a legally unambiguous mandate; without just cause, and against the wishes of the people of the west and the Muslim world."
I shall vote for the amendment.
5.39 pm
Bob Spink: Like the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), I spent last week in Iraq. We visited the Iraqi Parliament, refugees and hospitals. The Iraqi Kurds asked us to speak for them when we returned. They support the Prime Minister's moral policy but they asked us to raise some key questions.
The first is that Turkish troops must, at all costs, be kept out of Iraqi Kurdish territories unless the Kurds invite them, which is extremely unlikely. Their incursion would be dangerous, destabilising and unnecessary. Secondly, the Kurdish people need more specific protection during the run-up to, and during the prosecution of any war. For instance, they need gas masks. Thirdly, we must keep the period of interim military governance of Iraq very short and hand over to Iraqi Opposition leaders as soon as Saddam's murderous and evil regime falls.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman was in Kurdistan last week. Did he get any sense of the fact that an agreement had been reached with Turkey to leave the Kurdish autonomous region alone, or is the opposite the case and the 20,000 Turkish troops on the border are poised to invade when the Americans invade from the south?
Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point. The Prime Minister of Iraqi Kurdistan is fearful that Turkish troops will go into Kurdistan, which he thinks will be extremely damaging and destabilising. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that.
The fourth key issue is that we need to keep supplies of food and medicine going into Iraqi Kurdistan during any conflict period to help the millions who depend on them. In particular, we must continue aid immediately after any conflict finishes. Fifthly, we must get the oilfor-food money flowing properly under UN resolution 986 and stop the hold ups and possible corruption of that programme. Sixthly, we must assist Iraq postSaddam to establish a federal state that is based on a parliamentary democracy with an autonomous Kurdish region. The Kurdish people do not now seek independence. Instead, they want to operate within a federal Iraq, with the oil reserves managed at a federal level and shared equitably between the regions. Finally, they hope that our Government will encourage the Turkish authorities to allow the 150 international journalists who are on the border in Turkey to pass into north Iraq so that they can see what is going on. That is in keeping with European standards and Turkey is holding them up.
344
We visited a refugee camp of 50,000 internally displaced people where thousands of families were still living in mud huts and tents. We met a family that had been thrown out of their home in Kirkuk by Saddam only two weeks earlier under his Arabisation ethnic cleansing programme. They suffered the sort of abuses that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) so eloquently outlined. Anyone who thinks that Saddam is safe in his box should have been with me to hear the tale of that family and to see the horrendous harm and devastation reaped on them by Saddam.
We also visited the Salahaddin university, which is close to Saddam's front-line army, and held meetings with lecturers and many English-speaking students. When we asked the students whether they thought that Saddam had chemical weapons and would use them, they stood up and shouted, "Of course." They thought it na?ve of me even to ask. They said that some of them had not slept for five nights because they were worried that Saddam would retaliate by using chemicals against them. People were trying to make improvised gas masks from plastic bags and electrical insulation tape.
The students were in no doubt that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and, given half the chance, would use them on the Kurds again, causing the unimaginably terrible consequences that they experienced before. They wanted our protection, but in a show of hands voted unanimously for Saddam's regime to be removed as quickly and cleanly as possible for their safety. They were entirely in step with the other Iraqi Kurds that we met. Other questions that we put to a formal vote to the students, who are the future of Iraq, revealed that they think that war to remove Saddam is justified because, on balance, it would save thousands of innocent lives. However, they need our protection during such a war.
We visited the Freedom hospital in Arbil, which has cut its operations to only 25 per cent. in preparation for the expected war casualties. We saw doctors and nurses standing by empty beds, waiting. The hospital is stockpiling medicines and surgical equipment as part of a co-ordinated plan to deal with the casualties of that war. Its staff know that casualties will be forthcoming, and accept that.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's personal experience of Kurdistan is very telling, but he will have observed that the amendment is supported by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who accompanied him on his visit.
Bob Spink: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East will speak for himself, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when he accompanied me to Iraq he opposed the Prime Minister's action while I was in favour of it, and that he seemed to change his mind on the basis of what he encountered during the visit.
Along with many others, those at the Freedom hospital provided evidence that the UN resolution 986 oil for food money had not been flowing through properly. We met Prime Minister Nechirwan Barzani, and sent a plea for help from him to our Prime Minister in the form of a videotape. We delivered it to the Prime Minister yesterday. We spoke at the Parliament, and listened carefully to messages from the democratically elected representatives of the Iraqi Kurds. I have now delivered most of those messages.

345
It was clear to us that the people of Iraqi Kurdistan are battle-hardened and battle-ready. They want to remove Saddam's evil dictatorship, which has slaughtered so many of them; but they need to be reassured that if a conflict is initiated they will be given protection, because at present they feel rather like sitting ducks. They suspect that Saddam will try to throw chemical weapons at them as soon as he knows that war is inevitable, and they want us to do the job properly this time.
As is the case with many other Members, this is the most difficult issue with which I have had to deal during my time as a parliamentarian, but the bottom line as regards morality is absolutely clear to me. If taking action would save more lives than doing nothing—as the Iraqi Kurds themselves believe—we must have the moral courage to take action.
5.47 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The most impressive speech I have heard so far was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), although my conclusions are very different from hers. She spoke very movingly about the real issues, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke in similar vein.
We must be clear about what is being proposed by both the Americans and the British through United Nations action. It is not regime change; it is the removal of weapons of mass destruction. There is a world of difference. This is not simply a narrow legal point: it is a very important technical and moral point, and it ultimately concerns where we will leave the world at the end of it all. If we are to talk of the need for regime change, we must bear in mind that there are many regimes in the world that we shall have to ask the United States and our own Government to investigate. Sadly, cruelty and barbarity are not the preserve of the odious Iraqi regime.
Let me explain why my conclusions are different from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. We know that during the last Gulf war some 100,000 people died as a direct or indirect consequence of military action. I believe that any military intervention driving all the way to Baghdad will cost more lives, both directly and indirectly. The aid agencies—the nongovernmental organisations—are extremely concerned about the fragility of the infrastructure, which suggests that the death toll post-conflict, even with a military structure designed to bring in humanitarian aid, will be far higher than the death toll in Afghanistan, for instance, or the death toll in the aftermath of the last Gulf war. There is therefore a moral case for dealing with Saddam's brutality against his own people, and it cannot be wiped out by saying that going to war is the easy and obvious solution.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that in recent regime changes, such as those in Chile and Nicaragua, bad regimes have been replaced with worse regimes?
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that those who advocate regime change examine the consequences.
346
Exactly what is the evidence for the threat that Iraq now poses to the rest of the world? Not many years ago. the Foreign Office and Downing street, now briefing on the need for action, were briefing Ministers—I do not think that I am breaching the Official Secrets Act—on the success of weapons inspections and our ability through containment and deterrence to maintain downward pressure on Saddam and Baghdad. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is currently on the Front Bench, is not going to respond to the debate, but perhaps she will pass on my concerns. We need to know when and why that advice changed, as that is fundamental to the reasons why we are threatening to go to war against Iraq. Frankly, there is no evidence for urgent action to prevent the proliferation of terrorist groups. Proliferation is less likely to occur in Iraq than in Russia, where the security of nuclear supplies is grossly inadequate. Our own Government and other Governments—the Americans are an honourable exception—have done almost nothing about the security of Russian nuclear supplies.
If we are serious about non-proliferation, let us start with Russia, and provide it with assistance. Or we could look at North Korea, which has been a proliferator and has a programme to create weapons of mass destruction and the technology to deliver them. The United States rightly drew the conclusion that military action would be the wrong way to resolve the situation in North Korea. It is important that we learn those lessons, as the House has got to know why we are taking one route in respect of North Korea and another in respect of Iraq. Some of my hon. Friends mocked when one of our colleagues talked about that the probability that military action would make the world more unstable and terrorism more likely. However, I well remember, even if they do not, that during the invasion of Kuwait pictures of Saddam were held up by dispossessed Palestinians. I condemn their actions, but we would be foolish and naïve not to realise that any invasion of Iraq will act as a recruiting ground for global terrorism. We ignore that at our peril.
At the moment, military action would be inhuman and cannot be justified as the moral war that a number of Members, particularly Opposition Members, have discussed. It would make the world less stable for our own citizens and other people. We must therefore examine very carefully the lurch to war. Can inspection and containment work? In the early 1990s, weapons inspections were successful, and resulted in the destruction of weapons. It is important that we give the inspectors the opportunity to carry out the work that we have asked them to undertake, and that we do not curtail it artificially. If we do so, the suspicion of people around the world that this war was pre-ordained, perhaps even pre-ordered, will be confirmed, and it will be impossible to convince the Arab world and people throughout the world that there was ever any intention to resolve the issue by anything other than military action.
This country has far too much to lose to be bounced into a war at the request of another nation, even at the request of such a strong and good ally as the United States. I strongly urge our Government and the world community to maintain the pressure on Saddam, to maintain the threat of military action, and to maintain

347
the inspection regime. However, a lurch to war would be at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and potentially of many of our own citizens, and of a world that would be massively less stable in the future.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I am second to none in my admiration for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, is it not extraordinary that no Minister from either the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is on the Front Bench to listen to this truncated debate, in order properly to reply when they sum up?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman has expressed his feeling, but he knows that the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for who is present in the Chamber and who would answer a debate.
5.56 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: That was an excellent point of order. I hope that somebody is scurrying along the Corridors to find a Minister.
Whatever is said in the debate, one thing is clear in my mind: if the time comes for British troops to go into action, they must have our full and unequivocal support. The debate today is about whether that time has come. It is not, as a number of hon. Members have said, about the integrity of the President of the United States of America. It is about the integrity of British foreign policy.
The commitment of British lives to the defence of our nation and to the halting of blatant atrocities is in our history. The campaign in Afghanistan to seek out al-Qaeda, its leader Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime that nurtured them, was a justified cause. But there is unfinished business in that country still. We have liberated the poppy farmers and the drug smugglers who now supply 90 per cent. of the heroin on our streets.
This debate is about Iraq. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator with scant regard for human rights. There is no doubt that in the past he has used chemical weapons against his own people. We know from the run-up to the last Gulf war that he sought an albeit crude delivery mechanism for his weapons. It is clear that, along with at least 10 other dubious regimes in the world, he would like to possess nuclear weapons.
Despite the Prime Minister's claims of "linkage", there is no evidence that Saddam has assisted al-Qaeda. There are Governments with whom we have good relations who have given much greater comfort to those evil terrorists. We await the evidence of the weapons inspectors that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. If he possesses them, the evidence is clear that the range of any of his delivery mechanisms would be a threat to his near neighbours, most of whom seem totally unconvinced of the need for the war at the present time.
Opinion polls seem to suggest that the British people are unconvinced of the need for war. The letters, e-mails and lobbying from my constituents show me that there is severe disquiet in Dorset, as elsewhere, about this
348
venture. In 1939 the case for war was clear and the people were in support. Hitler was an evil expansionist dictator who had to be restrained and defeated. In 1982 the decision to remove Argentine troops by force from the Falklands had the support of the British people. In 1990 the invasion of Kuwait was a clear act of aggression that had to be rectified by the use of force, and the British people agreed. There is, at this time, no clear act of aggression, and no invasion of another nation's territory. The British peoplei—in fact, the peoples of the democratic, civilised world—remain unconvinced that we cannot rectify breaches of UN resolutions by peaceful means.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we should go to war by opinion poll? That is really what his argument implies. How can he exclude the strong support that the President of the United States has for the action that he proposes?
Mr. Walter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I would never suggest that we should go to war by opinion poll. I do suggest, however, that the actions of the Government should have the consent of the people before they are enacted.
I want to move on to a more important point, which is that one quarter of the British Army has now been committed to the Gulf region for a war. They are the sons, daughters, husbands and wives of loyal, patriotic British people—parents and partners who have just pride in their loved ones who are going off to war. Like most Members of the House, I am too young to have known war, but, for the first time, I am one of those parents who will see one of their children enter the theatre of war. Along with tens of thousands of other British parents, I have seen a child of mine leave these shores to fight a war in a far-off land. My daughter is one of the small band of Army surgeons who are already in the Gulf for a war that now seems unstoppable.
It may be the nature of our modern democracy, but I, as the elected representative of 75,000 citizens, find it inconceivable that I will not have the chance to vote for or against this war. I am no pacifist, but I have spent my entire life believing in the politics of peace. I would love to see the removal of Saddam Hussein for the sake of the Iraqi people, but I would also like to see a host of other regimes disappear—in Burma, North Korea, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, to name just a few. In justifying this form of pre-emptive action, parallels are being drawn with Nazi Germany. They are spurious. I will support an attack on Iraq if Saddam Hussein is shown to possess offensive weapons of mass destruction that pose a threat to the civilised world. Such support will not be given lightly, and must be bolstered by an affirmative resolution both at the United Nations and in the House of Commons.
I have signed and will support the amendment tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It sends a clear message to the Government that we are not yet convinced that the time has come to commit the lives of British troops, or to wreak death on the innocent people of Iraq in pursuit of their leader. I hesitate to say that, however, having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

349
The hon. Lady's speech was eloquent and detailed in its account of the torture, abuse and murder conducted by the regime. I have so far been unconvinced by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, George Bush or others on the Government Front Bench—[Laughter.] However, if the hon. Lady had been on the Front Bench for the last six months, I might not be supporting the amendment this evening. I am also not convinced that the time has come to risk political turmoil in the Arab world, or to risk reprisals here at home from fundamentalist terrorists of whatever hue. Whatever the mandate of our troops in the field, if the decision is taken to go to war, every one of those British service men and women will deserve our full and unequivocal support.
6.4 Pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: After five hours of debate, it is difficult to make a point that has not already been raised. Nevertheless, that gives one the opportunity to reflect on the debate, and it is in that spirit that I say that I had intended to declare my support for the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), and nothing I have heard in the debate has persuaded me that I should change my mind.
My right hon. Friend made the fundamental point that he sought to persuade the House that the case for military action is, as yet, unproven. I believe that to be the case. However—and other hon. Members who will support the amendment tonight may disagree—I cannot pretend that I have not been impressed by my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Some hon. Members have gone over the top in their criticisms of the role that my right hon. Friends have played.
I am not regarded as a critic of the United States, and I do not take the view that our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have simply responded to everything that the United States has said. Indeed, whatever criticisms I might have, I believe that when the history of this period is written, it may well record that—far from the picture painted by, I am sorry to say, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for example—our Prime Minister had a great influence towards caution and stability on the part of the United States. Without him, Bush would not have gone to the United Nations at all.
That said, we are entitled to consider the consequences of a unilateral declaration of war. In common with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I take the view that some in the US Administration had already determined their position some time ago. I regret that whatever the arguments and the force of public opinion—and whatever the views expressed in this House—some in Washington seem determined to take unilateral action, and that could be very costly indeed.
Already we see problems in international organisations that I firmly support. I regret the unease in NATO, the disagreements within the European Union and, above all, the questions of credibility that have been placed at the door of the United Nations. I am sorry that, even during this debate, several hon. Members have said that if we do not respond to unilateral action, we will be following the route of the
350
League of Nations. That organisation was destroyed because people failed to give it the kind of support that the United Nations is entitled to expect, not least from this House today.
On some of my visits abroad, I have seen evidence of the carnage that hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned in their speeches. I have visited Kurdistan on two occasions. I do not necessarily reach the same conclusions as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) tells me that he intends to support the amendment. When I visited Iran in the late 1980s, I saw the evidence of people suffering from the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein. But in view of that, is it not all the more necessary that we should confirm the importance of the United Nations and its agencies in seeking a response to these problems?
More recently I visited Rwanda with some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). We saw there the aftermath of sheer genocide, a million people dying out of a population of 9 million, and we saw people now trying to deal with what took place.
I do not want to weaken the United Nations' influence in circumstances like that. I want to strengthen it, but I do not believe that it would be strengthened by unilateral action. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury should give the lead tonight by inviting the House to express that view.
I am concerned about humanitarian considerations. That is why I am very keen to hear what Dr. Hans Blix eventually has to say. I do not believe that we should rush to judgment, nor do I believe that the British people feel that we should do so. If those of us who supported the Government's actions on Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds, and who supported the Government's actions on Kosovo on humanitarian grounds, take the view that there are grave concerns about the humanitarian consequences of war with Iraq, that seems to me entirely logical, a position shared by virtually all the aid agencies and non-governmental organisations, including CAFOD, and one to be taken seriously.
We want to avoid refugees. We want to avoid carnage. We want, if we can, to avoid war. That may not be possible, but I believe that it is right and that it strengthens the role of those who desperately search for peace to support my right hon. Friend's amendment, in the hope that we are addressing the concerns, not just of our own people, but of an increasingly disenchanted world.
6.12 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: On 15 February some 1,000 of my constituents took to the streets to protest against the possibility of this country going to war in Iraq. To hon. Members who perhaps represent more compact areas, with perhaps more of a tradition of militant demonstration, that may not sound like much, but 1 am told that the 700 people who marched through the streets of Lerwick provided a sight that had never been seen before in the northern isles.

351
Those demonstrating ranged from the 700 marching in Lerwick, through people demonstrating on the steps of St. Magnus cathedral in Kirkwall, to a dozen or so parents and children demonstrating in the very small island of North Ronaldsay. The people who took to the streets to demonstrate were not wild-eyed extremists. Most of them were first-time protesters. Some were pacifists, but many were not. For the large part, they were teachers, crofters, fishermen, housewives, children—a whole range of people in the isles who wanted to make their view known. That view was that the case had not been made for war.
The reason I bring this up at this stage is that I think that the advent of these mass demonstrations—400,000 last year supporting the Countryside Alliance, 1 million against war in Iraq—is part of an ongoing process of disengagement from the party political process which we are part of here, as people find another way to express their views—views which they hope may influence the course of events.
The Government cannot be allowed to ignore the fact that they have not persuaded the public of the case for war. They must understand that the consequence of entering a war supported by the British Government but not by the British people will be to see an acceleration of that process of disengagement between people and politics. It would be a grotesque irony if we went to war in order to bring democracy to Iraq and in so doing dealt a fatal blow to the democratic institutions of our own country.
Much has been said during the debate about the despotism and loathsome record of Saddam Hussein. I was immensely impressed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), in particular. I, too, recall a friend from university days. He was an Iraqi student studying at Glasgow university, and he wept bitter tears as he told me in 1983 of the terrible things that Saddam Hussein was doing to his people, and of how desperate he was to make those in the west aware of the situation. However, nothing happened, because it suited this country and its foreign policy for nothing to happen. Then, we were quite happy for Saddam Hussein to be engaged in a war with Iran. Against that background, I am unable to say that I would never countenance going to war against Iraq; however, I cannot say that I am prepared for such action to be taken at the moment. The implications of war in Iraq will reach far beyond the boundaries of that country. Every bomb that is dropped on Iraq will be like a stone dropped into water: it will create ripples that spread far and wide.
In his speech today, the Foreign Secretary spoke at some length about 12 years of UN resolutions on Iraq. He also said a little about the double standards applied by the international community to the situation in Israel and Palestine, but he did not say much about UN resolutions there. I remind the House that it is 36 years since the first such resolution—242, which called on Israel to relinquish control of territories occupied in the
352
war of 1967—was passed. Last year, five Security Council resolutions were passed relating to Israel and Palestine: 1397, 1402, 1403, 1405 and 1435. Resolution 1397"Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction".
Yet as recently as last Sunday, six Palestinians were killed and 20 were injured during an Israeli raid in Gaza.
Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, but I do not have the time. The Government will have to explain why we are prepared to value some UN resolutions so much more highly than others. I am sad to say that the Foreign Secretary's words this afternoon had a rather hollow ring, and I am afraid that they will be greeted with anger and disbelief throughout the Arab world.
I want to say a few brief words about the United Nations. The UN is essential in order to put some moral legitimacy behind this issue, but such legitimacy is diminished every time that the US takes a bullying or bribing step. I want our Government to do much more when the US makes statements such as George Bush's reference to the UN's "so-called" weapons inspectors. Why does our Prime Minister not contradict him and stand up for the UN when he says such things? I also fail to see how a Government who purport to be committed to the UN as a means of resolving this issue can countenance introducing a resolution while Dr. Blix is still asking for more time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said, the implication is that the United Kingdom and the United States want to go to war before Dr. Blix has done his job.
If the Government are going to persuade me at all, the spinning has got to stop—there can be no more dodgy dossiers. The stakes are exceptionally high, and if we are to put the lives of our troops at risk, we must do better. The troops deserve better, the public deserve better and this House deserves better, and until we get it the Government will not have my support.
6.19 pm
Ms Oona King: Nothing can weigh more heavily on a democratically elected politician than the decision to go to war. That is why, when I was called into the Whips' Office and asked if I would vote with the Government to take military action if Iraq failed to disarm, I said no. I said that I could not vote with the Government. My reasoning was that Iraq had not had enough time to comply with the UN and that, if Saddam Hussein were given further time, he might disarm.
That conversation took place on 17 February 1998—exactly five years ago. Was I right? Obviously not. What happened in the intervening five years? Saddam Hussein rebuilt his chemical processors. He constructed a missile test stand, as we have heard, to test weapons with four times the power of the al-Samoud missiles. He imported hundreds of missile engines, as Hans Blix confirmed in his report to the UN last month. He tried to buy enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. He continued his policies of repression, which, according to conservative estimates, have caused the deaths of

353
100,000 civilians, most of them Muslim. He has continued to flout the authority of the UN, and has made a mockery of international law.
In 1991, UN resolution 687 gave Saddam Hussein 15 days to disarm—a fortnight. Twelve years on, no one can deny that the only shred of progress that has been made is the result of the immediate and credible threat of force. Do we therefore give Saddam Hussein more time? Five years after pleading for that course of action, I recognise its futility.
The UN inspectors should be supported in their mission, but it is clear that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating. He continues to play games, declaring this week that he would never destroy his al-Samoud missiles so that he can do just that next week or the week after and thereby claim compliance. However, the games that Saddam Hussein is playing are not really the issue. Everyone agrees that he has not co-operated fully; what we disagree about is the international community's response.
There are five main reasons why people oppose military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. First, on balance, they believe that loss of life will be greater if there is military action than if we stay with the status quo. Other hon. Members have outlined eloquently the bloody cost of the status quo. Suffice it to say that inaction can sometimes cause as much loss of life as action. Secondly, people think that Saddam Hussein should be given more time. Five years ago, I agreed with that, but now I do not. Thirdly, people want a second UN resolution—so do I. Fourthly, people think that the Government are pursuing, and pushing for, action against Iraq only because of what George W. Bush wants. I shall return to that point. Fifthly, people think that regime change is not an acceptable objective. They are right, but I want regime change—in Washington.
People have spoken about anti-Americanism. They wonder why some people are sickened by George W. Bush. I shall explain why I am sickened by him. His double standards sicken me. The fact that he surrounds himself with religious fundamentalists sickens me. The fact that he is in the pocket of the oil industry sickens me. Above all, the fact that he bankrolls Ariel Sharon to continue the slaughter of Palestinians sickens me.
Israel can flout all the UN resolutions in the world, invade its neighbours' territories, develop weapons of mass destruction, and it does not even get a ticking off from George W. Bush. However, the question is not the extent to which George W. Bush is reprehensible; it is whether he is responsible for British Government policy.
I was going to say that the problem I have with that theory is that George W. Bush was not elected when the Government first tabled a resolution on this subject, but he was never elected. So I shall rephrase it and say that George W. Bush was not President when this Government first tabled a resolution that was very similar to the one considered today. George W. Bush was not President when Britain was at the forefront of efforts in the UN to disarm Saddam Hussein.
The present Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was Foreign Secretary when the debate was held on 17 February 1998. He said that
"the House can be proud that, throughout the present crisis, Britain has taken the lead in drafting work at the UN."—[Official Report. 17 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 899.]
354
We were taking the lead when George W. Bush was still playing with his oil wells, so the question is this: if we decide on a course of action, does that course of action become invalid because someone who sickens us agrees with us?
On a lighter note, I had to ask myself the same question during the debate on hunting, when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) gave an impassioned speech to ban hunting. I almost became pro-hunting, but not quite. The point is that, on a question of conscience, all Members must vote on the basis on what they believe to be right, not on what anyone else believes to be right. That is what I and most other hon. Members will do. I agree with the text that we shall vote on today:
"That this House … calls upon Iraq to recognise this as its final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."
That is what I believe in; that is what I will vote for.
Turning to related concerns—Afghanistan—Britain is working flat out to shore up that tortured country. Where are the Americans? Why have they not upheld their promise not to walk away from the people of Afghanistan? Is it because there is no oil in that country? What of post-war Iraq? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government favour a UN Administration, not an American oligarchy? What of the middle east? The Government must make further progress on the middle east.
Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that Britain will look at securing a UN resolution, forcing Israel back to its 1967 borders and, in the long term, securing a viable Palestinian state? Will he further assure me that if such a resolution faced an unreasonable veto by a Security Council member—for example, America—Britain would still take action outside the UN, if necessary, to secure justice for Palestinians?
Finally, I want to mention the extremely difficult situation facing Muslims in this country and in my constituency. Ever since the events of 11 September, Muslims have been under suspicion purely on account of their faith. Most Muslims and, indeed, most Asians have reported increased antagonism. That is because the war on terror means something different to everyone. It is spreading its tentacles in a confused and insidious manner. It has become a war on asylum seekers, refugees and, by extension, various ethnic minorities. At its most extreme and stupid, it has become a war on men with beards. It is disgraceful that it is being allowed to drift in that way, and I know that several Members agree.
Let us be clear what this should be about: it is about disarming rogue states with weapons of mass destruction and preventing a future scenario—not a past one—where terrorist networks get hold of weapons of mass destruction, such as anthrax and VX nerve gas, from a rogue states such as Iraq, and deploy them in another country such as Britain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady has had her time.
6.27 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even at the tail end of the debate.

355
Judging from the 200-odd letters that I have received in my constituency, it is clear that the British people do not believe that a case for war has yet been made. I appeal to the Government to expand on this matter in the media, so that my constituents and others can be convinced of that cause.
UN resolution 1441 must be upheld in one way or another, although the UN's credibility would be hugely strengthened if a further resolution could be obtained, even if it is passed by just a majority of the members of the Security Council, not unanimously. It is clear that Saddam Hussein is one of the biggest tyrants that the world has ever seen, and that he is continuing to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As recently as last March, he tried to acquire rocket motors to have rockets with a far greater launch capability.
It is also clear that, in the 12 years since the Gulf war, some 360,000 children have been killed in Iraq as a result of Saddam Hussein's activities. That man has to be stopped; his weapons of mass destruction have to be removed one way or another, and he has to be convinced that the UN and world consortium is tightening the ratchet around him and that he will not be allowed to get away with it.
In the minute that I have left, I should like to talk about the aftermath of the war. If the case of the British Government is that we are relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people, we must surely also strenuously ensure that, in the aftermath of war, the humanitarian and oilfor-food aid is quickly disseminated among the Iraqi people, so that their long-held suffering can be ended as soon as possible.
The stability of the middle east will be of paramount importance after the war, particularly given its neighbour, Iran, which has a large air force and a navy. It is essential that a strongly based interim Government are put in place quickly after the war.
Finally, it is essential that the UN resolutions on the Israel-Palestine situation are rigorously enforced and upheld; otherwise, the base for terrorism in Palestine from Hamas and other extremist Islamic organisations will remain, and there will still be a launch pad for terrorism from that part of the world.
6.30 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: Today's debate has been important for the House of Commons. It has been a tribute to the skills, knowledge and passions contained in the House.
In the last few hours, nearly 40 Members have spoken. I think that all of us are decent people wrestling with a profound dilemma that will shape the world for decades. As I scour the names added to the amendment of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I assure him and all those who have signed it that I do so with complete respect, and that is not just because he is my pair—not yet invoked, given the current parliamentary imbalance. He and his co-signatories have an honest and cogent position, which nobody has the right to deride.
In summing up this debate, I hope that, in return, the House will accept that I in no way represent the slightly nasty caricature used to label us by the hon. Member for
356
Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), which was uncharacteristic on his part: keen-to-bomb Tories. That is far from our position. I have lived and breathed the events of the middle east for nearly 20 years. I have tried to learn its history and to travel to all corners of the middle east. I have met many of its rulers and its people and have explored its culture and society.
Let me therefore try to address the arguments that have been put primarily by those who support the amendment, which was signed by well over 100 people today. Let me say at the outset that the core argument of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was that if the amendment were rejected, that would be seen as signifying war. As in so much of what we are discussing, however, an equal and opposite argument exists. The obverse of what he says is that, if the amendment were accepted, that could be seen as signifying a weakening of resolve.
I shall approach the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters in three areas, which I hope will sum up the whole of tonight's debate. In viewing the prospect of war, we must examine and assess the reasons for it, the authority for it and its repercussions. The reasons have been discussed in depth. Many believe that the prospect of war and the reasons for it are unproven, that it is unnecessary, and that we should leave Saddam Hussein be. I used to believe that containment would suffice. I thought for a long time that Saddam Hussein was a bit like Marshall Tito in Yugoslavia—a bad but not necessarily mad man who confined his nastiness to his own country, and who should therefore be tolerated, even though it was distasteful to do so. I have come to believe, however, that Saddam's possession of biological and chemical weapons in particular pose a genuine and serious risk, to the point at which a single glass of anthrax left on the London tube could kill all the people who went on the march in London last Saturday. If a capability of that sort were ever to get into the wrong hands, it would unleash danger in the world the like of which we have never been called on to contend with previously.
Lembit öpik rose—
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
We must appreciate that we are in new territory. It is difficult to carry public opinion when the threat is intangible and when we do not see a conventional reason for war or conflict—as we did in the Falk lands or Kuwait, when tanks or planes had gone into another country. We have to assess whether the risk of doing nothing is, as we believe it to be, greater than the risk of doing something.
We are in a whole new realm of moral calculation, the like of which we have not had to face before. We may be required to act without those conventionally accepted reasons for doing so. On the Conservative Benches, we admit that the Government, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—and all who sit on Labour Benches and, indeed, on our Benches—are in a very difficult position. If the Government are to fulfil their duty as the guardian of their own and other people's security, they will, instead of being popular by following, have to risk being unpopular by leading.

357
Let me turn to the second element that has dominated today's debate, which is the question of the authority that may lie—and, in our view, does lie—behind any decision that has now to be taken. In addressing this vexed moral calculation, the world—and almost everyone in this House—has vested that authority in the United Nations. As has been rehearsed here today, the United Nations has produced a series of resolutions over many years. In arriving at resolution 1441, we are at the 17th or 18th resolution. We have vested authority in the United Nations, and resolution 1441 calls for Saddam Hussein to disarm immediately or face serious consequences.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that signatories to the amendment must be prepared to answer this question: what trigger would justify military action? They have signally failed to do that this afternoon.
Mr. Duncan: That is a question that they have to ask but on which the United Nations, in which we have vested authority, must adjudicate.
Some hon. Members have said that we must give the inspectors more time; but they have turned on its head the requirement of resolution 1441. The resolution does not say that the inspectors have to go and find the proverbial needle in a haystack. The inspectors are there to have laid before them all the armaments that Saddam Hussein possesses so that they can then destroy them. By inverting the onus of obligation, as some contributors have done, they have perverted the basis of the authority of UN resolution 1441.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Duncan: Again, the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
I say to those contributors that there is yet a chance for peace. Saddam Hussein is the one man in the world who can yet guarantee that there is no conflict.
Let me canter through the rest of my points about authority. We would like to see a second resolution. It is a political requirement and we would like to see it if we can. We do not believe that it is legally necessary but—if, in this new moral calculation, we are to draw people in a democracy behind the action that may be taken—it is essential to achieve that second resolution. I wish the Foreign Secretary and his counterparts well in trying to secure it. I hope too that the Arab League may yet continue in its efforts to persuade Saddam Hussein to leave Baghdad so that we can be spared conflict.
To all those who have signed today's amendment, I say this forcibly: if we are to go down the UN route, it is important to stick with the UN route. I would argue that people in the European Union or NATO—or even in this House—do not have the authority to second-guess or dilute resolutions that the United Nations has already passed.
Forty Members have spoken in this debate and, although it will be invidious to single anybody out, I will. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) argued for time. He was perplexed about Hans Blix and asked about attitude. That was a Blix word. Hans Blix has said that the
358
attitude of Saddam Hussein matters much more than time, although the resolution uses the word "immediate". The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gave a powerful synopsis and summary of the dangers that face the broader region. Once again, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who was heard in absolute silence, made an emotional appeal that no one can have failed to have been moved by.
However, I cannot have any respect for the position that the Liberal Democrats have taken today. One day the leader of the Liberal Democrats is a UN supporter and then he says that it does not have any power. One day he says that Saddam is a threat and then he says that there is no proof. He is anti-war, pro-war, multilateral and unilateral. He is friend of America and then he does not really like America. He is pro-sanctions and against sanctions. He says that we should listen to the inspectors and then give Saddam more time. Then he is pro a second resolution.
Mr. Paul Marsden rose—
Mr. Duncan: The leader of the Liberal Democrats is rather like the hon. Gentleman. He is premature. Does the hon. Gentleman stand by the words uttered by those on his Front Bench that, when the leader of the Liberal Democrats went to the march in London that Saturday, he never said no to war?
Mr. Marsden: I am proud of my leader. At the very time that the Government are heading into war, why cannot the Tory party even table any kind of amendment? It is an utter irrelevance to the whole debate.
Mr. Duncan: The secondary socialist has moved to a true left-wing party, but I say to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and to his leader, who deny that he never said no to war, that I made a grave error on that day. I came out of Green Park tube and found myself in the middle of the demonstration. While beating a hasty retreat, I fell upon a discarded poster. It says, "Lib Dems Say No".[Interruption.]
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I think that the hon. Gentleman will live to regret this intervention. Our party has said from the beginning that our position is that we are pro the United Nations. We are not saying that we are against military conflict in every situation. Let us be clear about it—the position of our party is absolutely clear.
Mr. Duncan: You may not think it, Mr. Speaker, but the Conservative party research department is ever resourceful. I found the Liberal Democrats' poster for the following week. As hon. Members can see, it says "Lib Dems Say Yes".[Laughter.] This shows the wonderful and glorious ambivalence of the Liberal Democrats. Let me say to them—which is it?
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has made the point before that people are entitled to take a principled position on this issue. Some members of our party—as, indeed, some members of the Conservative party—are

359
opposed to war. The position that we have taken throughout in the House of Commons and that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats made clear on the march is that we are in favour of the United Nations process. We are not against war in all circumstances. War must be a last resort.
Mr. Duncan: It is so nice to get from the Liberal Democrats a definite maybe. Such is the hon. Gentleman's position on the fence post—it is like that of his leader—that it will soon have to be surgically removed.[Interruption.] I would love more time.
The third and perhaps the most important issue to which I want to devote attention and which I know that the Minister will consider are the repercussions of anything that might happen. The repercussions might affect the whole region. As has been said, they include the potential fall of the al-Sauds and the Hashemites. There is a danger that some approaches to societies in the middle east show insufficient understanding of their thinking. We need to see the middle east peace process immediately revived so that we can be, if I might coin a phrase, tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism. We need to see humanitarian aid with massive resources and logistical support. We need to know what will follow and we hope that the optimistic scenario discussed today, given that there is an intelligent and educated middle class, oil revenues and a broadly secular society, will give hope to that country.
But I have no time. I must leave it to the Minister. All I say to the House today—I hope that everybody is listening—is that whereas we could have pursued narrow party advantage, this matter is too serious for us to do so. We will not do so, and in the interests of global security and anything that might need to be done under the authority of the United Nations, we will give this Government our unstinting support.
6.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): This has been a fine debate with a number of excellent speeches. Indeed, in many ways, it has been a very passionate debate, as should be the case given that we are dealing with the issue of whether this country is to take further action and what sort of action it should be, with the need to go back to the UN with a second resolution and with the need to ensure that we express the views of people throughout the country who rightly want to know that this House is reflecting their concerns. Today, in this debate, the House has reflected views and concerns across the country.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for what I thought was an excellent performance. We especially enjoyed his yes/no interlude, which illustrated something with which Labour Members are just as familiar as Opposition Members. I should also like to thank a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends—my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and my hon. Friend the
360
Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I give particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who made a powerful speech. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King); I thought that she was getting a bit wobbly at one point, but she convinced me that she was not. I thank all hon. Members for their support today.
On the Opposition Benches, I acknowledge the very robust performance from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that we expect of him.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on his oratorical flourish. I praise him only because I know that it will irritate him greatly to be praised from the Labour Front Bench—and even though I disagreed with the content of his speech.
The motion before the House is not an endorsement of military action by UK forces. No decision has yet been taken to deploy British forces in action. The motion supports the UN route to disarmament. Let me be clear: the Government will put any decision on military action to the House, subject in terms of timing only to the safety of our forces. It is in our interests as a Government to ensure that the House has the chance to vote before hostilities. We will also want a full opportunity to debate and vote on the outcome of proceedings at the UN on the second resolution, so there is an opportunity for another vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. O'Brien: If I may proceed for a moment, I shall give way shortly.
The body of evidence that Saddam Hussein possesses a fearsome range of weapons of mass destruction is substantial. The evidence comes from the UN reports, from Dr. Blix, from our own intelligence and indeed from Saddam Hussein himself, who last night, oddly, admitted that the Iraqis had found a biological bomb and wanted to show us. Let us be clear: Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and he is a threat to his people, his neighbours and ultimately the middle east and the wider world. The UN Security Council is in no doubt about that. That is why its resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply with a string of legally binding obligations imposed on him over the past 12 years. Nearly four months later, Saddam Hussein has not taken that final opportunity. I cannot put the matter more crisply than Dr. Blix. He has reported that Iraq
"appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance … of the disarmament which was demanded of it".
Indeed, Dr. Blix said today that at the moment it is not even clear whether the Iraqis really want to co-operate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that Saddam Hussein had co-operated by 70 per cent. Well, Dr. Blix disagrees. My right hon. Friend accepts that the declaration provided by Saddam Hussein is inadequate. Indeed, the UN resolution requires it to be a full and final declaration of all the weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam Hussein in order to allow the inspectors to audit that declaration. If that declaration is not full and if it is not final, there has been no co-operation at all,

361
because the only co-operation has been not on substance but on process. Saddam has shown throughout the past 12 years that he will continue to cooperate on issues of procedure, but he does not cooperate on the substance of disarmament. That is where we must not allow him to play games with Members of this House, with this country or with the United Nations.
Dr. Nick Palmer: I will not support the amendment because I do not believe that we and our service men can teeter on the brink month after month while Saddam plays games with us. However, I share with Members who put their names to the amendment the belief that war should be the last resort. Will the Minister confirm that if Dr. Blix says that Saddam, at the last moment, is co-operating fully, Britain will put war on hold and that it will be the last resort for us?
Mr. O'Brien: We have always been totally clear that if there is full and complete co-operation as required by 1441, there will not be a case for military action.
The report from UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which we have all seen, demonstrates that Saddam has no intention of cooperating fully and proactively in the way that is required by resolution 1441. Iraq is seeking to deceive the Security Council. There is no semblance of wholehearted co-operation—nothing like voluntary and active disarmament and nothing that suggests a regime that has a clear conscience and has nothing to hide. Those who advocate more time must face up to the fact that there is a limit to what the inspectors can do in circumstances where there is not a complete and full declaration. They cannot audit something that is not full and complete—that simply does not make sense.
Tony Wright: Is it not the case, though, that if the UN process was to work, the crisis was to be resolved and Saddam was to be disarmed, it would be a triumph and a vindication for the Prime Minister and the British Government, but it would be a humiliation and a failure for the American President, because it would subvert the whole strategy of regime change that has been put in place? Is not that why, whatever we say and do today, there is going to be war?
Mr. O'Brien: That is a complete and utter misreading of the situation. Has my hon. Friend not read the speech given by the President in Cincinnati last year, in which he made it very clear that if Saddam disarms and the nature of the regime changes, that will satisfy him? If my hon. Friend thinks that the Americans are determined on this course whatever, he has not listened to what they have so plainly said. Our position and that of the Americans is that if Saddam complies with 1441—and he must comply fully and completely—the case for military action falls.
David Winnick: We all want to avoid war, but did my hon. Friend read the leader comment in The Times on Monday last week, which reported that a female broadcaster in Baghdad, who was alleged to have said a few words about Saddam's wife, was arrested, tortured and hanged? Her tongue was cut out from the corpse and sent to her family. Does not that example
362
show that if war leads to liberation, it will be a tremendous relief to the overwhelming majority of people in Iraq?
Mr. O'Brien: If we have to undertake military action and American and British troops are committed and have to go into Baghdad, I suspect that the Iraqi people will be the first to cheer seeing the back of Saddam Hussein.
The inspectors' role is not to act as detectives but to act as auditors to verify the declaration. They cannot fulfil their mandate without Iraqi co-operation. They are not detectives who are looking for clues or a needle in a haystack the size of Iraq. They are auditors, who audit the Iraqi declaration. Given that it is neither full nor complete—no one seriously disputes that—all the time in the world will not enable the inspectors to do that. Regardless of numbers, the job is impossible. We can give them all the time in the world, but without the complete declaration, the exercise is pointless. Resolution 1441 is explicit about the need for complete co-operation.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister must know that both sets of inspectors are asking for more time. Are the conditions that the Prime Minister outlined on 6 February being fulfilled? He said that the inspectors must see that the process is finished, and that the Security Council must pass a further resolution by majority. He also referred to an "unreasonable veto". Will the Government support force only in those circumstances or have they changed their mind since the Prime Minister made that statement?
Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with that point in his opening speech.
Mr. Salmond: The Prime Minister clearly said that he would support the use of force under precise conditions: the inspectors must decide that they can do nothing further and a further resolution has to be passed by a majority. He said that force would also be used if the resolution was subject to an "unreasonable veto". Does that remain the Prime Minister's position?
Mr. O'Brien: We have clearly set out our position. I. too, saw the interview and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's recollections are correct. Perhaps we can go through that later.
The threat that Saddam poses is clear. His people, his neighbours and his region have lived in fear of him for years. The UN Security Council has passed resolution 1441 and offered him a final opportunity to comply with legally binding obligations. He has not taken that opportunity and he appears to have no intention of doing so. In those circumstances, there is a limit to what the inspectors can achieve. They cannot fulfil their mandate without Iraqi co-operation.
We have proposed a two-part strategy. First, we, Spain and the US tabled a draft resolution on Monday in New York. Secondly, it will not be put to the vote immediately. It is therefore not too late for Saddam Hussein to comply, but he must do so if military action is to be avoided. There is still time for Iraq to make the right choice, but the onus is on Saddam to co-operate on matters of substance.

363
My right hon. Friend the Member for alsall, South (Mr. George) said that we cannot trust Saddam Hussein. We need to send Saddam a clear message that he must comply in full with resolution 1441 now—not in 120 days, not in four months and not in one year, but now. That is the real route to peace. Saddam Hussein needs a clear message tonight. If we fail to provide that, we will send the wrong message: that UN resolutions can be ignored. We intend to send the right message: that UN resolutions will be enforced; that international law will be complied with; and that other dictators should not pursue weapons of mass destruction because the international community will intervene.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 393.

Division No. 96]

[6:59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

Allan, Richard

Dawson, Hilton

Allen, Graham

Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

Austin, John

Dobson, rh Frank

Bacon, Richard

Donohoe, Brian H.

Baker, Norman

Doran, Frank

Banks, Tony

Doughty, Sue

Barnes, Harry

Drew, David(Stroud)

Barrett, John

Edwards, Huw

Battle, John

Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

Begg, Miss Anne

Ewing, Annabelle

Beith, rh A. J.

Farrelly, Paul

Bennett, Andrew

Fisher, Mark

Benton, Joe(Bootle)

Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

Berry, Roger

Foster, Don(Bath)

Best, Harold

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

Galloway, George

Breed, Colin

George, Andrew(St. lves)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Gerrard, Neil

Bruce, Malcolm

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Buck, Ms Karen

Gidley, Sandra

Burden, Richard

Godsiff, Roger

Burnett, John

Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

Burstow, Paul

Gummer, rh John

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

Carmichael, Alistair

Hancock, Mike

Caton, Martin

Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

Challen, Colin

Chaytor, David

Harvey, Nick

Chidgey, David

Heath, David

Clapham, Michael

Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

Holmes, Paul

Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cohen, Harry

Horam, John(Orpington)

Coleman, Iain

Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hume, John(Foyle)

Cotter, Brian

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cousins, Jim

Illsley, Eric

Cox, Tom(Tooting)

Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

Davey, Edward(Kingston)

Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

364

Keetch, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Savidge, Malcolm

Kilfoyle, Peter

Sawford, Phil

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Sedgemore, Brian

Lamb, Norman

Shipley, Ms Debra

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Singh, Marsha

Leigh, Edward

Skinner, Dennis

Lepper, David

Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

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

Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

McCafferty, Chris

Steen. Anthony

McDonnell, John

Stevenson, George

McGrady, Eddie

Stinchcombe, Paul

McKechin, Ann

Strang-rh Dr Gavin

McNamara, Kevin

Stunell, Andrew

McWalter, Tony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mahmood, Khalid

Taylor, Davld(NW Leics)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

Mallon, Seamus

Taylor, Dr Richard(Wyre F)

Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

Thurso, John

Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

Tonge. Dr. Jenny

Trickett Jon

Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

Truswell, Paul

Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

Mole, Chris

Moore, Michael

Jyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

Morgan, Julie

Tynan. Bill(Hamilton S)

Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

Tyrie, Andrew

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

yis Dr. Rudi

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Walley, Ms Joan

Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

Walter Robert

öpik, Lembit

Wareing, Robert N.

Organ, Diana

Webb Steve(Northavon)

Owen, Albert

Weir Michael

Page, Richard

white Brian

Perham, Linda

Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

Pike, Peter(Burnley)

Williams, Betty(Conwy)

Pollard, Kerry

Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

Williams, Roger(Brecon)

Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Willis, Phil

Wishart, Pete

Pugh, Dr. John

Wood, Mike(Batley)

Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

Worthington, Tony

Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

Wright, Tony(Cannock)

Rendel, David

Wyatt, Derek

Robertson, Angus(Moray)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Ruddock, Joan

Russell, Bob(Colchester)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Douglas Hogg and

Salter, Martin

Mr. Tony Lloyd

NOES

Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

Barron, rh Kevin

Ainger, Nick

Bayley, Hugh

Ainsworth, Bob(Cov"try NE)

Beard, Nigel

Alexander, Douglas

Beckett, rh Margaret

Amess, David

Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

Ancram, rh Michael

Bell, Stuart

Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

Bellingham, Henry

Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

Benn, Hilary

Bercow, John

Arbuthnot, rh James

Blackman, Liz

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Blair, rh Tony

Atherton, Ms Candy

Blears, Ms Hazel

Atkins, Charlotte

Blizzard, Bob

Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

Blunkett, rh David

Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

Blunt, Crispin

Bailey, Adrian

Boateng, rh Paul

Baird, Vera

Borrow, David

Baldry, Tony

Boswell, Tim

365

Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bradshaw, Ben

Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

Brady, Graham

Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

Brazier, Julian

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Brennan, Kevin

Evans, Nigel

Brown, rh Gordon(Dunfermline E)

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

Browne, Desmond

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Browning, Mrs Angela

Flight, Howard

Bryant, Chris

Flint, Caroline

Burnham, Andy

Flook, Adrian

Burns, Simon

Follett, Barbara

Burnside, David

Forth, rh Eric

Burt, Alistair

Foster, rh Derek

Byers, rh Stephen

Foster, Michael(Worcester)

Caborn, rh Richard

Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

Cairns, David

Cameron, David

Foulkes, rh George

Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

Francois, Mark

Campbell, Gregory(E Lond"y)

Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

Caplin, Ivor

Gardiner, Barry

Casale, Roger

Garnier, Edward

Cash, William

George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Chapman, Ben(WirralS)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

Gilroy, Linda

Goggins, Paul

Chope, Christopher

Goodman, Paul

Clappison, James

Grayling, Chris

Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Greenway, John

Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

Grieve, Dominic

Clarke, rh Charles(Norwich S)

Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

Coaker, Vernon

Grogan, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hague, rh William

Collins, Tim

Hain, rh Peter

Colman, Tony

Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

Conway, Derek

Hammond, Philip

Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

Hanson, David

Cooper, Yvette

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

Corston, Jean

Hawkins, Nick

Cran, James(Beverley)

Hayes, John(S Holland)

Cranston, hon. Ross

Heald, Oliver

Cruddas, Jon

Healey, John

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

Hendrick, Mark

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hendry, Charles

Darling, rh Alistair

Hepburn, Stephen

David, Wayne

Heppell, John

Davidson, Ian

Hermon, Lady

Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

Hesford, Stephen

Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Hill, Keith(Streatham)

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

Hope, Phil(Corby)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Howard, rh Michael

Denham, rh John

Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Dismore, Andrew

Djanogly, Jonathan

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Dodds, Nigel

Howells, Dr. Kim

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

Drown, Ms Julia

Humble, Mrs Joan

Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

Hunter, Andrew

366

Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

Michael, rh Alun

Mutton, rh John

Milburn, rh Alan

Ingram, rh Adam

Miliband, David

irranca-Davies, Huw

Miller, Andrew

Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

Jamieson, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Moffatt, Laura

Jenkins, Brian

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

Moran, Margaret

Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

Morley, Elliot

Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

Morris, rh Estelle

Jowell, rh Tessa

Moss, Malcolm

Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

Mountford, Kali

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Mudie, George

Keeble, Ms Sally

Mullin, Chris

Keen, Ann(Brentford)

Munn, Ms Meg

Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

Kemp, Fraser

Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

Norman, Archie

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

Khabra, Piara S.

O"Brien, Bill(Normanton)

Kidney, David

O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

King, Andy(Rugby)

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

Olner, Bill

O'Neill, Martin

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Osborne, George(Tatton)

Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

Ottaway, Richard

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Paice, James

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Paterson, Owen

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Pearson, Ian

Lammy, David

Picking, Anne

Lansley, Andrew

Pickles, Eric

Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

Pickthall, Colin

Leslie, Christopher

Plaskitt, James

Letwin, rh Oliver

Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

Portillo, rh Michael

Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Prescott, rh John

Lidington, David

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Lilley, rh Peter

Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

Linton, Martin

Prosser, Gwyn

Loughton, Tim

Purchase, Ken

Love, Andrew

Quin, rh Joyce

Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

Quinn, Lawrie

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

McAvoy, Thomas

Raynsford, rh Nick

McCabe, Stephen

Redwood, rh John

McCartney, rh Ian

Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

McDonagh, Siobhain

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

MacDonald, Calum

MacDougall, John

Robathan, Andrew

McFall, John

Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

McIsaac, Shona

Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

Mackay, rh Andrew

McKenna, Rosemary

Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

Maclean, rh David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McLoughlin, Patrick

Roe, Mrs Marion

McNulty, Tony

Rosindell, Andrew

MacShane, Denis

Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

Ruane, Chris

Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

Ruffley, David

Martlew, Eric

Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

Maude, rh Francis

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Selous, Andrew

May, Mrs Theresa

Shaw, Jonathan

Meacher, rh Michael

Sheerman, Barry

Mercer, Patrick

Shepherd, Richard

Merron, Gillian

Sheridan, Jim

367

Short, rh Clare

Tipping, Paddy

Simmonds, Mark

Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

Simon, Siän(B'ham Erdington)

Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Tredinnick, David

Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

Trimble, rh David

Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Neil(Wigan)

Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Smith, John(Glamorgan)

Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

Soames, Nicholas

Viggers, Peter

Soley, Clive

Ward Claire

Southworth, Helen

Waterson, Nigel

Spellar, rh John

Watkinson, Angela

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Watts' David

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Spring, Richard

Whrttingdale. John

Squire, Rachel

Wicks, Malcolm

Stanley, rh Sir John

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Wiggin, Bill

Steinberg, Gerry

Wilkinson, John

Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

Willetts, David

Wills, Michael

Stewart Ian(Eccles)

Wills, Brian

Straw, rh Jack

Winnick, David

Streeter, Gary

Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

Stringer, Graham

Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Swayne, Desmond

Woolas, Phil

Swire, Hugo(EDevon)

Wnght Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

Syms, Robert

Tami, Mark(Alyn)

Wright, David(Telford)

Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

Young, rh Sir George

Taylor, John(Solihull)

Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

Jim Fitzpatrick and

Timms, Stephen

Joan Ryan

Question accordingly negatived.
7.13 pm
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 434, Noes 124.

Division No. 97]

[7:13pm

AYES

Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

Begg, Miss Anne

Ainger, Nick

Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

Bell, Stuart

Alexander, Douglas

Bellingham, Henry

Amess, David

Benn, Hilary

Ancram, rh Michael

Bercow, John

Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

Blackman, Liz

Blair, rh Tony

Arbuthnot, rh James

Blears, Ms Hazel

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Blizzard, Bob

Atherton, Ms Candy

Blunkett, rh David

Atkins, Charlotte

Blunt, Crispin

Atkinson, David(Bour"mth E)

Boateng, rh Paul

Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

Borrow, David

Bacon, Richard

Boswell, Tim

Bailey, Adrian

Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

Baird, Vera

Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

Baldry, Tony

Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

Barker, Gregory

Bradshaw, Ben

Baron, John(Billericay)

Brady, Graham

Barron, rh Kevin

Brazier, Julian

Bayley, Hugh

Brennan, Kevin

Beard, Nigel

Brown, rh Gordon(Dunfermline E)

Beckett, rh Margaret

368

Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

Eagle, Maria(L"pool Garston)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley)

Browne, Desmond

Evans, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fabricant, Michael

Bryant, Chris

Fallon, Michael

Burgon, Colin

Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

Burnham, Andy

Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

Burns, Simon

Burnside, David

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Burt, Alistair

Flight, Howard

Byers, rh Stephen

Flint, Caroline

Caborn, rh Richard

Flook, Adrian

Cairns, David

Follett, Barbara

Cameron, David

Forth, rh Eric

Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

Foster, rh Derek

Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

Foster, Michael(Worcester)

Campbell, Gregory(E Lond'y)

Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

Caplin, Ivor

Casale, Roger

Foulkes, rh George

Cash, William

Fox, Dr. Liam

Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

Francois, Mark

Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

Gardiner, Barry

Chope, Christopher

Garnier, Edward

Clappison, James

George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Gilroy, Linda

Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

Goggins, Paul

Clarke, rh Charles(Norwich S)

Goodman, Paul

Clelland, David

Gray, James(N Wilts)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grayling, Chris

Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Coaker, Vernon

Greenway, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Grieve, Dominic

Collins, Tim

Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

Colman, Tony

Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

Conway, Derek

Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

Grogan, John

Cooper, Yvette

Gummer, rh John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hague, rh William

Corston, Jean

Hain, rh Peter

Cran, James(Beverley)

Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

Cranston, hon. Ross

Hammond, Philip

Cruddas, Jon

Hanson, David

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

Curry, rh David

Hawkins, Nick

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hayes, John(S Holland)

Darling, rh Alistair

Heald, Oliver

David, Wayne

Healey, John

Davidson, Ian

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

Hendrick, Mark

Hendry, Charles

Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

Hepburn, Stephen

Heppell, John

Dean, Mrs Janet

Hermon, Lady

Denham, rh John

Hesford, Stephen

Dhanda, Parmjit

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Dismore, Andrew

Hill, Keith(Streatham)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

Dodds, Nigel

Hope, Phil(Corby)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Horam, John(Orpington)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Howard, rh Michael

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Drown, Ms Julia

Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

369

Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

Marris, Rob(Wolverh"ton SW)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

Hunter, Andrew

Martlew, Eric

Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

Mates, Michael

Hutton, rh John

Maude, rh Francis

Ingram, rh Adam

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Irranca-Davies, Huw

May, Mrs Theresa

Jack, rh Michael

Meacher, rh Michael

Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

Mercer, Patrick

Jamieson, David

Merron, Gillian

Jenkin, Bernard

Michael, rh Alun

Jenkins, Brian

Milburn, rh Alan

Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

Miliband, David

Johnson, Boris(Henley)

Miller Andrew

Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

Moffatt, Laura

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Mole Chris

Keeble, Ms Sally

Moonie Dr Lewis

Keen, Alan(Feltham)

Moran Margaret

Keen, Ann(Brentford)

Morley, Elliot

Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

Morris rh Estelle

Kemp Fraser

Moss, Malcolm

Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

Mountford, Kali

Key, Robert(Salisbury)

Mudie, George

Khabra, Piara S.

Mullin, Chris

Kidney, David

Mullin, Chris

King, Andy(Rugby)

Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

Murphy. Jim(Eastwood)

Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

Normaa Archie

Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

O"Brien' Bill(Normanton)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

O"Brlen, Mike (N Warks)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

O'Brien, Stepnen(Eddisbury)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

O'Hara, Edward

Lammy, David

Olner, Bill

Lansley, Andrew

O"Neill, Martin

Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

Osborne, George(Tatton)

Leigh, Edward

Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

Leslie. Christopher

Ottaway, Richard

Letwin, rh Oliver

Paice, James

Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

palmer, Dr. Nick

Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

Paterson, Owen

Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

Pearson, Ian

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Picking, Anne

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Pickles, Eric

Lidington, David

Pickthall, Colin

Lilley, rh Peter

Plaskitt, James

Linton, Martin

Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

Loughton, Tim

Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

Love, Andrew

Portillo, rh Michael

Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

McAvoy, Thomas

Prescott, rh John

McCabe, Stephen

Primarolo, rh Dawn

McCartney, rh Ian

Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Prosser, Gwyn

MacDonald, Calum

Purchase, Ken

MacDougall, John

Quin, rh Joyce

McFall, John

Quinn, Lawrie

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Randall, John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

McIsaac, Shona

Raynsford, rh Nick

Mackay, rh Andrew

Redwood, rh John

McKenna, Rosemary

Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

Mackinlay, Andrew

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

Maclean, rh David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Robathan, Andrew

McNulty, Tony

Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

MacShane, Denis

McWalter, Tony

Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

370

Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

Taylor, Ian(Esher)

Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

Taylor, John(Solihull)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

Rosindell, Andrew

Timms, Stephen

Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

Tipping, Paddy

Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

Ruane, Chris

Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

Ruffley, David

Tredinnick, David

Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

Trickett, Jon

Trimble, rh David

Selous, Andrew

Taylor, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

Shaw, Jonathan

Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

Sheerman, Barry

Turner, Neil(Wigan)

Shepherd, Richard

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Sheridan, Jim

Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

Short, rh Clare

Tyrie, Andrew

Simmonds, Mark

Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

Simon, Siôri(B'ham Erdington)

Viggers, Peter

Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

Walter, Robert

Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

Ward, Claire

Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Waterson, Nigel

Watkinson, Angela

Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

Smith, John(Glamorgan)

Watts, David

Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

White, Brian

Soames, Nicholas

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Soley, Clive

Whittingdale, John

Southworth, Helen

Wicks' Malcolm

Spellar, rh John

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Spellar, rh John

Wiggin, Bill

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Wilkinson, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Willetts, David

Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

williams, rh Alan(Swansea w)

Spring, Richard

Wills Michael

Squire, Rachel

Wilshire David

Stanley, rh Sir John

Wilson, Brian

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Winnick, David

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

Steinberg, Gerry

Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Woolas, Phil

Straw, rh Jack

Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

Streeter, Gary

Stringer, Graham

Wright, David(Telford)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wright, Tony(Cannock)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

Swayne, Desmond

Young, rh Sir George

Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

Syms, Robert

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tami, Mark(Alyn)

Jim Fitzpatrick and

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Joan Ryan

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Carmichael, Alistair

Allan, Richard

Caton, Martin

Allen, Graham

Chidgey, David

Baker, Norman

Clapham, Michael

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

Barrett, John

Cohen, Harry

Beith, rh A. J.

Corbyn, Jeremy

Best, Harold

Cotter, Brian

Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

Cox, Tom(Tooting)

Breed, Colin

Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

Bruce, Malcolm

Dalyell, Tam

Burden, Richard

Davey, Edward(Kingston)

Burnett, John

Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

Burstow, Paul

Dawson, Hilton

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Doughty, Sue

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Drew, David(Stroud)

Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

Ewing, Annabelle

371

Fisher, Mark

Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

Öpik, Lembit

Foster, Don(Bath)

Owen, Albert

Galloway, George

Perham, Linda

George, Andrew(St. Ives)

Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

Gerrard, Neil

Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Gidley, Sandra

Pugh, Dr. John

Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

Rendel, David

Hancock, Mike

Robertson, Angus(Moray)

Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

Russell, Bob(Colchester)

Salmond, Alex

Harvey, Nick

Sanders, Adrian

Heath, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

Holmes, Paul

Savidge, Malcolm

Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

Sawford, Phil

Hopkins, Kelvin

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

Hume, John(Foyle)

Skinner, Dennis

Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

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

Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

Stevenson, George

Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

stunell, Andrew

Keetch Paul

Taylor, David(NW Leics)

Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

Kilfoyle Peter

Thurso, John

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Lamb, Norman

Turner Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

Walley, Ms Joan

Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

Wareing, Robert N.

McCafferty, Chris

Webb Steve(Nortnavon)

McDonnell, John

Weir Michael

McGrady, Eddie

Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

McNamara, Kevin

Williams, Roger(Brecon)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Willis Phil

Mallon, Seamus

Wishart, Pete

Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Wood, Mike(Batley)

Worthington, Tony

Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Moore, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Morgan, Julie

Mr. Douglas Hogg and

Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

Mr. Tony Lloyd

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of Command Paper Cm 5769 on Iraq; reaffirms its endorsement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, as expressed in its Resolution of 25th November 2002; supports the Government's continuing efforts in the United Nations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction; and calls upon Iraq to recognise this as its final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

PETITIONS

  Fireworks
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I present the petition of some 1,900 constituents in Blackpool, South who are supporters of restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks. I am delighted to do so and to give the petition—and the Bill sponsored this Friday by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan)—my strong support.
  372
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the residents of Blackpool South declares that fireworks can cause unacceptable distress and disturbance if discharged on inappropriate days and at inappropriate times.
  The Petitioners therefore request that this House of Commons urge the Government to conduct an urgent review of fireworks legislation and, in particular, to legislate (1) to restrict the times of the year fireworks can be bought, (2) to restrict the times of day that fireworks can be set off and (3) to license all vendors of fireworks to meet strict safety criteria and to give trading standards the power to revoke the licence of any vendors caught selling fireworks to under-age children.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Murder Sentence
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I wish to present a petition signed by over 13,000 residents of Burton upon Trent, South Derbyshire and other areas concerning the sentence passed on the murderer David Bond, who killed Debbie Buxton in my constituency in 1993. I am joined in this by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who represents another victim of the same murderer.
  The petition reads:
  The petition of residents of Burton upon Trent and South Derbyshire declares that the sentence of murder David Bond has been reduced from a minimum 40 years to a minimum 25 years.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Home Office to further review the case and reimpose the original sentence of 40 years immediately.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Fireworks
  7.31 pm
  John Robertson: I am delighted to present a petition calling for the urgent review of existing fireworks legislation, a petition signed by over 3,758 of my constituents.
  The petition is timely, as it comes just before—on Friday—my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) introducing his private Member's Bill on the subject. My hon. Friend has today delivered to Downing Street an 80,000-strong petition. It
  Declares that the existing legislation on fireworks is in need of urgent review.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to bring forward legislative proposals to require all public firework displays to be controlled by licensed pyrotechnicians; to restrict the times of year that fireworks can be purchased; to restrict the time of day that fireworks can be used; to license all vendors of fireworks to meet strict safety criteria; and to revoke the licence of any vendor found selling fireworks to under-age children.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  European Developments
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
  7.32 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: On 1 May next year, 10 countries will join the European Union. Anticipating this enlargement, the Laeken Declaration established the EU convention to come forward with proposals for reform. It would also recommend a wider agenda for the intergovernmental conference to agree in a revised treaty. It is this wider agenda on the future of Europe that has prompted this debate.
  The debate is timely, because the convention has just published a draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe which would give legal effect to a set of rights as defined in the EU charter of fundamental rights. This confirms fears that the outcome of the IGC will threaten the primacy of Europe's largest and oldest intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary institution, the Council of Europe, and in particular one of its principal assets: the European convention on human rights and the Court in Strasbourg.
  To defend all that the Council of Europe continues to achieve and to ensure that the enlarging European Union will not threaten or undermine its future is the purpose of this debate. I initiate it as a member of the British delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly for the past 23 years, as the current leader of the Conservative delegation, and as chairman of the European Democratic Group, the Conservative centre-right group in the Assembly.
  I am encouraged that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who is the leader of the Socialist Group in the Assembly, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who is the leader of the British delegation, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who leads the Liberal delegation, also hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is a sad fact of life that, owing to the lack of resources provided for it, the Council of Europe is comparatively unrecognised by the public and is frequently confused with the European Parliament. Let it be recalled that it was established in 1949 by people of vision and courage committed to a Europe of justice and equality, freedom and peace, based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is the forum within which our continent's disputes are resolved through dialogue and debate. In his Zurich speech of 1946, Winston Churchill foresaw it as
  "a European group which could give a … common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent".
  None of us who were present in Strasbourg in July 1989 will forget the historic moment when Mikhail Gorbachev described the Council of Europe as "the Common European Home" that Russia would one day join. Since then, 20 countries of the former Soviet empire in Europe have joined—a process that I had the privilege to preside over for four years as chairman of the committee responsible for non-member states, in addition to being the first rapporteur for the accession of Russia.
  When European Union officials and members of the European Parliament say that the forthcoming enlargement of the Union will reunite Europe, they are
  374
  wrong. Europe has already been reunited in the Council of Europe, which today comprises 44 member states. The principal message that I want to convey to the House is that the forthcoming intergovernmental conference must avoid the creation of a second common home at the expense of ours. It should avoid the EU charter of fundamental rights competing with the European convention on human rights, and the Luxembourg Court clashing with the Strasbourg Court. It should prevent the broad legal framework that already exists for Europe, based on our 185 conventions, from competing with double standards imposed by the European Union. It should recognise the unique work by practical politicians—ourselves—in monitoring commitments entered into by member states upon accession as invaluable in establishing the acquis upon which these countries are judged by the European Union. It should respect the work of the Venice Commission, of the European Youth Centre Budapest, of the North-South Centre in Lisbon, and of all the instruments established under the European cultural convention, which effectively replaces 1,000 bilateral treaties. It should also avoid duplicating the outstanding work of our Congress of Local and Regional Authorities in promoting local democracy and transfrontier co-operation. It should, in short, avoid decisions that will threaten the primacy of the work of the Council of Europe and undermine the assets that we have been developing for more than half a century.
  During the past year, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been seeking to address these concerns by introducing well prepared recommendations, resolutions and orders to ensure that our organisation becomes a natural partner to the expanding European Union, and not its rival: to ensure that it co-operates with it, rather than competes with it. The organisation's secretary-general, Walter Schwimmer, has submitted a memorandum to the EU convention along similar lines. Common to our representations has been urging the European Union to accede to the European convention on human rights, which would eliminate risk of the divergence in case law for the protection of human rights in Europe that we fear. In addition, we urge that a third Council of Europe summit of heads of state and Governments take place before commencement of the intergovernmental conference, so that it can take account of what the EU convention proposes, thereby avoiding decisions being taken that might introduce new divides.
  Recently, my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), the noble Baronesses Knight and Hooper and I submitted our own representations to the EU Convention. We appreciated the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who is also a member. In our paper, we point out that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is the only inter-parliamentary Assembly exclusive to Europe, and that it will soon be representative of every European national Parliament. Thus our Assembly is the true democratic dimension of Europe. It can make up the so-called "democratic deficit" that, it is suggested, exists because national Parliaments are not represented in the European Union.That we represent non-EU member states should be considered an asset rather than an impediment when it comes to promoting a continental ideal.

  375
  In that context, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who also represents us on the EU Convention. She took a personal interest in the assembly of the Western European Union in Paris. In her address to the last part-session in December, she recognised the need to maintain and develop mechanisms for inter-parliamentary scrutiny of the EU.
  All of us were encouraged by the address from the Minister for Europe at last month's Strasbourg part-session, especially when he said that the Council of Europe would continue to play a vital role a common European forum, and that the place of the European Court of Human Rights in the European human rights architecture must not be undermined. However, we recall that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), told the House that the EU charter of fundamental rights would be of no more legal significance than a copy of the Beano. In fact, that charter has now emerged as article 6 of the draft of the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe.
  We fear that, in the casino of consensus and compromise that EU summits inevitably become, the forthcoming intergovernmental conference will decide that the Council of Europe is expendable, and that it will be allowed to wither on the vine as the EU, with all its considerable resources, takes on ever more of what we do best. I therefore urge the Minister to assure the House that the role and the work of the Council of Europe will remain pre-eminent throughout the continent until the nations of Europe can agree to the single, confederal institution that Winston Churchill saw would be a "United States of Europe", to which all of us should, eventually, belong.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on taking the initiative to arrange this debate. I also want to thank him for his work as leader of the Conservative group in the Council of Europe Assembly. On behalf of the Socialist group in the Assembly—Labour members from this country and the nearly 200 socialist representatives from the 44 member countries in the Council of Europe—I should like to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister the fact that socialist group members would agree completely with everything that the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks.
  It would be a tragedy if the development of the EU were allowed to damage what has been achieved in Europe by the Council of Europe and the Assembly over the past 50 years. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for attending the January part-session, when he attended a meeting of the socialist group. He understands the robust discussion going on in that group, but all our members agree that it would be a great mistake to allow the Council of Europe to be damaged. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to take on board the very serious point that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East made about avoiding rivalry, competition and conflict to emerge between two courts.
  It would be terrible if establishing a legally binding charter of fundamental human rights in the EU were to lead to any conflict in the decisions reached by the
  376
  European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. We all look to the Government to ensure that that does not happen.
  7.43 pm
  Malcolm Bruce: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for bringing this matter to the House. Those hon. Members who are members of the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe have already debated the issues, but it is important to put on record in the House of Commons the importance of getting the development right. We support EU enlargement, and its consequences, including the development of a European constitution, are desirable and welcome.
  I am a spokesman for a party that is strongly pro-Europe. It may appear surprising, therefore, that I welcome the fact that constitutions both define and limit powers. It is appropriate that the process of defining the EU's powers should also limit them. There will be more than 20 countries—once one or two more have acceded to the Council of Europe—that will not join the EU, so it is extremely important that the positive work done by the Council continues.
  The Minister has heard me say before that the ECHR—of which members of the Council of Europe have every reason to be inordinately proud, given what it has done for more than 50 years and continues to achieve—is the basis of human rights law in Europe. A competitive court would undermine and devalue that, and it is not necessary.
  The specific point that I make to the Minister is that the suggestion that the EU should accede to the ECHR, which has been resisted in some quarters, has a lot to commend it for the very simple reason that it would put EU institutions on exactly the same basis as national institutions in relation to human rights.
  It is odd that, as things stand now, citizens in the Council of Europe states—indeed, in the United Kingdom—may take Government or public institutions to court for human rights abuses under the ECHR, but they have no such redress if those abuses are carried out by EU agencies. That anomaly cannot be tolerated, and adopting the charter of fundamental rights into the constitution does not solve that.
  Indeed, as has been said already, that anomaly creates an unnecessary and undesirable complication, so I urge the Minister to take that point seriously; he has heard it made in many quarters, and I honestly believe that that would be the way to ensure that EU enlargement and the work of the Council of Europe continue together in a constructive, rather than conflicting, mode.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is our hon. Friend in this context because, in the spirit of the relationship between the members of the British delegation, he has invited all three parties represented in the Chamber tonight to take part in this short debate.
  Of course the issues raised are fundamentally important. The point has been made already, but it is well worth reiterating, that Europe beyond any

  377
  boundary that the EU is likely to have for the foreseeable future still contains a considerable landmass and population. Those people are represented in the Council of Europe, so it has a primacy not only in its longevity, but in its extent. It is important to remember that, because the Council of Europe plays the role of guarantor of democratic standards and human rights.
  That role may be taken for granted in a country such as ours, but it has been fundamentally important in the reconstruction of constitutional Governments in parts of Europe that, until relatively recently, did not have that opportunity. So I certainly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and, indeed, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) for their role in precisely that integration process.
  We have a friend and supporter in the Minister. Perhaps to my shame, he did something that I did not do when I was a Minister: he took the trouble to visit the Parliamentary Assembly recently. His visit was very well received, not only by the British delegation, but by members throughout the Assembly. However, we look to him to take on board those reasonable requests. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would want to support all the points that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East made.
  Again, I emphasise that there need be no conflict between the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts, but it is vital that institutional furniture is rearranged to ensure that no such conflict is built in, because the argument used against the incorporation of the EU into convention territory was that it would automatically force a conflict between the Luxembourg and Strasbourg courts. We need the convention to sort that out and to make sure that that possibility does not arise.
  Again, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East for his efforts tonight.
  7.49 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): What a pleasure to have four contributions in a short Adjournment debate, as well as some time for me to reply. I, too, pay tribute to the sterling quality—indeed, the euro quality—of the members of the British parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe.
  We have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and a short and pointed contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), whom I saw presiding over the most heterogeneous group of parliamentarians debating Iraqi issues. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that even the finest training in your Chair might not prepare you for the majesty with which he brought all of those different points of view together.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East referred to the EU as a casino of consensus and compromise. I am not a great expert on casinos, and I did not know that they were the location of consensus and compromise, but it is not the worst thing in Europe that we find ways of coming together, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) pointed out. There is a British esprit de corps in the delegation, and it was a pleasure to attend and speak to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
  378
  of Europe and to read out part of the speech of my opposite number, the Minister for European affairs of the Republic of France. In these interesting times, it is not the worst thing in the world that I can speak for France—reading her speech word for word—and it does not seem to cause great upset or outrage.
  Hon. Members have rightly made the point that the Council of Europe is our oldest European parliamentary association or assembly. I keep insisting, as I have done all my life, as a strong supporter of the European Union, that there is much more to Europe than the EU. Perhaps because two of my children were born in Switzerland, I am conscious that Europe's oldest confederal state may have a part to play. The Council of Europe, with its 44 members, representing 850 million European citizens, remains an important part of the architecture of European institutions. It is not well known enough and its work does not get the publicity that it deserves. If I may, I commend to all hon. Members Lord Judd's excellent article in The House magazine on Chechnya. His involvement stems from his membership of the Council of Europe—I am not commenting on the Chechnyan issue, but his article is well worth reading and reflecting on.
  That is exactly the role of the Council of Europe: it allows parliamentarians from all its 44 member countries to winnow their way into the most difficult and complex situations in a fashion that the European Union, which is a consensual and compromise-based institution, and national Governments, which must have distinct bilateral relationships with different countries, cannot do. I therefore regard its work as having the highest importance. As long as I am the Minister responsible for it, it is assured of my strongest ministerial backing. It is certainly no penance, as Minister for Europe, to make the occasional foray into that great European capital of Strasbourg.
  The two organisations, the EU and the Council of Europe, have distinct roles, but they are mutually reinforcing on human rights and other issues. Undoubtedly, the Council of Europe's institution-building programmes have assisted former communist countries to prepare for EU membership. We should note the remarkable achievement, in barely more than a decade, whereby countries in which democracy, freedom of expression and respect for minorities were hardly known under their dictatorship systems are now being welcomed into membership of the European Parliament.
  Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister also acknowledge, as it has certainly struck me, that we have something to learn from the new democracies, which sometimes find new and better ways of doing things than the old democracies? It is a two-way process.
  Mr. MacShane: One of the great pleasures that I have found since joining the Government is that we always have something to learn. I believe that our country has as much to learn from Europe, as we have to contribute occasionally to the process of European construction.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East mentioned some examples, but let us also note that the European Union and the Council of Europe can co-operate, for instance, in joint financing of key programmes for countries such as Russia, Albania, and Ukraine. We

  379
  now face the discussion in the Convention on the Future of Europe, which will touch on aspects of the role and work of the Council of Europe. The Convention is important. It will allow us to come to some agreement on how to make the European Union better able to cope with its new members.
  The Convention is a unique creature. Its membership allows for broader discussion and consultation than has ever been possible in the European Union before. Its task is difficult: to pave the way for the EU of the future.
  Mr. Richard Bacon: Unlike other hon. Members present, I am not an expert on the Council of Europe. I am more interested in the Convention, which is exceptionally important. The Minister mentioned the huge amount of discussions, but according to the Government, those discussions have been ignored by the praesidium in the drafting of articles. When will there be an opportunity to debate this issue more fully on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. MacShane: There will be a lengthy Westminster Hall debate on the issue next Wednesday, and I invite the hon. Member to take part. We have had a debate on the Convention on the Future of Europe in the past couple of weeks, and I am open for any private meetings that hon. Members want. We should note that 1,000 amendments have now been tabled to the draft that the praesidium presented, so there is plenty of work to be done. If the EU is a casino of compromise and consensus, my goodness, I do not envy the Convention's work. It will be the biggest compositing meeting of any political institution in history.
  We have to get things right. Europe cannot continue with uncertainty over how to bring in 10 new members. None of us wants a European Union in which—topick countries out of the air—Malta, Estonia or Luxembourg can exercise a veto on future development. We need to get the relationships right in dealing with human rights and other issues dealt with by the European Court of Human Rights.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the real problem the prospect of having two sets of laws—one for the rich countries and another for the poorer countries? Once the poorer countries are in that situation, all the problems of abuses of human rights will appear again because they do not have the bolster of what is already present and accepted in the major countries.
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is right. The European Court of Human Rights is a beacon. All countries in Europe—those in the EU, those coming into the EU and those who will be outside the EU for some time—will have to consider their legal systems in order to bring them up to the common standards that we all want to see in democracies.
  I shall take no more interventions in the brief time remaining—although it has been a pleasure in an Adjournment debate to have a real debate and to answer questions, especially those posed by hon. Members who spoke earlier.
  The Government support the values and principles set out in the charter, as a political declaration. However, as we have said for some time, we would have serious legal
  380
  and practical problems if the declaration were incorporated into a constitutional treaty without appropriate clarifications and safeguards. Such points have been well made by British delegates to the Convention. Other countries will have similar problems in working out whether their constitutional rules in a number of areas will be subordinate to any charter of fundamental rights that was incorporated into a constitutional treaty. I do not want to pre-empt that process; the discussion will continue. It could, indeed, continue at the third Council of Europe summit, to which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East referred. The idea will be discussed at the Council of Europe ministerial meeting in May, and I am not against it.
  Since I have been a Minister, the principal request that I have from countries all over the world and from other institutions is for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to attend this or that event. At times, I feel that 1 have to defend him, so that he can spend a little time in the House of Commons and occasionally get on with the domestic business of running the United Kingdom. Therefore, I am not entirely sure that I am able from the Dispatch Box to commit my right hon. Friend to attending a Heads of Government summit. However, the request will be considered.
  There is also the issue of whether the European Union should accede to the European convention on human rights. There is a good case for that but, as I explained at the Parliamentary Assembly in January when I quoted directly from the French Government, both the British and French Governments and other European Governments are concerned about the impact that such accession would have on the competencies of the Union and on the position of individual member states in relation to protocols, reservations and the ability to derogate. Those of us who are aware of the issue of asylum seekers know that it is a live one—not just in the press and public life, but in our constituency advice bureaux and surgeries. It is another issue that we need to examine.
  We also need to consider how we can accelerate and make more effective the huge logjam of cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Justice delayed is justice denied. I have had very good talks with the president and the British judge on the court in Strasbourg. However, we must get the matter right, and do not need the simple and intellectually and politically attractive demand of EU accession to the European convention on human rights to result in a nightmare of legal confusion. These difficult and complex questions will have to be worked out in the EU Convention. I assure hon. Members of my continued interest and involvement in them.
  The Council of Europe plays an important role. I respected it before and I have respected the work of the hon. Members and colleagues who serve on it. I am happy to support its future work as long as I hold this—
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes past Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Refugee Benefits
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Mr. Peter Lilley: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting the issue of benefits for refugees and asylum seekers for debate. When I first clashed with the Prime Minister on it, I was astonished by how many Members—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The word "clashed" worried me.
Mr. Lilley: Opposition Members sometimes clash with the Prime Minister during Question Time. I was astonished by how many Members, not least Labour Members, said that the issue of immigration and related matters is becoming bigger in their constituencies, that people are angry about some issues and that there is a danger of that anger fuelling the growth of extremist parties, or even being vented directly on immigrant communities. Today, we hear reports of a Labour Minister pandering to those feelings by saying that he will no longer deal with asylum seekers at his surgery.
I want to make it clear that, in my view, the vast majority of refugees and economic migrants are decent, ordinary people who want to better their lot and that of their families. They are simply responding to a situation created by others. In the matter of immigration, immigrants are as pure as driven snow. If people want to vent their spleen, it should absolutely not be on individuals who have come here from other countries, but on Ministers and their friends in the liberal media who have fuelled the inflow from abroad to unmanageable proportions, aggravated the resentment of people already here by saying one thing and doing another, and suppressed, or tried to suppress, debate by accusing their critics and opponents of racism and inhumanity whenever they make reasonable proposals for reform. I want to use the specific issue of benefits for refugees and asylum seekers to illustrate those points.
On 22 January, the Prime Minister responded to a well-aimed criticism from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition by brazenly boasting that he would be removing benefits from asylum seekers who claimed after they had entered the country. I welcomed his decision to reinstate a measure that I first introduced and I invited him to admit that he was mistaken in allowing benefits to be reinstated in 1997, as that led to the number of asylum claimants doubling fairly soon afterwards.
I asked the Prime Minister to say how many extra asylum seekers we had to receive and support as a result of five years of mistaken policy. He characteristically denied all that, although he later—it was perhaps post
72WH
hoc, ergo propter hoc—responded with his pledge to halve the number of asylum claimants coming to this country.
Let me remind the House of the history of the benefits changes affecting refugees and asylum seekers. In October 1995, I announced proposals to remove the right to benefit from all those who claimed asylum after entering the country on false pretences. After a debate in Parliament, regulations implementing that measure were introduced on 5 February 1996. I acknowledge that I was initially reluctant to introduce those measures. I would always prefer to restrict entry to this country, rather than make conditions less attractive or benefits less generous to people once they had entered. However, I was persuaded that action was necessary, as the number of asylum seekers had risen tenfold in 10 years.
Our share of the number of asylum seekers coming to European countries had trebled and, indeed, over the past couple of years, it had fallen on the continent while rising in the UK. That was partly, though not entirely, because countries such as France and Belgium time-limited benefits to 12 months and there were none thereafter. Italy gave no benefits at all and consequently received only 1,800 asylum claims.
What is more, it became clear that we were giving benefits that could not really be justified to three categories of people. The first was those who entered the country illegally. They had broken the law, and it seemed wrong to reward that by giving them entitlement to benefit. To come to the UK, they had invariably crossed other safe countries, where they could and should have claimed asylum and to which they could return if they did not like the terms and conditions facing them here.
The second group was people who entered on false pretences—those who did not just "fail to claim", as it is often put, asylum on arrival at the port of entry, but claimed to be here for some other purpose than claiming asylum. For instance, they claimed that they were here to study and showed that they had access to a course, they claimed to be tourists or visitors, or they claimed to be here on business. Usually, such people had visas. Invariably, they had had to convince either the visa authorities or the immigration authorities that they possessed the means to support themselves and that, once in this country, they would not be a burden on the taxpayer. In those circumstances, it seemed wrong to extend to them the right to benefit simply on the basis of uttering the magic words, "I claim asylum."
Finally, there was a third category that I will not dwell on today because, I regret to say, it does not feature in the Government's latest measures. We withdrew the right to benefit from those, even if they had entered and claimed asylum at a port, who were subsequently found not to be genuine asylum seekers. They were thus placed on the same footing as British claimants of benefit who, once having their claim rejected, were not allowed to claim benefit while appealing against the initial decision. We do not allow that for British citizens, because we know that, if we did, everybody would always appeal against any rejection of an offer of benefit as they could

73WH
thereby prolong their right to it. There seemed to be no reason to offer better conditions to asylum seekers than we offered to our own citizens.
Simon Hughes: For clarity, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how asylum seekers can legally come to Britain?
Mr. Lilley: They can arrive at our ports and say, "I seek asylum". However, if the Liberal party wishes to create a situation in which a person can go to an embassy or high commission and say, "I would like to come to Britain and claim asylum," it should make that known to the electorate. We already have a system whereby, having reached these shores, any inhabitant of the globe has the right to enter, claim asylum and then claim benefit, appeal against any refusal of a claim, have a judicial review, claim under human rights legislation and prolong the process.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lilley: Yes, but when I have finished answering the previous question, if I may.
It seems to me unwise in those circumstances to make it even easier for those who wish to come here for economic purposes to exploit the system.
Mr. Gerrard: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly which benefits he thinks that anyone arriving in this country has a right to claim?
Mr. Lilley: They have the right to claim benefits provided by the Government.
Mr. Gerrard: Which benefits?
Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman does not know, I am sure that the Minister will explain to him in due course. The benefits were originally social security benefits, but they are now provided by the Home Office with the help of local authorities and funded thereby. I am here not to spell out the difficulties, but to recount the history.
People prefer, and are advised, to make their claim for asylum once they have entered the country rather than at the port, as it then becomes more difficult to deport them. They have to go through a deportation procedure rather than just a removal procedure. We were therefore rewarding those who were most canny or best informed about how to make it more difficult to remove them when they were found not to be genuine.
Despite those powerful arguments, Labour party Front Benchers "strongly opposed"—those were their words—the measures, describing them as uncivilised and inhumane. A string of epithets were used to demonise and denigrate my party, the measures and me.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: And your Ministers.
Mr. Lilley: And my excellent Ministers.
74WH
It was predicted that the changes would result in widespread destitution, and churches were encouraged to open shelters. Happily, those fears proved to be grossly exaggerated. Partly as a result of the benefit changes and partly because of changes introduced by the then Home Secretary, the number of people entering this country and claiming asylum after getting through the ports fell from 30,000 in 1995 to 17,000 in 1996, and to below 16,000 in 1997. The overall numbers, which include those claiming at port, also fell by 40 per cent. between the 12 months before the measures were introduced and the 12 months afterwards.
There were two court challenges to the changes that I introduced. The first came in June 1996 and challenged the use of secondary legislation to introduce those changes. The courts ruled that that should have been done by primary legislation. I accepted that, and within days introduced an amendment to legislation then passing through the House to give primary legislative authority, which both Houses endorsed, for the changes.
There was a second challenge in the February before the 1997 general election, and, again, it was upheld by the courts. It could easily have been reversed, either on appeal or through primary legislation, but the incoming Labour Government chose not to appeal against the court finding, nor to legislate to reinstate the arrangement that the courts had overthrown. They simply endorsed the court's ruling, and allowed benefits and support to be re-established. They could scarcely have done otherwise without inviting charges of hypocrisy, given what they had so recently said. What happened? The number of claimants doubled, and then doubled again, even though that in some neighbouring continental European countries was declining.
Before last Christmas, the Government underwent a Damascene conversion. Normally, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 who know no repentance, but this was a case of one Pharisee taking to the very sin that he had once most sanctimoniously condemned. In short, the Government decided more or less to reinstate the regime that I established in 1996. They did so, of course, with a minimum of debate, and amendments to legislation were introduced at the last minute in the House of Lords.
There were precisely 15 minutes of debate in the House of Commons, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out at the time. Characteristically, he used most of them. There was no debate at all in the House on the statutory instrument implementing those changes.
Those Members of Parliament who used such strong and severe language against the parallel statutory instrument that we introduced must feel shame that they did not even pray against an identical measure introduced by their Government. We have had little debate—democracy has gone out of the window, along with integrity, under this Government.
Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend has already answered my question, but did any Government Members, either Back Benchers or Front Benchers, pray against the regulations that they opposed so bitterly when he introduced them?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise that point. None did, neither from the Labour party nor from its subsidiary, the Liberal Democrat party, although Liberal Democrat Members were at least honourable enough to oppose the measure when we were given 15 minutes to debate it on the Floor of the House.
There is a further twist to the sorry tale. Last week, the court rejected the Government's new measure. It is no longer simple to appeal or reinstate such provisions by primary legislation, as it would have been in 1997. The decision was made under the Government's human rights legislation—their own measure, which was deliberately introduced to allow judges to judge Parliament and to rule that the Government were mistaken. That puts the Government in a quandary. We should ask them to face up to the problems that they have created. One of the most important human rights of all is that of the British people to govern themselves through Parliament and set their own laws, and not have laws laid down for them or reinterpreted by judges according to their human rights impressions, prejudices and subjective opinions.
Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the High Court judge who dealt with the matter last week made it clear that he was only interpreting the will of Parliament? He relied on what Parliament said and the proper interpretation of the statute passed by us, including our obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Mr. Lilley: Above all, the latter. The judge was operating under an Act passed by the Government. It gives judges the power to exercise a subjective judgment over the whole sphere of our operations.
Simon Hughes: The Act was passed by Parliament.
Mr. Lilley: Indeed, and against my vote. If and when I become Home Secretary, I shall introduce legislation to alter that position. I shall restore the supremacy of the British people through a British Parliament in the making of laws.
We must hold the Government to account and we must make Ministers eat their words, however unpalatable the diet. They must eat them in public and accept that they have performed a complete volte-face, in the meantime making the situation impossible to remedy. The Government have for five years presided over a benefits regime for refugees and asylum seekers, which they adopted deliberately and which they now admit is a serious problem. They face a massive inflow resulting from their changes and they want to reinstate the very Conservative measures that they originally reviled, but they can no longer do so because of legislation that they introduced deliberately to restrain Parliament.
Ms Karen Buck: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Home Office research has confirmed that there is no indication whatever that asylum seekers coming to this country have knowledge of either the benefit system or the particular workings of the asylum application process?
76WH
The link that he is making between the ability to claim benefits and the desire to claim asylum in this country is not evident.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is saying therefore that the fact that the number of asylum seekers halved after the measures were introduced and that it doubled after they were reversed is a pure coincidence. She is asking us to accept that people do not send back messages to their country saying that their application was successful and that they are here, being looked after and doing well. The message is about not the details of the benefit system, but the fact that there are no problems and that people do not have to bring resources with them to live here.
People have to provide resources to live en route and they may have to pay tens of thousands of pounds to undertake the journey, but they do not have to provide for themselves when they arrive here. All they have to do is convince the authorities, when they receive their visa, that they will be able to support themselves. The hon. Lady's argument is that people pick at random which country they go to and are entirely unaffected by circumstances in different countries. She is suggesting that the fact that they pass deliberately through other safe countries to come here does not reflect their overall impression of the situation here.
Ms Buck: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lilley: I am drawing my remarks towards a close to allow other Members to participate. The hon. Lady can spell out her points later.
I fear we have reached a point at which the problem is too great to be solved simply by restoring the Conservative status quo ante on benefits. We can now tackle the problem of unrestrained inflow to this country only by regime change and renegotiating, or resiling from, the Geneva convention on asylum seekers. Support and endorse the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, on that front. We need a change from the shameless and incompetent regime in this country to a regime with the openness, humanity and integrity of my right hon. Friend and his excellent team. I hope that we see that change sooner rather than later.
9.50 am
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The debate so far has taken the course that I expected. There has been a lot of rehashing of history from six or seven years ago. I noted that the title of the debate was "Government policy on refugee benefits", but we have heard precious little about refugees and everything has been about asylum seekers.
I am often struck by something when I attend such debates as this. At an event last Saturday, it was put to me that some of my colleagues in this place are not terribly knowledgeable about asylum. I said that we all have to specialise to a degree and that if I were asked about the Government's policy on agriculture, I would be found to be woefully ignorant. The person to whom I was speaking responded—at the time I thought that it was flattering, but I now realise that it was true—by

77WH
saying, "At least you wouldn't talk about agriculture policy, but people who know very little about asylum feel perfectly able to get up and make speeches about it." That has been amply proved this morning.
May I go back over the history of how we got here today? I do not want to dwell too much on 1996 but there has been some rewriting of history this morning. What happened in 1996 was very simple: there was an attempt to deny asylum seekers inside the country from applying for mainstream benefits. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was the architect of that policy. At the time, it was predicted that the policy would cause destitution and lead to people living on the streets, and I am confident that it would have done if there had not been two court decisions. One decision said that the measure could not be introduced using secondary legislation, which led to changes to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996—the primary legislation. After that, a court decision in February 1997 said that local authorities would have to use the National Assistance Act 1948 to support asylum seekers who were otherwise destitute. If that had not happened, we would have seen people on the streets, just as people are now on the streets as a direct result of the policy that the present Government have implemented, which I shall talk about in a moment.
The result of the events of 1996 was a complete shambles in the asylum system. Some people were supported on benefits while some went to local authorities and local authorities incurred expense. Pressures were placed on local authorities in London and the south-east, and we still have to live with some of those. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was the architect of that shambles, which we inherited when we came into government in 1997. If he had been so keen on introducing primary legislation to deal with the Court of Appeal decision in February 1997, there would have been ample time to pass a simple one-clause Bill before the general election in 1997. The incoming Labour Government in 1997 were right not to try simply to reverse existing legislation, but to try to find an alternative mechanism meaning that asylum seekers would not be supported by local authorities, but by the Home Office through the National Asylum Support Service. Whether we got that right is another matter, but it was a perfectly legitimate and correct decision.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Is it not true that the major problem was that the then shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), was in an impossible position? He believed that to reverse the decision of the courts would lead to people starving on the streets; he was totally wrong in that.
Mr. Gerrard: I do not think that my right hon. Friend was wrong about what would have happened. There is already evidence that the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is leading to people being destitute and living on the streets.
Lynne Jones: Indeed, did Mr. Justice Collins not describe such situations in the decision on 19 February?
Mr. Gerrard: Absolutely. Those situations were the foundation of the case heard by the judge. If the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) examines the evidence for the court judgment earlier this month, he will see that evidence spout out.
In 1999, the system changed and vouchers were introduced, against the advice of many Labour Back Benchers. The system proved to be the disaster that some of us predicted and was removed in the 2002 Act. Unfortunately, it has been replaced with something that will be even worse.
The issues raised by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden are frequently mentioned in debates such as this one—specifically, how the benefits and support given to asylum seekers affect the number of claimants. The rationale presented for each of the past four Acts—the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—is that benefit support acts as a draw and that cash in asylum seekers' hands leads to more applications. It is assumed that genuine asylum applicants would apply at the port of entry the minute that they stepped off the boat or plane and would not apply in-country. No hard evidence has ever been produced that backs up those claims.
On the question of genuine applicants claiming at the port, over the past 10 years the difference between the success rates of asylum claimants in-country and at the port of entry has not significantly changed; any change has been negligible. In fact, for a considerable number of years, the rate of success for in-country applicants has been higher. No hard evidence supports the assertion that a port claimant is more likely to be a genuine applicant than an in-country one. The figures vary from year to year, but no significant patterns back up that assertion.
On the suggestion that people come to the UK because they know about the benefits system and the cash, I am sure that many hon. Members will have had the same experience as me of sitting in constituency advice surgeries and dealing with people who were born in the UK and have never stepped outside the country. They come along with the type of problem that arises from a failure to understand the benefits system, such as failing to claim for a benefit for which they are eligible, failing to know when they should have claimed something or failing to understand the consequences of a late claim for benefit.
We see such problems all the time involving people who have lived in the UK all their lives. The idea that someone sitting in the middle of another country 1,000 miles away will do a detailed calculation and say to themselves, "If I make an asylum claim in Germany, I'll get this amount, if I make one in France I'll get this and if I make one in the UK I'll get this" is ludicrous.
Mr. Lilley: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why Italy, which alone in Europe has no benefits for asylum seekers, also has the lowest number of claims, even though it is one of the main sources of entry of asylum seekers?
Mr. Gerrard: I suspect that for some years there have been very large numbers of people working illegally and

79WH
living on the streets in Italy. The claim that the Italians have somehow solved the problem cannot be justified. That raises the question of why people go to particular countries.
There is a variety of reasons why people come here. People come to a country because they know someone who lives there; or there may be long-standing connections with that country. Some Commonwealth countries have been the source of significant numbers of asylum applications to this country when there have been problems there. The civil war in Sri Lanka led to significant numbers of Tamil asylum seekers coming to the UK.
People go to a country where they can speak the language, and English is probably the commonest second language in the world. I am sure that I will never be in the position where I have to flee this country because I am being persecuted—
Mr. Lilley: Wait until the Whips get at you.
Mr. Gerrard: I am not worried about that. I would not want to go to France, which is the nearest safe country. It is not that I have anything against the French, but I would be looking for a country where I know people, or where I can speak the language. Those are the factors that have an impact on where people go to try to claim asylum.
Ms Buck: Will my hon. Friend accept that a criticism can be made of the system in this country regarding processing times? Historically, decisions have taken so long both to complete, and then to exercise if there is a deportation consequent upon them, that this has become a pull for asylum seekers. Does he accept that in 1997, and even today, the processing time for appeals is up to two years? For the first six months of my time as a Member of Parliament the system was clogged up with cases of applicants who had submitted their asylum application in 1992 or 1993, and who by 1997 had not heard a word from the immigration and nationality directorate.
Mr. Gerrard: That is absolutely right. If we want a system that will deter people who are not genuine applicants, we will not achieve that by fiddling around with the benefit system, or by policies of deterrence in legislation. If we want a policy of deterrence for a fraudulent applicant, a decision must be made quickly and efficiently, and subsequently enforced: that is something that we have singularly failed to do over 10 years.
The Government inherited a huge backlog in 1997, which then got worse. As an incoming Government we accepted the Siemens computer system that had been ordered for the Home Office. It was claimed that it would solve all the problems and reduce staffing levels. That was built into the Home Office budget of 1997. Unfortunately we went along with that, and the result was that the backlog increased, rather than decreased. It is only now that we are starting to get on top of it and turn it round.
If we want to deter people from making fraudulent applications, the knowledge that they will not buy two, three or four years in the country by making that
80WH
application—the knowledge that a decision will be made quickly and efficiently and will be enforced—is the most powerful deterrent. We would have done far better if we had not bothered with any of the last three Acts, and had simply got the systems within the Home Office working properly and efficiently.
I want to say something about the serious position that we are currently in, and which we got ourselves into by aping what was done in 1996. The Home Office's justification for where we are, which was given to the court recently, is that there is widespread abuse of the system because, for example, some people enter to work illegally and claim asylum when they are found out, while others run multiple claims, or have already claimed in safe countries, or have to wait for weeks and months before they make a claim.
Unfortunately, I am unaware of the Home Office ever having produced evidence to back up the assertion that many people wait weeks and months before they make their claim. I tabled parliamentary questions about how many people apply for asylum within a week and a month and three months and six months of being in the country, and about the relative rates of success of applicants, and I was told that the Home Office did not have that information—that it was not kept. However, the bald assertion is made that many people wait for weeks and months before applying so we must do something about that.
Simon Hughes: No answer was given to the question that I asked about the impact of the 8 January legislation. No figures have yet been forthcoming from the Government. No adequate monitoring is going on, even at this stage.
Mr. Gerrard: That is correct.
There is another crucial point about how this new legislation will be applied. There was a very short debate—only 15 minutes long—in which several hon. Members wished to speak but were unable to do so, and during which a question was asked about how reasonable we would be with regard to people who did not claim asylum at the port of entry. The Home Secretary said:

"We need to be reasonable and to take into account the trauma that people experience. We need therefore to allow a reasonable period before we presume that people have come into the country for another reason and have been sustaining themselves, and that when they could no longer do so they decided that the asylum system would sustain them". —[Official Report, 5 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 199.]

The Home Secretary dwelt on the need to be reasonable, and in meetings with hon. Members, Ministers went further than that. They said, "We are not in the business of penalising people who have been in the country a few days: you need not worry that we are going to behave unreasonably and penalise people who have only been in the country a few days or a week or two. We want to catch people who have been here three, four, five or six months before they make an asylum claim. They ought to be able to justify why they now need support." If the regulations had been interpreted in that way—the way that we were told they would be—the Government might well not have lost the court case this month; they would have found it much easier to persuade the court that they were behaving reasonably.

81WH
However, what is actually happening is that people are being refused the day after they arrive in the UK—and, in some cases, on the day on which they arrive in the country—because instead of claiming at the port of entry, they made their way to Croydon to make a claim.
The regulations are being applied in a totally unreasonable way. By losing the case now we have created a far worse problem. It must be dealt with. I am unsure how we are going to extricate ourselves from this; that depends on what the Court of Appeal decides. However, we have certainly created a problem, and it is of the Home Office's making because it has applied the regulations not in the way that we were told that it would, but differently.
This discussion has illustrated that the debate about asylum support is based on the premise of deterrence—that being tough through legislation will deter people from coming here and applying for asylum.
The Prime Minister said that he wants to see a 50 per cent. cut in the number of applications by September. That target is ludicrous. It is something over which we have no control. We should be able to control the rate at which we make decisions. We should be able to control the rate at which we remove those whose applications have been rejected. We should be able to control the rate at which we deal with applications, but controlling the rate at which applications are made is a completely different matter.
The approach taken by Governments of both parties over the past 10 years, before and after 1997, has been based on the premise that we can deter applications through legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) is absolutely right to say that if we want to deter fraudulent applications, we must look at the mechanisms, not the legislation. Decisions must be taken quickly, and they must be enforced.
Mr. Mark Francois: To pursue the hon. Gentleman's argument that mechanisms are important, does he not accept that one of the great failures of the system is that, because people know that the appeals process can take up to two years and that most appeals are likely to fail, they can effectively disappear? There is no real deterrent because when the time comes to deport those people, they have flown the nest.
Mr. Gerrard: There is no doubt that people can disappear, but they could do so whatever system we had in place if they were determined enough. Time and again, people turn up in my constituency surgeries five years after I first saw them—they have not disappeared—because nothing has been done to deal with their applications. That is the real problem, and it could be dealt with far more effectively than we are doing through the recent legislation. Even the legislation brought in by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was a failure; it was in force until 1999, and applications went up significantly during that period.
I suggest that hon. Members look at the pattern of the figures from the past 10 years. If they were put on a graph and plotted against each piece of legislation that was supposed to make it more difficult to apply, we may
82WH
see a temporary drop before the figures go up again. The pattern of figures can be related much more closely to external events such as those in Afghanistan or Kosovo than to any legislation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the House that it is customary in the 90-minute Adjournment debates to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the termination of the debate. I hope that hon. Members will take account of that. However, if we start the first of the winding-up speeches before 10.30 am—in other words, before the 30-minute limit—I hope that the three Front-Bench spokesmen will take account of that and take no more than one third each of the remaining time.
10.13 am
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I rise with the appropriate level of trepidation to make my maiden speech in this Chamber. I am particularly pleased to support the matter raised this morning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
I strongly support the case put by my right hon. Friend. I am relatively familiar with it, having been a junior member of his ministerial team when the events that he described took place at the end of that Government's term of office. Because there has been some debate about precisely what those events were, I took the opportunity to consult the excellent reference and readers' services section of our Library in order to determine the precise chronology. I received a letter from the Library, which stated:

"The Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations SI 1996/30 came into force on 5 February 1996. The Regulations were announced in a ministerial statement on 11 January 1996 and later debated on 23 January 1996.

The Regulations were challenged in the Court of Appeal and on 21 June 1996 judged to be ultra vires. Following on from this judgment, a ministerial statement was made on 26 June 1996 to inform the House of the Government's intention to reinstate this policy through primary legislation. Lords amendments were made to the Asylum and Immigration Bill 1995–96, debated in the Commons on 15 July 1996 and the policy was reinstated by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996."

Those are the facts of the matter, and my point, which echoes the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, is that the subsequent progress in policy suggests that the Government have cynically manipulated and toyed with asylum seekers and refugees. They should therefore apologise on the Floor of the House for the cynical way in which they have handled policy.
It is important that there are principles of responsible opposition. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) is attending the debate, and she and I were on the radio earlier this morning, telling our constituents in the midlands about today's debate on Iraq. She supported the amendment to today's motion, while I supported the Prime Minister, and the Opposition will support him in very large measure later today. We will do so because he is right, and that is how the Opposition should behave on all policies—they should be responsible. On the firemen's strike, for example, we have supported the Deputy Prime Minister

83WH
when we thought that he was right. I make those points because I think that it is wrong for the Opposition simply to oppose Government policy willy-nilly or to take cynical advantage of it if they think that it is right. My charge, however, is that the Prime Minister and others have cynically sought to exploit asylum policy and genuine refugees in their handling of policy.
In the interests of greater accuracy, I obtained a copy of early-day motion 264, which was tabled on 11 January 1996. It prayed against the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996, which I quoted earlier. The essence of those regulations has now been integrated into Government policy, even though early-day motion 264 prayed against such a policy—it was the exact reverse. The six signatures on that early-day motion included those of the present Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). They also included that of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who was formerly the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security. That is particularly hurtful, given that he is my Member of Parliament when I am in London. Indeed, he also represented my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden when he lived in Islington. The next signature was that of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), who is here today. The final two signatures were those of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. They are the guilty six, who cynically prayed against and attacked the policy of the Conservative Government, which included my right hon. Friend. However, they have now been forced to admit that it was correct. They were wrong, and my right hon. Friend was right.
However, it does not stop there. On Second Reading—I took hon. Members through the chronology a moment ago—the now Foreign Secretary, no less, said:

"How typical of the Government"—

that of which my right hon. Friend was a Cabinet member—

"that, instead of seeking to cut delays, they cut people's benefit."—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 720.]

The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was shadow Secretary of State for Social Security at the time and subsequently became a Secretary of State. He spoke about the inhumanity and injustice of our policy, saying that it was "contrary to common humanity". Those were the words that he used to condemn a policy that he and his party have now been forced to admit was correct. Such was the level of obloquy and condemnation as regards my right hon. Friend's policy that he met the Archbishop of Canterbury to explain the position—a policy that the Prime Minister copied when he went off to see the Holy Father last weekend.
The end of that chronology—which I can see has the Minister's rapt attention—ended on 23 January 1996, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, in splendid form, took the House through the matters in question. He demolished all the arguments that the then Opposition presented and said much the same as he has said today, showing that he is
84WH
consistent on this matter. He rose to speak at 10.25 pm—not a time of day at which the House now sits, much to my regret. My right hon. Friend was rewarded with what was then an enormous majority of 15–279 to 264 votes in support of his case, which he has made again today.
I have described in such detail the chronology of what happened because I want to demonstrate that, in contrast to the Conservative party, which in opposition takes, as I said earlier, a responsible view about the issues of the day, the Labour party in opposition was completely irresponsible. I believe that that fact should be exposed. As my right hon. Friend said, the figures for asylum applications, which were rising in 1995–96, fell as a result of his action. As a result of this Government's action, they have rocketed.
Ms Buck: The asylum statistics for the period in question show that the number of claims fell between 1995 and 1996 from 43,000 to 29,000. The dramatic fall occurred before the introduction of the Conservative Government's policies. If the benefits relationship is so tightly connected with asylum applications, as he and his hon. Friends claim, can the hon. Gentleman explain how asylum applications increased fourfold between 1989 and 1990, and halved after 1991, when there were no changes to entitlement to benefit?
Mr. Mitchell: I have looked carefully at the figures, and the graph shows that when it was known that the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden were being brought to Parliament—and when they were discussed and implemented—there was a fall in the number of people applying. The level then rocketed. The figures are something like 30,000 for 1996, as the hon. Lady said, and, in 2000, nearly three times that. If she considers carefully, she will see a direct correlation between the disincentives to abuse the system that the Government of which I was a member introduced and the effect on the figures of a lack of disincentive.
If the Labour party had stuck with integrity to our policy, instead of seeking narrow political advantage by opposing it as I have described, three significant—and, I hope the House will agree, desirable—events would have taken place. First, thousands of bogus asylum seekers would have been deterred from coming to this country. That is the evidence of the figures; it is the evidence that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden gave at the time; it is the evidence that anyone seriously studying these matters today would accept. In addition, the public stigmatisation of asylum seekers—something rather bravely alluded to by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)—would be much less
today if the system had had greater integrity.
The second desirable effect would have been that genuine asylum seekers would have been advantaged, because the system would not have been cluttered up by those who were not genuine. That would have made possible a system that would more accurately and speedily have given a fair and proper deal to the genuine asylum seekers who have always been welcome in this country.
Ms Buck: The hon. Gentleman claims that the Conservative Government's policy on benefits was

85WH
effective and should have been adhered to, but what is his comment on their policy on administration of asylum claims? The backlog of unprocessed claims soared throughout the 1990s.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady is correct on that point, but it cannot be right to make the matter worse by increasing the number of those in the system who are so clearly bogus. The truth about the advantage that the original Conservative Government proposals gave to genuine asylum seekers is that, over the four months during which the policy was in place, there was a 20 per cent. fall in the number of applicants.
Thirdly, the cost to the taxpayer is so much greater because of the cynical manipulation of that important policy area by the Labour party. When the proposals were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, his Department estimated that they would save £300 million per year. I know that the Labour party does not worry much about the cost to the taxpayer—it sprays taxpayers' money around without reforming public services—but the cost to the taxpayer of that one act of cynicism and hypocrisy was about £300 million per year. I hope that the Minister, with whom I sparred when our positions were reversed in the 1992–97 Parliament, will have the integrity to come not to Westminster Hall but to the Floor of the House and give a wholehearted apology.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ought to clarify a matter of detail. This is the Floor of the House. Its standing is equal to that of the other Chamber.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear that an apology now will be entirely acceptable. However, the Government, who have had to eat their words on the matter, should apologise to the House and to the taxpayer for what has happened. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, not one of those in the Labour party who oppose Government policy prayed against the order when it was brought before the House. That is astonishing. That, too, could be incorporated into the Minister's apology when he makes it to the House.
Ms Buck: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. When the measure was being introduced in the House, the clear indication was that it was to be applied to individuals who had been in this country for some time—three months was mentioned—under student or other visas and who then made applications, which they had to justify. No indication was given to me or to my hon. Friend that the measure was intended to catch those who had been in the country for only a few hours before making their application.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady is making a fist of defending the position and the policy of her party. However, I hope that she will have the integrity to accept that there has been a 180 degree turnaround on the matter. My central point is that an opposition party
86WH
that cynically, against the interests of public policy, sought narrow political advantage against the Government of the day has now to eat its words and propose a policy that is almost identical to that introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden.
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend recall the Home Secretary saying, last February, that asylum seekers

"should lodge their claim as soon as they arrive if they expect support from the Government"?

That does not sound like three months, does it?
Mr. Mitchell: It certainly does not. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What a contrast with the words of today's Foreign Secretary, who has inveighed against the very things that the Home Secretary now supports. There should be radical change in the way in which the policy on asylum seekers and refugees is implemented. The proposals of the shadow Home Secretary merit wide attention across the parties. I hope that on this occasion the Labour Government will not indulge in narrow party political advantage, but will look seriously at the proposals and will endorse them just as they have been forced to endorse the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, which are the subject of the debate.
10.29 am
Simon Hughes: I am conscious of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will speak for 10 minutes on the subject, which I am happy to debate. I have never resisted this debate and it is perfectly proper to raise the issues. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has been consistent in his general view on the subject as a Minister and in opposition, but I do not understand—I say this respectfully—how his political expressions on such issues are reconciled with the faith that he and I share, which teaches much about looking after the stranger at the gates. The great faiths of the world judge humanity not only by how we treat out own, but by how we treat others, and Christianity is among those.
I want to make some points about the general background, which the right hon. Gentleman painted in. First, as other colleagues have said, we live in a world in which it is nonsensical to imagine that we can manage the number of people who apply for asylum in Europe in general or in the UK in particular. That is a consequence of wars, rumours of wars and many other things. I note in passing that a small number of the world's asylum seekers come to Europe and the other rich bits of the world. Most go to the much poorer parts, such as Pakistan and the central African countries. That is why the Government's target is almost incredible, although targets for other things would be much more understandable.
Secondly, I put to the right hon. Gentleman the question of how people should be expected to make a claim, as two rights are involved: that to claim asylum and that to be granted it. By definition, one cannot have the second until one has the first. His answer would be valid if everybody knew what was the system and if the system worked, but the truth of the matter, as shown by all the evidence, including Home Office research, is that

87WH
most people do not know that the system can allow a person—possibly with no visa, passport or papers—to travel to Britain and then make an application. The world is not like that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, people often come with no visa, papers or passport, through facilitators or on their own. In fact, we increasingly check people outside the UK—on the other side of the channel, for example—so that they cannot even get here in many cases. The Government have always failed to address the question of how we can properly allow people to put their claims lawfully.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I thought that we should therefore allow people to make claims in embassies and high commissions around the world. I have argued that, rather than cause people to cross the world, it might be sensible to start a programme under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees whereby people could put their case at the British, American, French or any other embassy in the country nearest to them if they felt that that would be safest. That would require an improvement in local administration, but it would be a way to allow cases to be dealt with much nearer to where they came from. Of course, there are management and administrative issues—I understand that.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is breathtakingly frank. He would make it possible for anybody who can get out of their country to go to the local British embassy and ask to come here. Does he propose any limit on the numbers, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) proposes, or does he propose that the Geneva convention should remain in force and that an unlimited number should thereby be enabled to come to this country?
Simon Hughes: I apologise if I have not sent the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the booklet that I wrote last year, which I have given to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and other Ministers. I shall send him a copy. I do not propose that we have a quota system. We cannot fix an upper limit, which is the proposal of the right hon. Member for West Dorset. That proposal seems incredible, because numbers are not determined by anything that we can manage. I have proposed that there should be responsibility sharing.
Although, technically, the processing of the application of someone who arrives and puts their case to a European mission or to a country in the European Union would be taken by that country, over five or 10 years we should share the numbers across the EU, so that we will not be playing the nonsense game of passing the human parcel, which we are playing at the moment. We put up our barriers so that more people go to France, and the French put up their barriers so that more people come back here. We need to share responsibility, and all EU members need to take their fair and even share. That, surely, could be negotiated. To the Government's credit, they are now thinking about those things, but they have not yet begun to implement them.
Thirdly, there are all sorts of answers to the "Italian question"—that is, "Why don't so many people go to Italy?"—apart from that given by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who made the point that many people may be there who might not have been
88WH
legally recognised. One reason is language. Many of those who seek asylum have fled civil war in former British colonies such as Sierra Leone, where English is the main language. English is, after all, one of the three main world languages. People also come to Britain because of our reputation for human rights and decency. That is surely a good thing, which the World Service, the Government and the British Council seek to propagate, and to which many in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other places, respond.
All those things mean that we should respond positively and reasonably and decently. Britain is the world's fourth most economically successful country, and for 300 years it has believed through its law that people should not be left destitute. We must also continue to uphold the principles of the welfare state.
Mr. Gerrard: I have had the chance to look at the figures for Italy, and it is striking that between 1997 and 1999 the number of asylum seekers rose eighteenfold. Although it has since dropped, the rate in 2001 was still four times that of 1997. That illustrates the point that playing the numbers game is extremely unhelpful.
Simon Hughes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is naïve beyond belief to think that there is a direct link between the changes in the law and the number of asylum seekers.
This new law was first introduced in the House of Lords to much criticism. Lord Filkin was asked about problems that might arise on the as-soon-as-reasonably practicable test for applications and on the lack of an appeal review, even though the Labour party briefing at the time said that there would be an appeal review. He ignored those questions.
As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, we had a quarter of an hour of debate on the matter in the Commons. That was entirely unsatisfactory. Worse, the guidelines were published only on 7 January—the day before the measure came into force—and those who had to interpret them had one day to do so. The guidelines were extremely general and nondescript. They depicted some refusal scenarios, but only in the most general way, and the interpretation was very loose.
I also agree that the position of the Labour Government is exactly contrary to that of the Labour party in opposition. Indeed, the Labour Government have now gone further, because the Home Secretary did not suggest an interpretation that if there was no application on the day, an applicant would be turned down. That was not what he said and there was no indication that that was expected. Something entirely different has happened.
I recommend that people read the very good judgment of Mr. Justice Collins, who has also been president of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. He is not a maverick judge, nor a party political judge. He is well-respected, competent and knowledgeable, and he quoted many others in a very clear statement of the law. I hope that all who read the report of this debate also read what the judge said. They need only look at two of the examples among the six cases to see the nonsense of the current interpretation, which, mercifully, the courts have decided is wrong. I refer to the first and sixth cases.

89WH
The first concerns a 26-year-old man who left Iran, where he was persecuted for converting to Christianity. He sought help from a solicitor, but the day after he arrived he was turned down. The second is that of a 20-year-old Iraqi Kurd who arrived in a lorry on 8 January. On the same day, he walked for three hours, with no money and no English, and was told to go to the Home Office in Croydon. He too was turned down. The Home Office interpretation was absolutely scandalous—it goes against the common decency that this country is supposed to stand for.
The Home Secretary's mistake was then to suggest, after the judgment had been made, that the law should not be interpreted by the judges, even though the Human Rights Act and this law have been strictly interpreted by a judge who said that that is what Parliament intended. There is a famous maxim that no matter how high we are, the law should be always above us. Happily, these Ministers, like all others, must act within the law.
My party opposed these proposals, and continues to do so. We sincerely hope that the courts continue to uphold the fact that they are being wrongly interpreted. I believe that we will be vindicated and that the Home Secretary will seek to change the proposals at his peril. I hope that Parliament and the courts will find any such change unacceptable, improper and against all traditions of the decent British response to refugees that I hope, and hoped, a Labour Government would uphold.
10.40 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that we shall have to see what the Court of Appeal makes of that.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on securing a debate on this important subject. Over time, he has, in a sense, been vindicated. I was a member of his team between 1995 and 1997, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). As my hon. Friend said, we both remember how those who are now members of the Government attacked proposals to remove benefits from in-country asylum seekers. It was a vicious attack, but the truth is that when they came to power they were unable to follow sensible asylum policies for some years because of the vitriol that had been poured on my right hon. Friend. The fact is that from the time that the announcement was made in 1995 until the Conservative Government left office, the number of asylum seekers fell dramatically from 30,000 a year to 16,000 a year.
Asylum seekers have cost this country dear financially, and it has also caused a great deal of misery to many asylum seekers that the Government have followed a weak approach. The result of that has been a substantial increase in the amount of money that the country spends on asylum support. The numbers have also increased. Many of those people are simply not genuinely claiming asylum. They may, as my right hon. Friend said, be decent people seeking a better life, but they are not asylum seekers within the law as it stands.
90WH
We heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, whose approach to these matters has always been one of open house. He believes that ways should be found for people who want to come to this country from abroad to be able to do so, and to do so legally. That would be an open invitation, and goodness knows what the numbers would be if the policies that he has always advocated were pursued.
I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) about one thing: one problem over the years has been how long decisions on asylum cases take. We need speedier decision making, but the changes in the law that the Government have made with the Human Rights Act and so on are not likely to lead to that. In fact, in almost every asylum case that I have ever read, the courts have said that there should be even more inquiries and an even more laborious, long-winded process for cases to be determined. If he disagrees, I am happy to take an intervention.
Mr. Gerrard: I have certainly not held back from speaking up when I thought that the Home Office was making a mess of things, but the rate of decision making is improving considerably, with new applications especially being dealt with much more quickly.
Mr. Heald: We can all say amen to that, and if speedier decisions are being made, that is a good thing, but the fact is, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is still a slow process. I am sure that he is right: if the process were speedier and if people were removed when their cases failed, a better deterrent would be in place.
I should mention the Prime Minister. We have heard about the Government's shuttlecock approach to policy in the area, and three years ago he said:

"From April 2000, the new system will be in place, with new rules on benefit and new holding centres being opened up, so that claims can be processed quickly and we shall be able to get the numbers back down again."—[Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1035.]

Well, it did not work out like that, because since then the direct cost of asylum support has increased from £375 million to £1.094 billion in the most recent year for which figures are available. One has to ask whether the Government have got anything right in that area.
The Prime Minister is claiming that he will halve the numbers this year, but, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, not many of us believe that that will happen. All kinds of claims have been made during recent years. When the voucher scheme was introduced, it was claimed that it was vital and that it would save money—it certainly did not. It was also said that if cash benefits were reinstated those would cost £500 million a year more and that there would be a huge pull factor generating thousands of additional claims. What have the Government done, two years later? They have reinstated cash benefits.
Ms Buck: That is self-defeating logic. The introduction of the voucher scheme, the National Asylum Support Service and the dispersal programme should, following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's own party, have resulted in a reduced pull factor, but they simply did not. That confirms the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and I are

91WH
making, which is that the entitlement to support is largely irrelevant in the bigger picture. Many other factors are in play, ranging from the world situation to labour markets, English and other languages, and the administrative workings of the immigration and nationality directorate. Those are far more important in addressing asylum seeker numbers.
Mr. Heald: We obviously do not agree on those matters. The international examples that I could go through if I had another 10 minutes would prove that the hon. Lady is wrong.
On asylum support and the benefits system, the written answer that I received from the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration shows that when NASS began work in April 2000, there was no investigation service that could consider issues of benefit or asylum support fraud. It took NASS 13 months to introduce an operational unit. One thing that we know about any sizeable benefits budget is that there will always be people who try to abuse the system, and the hon. Member for Walthamstow has acknowledged that there are always cases of fraud. How negligent it was of the Government to leave NASS with no protection for 13 months.
Will the Minister give us any reason why that important budget was significantly underprotected for more than a year? Why is there no record of the total asylum support fraud discovered by NASS? Why does it not know how much money it has uncovered as being taken fraudulently from the system? It knows how many cases there are, but not how much money is involved. Why is there no estimate of the total asylum support fraud perpetrated since NASS was established?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden introduced systematic reviews of benefit fraud when he was at the Department of Social Security. That was an important measure in establishing how much fraud was taking place. Why has nothing similar been done in NASS? We know that it has investigated 4,600 cases, of which 1,400 ended in termination of support, which is why I cannot understand this answer from the Minister:

"The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) does not keep a central record of the level of fraud in individual cases." —[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 539W.]

Why on earth not?
The benefits fraud hotline, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend—he and I launched it outside Richmond house—was a successful way of tackling fraud. I know that this Minister is concerned about that issue, but when I asked the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration what measures there are for passing information from the hotline to NASS for investigation, she said:

"There are no formal arrangements for referring calls to the Benefit Fraud Hotline and the Targeting Fraud Website to NASS."—[Official Report, 27 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 707W.]

Why on earth not? Why did this Minister say, in answer to my question on the subject, that such allegations are passed directly to the immigration service and NASS?
92WH
If I had longer, I would go on, but I shall come to my final point. In respect of benefit fraud, there has been much profiteering on the part of landlords. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has posed a series of questions in the House on the housing provided to asylum seekers and the people who provide it. What protection is there against landlord fraud in the system?
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Malcolm Wicks): I, too, very much welcome this important debate, which was initiated by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is, of course, a former Secretary of State for Social Security. I agree with his opening remarks: these are matters of growing public concern in this country, throughout Europe and, indeed, further afield, so it is important that politicians representing the great democratic parties of the country lead the debate in the right direction, rather than shirking it. We may disagree about that direction, but we need to face the issues.
We must confront the racists and lead the debate in an important direction. That is a point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, and has made elsewhere. Also, we should face up to the difficult issues for our communities and the tough decisions that must be made. There is nothing more destructive to our democracy than people, perhaps for well-meaning reasons, attacking Members of Parliament from both sides of the House who raise legitimate issues, and throwing at them the charge of being racist. There is nothing more loathsome. If there is talk—even if it is misguided—in the pubs, on the streets, on the estates and in the communities about an issue, and the only place not talking about it is Parliament, our democracy is in trouble. That opens the gateway to the British National party, and perhaps other fascist parties. It is important that we engage in the issues without fear or favour.
We are all agreed that for many years—indeed, centuries—this country has opened its arms to people seeking refuge, many of whom were fleeing terror regimes. Many of them have been of enormous benefit to our economy and our country. We also agree that if asylum seekers face destitution, it is right that we should provide them with some financial support.
I regularly see asylum seekers in my constituency office and will continue to do so. Indeed, I last saw one on Friday. During the debate, I thought of a constituent I met a couple of years ago. Her story, which I believed entirely, was that she was picked up by soldiers in Uganda because she was associated with an opposition political movement. In the back of a lorry, she was systematically gang raped by many of the soldiers. She was able to flee her country and came to Britain, only to discover from her doctor that she was HIV-positive. A significant number of people are at that end of the continuum.

93WH
There are others, however, such as another constituent who told the immigration authorities many years ago that she was coming here for a couple of weeks of Christmas shopping. After a couple of years, when the immigration authorities were chasing her, she started studying. When the authorities chased her further, she announced that she was applying for asylum. I am not naive about the range, across the continuum, of those who apply for asylum.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for the admirably balanced way in which the Minister approaches such issues and the recognition that we should neither suppress debate on them nor pander to those who hold negative views about asylum seekers.
Will the Minister comment on the announcement by the Minister for Transport, who represents Warley and who will see only people who are on the electoral register, but not asylum seekers, at his surgery? Does the Minister think that such a statement panders to the animosity felt by some people towards asylum seekers? That animosity would be better targeted at those who created the situation, not the asylum seekers themselves.
Malcolm Wicks: I do not advise colleagues on either side of the House on how they should run their constituency offices. I have my own approach to such matters. Given that my constituency is Croydon, North and bearing in mind the ethnicity there and the fact that a significant number of asylum seekers are associated with Croydon for obvious reasons, I give them what advice I can.
As soon as someone is given exceptional leave to remain or is accepted by the Home Office as a genuine refugee, he becomes entitled to the same social security benefits as anyone else. That is a long-standing principle of the benefit system. There has been confusion and loose terminology in relation to refugees because, when someone becomes a refugee, he is a successful asylum seeker. In a way, the issue is simple. Such people then become entitled to social security benefits. That is why I am here, as a Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions, rather than a Home Office Minister. Understandably, however, the debate has ranged more widely than that subject.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden will forgive me if I do not debate the Lilley legacy and Conservative chronology. The Conservative party is going through one of those stages when it is terribly interested in itself, but such a view is not always
94WH
widely held. Before I come to refugees, I wish to refer to the improvements that we have made to the asylum system.
Mr. Heald: I hope that the Minister tackles the problem of fraud in the system and how that system is protected. The budget of £1.1 billion is substantial, and legitimate questions have been posed.
Malcolm Wicks: Those are reasonable questions that I shall draw to the attention of my Home Office colleagues. We are determined to bear down on fraud across the piece. Our Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 created the Home Office-administered National Asylum Support Service, which, since April 2000, has, when required, provided assistance and accommodation to all new asylum seekers. That is a separate system for asylum seekers. It should not be confused with that for those who are granted asylum and who are then dealt with by my Department in respect of social security benefits.
Measures introduced by the previous Government meant that asylum seekers who had made an application while in the country or who were appealing against a negative decision were denied benefits and were, in some cases, suffering real hardship. We ensured that there would be a safety net for such people to allow them to receive the support that they needed. We also recognised that better targeted support for asylum seekers was not enough on its own. We needed to deal with the growing backlog of people waiting for an asylum decision.
Although there is no scope to discuss the numbers now, a range of factors are involved. Benefits are important, but the international reputation of our country, language, the presence of different ethnic communities, the efficiency or inefficiency of immigration services at given points in time and the fact that Britain is the head of the Commonwealth are all significant in terms of employment opportunity. We are getting on top of the problem. The removal rate, although lower than we had hoped, has increased to about 12,000 people per month. In many ways, the immigration service is improving. We are on target in respect of 2002–03, and 65 per cent. of claims should receive an initial decision within two months. Those who were given the status of genuine refugees are allowed social security benefits in the usual way.
I shall write to hon. Members if I have missed any points, but the subject is obviously complex ethnically and politically in terms of policy, and particularly complex in respect of administration and delivery. We need to achieve the right balance, as I believe we are doing, between granting genuine asylum to those fleeing outrageous and wretched regimes throughout the world, of which there are too many, and ensuring that there is proper control against abuse.

Area Based Initiatives (Cornwall and Scilly)
11 am
Andrew George: I am delighted to have secured a debate on this important subject. I know that the Minister has a deep knowledge of it because she has been involved with her Department's work addressing the complexity of the area-based initiatives that come down from the Government. It is hard to imagine that the subject will be the stuff of tabloid headlines, although I argue that it is of deep concern to many people throughout the country. However, the terminology and the complexity of the subject make it impenetrable to many for whom it is important.
As the subject is unlikely to attract gladiatorial debate and argument, I hope that the Minister and I will be able to generate more light than heat in our debate. Given the Government's efforts and the work of the regional coordination unit—and before that, the performance and innovation unit—on area-based initiatives, I suspect that the Minister and I might be pursuing a similar agenda; I certainly hope so. I hope that she does not think that she can bat away my worries as ingratitude because I, and the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, are grateful to the Government for recognising the social exclusion that exists in the communities—in other words, poverty and deprivation. Those worries are being addressed in several ways and I am grateful for the effort, focus, priority and finance that have been seen. I am also grateful to the partnership of the communities, those who are deprived, the Government, and MPs in securing objective 1 status a few years ago.
When defining area-based initiatives, I shall include the objective 1 programme because it is relevant and knits together with many of the programmes that we shall discuss. Although there have been entertaining attempts to rewrite history and claim credit for achieving objective I status, a partnership did that. The people themselves championed the campaign for the designation, statisticians recognised the distinctiveness of Cornwall, which achieved statistical separation, and the Government campaigned successfully in Europe to drive home the advantage so that we got the designation. The Minister and I may share success, but we also share an interest in getting things right.
What do we mean by an area-based initiative? I know that the Minister knows but, for the record, I shall use a definition from a Government document. It is a measure

"to tackle social exclusion and deliver improved services in the most disadvantaged areas."

That quote comes from the regional co-ordination unit's "Review of Area Based Initiatives", which was published in October 2002. For example, among the many initiatives in Cornwall are: objective 1 integrated area plans, single regeneration budgets, neighbourhood renewal programmes, health action zones, healthy town initiatives, healthy living initiatives, market town initiatives, vital villages, sure start, Cornwall action team for jobs, the neighbourhood nursery scheme, the partnership development fund, the skills development fund, the rural key fund, the rural renaissance initiative, the community champions fund, community chest, the community empowerment fund and the safer communities initiative. Simply by listing the initiatives
96WH
and their titles, I make the point that I believe both the Minister and I understand. In the regional co-ordination unit report of October last year, Cornwall was cited as an example of where the plethora of initiatives was creating problems. The situation was not created by God, as if it were something natural. It is unnatural; it is manmade, so we can do something about it. The report identified more than 100 partnerships operating in Cornwall. All those are run at the same level by professional bodies.
It is my estimate that, taking all the partnerships together and including objective 1, we are looking at a budget of about £650 million to be spent in Cornwall over the next five years. That includes match funding, which inevitably has to be matched with other money in many of those programmes.
The primary point that I wish to make—I sent a note to the Minister's office to make clear my questions—is that although I am grateful for the funding, as many people are, the system that has been created has resulted in confusion and bewildering bureaucracy. Far from generating initiative, it has created initiative fatigue, strategy fatigue, vision fatigue, mission fatigue and fatigue within communities. There is a barely disguised intolerance of the confusing array of jargon and bureaucracy, which people find almost impossible to penetrate. I think that the Minister will have some sympathy with that point.
What action have the Government taken? I appreciate that they have identified the problem. The study in 1999 by their performance and innovation unit resulted in the report "Reaching Out—the role of central government at regional and local level", which was published in February 2000. It resulted in further work by the regional co-ordination unit and its report "Review of Area Based Initiatives", published in October last year. In that report, the unit accepts the problems of partnership overload, increased bureaucracy and the lack of integration of many of the schemes. There are many problems, not least the number and complexity of area-based initiatives in areas such as Cornwall. The different time scales and requirements of each of those do not dovetail well.
So far, where there have been partnerships, the response of the Government has been to set up local strategic partnerships. We now have partnerships for partnerships and that local strategic partnership has to produce a strategy, so that is a strategy of strategies. We now have super-partnerships and super-strategies, creating another layer of bureaucracy on top of the existing layer. We have the problem of duplication. Each partnership tends to create its own bureaucracy. Many of the organisations that I am talking about have facilitators and their own strategy and administrative procedures. all of which add to the web of bureaucracy that people have to face.
There is also the issue of perverse outcomes, such as different interpretations of state aid rules by, for example, the neighbourhood renewal fund and the single regeneration budget. Many of those people in local government who were consulted before the debate say that the interpretation of state aid rules on projects that are coming forward are not always consistent across all the programmes. Another example of a

97WH
perverse outcome is when two Government initiatives result in competition for the same funds and, in effect, suppress one potential outcome.
I shall give an example of a market town in Cornwall. I have to be careful about this. The private sector body funded under the neighbourhood nursery scheme through the Department for Education and Skills is competing with sure start, funded by the Department of Health. Both are trying to set up pre-school provision in the area, competing for the same public funds. Because the public funds are limited, only one of them will be successful. That is an example of two bureaucracies being established, which compete to attain the same objective. The outcome is perverse, resources are wasted and there is a duplication of effort. That is happening on manifold occasions throughout Cornwall in many of the initiatives that I have mentioned.
There is also inefficiency. The regional co-ordination unit report states that the audit bill of Kerrier district council has quadrupled in five years as a result of the work done by that council to prop up its commitment to the bureaucracies and partnerships with which it finds itself engaged. The same professionals turn up to different committees under different titles and frantically run around keeping all the balls in the air to maintain their involvement in the partnerships in each of the initiatives.
Under community regeneration in objective 1, the Cornwall Voluntary Sector Forum, Cornwall rural community council and the diocesan Board for Social Responsibility in Truro produced a report identifying that the £4 million for community regeneration under objective 1 is being spent largely on bureaucracy establishing the integrated area programmes and producing the strategies, but very little is being achieved on the ground. One response from Richard Bayley, the Plymouth director of the Government office for the south-west, questions the bulk of the money used for regeneration in Cornwall going into bureaucracy and strategy. Some of the money goes into what is euphemistically called capacity building.
The most useful capacity building that can be undertaken, however, is to teach local communities and give them the knowledge to negotiate the systems created by the Government. It is assumed that poverty is caused by the incapacity of the people and communities rather than geography and economic circumstances beyond their control. In fact, the capacity building that is required is the building of the knowledge and confidence to become cynical of the whole process in order to extract money from the system. Many community organisations find that the best way forward is cynically to manipulate the system because there is no other way for them to obtain finance from the system to allow community groups to prosper. There are many reasons for concern about the way in which area-based initiatives operate, but I do not have time to go into detail about the other impacts.
In discussing social exclusion, we are talking about poverty. The poverty industry is now one of the most prosperous in Cornwall. I am sure that, to an extent, targets have been met and the poor are benefiting, but a tremendous bureaucracy has been established through which the money and effort must be driven in order for
98WH
the poor in Cornwall to benefit significantly. As a result, there is a great deal of initiative fatigue and barely disguised intolerance on the part of those involved.
I have asked the Minister several questions in advance of today's debate. For example, what estimate has been made of the amount and proportion of available funds for Government-agency-sponsored area-based initiatives that has been spent on productive purposes to deliver goods on the ground? How much has been employed for non-productive, preparative, administrative, team-training capacity-building activities? Has the Minister's Department estimated the impact of such a high number of area-based initiatives on Cornwall and the productivity of those initiatives? Are there more effective ways to reduce the non-productive costs of running those schemes? By what measures do the Government estimate the success of ABIs in satisfying their own targets and the targets of local authorities? When will the Government stop adding to initiatives and mainstream the successes? Are local strategic partnerships here to stay, or are they another short-term experiment? If so, what does that tell local authorities about Government attitudes?
In conclusion, if we got rid of the middle person and took the bureaucracy out of the system, we would be able to distribute some £650 million across, let us say, 10 per cent of the population, and give each poor family in Cornwall about £10,000 a year. If we gave it to them in vouchers to buy child care, security or better housing they would spend that money in an effective way. Rather than going through processes that are about greater control, perhaps the Government need to let go.
Cornwall county council has recently been given an excellent billing by the Government for the way in which it runs its services. If it is so excellent, and the Government are in favour of devolution, perhaps it is time that the Government gave Cornwall county council and other local authorities the opportunity and freedom to run these programmes themselves.
11.16 am
The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) has introduced and conducted this debate. He is quite right: we are speaking about serious and important issues. He and I have had long discussions about Cornwall and objective 1 during the process of negotiation.
I want to speak about the policy thrust behind the area-based initiatives, and about how these initiatives are working on the ground. I hope to give the hon. Gentleman some comfort that we are making progress in eliminating bureaucracy and amalgamating initiatives where we can. I agree that we do not want to have cumbersome bureaucracy standing in the way of delivery.
The policy thrust in delivering area-based initiatives is to narrow the gap between deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country, so that within 10 to 20 years no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live. It is unacceptable that those living in our poorest communities so often have the worst schools and public services. Our aim is to deliver economic prosperity, safe communities, high quality education, decent housing and better health to the poorest parts of the country.

99WH
Area-based initiatives have a key role to play in reaching that aim. They are important for trying out new ideas and giving scope for innovation. Across the country, the Government are investing around £2 billion over 10 years in the 39 new deal for communities areas; some £1.9 billion over five years through the neighbourhood renewal fund in the 88 most deprived areas; and some £500 million in 522 sure start programmes.
Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly include some of the United Kingdom's most deprived neighbourhoods. Earnings in Cornwall are 33 per cent below the national average. Coping with the impact of economic changes on the traditional industries of fishing, agriculture and mining has been a painful experience. Overall unemployment in Cornwall has come down to around the national level but remains persistently high in some areas. There has been a hard-fought campaign in Cornwall to bring those areas to attention at national and European level.
As the hon. Member for St. Ives amplified, Cornwall has almost the full range of United Kingdom Government area-based initiatives, as well as some very significant European funding: that is because of the great difficulties that communities in Cornwall face.
Objective 1 is bringing in £308 million of European money to raise the economic prosperity of the area. That is also levering in other public and private sector funds. That is achieving a considerable amount: it is supporting projects delivering broadband, which is important for Cornwall's regeneration; it is providing venture capital to business, which is vital because we need to stimulate the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in Cornwall; it is also supporting the additional activities of such marvellous ventures as the Eden project, which is having a big impact on the local community; and it is expanding Dairy Crest's creamery in the area. All of those things are very important.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned bureaucracy. I am sure that he agrees that there must be a robust process for project appraisal, because significant sums of public money are at stake. However, we try to ensure that that process matches the size and nature of the projects. I assure him that I will keep a vigilant eye on that. If we are dealing with a comparatively small sum of money, we must ensure that the due diligence that we have put in place is not excessive. Several projects that are under way provide funding for small-scale activities: they have been specifically designed to make access to funds as simple as possible for community bodies, small and medium enterprises and farming and fishing businesses.
Andrew George: The Minister rightly points out that due diligence is required, and that there must be a robust audit of how public funds are spent and whether they are spent properly. However, given the plethora of sizes and scales of operations and the numbers of initiatives, does she not accept that it would be far better to devolve the responsibility for that task to one organisation that is accountable to the local community than to have the current manifold arrangements?
Mrs. Roche: I have some sympathy with the sentiments that lie behind that point, and I will address it as I develop my arguments.
100WH
The neighbourhood renewal fund brings an extra £5.5 million to the districts of Penwith and Kerrier. The fund aims to improve core public services and narrow the gap between deprived neighbourhoods and the rest. A new NRF-supported minor injuries unit at the Camborne Redruth community hospital will save residents of Cornwall's largest built-up area the 30-mile round trip to Truro. That is a good example of how things are made to work on the ground. The community contribution to that project was particularly impressive.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the mainstreaming of services. The health action zone aims to improve local healthcare services. I will come on to how we have mainstreamed some of the principles that lay behind health action zones.
The Camborne/Pool/Redruth success zone is raising the aspirations and employability of young people from three to 19 years of age who live in the former mining area. Its projects include a hi-tech classroom of the future and work-based, accredited, key-skill qualifications. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that those are key examples of what is happening on the ground.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned sure starts. There are six sure starts in Cornwall, including two in his constituency. They aim to give children the best possible start in life and some of the things that they are doing, such as establishing fathers' groups and child minding networks, are key to ensuring that delivery goes where it is most needed—to the local community. Many more activities are going on.
Let me deal with the important points about complexity raised by the hon. Gentleman. He was right to say that we need to consider the difficulty, raised in the report of the performance and innovation unit, of there sometimes being a plethora of initiatives and too much bureaucracy. We have done so; indeed, we have been quite radical. I led a review of our area-based initiatives, and I recognise that there are too many funding streams and sometimes a lack of integration in Whitehall. We realise that we need also to mainstream many initiatives. A good idea that has been exploited in an area-based initiative should be transferred to mainstream services. There is too much red tape, with each programme having its own rules and its own monitoring and evaluation requirements, which makes it difficult for local people to access funding.
The regional co-ordination unit looked at 40 initiatives in eight reviews. I announced the results in October 2002. That led to a significant reduction in the number of separate funding channels. We have cut bureaucracy, and we are trying to champion change from the bottom up. The Government office is now developing single local management centres to work up proposals for the better co-ordination of area-based initiatives locally, and to identify the changes required at Government level to help ABIs focus on delivery.
The hon. Gentleman was right to talk about the county council. We want to include councils in the process and to give them more freedom and flexibility.
Andrew George: I appreciate the attempt to bring these initiatives together in the Government office. I welcome the fact that they are being brought together, and the involvement of the county council and other

101WH
councils is also welcome. However, does the Minister accept that it would be far more acceptable to local people if that responsibility was devolved to a democratically accountable local body like the county council rather than being held out of Cornwall in either the regional development agency or the Government office for the south-west? With the best will in the world, those bodies are less approachable and further from the people who are supposed to benefit from the schemes.
Mrs. Roche: But that is exactly what we have done with the establishment of the local strategic partnerships, which are here to stay. We have given them direct control over the neighbourhood renewal funding. That is a real partnership between community groups, the local statutory bodies that deliver the services and the local authority. We are keen to develop more local flexibility.
Much good work is already going on in Cornwall. The west Cornwall local strategic partnership has begun work on bringing together the ABIs in the Penwith and Kerrier districts—exactly what the hon. Gentleman seeks. The Government office's objective 1 team and the regional development agency are working on joint application forms and the joint appraisal of projects. Work is under way better to link the objective 1 integrated area plan teams with other initiatives. A great deal is going on. We also want to see a strengthened role for local strategic partnerships in directing the initiatives and funds towards deprived areas, and much more mainstreaming of good practice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be keeping a close eye on that, as the Government office seeks to develop those ideas further with all our partners in Cornwall.
Local strategic partnerships in Cornwall as elsewhere are taking a key role in promoting the effectiveness of area-based initiatives. There are now some 326 established LSPs in England. It is still early, but it is clear that they are starting to become effective in coordinating neighbourhood renewal. The thrust of local strategic partnerships was to cut the plethora of separate partnerships; they were doing important and worthy things but it was leading to partnership overload. Experience shows that they are having some success.
The Government remain committed to reducing the gap between deprived areas and the rest. We are confident that the area-based initiatives will lead to progress and to the renewal of our communities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will also reduce bureaucracy and red tape by bringing those initiatives together, and that we shall seek to ensure that they are delivering on the ground to the communities that need them most.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Small Businesses
2 pm
Mr. Iain Luke: I am glad to have been successful in the ballot for precious moments in Westminster Hall, as I have sought this debate for some time. I wish to review the critical role played by the small business sector in the economic performance of the United Kingdom. I hope that we will have a wide-ranging debate and I look forward to contributions from hon. Members who represent different parts of the UK. Given his track record in office, I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), will listen intently to the debate and take up the points that are raised.
My constituency in Scotland has had a poor track record in small business start-ups. Despite the fact that we work within the United Kingdom economy, more than one issue differentiates small businesses in the UK context—and, indeed, in the English and Welsh context—and the Scottish small business sector. I shall explore those issues in the debate. The United Kingdom Government have a responsibility to take action to ensure that structural inhibitions are tackled and smoothed out, so that we gain our objective of prosperity for all.
We are holding our discussion at a time when the global economy is beset by uncertainty and worries about recession. That is all the more reason why we must do all we can to foster enterprise and innovation, and to ensure that the heartening rate of small business start-ups is maintained and improved. It is worth making the point that, in the face of global economic problems, the UK has performed better than most of the industrial world. Although gross domestic product shows significant falls, it remains positive compared with our European and G7 partners.
It is true that the Scottish economy has suffered particularly badly from the global downturn. The primary impact has been on the electronic communications industry. It has also affected the small business sector, which has a fine track record of exporting to and tapping into markets throughout the globe, outwith and within the European Union. The knock-on effect of the economic downturn in markets that were initially seen as good for Scotland, has had an impact on the growth of its small businesses.
Scotland has suffered great shrinkage in its manufacturing capacity. It has a lower growth rate than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. The debate now taking place in the main Chamber emphasises the uncertain international situation. Such a problem means an even bigger squeeze on share prices, markets and the confidence of markets throughout the world. But despite the uncertainty and flux, the nature of the macro-economic situation in the United Kingdom and in Scotland is good. Indeed, only yesterday in Dundee, an article in The Courier about the latest Scottish economic report, which is published by the Scottish Executive, stated that growth would occur in the Scottish economy in 2003. Moreover, growth is expected to be higher this year than previously, which is good news for Scotland. That also shows that the economy throughout the United Kingdom seems to be picking up.

103WH
Let us consider macro-economic aspects, such as low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, record numbers of people in work, and especially improvements in the rate of small business start-ups, which are evident from the figures issued by the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry last November. All those things hold out the promise of a strong economic recovery in the coming years. Figures recently issued by Barclays showed that more than 91,000 new small businesses commenced trading in the first three quarters of 2002; that is an increase of 14 per cent.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Were there 91,000 start-ups in the UK as a whole, or only in Scotland? Does the hon. Gentleman know the figure for Scotland?
Mr. Luke: The figures apply to the whole of the UK. I do not have the figures for Scotland, but I hope to have them in future to provide evidence of differentials in growth.
One of the best ways of fulfilling the hopes that I have raised of an economic recovery is to ensure that the small business sector is fostered. It is important to remember that the small business sector comprises the vast bulk of the British economy: it encompasses 90 per cent. of the 3.7 million business operations in the UK. It is necessary to highlight the importance of the small business sector and its contribution to the creation of wealth, employment and business activity in the UK. Although it is usually bigger businesses such as British Airways and BAE Systems that receive media attention and attract glamour, these businesses—only 7,000 of which employ more than 250 people—form the tip of an iceberg.
Given the nature of business growth, many larger businesses are now becoming much more footloose. Many are wholly or partly owned by concerns and shareholders outside the UK; as a consequence, they are much more prone to relocation outside the UK economy and to radical downsizing in times of economic difficulty. To draw from local experience, over the past year Levi Strauss & Co. has left the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and ABB Power T&D Ltd has closed its premises in my constituency, Dundee, East.
The typical British business is a small business that employs 10 or fewer employees. Many are family businesses, and most are sole traders. They are firmly located within the context of the British business environment, and the continued robust health of small businesses is an essential component of the UK's better economic performance at a time of global and European downturn. Despite the disadvantages of an overvalued pound and the UK's continuing exile from the eurozone, a survey conducted last year by the Federation of Small Businesses showed that 22 per cent. of small businesses continued to trade strongly with European Union countries.
Despite that positive evidence, the sector continues to experience serious problems that inhibit better performance. They were clearly identified in last year's survey by the Federation of Small Businesses: lower costs and overseas competition have an impact on how
104WH
businesses operate in this economy; there was a big problem with access to finance; and the ability to employ staff was circumvented by the costs that had to be borne. Access to business advice, transport costs and access to education and training for staff also scored highly as problems in recent surveys. Those problems were identified as of great concern to small businesses in the UK.
Given the growing importance of our trade with the European market, which will soon have a population of almost 340 million, one major factor in the continued well being of the sector is our early entry into the eurozone. Many small business men and women will join me in welcoming the announcement in June of the progress that is being made towards satisfying the five economic tests, which is scheduled to be announced by the Chancellor. I hope that soon afterwards we will have an early and successful referendum and an early and unimpeded entry to the eurozone. That will give certainty to the UK's trading position and remove the extra cost of the artificially strong pound values that burden the UK.
Funding in general is a specific problem. The ability to access funds to promote growth is a worry north and south of the border. The Government should be doing more to address the real concern on both sides of the border about the ability to achieve business growth.
Mr. Andrew Love: Does my hon. Friend accept that the formation of new businesses is relatively secure in the United Kingdom economy and that the problem lies with taking small businesses with fewer than 10 employees and growing them into medium-sized and larger businesses? Surely that is the main area that we ought to be looking at.
Mr. Luke: I take my hon. Friend's point. I agree with him in the main, although there is a factor in the Scottish context that inhibits the growth of small businesses; I shall talk about it later. Throughout the UK, to grow from a small company with less than 10 employees to a larger company with between 49 and 250 employees is a big leap, and further finance is needed to ensure that the gap is overcome. I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make that point in response to his intervention.
The Government have done a lot to remove the red tape and the bureaucracy about which many complain. I am sure that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) will make the point that there is too much bureaucracy. The Government have done great things on removing red tape, on taxation, and on statutory requirements for thousands of businesses. Progress has been made in those areas, but there is a need for more. I am sure that the Minister and others in their discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses will continue to focus on those prime areas of concern.
As a new Member of Parliament with a special interest in such matters, I have visited many small businesses in my constituency and, whenever possible, I have taken the opportunity to engage in dialogue with proprietors, directors or sole traders. They continue to refer to the burden of bureaucracy that hampers their growth and business operations.
Only this week, when people knew that I would be making a contribution to the debate, I had a phone call from a small sole trader in Dundee, who said that, in the

105WH
past, he had been successful in obtaining contracts for small jobs for Government Departments in and about Dundee, but because of European procurement requirements, he was removed from the tendering contract and lost out to a company that had a base in Dundee, but was at the larger end of the small and medium-sized enterprise range and had consequently relocated outside the city. Therefore, the work that is being carried out in the Government Departments in the city is provided by a company located outside the city boundaries—indeed, at some distance from the city. That small business man feels greatly aggrieved. When we look at procurement policies and the way in which Government Departments contract out work, we should at least make some leeway for local small business operators.
Another major area of concern is transport costs and transport infrastructure, which is vital to all the peripheral parts of the UK and which is clearly linked to successful business start-ups and continued profitability. My own area, the north-east of Scotland, is seriously hampered by the lack of modern, high-speed road and rail links down the east coast. The Minister, who represents a seat in Edinburgh, will be only too aware of the poor road links between our part of the country and the rest of the UK—the A1 is very poor. He will also be aware of the concern expressed by hon. Members who represent Edinburgh about the reprioritising of railway investment in the east coast main line through the latest Strategic Rail Authority investment review, which puts back any investment, particularly north of Edinburgh, into the very distant future—perhaps the next millennium, if things go the way that they have in the past. I hope that the Minister will take that up, because it is a cause of concern to many small businesses in Scotland.
I referred earlier to the general underperformance of the Scottish economy when viewed against overall UK economic performance. The "Lifting the Barriers to Growth in UK Small Businesses" survey conducted last year by the Federation of Small Businesses showed a vibrant, ambitious small-business sector flourishing in Scotland. Nevertheless, the survey also showed the clear distinction between the UK-wide business environment and that in Scotland.
Scottish small businesses are showing a much more youthful profile than ever before, and the Scottish small business sector can boast the highest proportion of wholly female-owned small businesses in the UK. However, on the downside, the number of small business start-ups is lower than the UK average. Business owners in Scotland are more likely to have bought a going concern or inherited a business than those in the rest of the UK. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), that means that there are not as many start-ups in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. That must be addressed.
Business turnover is lower in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, and the number of employees per business is also lower. That is a consequence of Scotland's businesses being subject to more cost constraints in their business activities. Scotland remains the area of the UK in which small businesses find the burdens of transport costs, fuel and road tax most onerous. Some 62 per cent.
106WH
of those surveyed last year expressed dissatisfaction with Scotland's road infrastructure and its links to UK and European markets.
The use of technology in Scotland's small business sector is comparable with that in the rest of the UK, but access to ISDN and broadband is considerably more limited. Despite the technological differences, there is a clear desire for involvement in new ventures to improve marketing, increase research and development, and break into overseas markets. The ability to achieve those goals and to improve the ability to compete is severely hampered by the divergence I mentioned between the business environments in Scotland and in the UK overall. Poor access to broadband particularly affects my area: access is very bad there, even for Scotland. However, much of the country enjoys unlimited access to broadband.
A great percentage of small businesses have not been able to achieve and sustain real growth because of a lack of access to investment capital, and we must address that as soon as possible. Earlier, I referred to high transport costs resulting from not only fuel prices, but geographical location. Because of the smaller nature of Scottish small businesses, they feel a relatively greater impact on overall costs and eventual turnover from taxes in general, and environmental levies in particular. All that affects the ability of Scottish small businesses to invest in long-term growth and viability.
I freely admit that the remedies and responsibilities for those problems fall not only to this Parliament but to Holyrood. To be fair, considerable progress has been made on such matters, with the Westminster Government cutting and slashing taxes in last year's Budget to ensure that small businesses enjoy more advantages. The Scottish Executive played their part, too, falling in line with the Department of Trade and Industry's new manufacturing and innovative strategy, and announcing new resources to boost joint academic and industrial ventures. I hope that that will increase new start-ups in, for example, life sciences and medical biotechnology, especially in areas such as Dundee. Dundee has a good track record of creating new small companies involved at the sharp end of technology, especially computer-game technology.
Much remains to be done. We must constantly review how we handle the thorny issues of economic growth, both north and south of the border.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the first couple of minutes of his contribution. Does he share my hope that the Minister will also address the difficulties that small businesses face when trying to access affordable insurance cover? The cost of insurance cover, if businesses can get it, has multiplied by five for some businesses.
Mr. Luke: I am happy to respond to that because small businesses in my area have brought that issue to my attention. The growth of the cost of insurance cover during the past few years has been unbelievable. Given the insurance industry's problems, that must be tackled. Larger companies have easier access to insurance because they have a larger financial base than small businesses. Small businesses might not grow or might go into liquidation because they are unable to get such cover, so my hon. Friend's point is well made.

107WH
I was talking about the need to examine the way in which we manage our policy, and I referred to two specific aspects. The first is the role of enterprise companies and development agencies north and south of the border. If there are problems of divergence between the Scottish and UK growth figures, we must examine ways in which enterprise companies—in this case, the national company Scottish Enterprise—deal with that. We must continue to review their roles and what happens in England where there are development agencies.
Mr. Love: My hon. Friend mentioned the low growth rates of Scottish small businesses compared with that of small businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom. Scottish Enterprise picked up on that issue, set up a special project and invested substantial resources to assist the formation of small businesses in Scotland. As I understand it—the Minister might comment on this—that has not yet produced the additional formation that one would expect. Does my hon. Friend know any reasons why there is such difficulty in forming small businesses in Scotland?
Mr. Luke: I know about that from my constituency experience. I appreciate the national strategy that Scottish Enterprise has put in place, but I do not believe that the strategies employed by enterprise companies in the locale exert real pressure at the grass roots and the coal face for the implementation of the policy. There is no discussion about strategies required for local areas. There is a need to examine not only the national operation of Scottish Enterprise and the development agencies south of the border, but the way in which money channelled through national or regional agencies by Government is to get down to the grass roots. Scottish Enterprise Tayside, the local enterprise company in Tayside, has lost its way on many such issues and it should be more focused. The Government should ensure that it is refocused.
Although the fact that the structure of the companies does not allow for political input might be a good thing, it removes the ability of politicians in Westminster and the Scottish Parliament to give a political and economic focus. We are involved with the trends and we know what is happening in the national economy. That would assist local enterprise companies to devise their strategies accordingly.
Mr. Kerry Pollard: My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said that small businesses are not doing well not only in Scotland, but in several regions of England. Apropos of that, the eastern region is doing really well. There is a culture in the region of getting up and at 'em and a culture of small businesses. However, large businesses have been the norm in other areas of the country, and it is difficult to achieve a culture change from one to another.
Mr. Luke: I happily accept that I am speaking from a Scottish perspective. I examined the figures issued last year by the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, and there are obviously divergences throughout the United Kingdom. Much of that happens for the same reasons as in Scotland: there are peripheral areas served by poor infrastructure and they are affected
108WH
by the way in which their development agencies work. Although I am speaking from a Scottish perspective, the national Government must do more to refocus the priorities that it sets.
I made these very points in the debate on the Scottish economy in the Scottish Grand Committee last week. Given that Scotland has a separate Parliament, there may be a need to create a cross-border consultative body based on the Irish model, where Ministers meet on a regular basis to discuss the structural problems that affect Scotland's contribution to the UK economy. There could even be a quarterly meeting of Scottish MPs and MSPs to review not only the work of that ministerial body, but also the work of the bodies in Scotland that are charged with creating economic growth and prosperity.
That would give a focus to the work in Scotland and tie it in constitutionally more closely with the workings of the UK Government. In making this suggestion, I reject the arguments put by the Scottish National party. I do not see anyone from the SNP here today, so I do not know what interest they have in the Scottish economy. They did not perform well last week: their concept of financial autonomy—for them a back door for independence—does not hold water. The argument put by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—who is not here today—in the pages of business section of The Scotsman yesterday is a recipe for the break-up of a successful economic arrangement that would mean job losses and the loss of work and prosperity in Scotland. I am sorry that there are no SNP Members here to put their case on that point.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend's contribution has focused on the whole range of general issues that affect small businesses and the climate within which they operate. Will he acknowledge that Scotland has a proud tradition of community-owned small businesses? There is a range of specific issues that affect such businesses, relating to the nature of the legislation and the way in which that legislation has fallen behind company law.
Mr. Luke: Given my previous experience in local government and economic development, and as one who was very much involved in the fostering of small community businesses, I am happy to argue their case and praise their activity, but north of the border they have lost their way—I am not sure about the situation in England. I agree that we need to refocus their structure and address the way in which they can channel funds and prosper.
Credit unions have been a big success in providing funding and bringing corporate co-operative action together. There is a need to look at that sector, because it is a good and useful vehicle for creating small business ventures that are collectively owned. There is a need to consider different models outwith the normal models, such as sole traders or small partnerships, by creating community-based organisations. That is something that I know the Government are keen to do, and in Scotland, there has been an emphasis on that in the past.
I am glad that we have had time to stage this important debate. It reminds us that we should never forget or belittle the contribution that small businesses make to the economic life of this country. Without

109WH
doubt, they are the wellspring and the fountain of regeneration in the British economy. We must make sure that new companies appear, grow, become larger employers and provide prosperity, services and employment throughout the British economy. The massive multinationals often steal much of the economic limelight, but without the solid base of the small business sector, the British economy would be built on weak foundations.
I know that the Minister has done a great deal in this area and I look forward to hearing what more the Government can do to sustain and encourage small businesses. Earlier this week the Secretary of State for Scotland had meetings in Scotland to discuss the role that the Government could play, and I hope that those discussions with small businesses and business in general will pay dividends. The Government have made tremendous efforts to promote growth in the future and set the scene for the eagerly awaited economic upturn.
There will, no doubt, be criticism of the Government and of some of their policies, as well as claims that they have not done enough to foster small businesses, but the figures show that there has been considerable growth, and in that light, the charges appear unfounded. Hopefully, the Government will make the case—I am sure that the Minister will—that small businesses in the UK benefit from the least-regulated regime in Europe. I hope that we can do more to reduce that regulation.
As we are discussing issues relating to the Scottish economy as well as the UK economy, I am sorry that no SNP Member is present. I am sure that their leader is in the House, although I would have thought that he would have ensured that there was a representative in this Chamber to speak on behalf of his party in this debate.
I hope that the Government will take note of what is said in this debate, and that they will examine the infrastructure and structural problems in the Scottish economy in relation to the UK economy. The Federation of Small Businesses has been active in putting the case for small businesses. Only yesterday, in the business section of The Scotsman, John Downie poured scorn on the manufacturing plans in the Scottish manufacturing steering group report. At the end of the day, the Federation of Small Businesses makes a positive contribution to the work of the Government, by ensuring that they do what they can to ensure that small businesses are fostered. It is essential that we do all that we can to ensure that that growth continues.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I see hon. Members rising who have not notified me of their intention to speak. In 90-minute Adjournment debates, it is customary to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches no later than 30 minutes before conclusion, which means that there are now 29 minutes for open debate. I ask those hon. Members who are seeking to contribute to bear that in mind, not only in their personal contributions, but in interventions that they make or accept. We must start the first of the three winding-up speeches by 3 o'clock.
2.32 pm
Ms Meg Munn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part, because I also have an interest in small businesses in the north of England, although obviously my hon. Friend is from a bit further north. I shall focus on the importance of small businesses to strong regional economies and, in doing so, I will identify particular ways of doing business. There are some business organisations in my part of the world that could be employed in other parts of Britain. I shall also focus briefly on women entrepreneurs.
A couple of weeks ago, the regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward, launched its 10-year regional economic strategy and focused on the skills that will be needed for the region to progress over the next 10 years. It also identified the need for more small businesses and greater growth. I am especially pleased that in Sheffield, as well as the usual business support that the Government have introduced, for example, through the Small Business Service business links programme, we have agencies that offer support to businesses to help them become established, to grow and succeed.
Sheffield chamber of commerce is one of the most successful in the country. I attended an event last week when it took over responsibility for the Sheffield enterprise agency, which takes referrals from the Small Business Service to help people to launch their businesses. The most interesting speech of the evening—even more interesting than my own—was from a young woman who had been in the beauty business for only eight weeks. She was clearly very experienced in her area of work. She had worked for major companies such as Yves Saint Laurent or Yves Rocher—Yves somebody-or-other, anyway—and had managed the training for people throughout the UK, but she decided that she wanted to have a better work-life balance. She wanted to use her skills to set up her own beauty treatment business from home, and she had been enabled to do that with the support of the Sheffield enterprise agency.
Sheffield chamber of commerce also has responsibility for the south Yorkshire international trade centre, which works with businesses to see how they can take advantage of the opportunities to export to the EU and more widely. That scheme is recognised as successful. Those involved with the trade centre enjoyed Prince Andrew's visit last month, during which he learned about the work that is being done there.
We are not only interested in businesses created from one model. In Sheffield, we have a long-established cooperative development agency, and I am especially pleased that more than 10 per cent. of the Labour cooperative MPs have taken an interest in the debate and are present today. That shows how important mutuals and social enterprise are to the economy. It is pleasing to know that work is being done to put into action the Department of Trade and Industry's clear aim of more support for social enterprises. I welcome the proposals for a more supportive legislative environment, and I welcome the fact that in future each business link must plan to support social enterprises. I would be pleased to hear from the Minister about that area of work when he has the time to respond.

111WH
There are some excellent examples in my constitutency. Heeley city farm is not just part of the city farm movement; it has expanded to provide training through the new deal, it has a garden centre and café?and it has just been awarded money to develop a large community composting scheme. Next to that we have Heeley development trust, which is a community-owned organisation that manages community resources. That provides a particularly interesting model, because it tries to do what the Government want such organisations to do. It aims to own buildings and rent them out, so that it can move from being grant-funded to being self sufficient. Sheffield Rebuild is also a good example of social enterprise, and it is one of the fastest growing businesses in Sheffield. It trains young people entering the construction industry, and it supplies building services to social housing providers in Sheffield. It recently won a special social enterprise award in the inner city 100 awards.
Small businesses struggle, and I have visited some in my constituency. The owner of Ponsford's furniture store told me that one of his real problems was how to deal with the range of issues involved in running a small business without a large supporting personnel department and particular expertise. For that reason, I welcome the red tape busting roadshow initiative led by the Yorkshire and Humber chamber of commerce, which travels throughout Yorkshire giving advice to small businesses, such as telling them where they can go when they have a problem. The reality for many small businesses is that certain problems do not arise every day: they may come across some issues only every now and then. By offering small businesses signposts to the organisations that can help them, they may become less isolated and more confident in dealing with the range of regulations.
One arguments says that we should have less regulation, but I will talk later about women in business and about the benefits that they have received from various changes that the Government have introduced. We must recognise that such changes are often beneficial to the business community and to the economy, and that it is important to enable small businesses to deal with the relevant issues.
Hon. Members may know that I asked a question last week about the DTI's work on developing help for women entrepreneurs. I was able to use that to highlight the fact that a survey undertaken by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2002, which is a worldwide survey of entrepreneurial activity, showed that in Yorkshire and Humberside women are leading men. I received some good press coverage about the Yorkshire lasses—a term that I do not take offence at.
Although women are ahead of men in Yorkshire and Humberside, the level of entrepreneurial activity is still low compared with the eastern region, which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) mentioned. Overall, men in the UK are twice as likely to set up a business as women. If women were setting up small businesses at the same rate as men, there would be 100,000 new businesses a year.
What can be done? A range of things can be done. When I first went to the Sheffield business club I was surprised to see the number of women there. Many of them, like the young woman I mentioned earlier, had been working for somebody else, but had decided that
112WH
they had the skills and ability to work on their own. They were getting support from other people through the Sheffield small business initiatives and advice on where to get help. Those women were feeling their way through, and, as the young woman said last week, starting to feel more confident in realising and living their dreams. There are some wonderful examples of successful businesses. The Minister was complimentary about Diva, which is a female-run, public relations company in Sheffield that recently won three awards. The women there have told me that they now need help to move on to the next stage. That is an area that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned earlier. The Small Business Service is to provide support for fast-growing businesses.
Other aspects of Government policy also help women, such as improved child care resources. Indeed, many women are going into the business sector of child care. There is the increased financial support for families, such as the child tax credit, and higher child benefit, which enables women to afford child care and gives them the space to set up their businesses. There is also the Government's strategy for more flexible working, which means that parents are better able to combine their working lives with their family responsibilities. I do not believe that that causes problems for business, contrary to what some might say. When businesses can adapt to that strategy and positively embrace it, they keep their staff and do not have the expensive problem of recruiting additional people.
I know that many other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall conclude. We want more small businesses to grow and to be provided with more support. Some of the organisations that operate in my constituency could be replicated elsewhere to support people going into business. We want to encourage a range of support, especially child care, to enable women to go forward and take up opportunities.
2.42 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing the debate and on the way in which he made his case. He was absolutely right to praise the campaigning work of the Federation of Small Businesses, and in his comments about the Scottish National party. However, he might also have expressed surprise at how few members of the main Opposition party could be bothered to be here for such an important debate.
I want to focus on three issues, two of which have come up in the interventions that I have made on my hon. Friend. The third and perhaps parochial point concerned west London. I represent a seat in west London. The west London economy provides two and a half times as many jobs as the City of London, but the issues facing the area receive significantly less column inches than the City of London. Recent research by Business Link for London has highlighted a range of issues. If we could sort those out, west London's economic performance could be even stronger than it is at the moment in the small business area.
Many small businesses feed off large, flagship developments. In west London we shall benefit from the modernisation of Wembley stadium, the new terminal 5

113WH
programme at Heathrow and the White City development. Those flagship developments have brought transport capacity in the west London area into stark relief. One issue that I urge the Minister to take back to the Department and to continue to promote in discussions with colleagues in the Ministry for Transport is the importance of Crossrail for the west London economy. I also urge the Minister gently to promote the need for more investment in trams and intermediate forms of travel in the west London economy. The Croydon tram link has proved, beyond wildest expectations, the benefits of investment in intermediate forms of transport for the south London economy. Frankly, we want the benefits in west London as well. The 140 bus route from my constituency to Heathrow would be an ideal route for such investment.
I want the Minister to tackle the difficulties facing small businesses over insurance cover. Compulsory employer's liability cover and public liability insurance are two particular aspects of insurance cover that I had in mind. An AXA survey published in December suggested that some 210,000 small and medium-sized businesses have no employer's liability cover at all. The construction sector has been especially badly hit by the rising cost of premiums for insurance cover. Given that such cover is a legal requirement, many businesses face the choice of either trading illegally, closing down the business or trying to pass on the cost of the increased premiums. For many businesses, all those choices are difficult and may result in a move away from reputable companies to those less keen on sticking to legislation.
The Government have recognised the considerable difficulties over insurance cover. In last year's pre-Budget report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a review that would be conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions. The Office of Fair Trading is also studying the market for liability insurance cover. How is that work progressing? If the Minister could give us some details on that, several firms in the construction, repair and modernisation sector in my constituency that are currently faced with that most pressing problem would have more confidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) referred to the not-for-profit small business sector. The Minister will be aware of the strategy set out in the report published last year "Private Action: Public Benefit". The strategy aims to review the issues facing the not-for-profit sector, recognising that the legal forms available to such businesses are certainly not appropriate as they stand. The report made a series of recommendations on the need to modernise the law on industrial and provident society legislation beyond the legislative reform already initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) in his private Member's Bill. The report also recognised the need to bring into law much more quickly than at present the industrial and provident society rules and regulations in comparison with company law where appropriate.
I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some further light on regional development agencies and whether they are being encouraged more fully to recognise the potential of social enterprises. I look forward to his response.
2.48 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Minister on his proactive approach to small businesses. He and his team have a high and increasing reputation for all their efforts in the small and medium-sized enterprises sector. There is no doubt that the SME sector in the United Kingdom has helped our economy through the global slowdown. Without that, we would be in a much worse situation. The SME sector as a whole must congratulate itself on achieving that.
In the UK, it takes one day to set up a small business; in Europe, it takes many weeks. That is how we view small businesses here and how we ought to encourage them to set up and react. Recently, an Act was passed here that enabled a small business to fail, get up, dust itself off and start all over again. That is more good news, delivered by this Labour Government.
There are of course problems for the small business sector. A small business man will say, "All I want is for Government to get off my back; I want no rules, no regulation, no forms. I will pay some tax when I feel like it. I want to be left to run my business as I want." That is not the real world, no matter how much some would like it to be. I know that the Minister is doing his level best to apply a light touch. There are problems with factoring, which is a major issue for small businesses, and with the high and increasing costs of insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) referred to that. Costs rose by as much as 50 per cent. and sometimes 60 per cent. year on year; that is a huge burden for small businesses to carry.
I draw to hon. Members' attention the example of a small, very successful business in my constituency. It is called Hocking NDT; NDT stands for non-destructive testing. It is a small firm that specialises in testing aircraft parts, and it is vital that it does its work properly. Two of its employees decided that they could put the technology to use on rail track. At present, people test the track by walking along it at a speed of about 1.8 mph. The two employees designed a device that can be attached to the front of a train to go at 65 mph, doing exactly the same job. That is revolutionary. Two employees of a family concern did that in their own time. The device has now been patented.
That is an example of the entrepreneurial skills that we have in this country in abundance. We must encourage those skills to ensure that small businesses flourish. That will help our economy by providing jobs and tax revenue. It is the way forward. I am sure that the Minister will come up with solutions to some of the problems that hon. Members outlined. I will shut up now to let others speak.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call first Mr. Love and ask him to speak briefly.
2.51 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not intended to speak, so you are right to ask me to be brief. First, I echo the comments of

115WH
every hon. Member this afternoon on the contribution of the small business sector to the British economy. When speaking of the economy, we always think of the largest companies such as British Airways and British Petroleum, and of course they make a major contribution. However, small businesses are major and growing employers and wealth creators in our economy.
I wish to raise with the Minister a point that I made earlier in an intervention: our problem in the United Kingdom does not seem to relate directly to the formation of small businesses, although there are regional variations. Our economy seems to have a relatively buoyant formation of small businesses. Where our economy does not seem to be operating as effectively as it should is in developing those small businesses into medium and large businesses. Germany has a very large middle business sector that is a major contributor to its economy. We must return to that issue time and again to make the most of business formation and business growth to help the economy and to provide employment.
Every hon. Member touched on regulation. However, if we leave behind the sterile debate that often goes on in Westminster we shall find that we need balanced, reasonable regulation for small businesses. Regulation should not be a burden on them; it should help them to achieve their functions more effectively. In my capacity as secretary of the all-party small business group, I have listened to numerous debates about the concerns of business, both here and in my constituency, and I accept that we should reduce regulation. However, whenever we discuss which regulation should not be applied it becomes difficult to find anyone who can suggest what to do. Whichever regulation is suggested—whether it concerns minimum wages, working families or health and safety—people of every political hue claim that important safeguards and regulations must remain for the sake of both employees and employers. We must get away from sterile debate and accept that regulation is here to stay. We shall never get rid of it, but we need to find a balance by keeping the right regulation and getting rid of that which is not appropriate.
One of the main ways in which we can find that balance is to have a change of culture at Westminster. All the pressures in Parliament are for more and more regulation. We need to create pressures that will reduce regulation. I shall not list all the factors that go towards increasing legislation, but I shall touch on one that has helped to reduce it. I pay tribute to the Conservative Government—I do not often do that, so the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) should listen carefully—for the formation of the Deregulation Sub-Committee. That produced a number of measures that have reduced regulation. However, the real impetus to start the process came from the Labour Government when they transformed the Deregulation Sub-Committee into what is now the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform. The speed of deregulation has accelerated greatly in the last couple of years. That is a first step along the road.
We need to take other steps; I suggest two in particular. First, Government Departments should have placed upon them a duty to report on how they have deregulated as well as regulated, so that the public and Parliament can know what is happening. Secondly, the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee
116WH
has a co-ordinating role to fulfil. It should look across Government Departments to see what is done by each of them in order to reduce regulation and, if necessary, to scrutinise departmental activity and call to account Ministers whose Departments are not performing that function. If we add those measures together, we shall have a significant impetus towards deregulation. We shall then have a sensible way forward: at the same time as we create regulation, we shall also reduce it where it has become redundant. That would satisfy the small business community and would play a major part in allowing it to grow and to contribute even more to the economy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Lazarowicz to speak very briefly.
2.58 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing the debate and I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members for having missed part of it. In two minutes, I shall make two brief points.
First, I suggest to the Minister that it is always important to consider not just the good things that he and his Department are doing to promote small business. Like many hon. Members, I am impressed by the way in which the Government have simplified the regulatory framework. However, they should also look at the effects on small businesses of other policies. Businesses in my constituency have raised with me the effect of the current investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into pharmacies. Lindsay and Gilmour, which has its head office in my constituency, runs some 10 community pharmacies in different parts of Scotland. The company is worried that its ability to run those outlets as small businesses might be affected by the review of pharmacy provision. I am not in favour of a protectionist approach to small businesses, but we must consider how they are affected by wider policies.
Finally, the Federation of Small Businesses has commented on what it sees as the unfair burden on the self-employed, as opposed to incorporated businesses. The Government have done much to encourage the sole trader, but there is a strong case for shifting the balance further to ensure that the self-employed enjoy some of the advantages of incorporated businesses when they start up. Let us not forget that many small businesses are not necessarily the fruit of a carefully thought-through business plan or a strategy for business development. Often, they start as someone's hobby or spare-time activity, which then expands into a business. Many such businesses fail, but many others succeed, and we should do what we can to encourage them.
3 pm
Brian Cotter: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing the debate. He made many interesting points, and I particularly welcome his remarks on the euro, because it is important to highlight the problems in terms of manufacturing companies' productivity. I also echo the hon. Gentleman's concern about broadband. Work is going on, but many rural areas are still not connected, and I hope that the Minister will give the point serious consideration.

117WH
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) made some key points about women in business. She also highlighted the fact that the Government and others had introduced many initiatives—about 180 of various sorts—to help groups in the business community, such as women. I urge the Minister to recognise the need to pull together and examine those initiatives so that they can be made more generally effective. At present, as the hon. Lady said in relation to Sheffield, they are very effective only in certain areas.
Yesterday, I met a member of the Afro-Caribbean business community, and we talked about its problems. There is also the issue of young people. I hope that the Minister will take all those issues on board.
At this stage, I should declare an interest. I am the director of a small manufacturing company, which obviously means that I am very interested in and welcome the debate.
As hon. Members have made clear, small businesses are an important factor in this country's economic thrust. They make up a large proportion of businesses, employing people and generating jobs and money. They are also community based and recycle money into the local area, which is important in terms of keeping areas going. The same is not true of the big supermarkets, whose money goes to a central pot and, for all I know, offshore. Another important aspect of small businesses is that they provide diversity and choice in local areas, and cater for local needs and interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) particularly wanted me to refer to an organisation called Computer Village, in Bath. It recently received an award for excellence as a computer retailer. Given that it comes up against big companies, that is a tribute to the way in which small businesses effectively deliver services.
I come from a manufacturing background, and I pay tribute to a manufacturing company in my constituency called Nickel-Electro, which has 60 employees. I recently visited it, and its innovativeness shows that small firms are often more ambitious and interesting. They can drive things forward because they are more contained and can take decisions quickly, in a way that big businesses often cannot. I congratulate those two companies.
Many hon. Members mentioned red tape, and we need to raise the issue frequently. I say that particularly because the payroll costs of small businesses are something like £288 per employee; a big company would pay only a fiver. The business rate is also disproportionately weighted against small companies. I urge the Government to consider those points—the payroll and bureaucracy costs and the business rates for small business being so large.
A report was recently published on regulatory impact assessments. I have served on several Standing Committees, and I have often urged the Government to consider doing regulatory impact assessments for Bills. Ministers consistently say that they are doing so, but I consistently see them not doing it well enough. I urge the Government to consider what happens in the Netherlands, where a separate organisation has the job of making an impact assessment and examining the
118WH
ways in which, for example, small businesses might be hit by legislation. That would be better than the blanket statement that a Bill would cost £350 million—or whatever figure it might be.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the Small Business Service. Liberal Democrat Members welcomed that initiative, but I am a little disappointed. The initial concept was that the service should provide a robust, strong voice for small businesses; it would be independent of the Department of Trade and Industry and would say what needed to be said. It is not fulfilling that purpose terribly well, because it is not sufficiently independent. The head of the service should by now be a household name—someone who is known for fighting on behalf of small businesses, someone who would cause the Minister to quake in his shoes a little, someone who is ready to hammer him into the deck. That seems not to be happening, and I hope that something will be done to address that particular problem.
The Government took a long time to respond to the Cruickshank report, but small businesses still express concern about the banks, about interest payments and about the difficulty of switching from one bank to another. I hope that the Minister will refer also to that.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and others referred to insurance matters. I see the chairman of the all-party small business group. the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), nodding his head—he, too, referred to them. I urge those hon. Members who have not yet done so to put their names to my early-day motion on that matter. I am glad to say that the Government listened. Two reports were organised, one from the Department for Work and Pensions and one from the Office of Fair Trading. I think that the DWP report will be published shortly. I hope that both reports will be addressed quickly by the Government because the problems need to be tackled urgently.
I know of companies whose premiums have increased by 600 per cent. and more. For one company in my constituency, the cost of insurance went up from £9,000 to £48,000 in one hit. The Minister will agree, I am sure. that that is not tenable, and I hope that the Government will address the issue. I have met many representatives of the insurance industry as well as of business. I try, as we all should, to work alongside them, but we want openness and clarity on the subject. I think that the Small Business Service should have been fighting harder on that front, helping those companies whose premiums have been unfairly raised simply because they operate a certain category of business. Within those categories, some are more risk-prone than others. Risk management is an issue that could be covered.
I am glad to see that the problem suffered by newsagents has been addressed after the report of the Office of Fair Trading. There are many problems for small businesses and I am worried, in particular, about local pharmacies. They are so important to the local community, but they are currently at risk. I hope that the Minister will address such a serious issue. I thank the hon. Member for Dundee, East for calling the debate.
3.10 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I begin by declaring an interest that is specified in the Register of Members' Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member

119WH
for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on introducing such an excellent debate. Many local examples have been cited of exactly how vital the small firms sector is to the economy. The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about the need to foster innovation and entrepreneurship, and put such matters in the wider Scottish economic context.
The hon. Gentleman was right to chastise SNP Members for not turning up here today. Time and again, they have gone on about how they are the friends of small businesses, yet they do not bother to attend such an important debate. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) said that I am the only member of the official Opposition who is present. I must point out that, when we debated the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill on Monday, only one Labour Back Bencher was present. Many other things are going on today. There is an important debate in the main Chamber, so it is good news that so many people have turned up here.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) made the good point that the burdens, particularly the overall impact of red tape, fall disproportionately on small firms because they do not have the resources or the personnel to deal with them. She also flagged up sign posting. Will the Minister explain the progress of the Department of Trade and Industry's business support review? There are many schemes to support small businesses, but they are often faced with a plethora of schemes and the situation becomes confusing. The hon. Lady was right to flag up female entrepreneurs. We all want more women in business.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West referred to employer and public liability. That was also picked up by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter). The Minister will note that exchanges were made on such matters during Department of Trade and Industry questions. In fact, I have referred to two horror stories of companies whose premiums have rocketed sky high. The hon. Member for Harrow, West asked about the reports of the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office of Fair Trading. Many firms cannot wait any longer. As the hon. Gentleman said, a few are trading illegally now and many others need respite quickly.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) made the interesting point that not enough small businesses move from small firm status to the middle size—mittelstand—status. That is a fair observation. I do not know whether research has been done on such matters. Obviously, in Germany many more smaller firms can move on. That is perhaps because there is not the tradition in Germany of small businesses trying immediately to go public. Many companies have come on to the A market, but it would be interesting to see how many of them started as small companies and how many of the equivalent companies in Germany decided to remain privately owned, middle-sized businesses.
The hon. Gentleman was right to talk about the regulatory impact assessment regime. He referred to the need to widen the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee, so that we have deregulation reports from Whitehall. That is an extremely sensible suggestion. I wish to put another idea to the Minister. The Government could build on the small firms loan guarantee scheme. I know that the Government and the Confederation of British Industry are keen on such an
120WH
initiative. The scheme has been a huge success. The Minister will be aware that since it started in 1981, more than 80,000 loans have been guaranteed. The value of those loans is now well over £3 billion. The average size of a loan is about £37,000. The scheme plugs an important funding gap for small businesses.
I hope that, when the Department of Trade and Industry considers the business support measures and puts in place a review of them, it will think about expanding the scheme. I notice that that will be in the submissions of many trade associations and small business organisations to the Chancellor for his Budget. After all, when such firms succeed—and most of them do—the money gets paid back. The Government only guarantee the loan. I ask the Minister to consider carefully whether the small firms loan guarantee scheme could be extended to various other categories. Why, for example, does it not cover banking, finance and associated services, or education?
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley mentioned getting more women entrepreneurs involved in small businesses. Many women want to become involved in small businesses on the education support services front, yet they cannot qualify for the small firms loan guarantee scheme if their business is in any way connected with education. That is a ridiculous anomaly. The same is true of businesses affiliated to medical, health and veterinary services; they cannot get a Government-backed loan. Motor vehicle repair and servicing are very important in some of our constituencies, where there are many young people who want to go into that kind of business, but retail and transport are also excluded.
We could make the scheme a little more flexible overall. I shall give the example of a company that did not get a loan. It was a business that needed funding to cope with increased orders. It was excluded from securing a £250,000 loan because, despite having been in existence for two years, its parent had gone into receivership, and the management team had bought the company from the receiver and traded with the same staff, premises, customers and order book. The Small Business Service interpreted the change in ownership as a cessation of business.
I hope that the Minister will take from this debate the strong points made by many hon. Members. Obviously, there are some things that the Government cannot do, but there are others that they can, and some of them do not cost any more money. I would have thought that extending and reinforcing the success of the small firms loan guarantee scheme would be a good way of telling the small business sector that the Government want to do all they can to help them.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman mentioned the burdens of red tape. Does the Minister agree with David Frost, the Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce, who said the other day that the community burden of red tape has now reached over £20 billion, excluding the £10.2 billion cost of the minimum wage, which my party firmly supports? Mr. Frost went on to say:

"Red tape is strangling British productivity and it is threatening to combine with other blocks on business to create critical mass that will destroy jobs through a dramatic loss of competitiveness."

121WH
That has become a great worry. I hope that the Minister will comment on what David Frost said, because some of those burdens are home-grown and are being gold-plated. Some have come out of Europe, and the Government have no control over them. However, 60 per cent. of the burdens came from the UK.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman mentioned the report commissioned by the British Chambers of Commerce by Tim Ambler of the London business school and Francis Chittenden of Manchester business school. They considered 200 regulatory impact assessments. According to their report, only 11 per cent. of impact assessments even considered the possibility that there might be an alternative to legislation. Some 60 per cent. of the 200 assessments examined said that the consultation with the stakeholders was very poor indeed. An example that they gave—and this might be something that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley supports—was the Government's policy on the right to demand flexible contracts. The cost of that to business is some £296 million a year. The benefit to businesses will also be substantial, but no alternative was proposed and there was no proper consultation on it. Does the Minister agree with David Frost's conclusion from the study?
The Minister will know that storm clouds are brewing on the horizon. The CBI's last report was very gloomy, and today's figures show that manufacturing and investment are at their lowest level since records began. That is not good news. I know that the Minister recognises that, because he has great energy and enthusiasm and a great weight falls on his shoulders. The new jobs that must replicate those lost to manufacturing must come from the small firms sector, and we look to the Minister to respond to those important points.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to his interests in the Register of Members' Interests, which is as it should be. However, that is not much help to hon. Members who are participating in the debate if they cannot refer to the register. I shall make representations to arrange for copies of the register and "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" to be made available on each side of the rostrum, so that hon. Members in the Chamber will have full information available.
3.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I am proud to be the Minister with responsibility for small businesses. I am proud to have a great team at the Department of Trade and Industry, and I am proud of the Small Business Service and many business links.
I am proud of the role that small businesses play in ensuring that we have the fastest growing economy in the G7 and the fourth largest economy in the world. I am proud of the quality of the contributions of my hon. Friends, and of their commitment to small businesses in not only their towns and communities, but throughout the United Kingdom. None of my colleagues are more committed than my hon. Friend the Member for
122WH
Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), who articulately voiced many of the issues that affect and interest small businesses. I congratulate him on his contribution.
Small businesses play a major part in our economy. The Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Forum of Private Business and the Confederation of British Industry's small and medium-sized enterprises council play an invaluable role in advising me and, I am sure, the Opposition and colleagues about what is good for small businesses. Perhaps the fact that we have taken their advice is one of the reasons why 1.7 million small businesses have started in the past five years, and why their survival rates are the highest for a decade.
There are issues in Scotland—nowhere more than in Dundee—that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East rightly highlighted. I am delighted by recent developments in Dundee that have made it one of the top biocentres in the UK and, therefore, in Europe. The University of Dundee has done tremendous work on spin-out companies, and several will be world showcase companies. I talked today to lain Gray, the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Executive, about the valuable role played by Dundee, and he told me about recent examples, including two today, that will take the expenditure on spin-out companies from the university to £30 million. One such company, Calico Jack, received a £40,000 smart award, which is a Government grant to help it to take its technology at the micro-project level toward commercialisation. Another company is CXR Biosciences, which has attracted £4 million
from the private and public sector and is the university's newest spin-out company. I will want to follow the company's progress through my hon. Friend.
None of that would have happened without the commitment of my hon. Friend and others in the Dundee area to putting Dundee on the map and sending the clear message that Dundee is one of the best places in Britain to set up and grow a small business. The small business gateway in Dundee spends £23 million, and receives a contribution from Dundee city council of £115,000. That spending ensures that there is a one-stop shop in Dundee not only for people who are growing a business, which was a vital point made by my hon. Friend, but for people who are starting businesses. That £23 million contribution is very valuable. It complements the work done by business link organisations in England through the Small Business Service, which provided 250,000 businesses with advice and support last year, including 18,000 start-ups. I agree that the focus should not only be on start-ups, but on businesses that are willing and able to grow.
I now turn directly to the key issues that have been raised. Procurement is vitally important. One of the first questions that I asked when I became a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry was how a small business got the contract to clean the carpet or the windows. The bundling of contracts has been detrimental to small companies. I am pleased that the representations that I made in my first few months as Minister resulted in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has responsibility for these matters, abolishing the requirement to supply three years of accounts. That is a welcome move, although it is only a beginning.

123WH
I recently had a meeting with my right hon. Friend to progress that agenda, and I am confident that the Treasury will work with us on behalf of small businesses to ensure that anachronistic procurement rules are changed so that the public get value for money while, at the same time, small businesses get a fair crack of the whip.
Every hon. Member will know about the problems caused by insurance. I have had several meetings, not only with the stakeholder groups that I mentioned earlier, but with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers' Association. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Work, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I sit in a tripartite committee. I do not apply a blame culture to insurance companies. There are commercial pressures and wrong decisions can be taken. We must work together to do what we can to alleviate the burden. Small businesses must have affordable cover, and we are working hard with the industry to come up with practical solutions.
It is vital to do what we can on regulatory impact assessments. I was in Brussels last Wednesday and I was interested to hear what Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat MEP, said about the need to have regulatory impact assessments in Brussels, especially when regulations are amended by the European Parliament that do not appear to have had a proper impact assessment. We have an established RIA procedure, and although there are always grounds for improvement, I gain satisfaction from the fact that our European colleagues and their civil servants come to see what we are doing. We are always open to suggestions for improvement.
The small firms loan guarantee scheme is especially vital. I know that every hon. Member will have constituents who have benefited from it. There was a barrier in 1993 to certain sectors, some of which have been mentioned. I asked for the criteria to be examined and questioned whether what applied a decade ago should still apply. I am pleased that we were able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a change that comes into effect on 1 April. The number of sectors eligible will be extended to include retailing, catering, coal, hairdressing, house and estate agents, libraries, museums, cultural activities, motor vehicle repair and servicing, steel and travel agents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) eloquently raised a key issue. I have visited several companies in her constituency. She mentioned the role of women entrepreneurs. Only about 33 per cent. of companies in Britain are set up by women entrepreneurs. My hon. Friend highlighted the fact that there would be 100,000 more new businesses if women set them up at the same rate as men. Our extension of the small firms loan guarantee scheme as from 1 April to industries such as catering will bring benefits to women and women entrepreneurs.
I am pleased that we are the fourth biggest economy in the world. I want us to maintain that position. To do that, we must ensure that we embrace the talents of everyone in our society, regardless of race or gender, so that the benefits are enjoyed by everyone in our society and are passed on to our children and grandchildren. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important topic.

Public Accountability (Wales)
3.30 pm
Llew Smith: At the time of the last referendum we were promised that just about everything that was bad in Welsh politics would be confined to the dustbin of history if only we had the good sense to vote for an Assembly. A new Jerusalem was going to be produced in Wales's green and pleasant land. The days in which unelected and unaccountable individuals in quangos made decisions on behalf of communities were to come to an end—so were the days when individual Ministers in the Welsh Office made decisions that were not subject to a vote. Those Ministers, by the way, had been democratically elected, were accountable and could, indeed, be removed.
The quangos were to be the first victim of that new Jerusalem. Indeed, all of the political parties that campaigned for a yes vote in the referendum were committed to the abolition of the quango state in Wales—not just one, two or three quangos, but the lot. In the words that were used at the time, we were going to make a bonfire of the quangos. Sadly, that has not happened. There has been no bonfire. In fact, it has been a damp squib. If anyone has researched the matter, they will find that there are as many quangos in Wales now—and probably more—than there were when Ron Davies first made the commitment in 1995, or by the time that the referendum was held, or since the Assembly was first set up.
It seems that those people and all the political parties in the Assembly have learned to love rule by quangos. At the same time, they knew that the commitment was a cheap publicity stunt. Anyone who had bothered to read the Bill, which became an Act, would know that it contained no powers to allow the Assembly to abolish the most important—the executive—quangos in Wales. However, it is not just a matter of having the executive powers to deal with the quangos. The Assembly has the powers to deal with the non-executive quangos, but its lack of commitment is shown by the fact that it has failed to abolish them. We still have a quango state in Wales. If the bonfire had happened, we could have been subject, for want of a better word, to a more democratic and accountable Wales.
Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman's railing against the dangers of government by unelected appointees would carry considerably more weight if he had supported the proposal for an elected second Chamber in Parliament. He voted against both the 100 per cent. and the 80 per cent. elected options. If patronage is wrong in the case of the Welsh Assembly, why is it right in Westminster?
Llew Smith: I was not defending patronage in this place.
Adam Price: Why did the hon. Gentleman not vote for 80 per cent.?
Llew Smith: The hon. Gentleman posed the question and I assume that he wants to hear the answer that I am attempting to give. I did not vote for patronage in the House. I am totally opposed to a second Chamber that

125WH
is made up of appointed members. If we had such a second Chamber, it would be a quango like those that we are subject to in Wales. A quango is a quango, regardless of whether it is in Westminster or Wales. That is why I voted against that type of second Chamber and in favour of refusing to set up any second Chamber in this community. My position is simple: if the Scottish Parliament does not need a second Chamber, why does Westminster need one?
Adam Price: Why did the hon. Gentleman not vote for 80 per cent.?
Llew Smith: You are not only posing questions, but answering them too—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. The Chair is not posing any questions. A 30-minute Adjournment debate is essentially an opportunity for an hon. or right hon. Member to raise an issue with the Government and get responses from the relevant Ministers. Interventions are allowed, but continuous harassment and barracking are not.
Llew Smith: I welcome interventions. I deliberately made my contribution relatively short to encourage them because several weeks ago I tried to intervene on a debate on the single currency but was refused.
I do not believe that the people and the political parties that made up the yes campaign were serious in their commitment to make a bonfire of the quangos. The Assembly did not get powers to deal with the most important of them—the executive quangos—but it has powers to deal with non-executive quangos. However, there are still more non-executive quangos today than there were when the Assembly was set up. That suggests that the people and political parties that made that commitment were not serious and that it was a public relations stunt.
Several weeks ago, I was at a lobby where that point became relevant. Trade unions in Wales, including Unison, were in Westminster to lobby Members of Parliament because of the transfer of housing stock. They did not come here to complain that powers were being transferred from the Assembly to local authorities: their objection was that pressure was being applied to transfer the power over housing stock from local authorities to the Welsh Assembly. I found that unacceptable, as did just about everyone else who attended that lobby. The Assembly had made a commitment not only to abolish the quangos, but to transfer many of their powers to local authorities, but it was doing the opposite with the housing stock in Wales. It was helping to put pressure on devolved, elected and accountable local authorities to transfer powers over housing stock to new-style quangos that the Welsh Assembly was setting up.
I would have thought that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) would have opposed that. However, many politicians who used to be committed to making a bonfire of the quangos—to ending the quango state in Wales—are now rushing to distance themselves from that campaign, which was
126WH
supported by all the political parties that were a part of the yes campaign. They are rushing to divorce or distance themselves from the commitment to make Wales more accountable by making a bonfire of the quangos.
Ron Davies, a previous Secretary of State for Wales who made the original commitment in 1995 to make a bonfire of the quangos, recently stated that it was "just a colourful phrase". Edwina Hart declared:

"I have never favoured bonfires."

Janet Davies, a nationalist Assembly Member, proclaimed:

"We should not have a reflex action to get rid of all Assembly-sponsored public bodies",

by which she obviously means quangos. When the current Secretary of State for Wales responded to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and I, he merely stated that the Assembly provides for all its agencies to be more accountable. That is somewhat less than the bonfire of the quangos that he and the yes campaign committed themselves to only a few years ago. Not only were we going to get rid of the quango state in Wales, even more ridiculously, the moneys that would be raised from the abolition of the quangos were,

"to pay for a democratically elected and accountable Welsh Assembly".

Only a few hon. Members are here today, but most of them would accept that that was a silly commitment to make. They will also accept that, once again, the commitment has not been delivered.
Some while back, I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, asking whether they had received any correspondence from Rhodri Morgan asking for legislative time for the Government to make a bonfire of the executive quangos—the most important quangos. The answer was no. It seems that just about all the parties have learned to love rule by quangos.
Adam Price: I have sympathy with the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument about democratic accountability. Can he give some examples of the Assembly-sponsored public bodies that he would like to be abolished? Will he take the Arts Council of Wales within the Assembly, into the Ministry of Culture, Sport and Welsh Language? Does he see that there is some value in some instances in having arms-length bodies with sector-specific objectives?
Llew Smith: I was not the person who made the commitment to make the bonfire of the quangos. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr would accept that. As for the Arts Council of Wales, I would be in favour of abolition. The Minister and I experienced its decision-making a few years ago, when, in total opposition to the feelings of local communities, it tried to close Gwent Theatre in Education, which most people will accept is one of the finest theatres and education companies in the United Kingdom. I am a member of its board—a non-paid member—but most people would accept that that is so. The Arts Council of Wales was taking decisions, supposedly on behalf of the community—a community that it was not a part of, that it did not understand, and that it treated with total contempt. Much to the credit of

127WH
the local community, it made its voice heard and, as a result, the decision was changed. Not much later, the chief executive resigned.
As for other quangos, Education and Learning Wales is nonsense—consider the decision and announcement some days ago on the IT contract, whose costs have gone through the roof. Once again, decisions have been taken by bodies that are not accountable, not elected and cannot be removed. Surely that is wrong. I am not saying that all quangos should be subject to the bonfire. I thought that the original commitment was daft because many scientific committees, which are quangos, but are there to advise Government, would be abolished. Does the hon. Gentleman want that? I suggest not. I certainly do not.
The other aspect of public accountability that had to change was that Ministers in the Welsh Office were making decisions that were not subject to a vote. That system had to go and be replaced by a democratic assembly where democratic decision making would be accountable to the vote. I think that most hon. Members would accept that that has not happened either. I should have thought that having reneged on those promises and made a complete mess of running the Assembly—for which I think all the political parties must share responsibility—they would be more humble.
No. Rhodri Morgan has now set up the Richards committee, which is stuffed with his own appointees, who, as we all know, will arrive at the conclusion that the Assembly must have powers similar to those of the Scottish Parliament and that there must be 80 members instead of six. That will happen because we know Rhodri's position on the matter. Then they wonder why people are not taking any interest in the committee and why people who are opposed to the Assembly and to giving it more powers are not turning up to give evidence.
To be fair to the Welsh National party, it is committed to a separatist Wales although it used coded language to say otherwise; yet most codes are indeed broken. Ieuan Wyn Jones. the leader of the Welsh National party, once proclaimed:

"Labour are clearly unable to win a general election and self government for Wales is the only answer."

Yet Cynog Dafis said:

"Plaid's aspirations remain full self-government … The status that used to be called independence."

The most recent thought of Ieuan Wyn Jones is,

"I think self-government now needs to be redefined. I much prefer to use full national status."

Whatever difference the party may have over words, its commitment is still to be separate from the rest of the United Kingdom: a Wales where the people in England are no longer a part of the decision-making process.
I find it ironic that while the nationalists are unable, and totally opposed, to share decision making with the English, they are quite willing to share it with, and indeed to be ruled by, the European Central Bank, which is not elected or accountable and cannot be removed. It seems as if the nationalists have some sort of love affair with the European central bankers, as long as they are not English.
In terms of accountability, it is wrong to split up the United Kingdom. We can learn from one of my predecessors, Nye Bevan, who always used to say that
128WH
there is no difference between an unemployed worker in south Wales and an unemployed worker in London: there is no difference between a rural worker or a coal miner in north Wales and a rural worker or a coal miner in the north of England. That is why he decided to set up a national health service, not just for Wales, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. We can learn from people like Nye.
In conclusion, public accountability in Wales, not quangos, is increasingly subject to the bonfire. We were not promised that, and it has been a sad day for Wales that this has not happened.
3.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on securing this debate. All of us who serve Wales have at heart the best interests of the people whom we represent. I am in politics because I am determined to do something about my constituents' quality of life, and I am sure that the same is true of my hon. Friend and his constituents. To do that, we must have first-class and effective public services.
I am delighted to be taking part in this debate, which bears directly on the key issues of how we can best deliver quality services to the people of Wales. I know that my hon. Friend shares my aspirations for the people whom we represent. I strongly hold the view that we can best serve our people and deliver services by pushing decision making out from the centre wherever appropriate. We have come a long way since the election of the Government in 1997.
I contrast the journey that we have made since then with the situation that existed before. Decisions were taken at the centre, often in Whitehall, when they could have been taken in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. I remember the debate about whether my children's secondary school, which took pupils aged 11 to 16, should have a sixth form. The final decision on that proposal was taken not by the school governors, the parents or the LEA but by the then Secretary of State for Wales. I have often mused on such matters. Let us imagine the Cabinet of that time being called together at No. 10, with the Prime Minister calling it to order and saying that the first item on the agenda was that the Secretary of State for Wales was to report on whether West Mon school at Pontypool should have a sixth form.
Things have changed dramatically since 1997. We have a democratically elected Assembly to take decisions about the delivery of public services in Wales; we have a Scottish Parliament; we have an Assembly in Northern Ireland, albeit temporarily suspended at the moment; and we hope to have regional assemblies in England. Prior to the creation of those Assemblies, there existed an unsatisfactory way of running public services in Wales. Only three Welsh Ministers were available to take responsibility for, and decisions on, everything from health to transport and from education to planning. The only way in which the system was made to work was by Ministers delegating their responsibilities and powers to quangos—the theme of my hon. Friend's contribution.
I remember how difficult it was to work with many of those quangos. I have often thought that people seem to have no difficulty in finding Members of Parliament or

129WH
their local councillor when they have a problem; however, let them just try to find out who runs the local general hospital or college of further education. My hon. Friend and I have been comrades in arms in many a battle. One in particular was to uncover considerable mismanagement in our local college of further education, which was run by a quango. My hon. Friend referred to the battle in which we were both engaged concerning the appalling decisions about the Gwynedd theatre made by people in senior positions at the Arts Council of Wales. I well remember the difficulties and our campaign.
To come to the core of my hon. Friend's argument, it is, in the devolved context, for the National Assembly to determine how it will deliver services in Wales, and whether that should be done by the Assembly itself, by local authorities or by Assembly-sponsored public bodies—or quangos. However, we have a role in this place. It is for Parliament to set the primary legislative framework within which the Assembly must operate. It is the job of Members of Parliament at Westminster to debate that and to vote the necessary funding to enable the Assembly to provide the relevant services. Within the broad parameters that we set it is for the Assembly to set priorities, to allocate funding, to ensure that services are working effectively and economically and, to a significant degree, to decide on the mechanisms by which the services can be delivered.
We should be careful to avoid generalisations about Assembly-sponsored public bodies, because some of them may provide the best answer in some contexts—such as science and research, which my hon. Friend mentioned. However, in other cases they may not be the best answer. Something that does not work well in one case may be exactly what is needed in another. What one Assembly-sponsored public body has done well may not be done superbly well by another. I should certainly want the greatest openness and accountability from any organisation that was providing public services. We should not be overly rigid in prejudging the structures that we want in Wales—a point that was, I think, conceded by my hon. Friend.
Llew Smith: I accept the Minister's point about the Assembly now having responsibility for many public services. However, a commitment was given by all the parties that were committed to a yes vote for the Welsh Assembly that when it was established, with its powers over non-executive quangos, it would abolish not one, two, three or four, but the whole lot; it was going to make a bonfire of the quangos. That was not my work. I thought that it was a bit daft at the time. Still, I should like the Minister to respond on the subject of the commitment that was given, and the fact that the Assembly, and all the political parties in the Assembly, reneged on it.
Mr. Touhig: I shall develop that point in a moment. I am aware of the statement that was made at the time. I do not think that we had so much a bonfire of the quangos as a small coal fire. Perhaps I shall demonstrate how that came about as I continue my remarks. For my part, I want the best services for my constituents.
130WH
I recognise that some services can be delivered effectively by Assembly-sponsored public bodies, or quangos.
We should not forget, I think, that there have been significant improvements in the behaviour of quangos since 1997. In that period the Government, in partnership with the Assembly, have done three things. We have reformed the structure of many of the Assembly-sponsored public bodies; we have maintained the rigorous scrutiny of their effectiveness; and we have reformed the system of appointing members.
To deal first with the structural changes, there were 19 executive quangos in 1997; there are now 15. The map has changed with the merger of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales. Tai Cymru, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and Health Promotions in Wales were abolished, and their functions were transferred to the Assembly. The Cardiff Bay development corporation was dissolved, and my hon. Friend will remember that he and I made common cause in campaigning for greater public investment in our valleys when we saw public investment going to Cardiff bay.
Llew Smith: The fact that the Cardiff Bay development corporation has gone has nothing to do with the Welsh Assembly; the development corporation had a set life. Tai Cymru was abolished before the Assembly was established. Does the Minister accept that there has been no reduction at all in the number of quangos in Wales?
Mr. Touhig: No, I do not accept that. As I have pointed out, there has been a reduction. Some of the quangos were abolished before the Assembly was set up, which is why I prefaced my remarks by saying that we, the Government, and the Assembly had taken the steps.
There has been the abolition of the training and enterprise councils and of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales, with the transfer of those functions to the National Council for Education and Training in Wales and the WDA. We now have continuing rigorous scrutiny of quangos, and the Labour-led Assembly is committed to accelerating a review of major sponsored bodies to ensure that they are necessary, effective and efficient, and to the reviews being completed by 2003–04. The objective of those reviews is for Assembly-sponsored public bodies to be retained only where they are the most appropriate, cost-effective means of carrying out functions.
To date, reviews of the WDA, the Countryside Council for Wales, the National Museum and Galleries of Wales, the Welsh Language Board, the National Library of Wales and the Wales Tourist Board have already been completed and discussed in plenary sessions of the Assembly. Plenary debates on completed reviews have resulted in unanimous Assembly support for the retention of those bodies so far reviewed.
Strategic reviews of the royal commission on the ancient and historical monuments of Wales and the executive agency Cadw have been completed, and the findings are being fed into the historic environment review of Wales that the Minister with responsibility for the environment has commissioned. A review of the

131WH
Sports Council for Wales is well under way and a review of Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales is planned to start in the spring. That shows that we are continuing to apply rigorous standards to our Welsh quangos.
Another strand of improvement since 1997 has been in the way that members are appointed. All appointments to Assembly-sponsored public bodies in Wales are made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointment's code of practice on ministerial appointments to public bodies. The code is based on the principles of the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Nolan report. We can contrast that with what existed when the Tories were in government and there were jobs for the boys. We saw that throughout the quango structure in Wales.
Adam Price: Of course, there is another level of public accountability, which is UK-wide public bodies that have a responsibility to Wales, such as the Strategic Rail Authority or the new regulator, the Office of Communication. Does the Minister believe that the National Assembly should have the right to appoint a member for every major public institution that covers Wales?
Mr. Touhig: No, I certainly do not, but for any appointment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be in consultation with colleagues in the Assembly when any aspect of Wales's interest is affected, and we shall judge what is appropriate. However, I do not believe that there should be any automatic appointment.
Last year, the then Secretary of State for Wales succinctly summarised the improvements that we have made when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent:

"What has happened is that those bodies"

he was referring to Assembly-sponsored public bodies—
132WH

"are now much more locally accountable in Wales than they ever were, and appointments to them are much more open and transparent than they ever were under the previous Administration."—[Official Report, 19 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 263.]

I fully understand my hon. Friend's dislike and mistrust of Assembly-sponsored public bodies—quangos—and he has good grounds for that. I have had similar experiences. He and I have shared problems in trying to solve such difficulties in the past. However, the Government have done a huge amount to improve, to scrutinise and to reform the Assembly-sponsored public bodies throughout Wales. We have done that to the point at which I am confident that they provide a useful solution—but not the only solution—for delivering services in appropriate circumstances.
We must constantly keep under review that system of delivering public services. It is the intention of the Secretary of State and myself to take part in those reviews and to make appropriate changes where necessary. My colleagues in the Assembly who are responsible for the reviews that are carried out there intend to do exactly the same. I recognise my hon. Friend's strong feelings, but I hope that he will recognise that we have made some progress in trying to make improvements.
Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that there has still been no bonfire of the quangos, a commitment that was given by all the political parties that campaigned for a yes vote?
Mr. Touhig: I made the point that there has been no bonfire of the quangos but, as I said earlier, we have a small coal fire that is still burning. We must keep the issue under review, but we have made some progress. I intend, with the Secretary of State, to play my part in keeping under review the delivery of public services by quangos.

Health Fit Process (Isle of Wight)
4 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise this issue. I am glad to see the Minister in her place.
There are three key questions that I hope that the Minister will be able to answer. First, health fit, which I will explain in more detail later, mentions drivers for change, some of which are practical and some of which are artificial. Do the Government accept that they have responsibility for creating some of those drivers for change and therefore that they have responsibility for the consequences? Secondly, when the Government set so many targets, why are there no targets for access to accident and emergency services? Thirdly, will the Government guarantee the future of emergency surgery facilities to support a consultant-led accident and emergency service together with maternity and paediatric services in my constituency?
The Isle of Wight is situated some two to five miles off the south coast of England, depending on where one crosses. It is difficult to describe the impact of living on a small offshore island to someone who does not share that experience. I will explain it for the Minister's benefit. If, every time she wanted to move from the city of Salford to the city of Manchester, she were only allowed to travel every half an hour, she spent half an hour doing so and there was no transport after 11 o'clock at night or before six o'clock in the morning, she could understand the practicalities faced by my constituents. There are only six ferry connections between the island and the mainland, very few of which run all the time.
The population of the island is 125,000 but it rises to 300,000 during the peak holiday season. It is one of poorest areas in the UK not to receive objective 1 or objective 2 status.
The hospital, which is run by the Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust, is a splendid, albeit small, district general hospital. It was constructed in the late 1980s. A total of £26 million is now being spent on reconstruction because it has been agreed that 125,000 inhabitants in the winter and 300,000 in the summer

"must have an accident and emergency service, and therefore must have the 24-hour cover that supports that accident and emergency service, which has been described by the joint consultants committee of the BMA as acute medicine, acute surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics, a full anaesthetic service, ITU, CCU and HDU, pathology and radiology, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. That is a basic minimum without which A and E cannot function effectively or, indeed, safely."—[Official Report, 14 January 2003; Vol. 378, c. 655.]

We fear the loss of those services and, of course, the ambulance service must use coastguard helicopters to transfer patients to the mainland from time to time.
I will give more background. There is an enduring concern in my constituency about the loss of island services to the mainland. We have got used to having a joint police service with Hampshire, although we still hanker to have the island mentioned in the service's name. Since 1997. we have seen the creation of a cross-Solent learning and skills council, and a health authority that was first amalgamated with that in Portsmouth and then re-amalgamated with that covering the rest of Hampshire.
134WH
Those may only provide backroom services, but more recently we have seen the loss of the police control room to Netley and the loss of Customs cover based on the island. There is a natural suspicion among my constituents that such losses will continue. Sadly, the health fit process was launched against that background of suspicion.
The health fit project is run by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic health authority and is part of a national process to reconfigure hospitals in what is called "a rapidly changing environment". The local health community is expected to agree a strategic framework for reconfiguring those services to achieve what the health authority calls

"sustainable, affordable and efficient health services that meet the health care needs of the population."

The principles adduced include the recognition of drivers for change, the involvement of the public, meeting the needs of the human population rather than bricks and mortar and making services effective and safe while sometimes taking calculated and agreed risks. I shall shortly ask whether the risk of not having an accident and emergency department on the island is worth taking.
Three elements are profoundly important. The first is public involvement. I welcome the fact that consultation is not taking place behind closed doors, but the language must be more accessible. Using phrases such as

"based on a series of patient pathway conferences"

is unhelpful. It means precious little to me, though perhaps more to the Minister.
The second element is drivers for change. Some are technological and medical advances, National Institute for Clinical Excellence clinical statements and the demands of the royal colleges. Another identified in the health fit document is to

"manage the pressures on the medical workforce as a result of the European Working Time Directive".

Some drivers are inevitable, some artificial. The Government imposed some—so the Government can take them away. Where they damage services or impose a financial cost that the Government are not prepared to meet, they should be interpreted flexibly.
The first that most islanders knew about the health fit process was on 10 January when the story hit the Isle of Wight County Press. I pay tribute to Suzanne Pert, its health correspondent and a mature and sensible journalist who does not scaremonger. She wrote:

"An explosive report on future health services suggests Islanders would have to go to the mainland for all emergency surgery and trauma services, for some planned operations and even to have babies for a caesarian or forceps delivery."

A document had been produced—ambiguous and full of health jargon—for the community health council meeting on 13 January. I shall summarise its key points. First, it states:

"For in-patient paediatrics at Levels 2 and 3, the working assumption might be that these services should align with the 'comprehensive' acute hospital sites in Southampton, Portsmouth and Basingstoke."

There are presently five, but that is only three. Secondly, it states:

"Whilst the role of the acute hospital will change, there is still a need to define sites where acute trauma (accidents) and acute surgical emergencies will be treated. The likely strategic sites for these services, in terms of population distribution and access, are Southampton, Portsmouth and Basingstoke."

135WH
A third extract states:

"However, the emerging view of the HealthFit event"—

typical of the language used—

"was that greater thought needs to be given to emergency access to the mainland, rather than treating the Solent as a barrier which completely defines the nature of services on the Island."

I understand what the document was getting at and I see the Minister nodding in her place, but it was open to profound misinterpretation—that if emergency services are wanted, one may have to cross the Solent to get them. That was a serious error on the part of those who wrote the document.
Fortuitously, on 14 January I held an Adjournment debate on public services, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), replied. I shall not quote all the relevant columns, but I had read the health fit document by then and pointed out that, if implemented, it would undermine the argument for minimum must-have provision for the population. I told the Under-Secretary that the proposals in the health fit document to remove accident and emergency to the mainland were unacceptable. I hoped that they were to him, too.
I provided the Under-Secretary with an opportunity to deal with that concern, by then widespread on the island. Sadly, he failed to do so. He merely read out a prepared script in columns 660 and 661, which described a process that would continue for a year or more, offering no comfort to residents on the future of accident and emergency, or, indeed, any other services on the island.
It was not surprising that the primary care trust and the health trust under the leadership of David Crawley and Graham Elderfield respectively should meet with their staff to put together the technical, financial and medical case for and against moving the services as described in the document. It is not surprising that the public became increasingly worried, that Councillor Roger Mazillius, the portfolio holder for health, social services and housing on the Isle of Wight council, called a public meeting, or that people wrote to me and telephoned me to ask what they could do. My assiduous local paper and other media including Isle of Wight Radio and the Southampton Daily Echo took a close interest.
On 22 January, the leaders of the three political groups on the Isle of Wight council, the Island First Group, the Conservatives, and Debbie Gardiner for Labour, launched a petition against what health fit called the proposals, but what I was careful subsequently to call the suggestions and ideas. I pay tribute to them, to the townswomen's guild for helping to launch the petition, and to people all over the island who helped to collect signatures for the petition in bars, pubs, shops, cafés, garages and fire stations. To date, I am pleased to say that 53,209 people have signed the petition: more than half the total adult population of my constituency. I have also received a huge number of letters, some of which I have with me.
Before the public meeting on 3 February, Peter Bingham, the chairman of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic health authority, wrote:

"I cannot envisage the closure of accident and emergency services at St. Mary's. The bulk of accident and emergency services will always need to be provided from local facilities."

136WH
It is no reflection on Peter Bingham that islanders subjected that letter to the same kind of textual analysis with which they might examine a snip offered by a used car salesman. They were becoming suspicious because they had already lost their services. Some may have recalled, as I did when I read it, the words of my noble Friend Lord Heseltine, who notoriously "could not envisage" doing something rather damaging to my party. However, that is the kind of analysis to which the letter was subjected.
The statement was examined in detail at the public meeting. Richard Samuel, for the strategic health authority, gave three key assurances: a mini health fit for the island would be held in April; no decisions had been taken; and he repeated the "cannot envisage" statement.
Graham Elderfield, of the health trust, said that we needed to have accident and emergency services on the island, and pointed out that the clinicians had decided two years ago that it was too high a risk to move maternity services from the island. David Crawley, of the primary care trust, said that

"the document doesn't say close A&E, it will be provided on the island."

He also said that

"accident and emergency is an integral part of delivering services on an island."

However, later the same evening he said that

"accident and emergency will remain as it is; the question is the emergency services around it."

Paul Barber, the secretary of the community health council, said that the consensus was entirely the opposite of that indicated in the health fit document, which suggested that there was consensus on the ideas put forward in the document.
Given the promise that I have just quoted from Peter Bingham—a promise that people took seriously—people then began to focus on what was meant by accident and emergency services. Did it mean the accident and emergency service as presently provided, or did it mean an accident and emergency service at St. Mary's, but perhaps without emergency surgery and trauma support—in other words, a minor injuries unit?
My noble Friend the Earl Howe asked that question in another place last Wednesday, but even before he did so people were beginning to suspect that it meant a minor injuries unit. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath declined to give my noble Friend the confirmation that he sought—that emergency surgery would remain on the island.
Not surprisingly, my constituents have smelt a rat. What would be the consequences of the loss of accident and emergency services? It would mean the loss of other services. Without consultant-led accident and emergency services, as the British Medical Association has shown, there is no need for other acute hospital services. It would be impossible to provide maternity services in case an emergency caesarean was needed, as happened in the case of Elaine and Keith Ashdown of Cowes. Mrs. Ashdown had a textbook pregnancy, but needed an emergency caesarean when Daniel was born on 1 July 2002. Minutes later, he was whisked off to the neonatal intensive care unit. Mrs. Ashdown said:

"The one thing that helped my husband and I through what should have been the best day of our lives was the fact that we had family there with us."

137WH
Without consultant-led accident and emergency services, as accident and emergency consultant Peter Beal said, we would turn into a minor injuries unit. We must have complete accident and emergency coverage, and to have that we need all the necessary back-up. Mr. Jules Gwynn, who is a nurse in the unit, said:

"If people are trapped and need assessment, a whole specialised team would go out including a consultant and an anaesthetist. We are all on stand-by 365 days a year … It's part of the job, we don't get paid for that. We do it for the Island, we don't do it for ourselves."

The time and cost of travelling to the mainland is a problem. It costs the parents of a sick child £49.70 to visit him in Basingstoke. It is a return journey of more than five hours from Newport. A lady in East Cowes said she had just time to go to Southampton general hospital between leaving her children at school in the morning and picking them up in the afternoon.
There is pressure on mainland hospitals, with which they are ill equipped to cope. Caroline Dinenage of Portsmouth wrote to me to say:

"I am extremely worried about the impact that changes to the Isle of Wight hospital will have upon Portsmouth hospitals which are already under enormous pressure.

My personal experience was in September of last year when I was under St Mary's hospital Portsmouth for maternity care. I was booked to go in on the morning of Sept. 5th to be induced … The nurses on my ward told me that they were so overwhelmed with women in labour that some midwives were having to attend to two women simultaneously … Unfortunately the maternity/labour wards were so busy all of that day and the next that I had to wait until 9 pm on the following evening before I could be induced (36 hours later) … one of the midwives on my ward took pity on me and stayed late at work to carry out the procedure.

I have to say that the care I received from the staff during my stay was absolutely marvellous—they were all just so kind and good natured despite the pressure they work under. I really can't see how they will be able to cope without some substantial investment and dramatic increase in staff numbers."

That is what will happen if these changes go through.
I wrote to the Minister to say that islanders' concerns and, in some cases, fears will increase unless we get some assurances. Health staff morale will be sharply reduced and recruitment and retention, always difficult, would be imperilled. People would choose not to relocate to the island, and our holiday trade, on which a substantial proportion of our wealth depends, would be hit. Most important of all, however, lives would be put at risk, as was the case with a Dorset mother-to-be who was brought from Weymouth a fortnight ago today because no hospital in the south of England other than St. Mary's had the intensive care cot that her baby needed. Fortunately for her, the ferries were running, but 1,500 times a year ferry services are cancelled and often helicopters cannot fly. Mainlanders, as I am sure the Minister appreciates, can go elsewhere; islanders cannot. That is why a fully equipped hospital is a matter of life and death to the people of the Isle of Wight.
4.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Once again, I find myself in the fortunate position of being able to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight on
138WH
securing today's debate. I am sure that he will often raise issues of concern to his constituents in Westminster Hall. He is concerned to ensure that there is a high standard of health care on the island, and rightly so. For the record, I reassure him that the Government are absolutely committed to providing high-quality services for people in this country, wherever they may live, and that includes the hon. Gentleman's constituents on the Isle of Wight.
I do not intend to repeat the lengthy catalogue of improvements that my fellow Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) mentioned in the previous debate about changes that have taken place on the Isle of Wight. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been a great deal of extra investment in and improvement to the infrastructure of the NHS and to direct service delivery in his area. However, it is worth repeating a statement that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made in the previous debate, as it sets the context for the health fit proposals. He said:

"Health services are never stagnant: they adapt to new opportunities and challenges as they appear. That applied especially when the Government introduced the NHS plan and the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative. In accordance with those policies, it is up to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, with their specific local knowledge and expertise, to plan and develop health services in line with the needs of their local communities."—[Official Report, 14 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 659.]

It is important that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, his constituents, the health professionals and all those in his area look at any proposal in the context of that policy. The Government are determined that local people will be involved from the outset in shaping, designing and developing services to meet their needs and those of their families. I urge the hon. Gentleman to have a little faith and courage, and to have confidence in the ability of local people to come up with robust proposals that will meet the health care needs of his constituents.
Let me contrast the health fit process with what happened previously. The hon. Gentleman will know that I was chair of a community health council during the deep, dark Tory years, when consultation seemed to consist of the expiry of a period of time. A 12-week consultation process consisted of the NHS presenting its preferred option as a fait accompli to local people, the 12 weeks passing, and the initial option being adopted. That was entirely unsatisfactory and unworthy of the name public consultation.
The Government have tried to introduce an entirely new system, involving the public and patients from the outset in considering with health professionals the services in their communities—involving questions such as which services should be in the acute sector, how many should be in primary care and how many in intermediate care, and where specialties should be sited—as well as in debating difficult issues in a mature, realistic and reasonable way. If we have confidence in local people, we shall end up with robust, rigorous and sustainable solutions that will work in the longer term.

139WH
We are not merely preparing health policies that will suit us today, but trying to look into the future and to ask how the health service in the 21st century might provide high-quality services for people in the Isle of Wight. I urge the hon. Gentleman, the local press and the local community to involve themselves in the process. I have had a chance to look at the health fit document. It is excellent. The strategic health authority has grappled with a new way of designing proposals.
The hon. Gentleman should look at the back of that document and see the list of people who have already been involved at stage one of the process in trying to draw up some of the options that might be available. They include a range of people from local authorities, the primary care sector, the ambulance service, primary care trusts and the acute services who in the past would never have been engaged in the process. They would not have brought the views of community representatives, their knowledge of the local area, or their information about transport and about the way in which the community works into the health service planning process.
In the bad old days, the NHS would simply have decided in a closed environment what the local people should have. We are turning the system on its head and saying that it is for the local community to determine its priorities and for the health service to try to respond—within the bounds of quality and affordability.
The hon. Gentleman has raised serious questions about the drivers for change that are set out in the document. We must all address work force issues. We need more doctors, nurses, therapists, cleaners and porters—every kind of person working in the health service. This Government, with their massive investment, are enabling that to happen. We must also look at the skills mix. People will have to do different jobs from those that they have done in the past: nurses will have to do many of the things that only doctors have done, and doctors will do things that only consultants have done. Radiotherapy practitioners will have to do things that in the past only radiologists will have done. Getting the skills mix into the system is a key issue and a big driver.
There are pressures to centralise some services, some of which relate to quality, and there is recognition that in areas such as cancer, where surgeons have an opportunity to do a goodly number of operations, outcomes are better. It is now accepted in a number of specialist areas that bringing services together can result in better outcomes. Set against the pressure to centralise is an equal pressure to have services located in local communities wherever possible. If communities are engaged in that discussion, they can accept some of those contradictions and work through which services are better brought together and which are better done at local level. The traditional way of organising those services is not always the best way of meeting the needs.
We have to be imaginative. We have to use new technology. The introduction of telemedicine, teleconferencing and new IT means that we can work in different ways. Primary care services can often be connected through IT to the acute trust. A patient does not always have to go to the hospital to have an appointment: consultants can come out to primary care centres and run their out-patient clinics in the
140WH
community. The health service is changing almost as we speak and faster than we have ever known before because of these drivers in the system.
Another driver is that we have to provide services within the money that is available. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the investment in the past few years has been pretty significant. There was an increase in investment of 3.5 per cent in 1997–98, nearly 6 per cent. in 1999–00, and 8 per cent. in 2001–2002. There was a further cash increase last year of 9.6 per cent. and another increase of 9.7 per cent is coming.
Those are big numbers. This is the biggest investment that the NHS has ever known. The hon. Gentleman's constituents are seeing the benefits of having a Labour Government who have the courage to increase taxes and are prepared to invest in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that this kind of change and transformation cannot take place unless there is an environment of increased investment that enables us to make those changes.
The hon. Gentleman asked about accident and emergency services. The chairman of the strategic health authority said very clearly on the record:

"I cannot envisage the closure of accident and emergency services at St Mary's. The bulk of accident and emergency services will always need to be provided from local facilities, because of the need for urgent access."

I challenge the hon. Gentleman to be more imaginative about what emergency services can look like in the future. They do not have to be designed as they have been for the past 30 or 40 years. With technology, new techniques and many more nurse practitioners, more people can be seen even closer to home than the original A and E services might have provided.
We are at an early stage. There are currently no proposals on the table and there is a long way to go in drawing up the health fit process. To rule out any possibilities at this stage would be undemocratic, not the best form of consultation and unnecessarily restrictive. It would not be fair to the local community. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says about the press not scaremongering, it is not fair to tell the community that they face the prospect of losing all their A and E services in their local hospital. That sort of statement will not encourage them to engage properly in the process or to play their full part in making their contribution to shaping the future health service for the Isle of Wight.
The hon. Gentleman talked about targets for access to A and E. He knows that we have targets about waiting times in A and E. Ninety per cent. of people are seen in A and E at his local hospital within four hours. That service is meeting the target. There is an excellent service on the Isle of Wight. He also talked about providing a consultant-led A and E and maternity service. Clearly those are important matters to local people and ought to be considered as part of that process. I am absolutely sure that they will be.
This strategic health authority has really tried. It has gone out of its way to do things in a different way and to actively engage with local people. It is determined to make that work. It recognises that the old style of operating—simply coming up with the option preferred

141WH
by the professionals—is not the way to have a sustainable, responsive and accessible NHS in the future. The strategic health authority is doing its absolute best to ensure that it involves people.
Some important messages are already emerging from the initial health fit events. People say that there needs to be greater diversity of access, that primary care services should be extended and that more acute care should be taking place in the community. The role of the acute general hospital needs to change. Health services are changing for the future.
142WH
The hon. Gentleman should have some courage. He should have some ambition for his community. Things do not have to be as they are. In the future, they can be much better because of the investment that the Government are putting in and our determination to reform health services so that they operate in the best interests of the people. The hon. Gentleman should have some faith. He should get involved, play his part, and encourage his constituents to do the same.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Bali Bombing Report
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will respond to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Inquiry into Intelligence, Assessments and Advice prior to the terrorist bombings on Bali on 12 October 2002. [99878]

  The Prime Minister
  I am today laying before the House the Government's response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report.

DEFRA

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. David Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the level of grant which would need to be provided to householders to enable them to install a micro-combined heat and power plant instead of a high-efficiency boiler without incurring additional costs; what the carbon dioxide savings from such an installation would be; and what the savings to the householders' fuel bills would be [98668]

  Mr. Morley
  At present it is not possible to accurately estimate the level of grant needed or the savings in carbon dioxide or fuel bills as, to date, no manufacturer has brought a fully trialled and tested micro combined heat and power product on to the market.

  Energy Generation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on encouraging industry to invest in developing(a) micro combined heat and power, (b) domestic heat pumps and (c) other technology that could reduce emissions of CO2 in the long term [98670]

  Mr. Morley
  Government is keen to encourage the development of low carbon technologies. We are working closely with industry in fora such as the Distributed Generation Co-ordination Group to remove any technical or legislative barriers to the development of micro-CHP. We will also support field trials designed to evaluate the benefits of micro-CHP. In addition, the Carbon Trust supports the development of a low carbon economy in the UK and their Low Carbon Innovation Programme provides loans, grants and financing for a wide range of innovative low carbon projects, which can include domestic heat pumps, micro-CHP and other technologies.
  548W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has also taken vigorous action for the promotion of renewable energy generation, including the introduction of the Renewables Obligation, the setting up of substantial capital grants schemes, expanded provision for research, and the promotion of regional plans and targets.

  Agricultural Exports
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 20 January to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George),Official Report, column 93W, on agricultural exports, if she will place a copy of (a) the letter from the Minister of State for International Trade and Investment and (b) the ERM Consultancy report in the Library. [97925]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply. I have placed a copy of the ERM Consultancy Report in the Libraries of the House. However I will not publish the letter from my noble Friend, Minister of State. It is not the practice to publish such letters, under Exemption 2—Internal advice and discussion, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Cetaceans
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with which European fisheries ministers she has had discussions regarding cetacean bycatch in the last 12 months; and what the outcome of each communication was. [96734]

  Mr. Morley
  I have raised this issue several times with Commissioner Fischler, both in person and in writing. Most recently, I wrote to him earlier this month, reinforcing the intervention made by the UK at the January meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council and pressing in particular for wider observer coverage off the South West coast where a number of other member states' vessels pursue the pelagic fishery. I have also written to the French minister and spoken individually to ministerial colleagues from Spain, Germany and Denmark. The outcome has been, progressively, the inclusion of action on cetacean bycatch firstly in the Commission's roadmap on CFP reform and secondly in the action plan on environmental matters under the CFP, and publication of the Commission's discussion paper on the reduction of cetacean bycatch in December 2002. I shall continue to fund our scientific work and to press for action, with a view to securing concrete proposals from the Commission and then their adoption by the Council.

  Flooding
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial assistance is available to councils in which areas are flooded in 2003. [98286]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has in place financial arrangements known as the Bellwin Scheme to assist Local Authorities, including police and fire authorities, in England in emergencies. (In Wales these arrangements are dealt with by the National Assembly

  549W
  for Wales which operates similar arrangements). Assistance is available to authorities to help with uninsurable clear-up costs following a disaster or emergency in their area which involves destruction of, or danger to, life or property. In March last year the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to all authorities reminding them of the existence of the scheme and advising them how to go about getting assistance under it.

  Under this scheme authorities are themselves responsible for the first tranche of expenditure on emergency work. The amount each authority affected will be expected to find is just 0.2 per cent. of its annual budget. Expenditure above that will be eligible for 85 per cent. assistance from Government.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the volume of reprocessing radioactive waste that will arise over the next 10 years from the reprocessing of British Energy-owned spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield. [95267]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are contracts for the reprocessing of about 65 per cent, of the spent fuel from British Energy's advanced gas-cooled reactors. If all of the spent fuel was reprocessed, conditioned waste volumes are estimated to be a maximum of about 28,000 m3 of low-level waste, 14,000 m3 of intermediate-level waste and 470 m3 of high level waste. An estimate of the amounts to be reprocessed in the next 10 years is not available.

  Sharks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the populations of(a) white, (b) hammerhead and (c) thresher sharks in each of the last 15 years; and what measures her Department is taking to protect shark populations. [98001]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has made no assessment of populations of white, hammerhead or thresher sharks, as these species are rare in UK waters. I am concerned at the decrease in shark populations, and so have been working to protect sharks at national and international level. In particular I have pressed for early adoption of a strict measure based on the Commission's welcome proposal to restrict shark finning; I have also introduced measures to protect the basking shark under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and secured improved international protection for basking sharks through strengthened CITES listing.

  Tangerine Advertising
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on European Union funding for the advertising of tangerines. [98419]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2001 a programme for the promotion (including advertising) of oranges, Clementines, and mandarins in Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Romania and Bulgaria was approved under Council Regulation 2702/1999 (measures to 550W
  provide information on, and to promote, agricultural products in third Countries). In 2002 a programme for the promotion, within the European Union, of oranges and Clementines was approved under Council Regulation 2826/2000 (information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market). The Community contribution will have been 50 per cent. of the costs for both programmes.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  7. Mr. Huw Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian consequences of war against Iraq, with special reference to medical aid. [98733]

  Clare Short
  The Iraqi people are already very vulnerable, their coping strategies worn away by years of misrule. Any disruption to their current situation could lead to a serious humanitarian crisis. The Government is committed to minimising the suffering of the Iraqi people. In the event of military action a key priority will be to re-establish critical humanitarian infrastructure as quickly as possible, including the Iraqi hospitals, clinics, sanitation facilities and water treatment plants which already suffer from a terrible lack of maintenance. The medical risks of the use of chemical and biological weapons are horrendous. Most traditional deliverers of medical aid are not adequately prepared for the worst case scenarios.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met representatives of the Kurdish people to discuss human rights in Iraq. [98737]

  Clare Short
  The Foreign & Commonwealth Office regularly meets with representatives of the Kurdish people to discuss a wide range of issues, including human rights.

  Southern Africa
  8. Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on humanitarian aid to southern Africa. [98734]

  Clare Short
  Southern Africa continues to suffer from a major humanitarian crisis. 14.4 million people in six countries receive help from the international community. More than half of these are in Zimbabwe, where UK programmes alone are feeding almost 2 million people.

  The international response to this crisis has prevented large-scale deaths and we are now confident that adequate supplies are available until the April harvests and that the position in many of these countries will improve. However, the disastrous economic policies in Zimbabwe mean that massive food aid will still be needed there.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she next expects to meet Commonwealth colleagues to discuss international aid efforts to Zimbabwe. [98736]
  551W
  Clare Short
  I have no current plans to discuss international aid efforts with commonwealth colleagues. The international community is responding to the humanitarian crisis within the context of a UN coordinated effort. I have recently discussed the crisis with the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy, Mr James Morris. I have also written to OECD colleagues to urge further support.

  Afghanistan
  John Smith
  12. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the level of aid pledged by the international community for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. [98738]

  Clare Short
  The needs assessment done quickly in late 2001 has now been refined in the National Development Framework (NDF). A sustained international effort is required.

  At the donor conference held in Tokyo in January 2002, the international community pledged $4.5 billion for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Pledges covered periods of between 1 and 5 years. Since Tokyo, almost $2 billion has been disbursed. The Development Forum scheduled for mid-March will present the NDF for the coming 2–3 years and provide an opportunity for renewal of international support and multi-year pledges.

  At Tokyo the UK pledged £200 million over five years for both humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. We have already disbursed £65 million in the current financial year, and remain committed to Afghanistan in the long term.

  Water Supplies (Developing Countries)
  13. Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to improve the availability of clean and affordable water in developing countries. [98739]

  (a) in pounds sterling (£ million)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  45

  47

  45

  70

  100

  50

  and

  (b) as a percentage of DFIDs annual budget

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2.2

  2.2

  2.0

  2.6

  3.2

  1.5

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to support Fairtrade Fortnight. [99360]

  Clare Short
  My department is providing £120,000 to the Fairtrade Foundation over three years(2001–2003) in support of its efforts to target new groups through its annual Fairtrade Fortnight campaigns. These help to
  552W
  Clare Short
  My Department recognises the key role that water plays in poverty reduction and is committed to assisting those in the developing world to assess and manage their water resources in a more equitable and sustainable way. Currently, 1.2 billion people globally have inadequate access to safe water and the situation is likely to worsen by 2025 when nearly two-thirds of the world's population will be living in countries of significant water stress. My Department along with other members of the international community have strongly committed to improving access to drinking water and sanitation while working to strengthen the management of water resources for effective and equitable service delivery and these must now be implemented.

  Education Projects
  14. Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding her Department is giving to education projects in overseas countries in 2002–03. [98740]

  Clare Short
  Figures for expenditure for this financial year—2002/03—are not yet available. However, it is expected that they will be comparable to expenditure for 2001/02.

  Of DFID's bilateral aid programme allocable by sector, the amount spent on education projects in 2001/02 was £112 million. This figure represents expenditure on projects specific to the education sector but does not capture the full extent of our efforts as it excludes multi-sector projects and programmes, strategic funding to civil society organisations and budget support and balance of payments. Also excluded are activities funded through multilateral channels.

  Contingency Reserve
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's Contingency Reserve was(a) in pounds sterling and (b) as a percentage of the annual DFID budget for each year from May 1997. [99315]

  Clare Short
  The size of DFIDs Contingency Reserve for each year since 1997 was:

  raise consumer awareness of development issues in international trade as well as highlighting ways in which consumers can act to make a difference.

  In addition, DFID has provided £168,930 over three years (from 1999 to 2002) in support of Fairtrade Foundation's year round media work, helping it to raise awareness of the "FT mark" and what it stands for.
  553W
  Last year DFID also approved a project (at a total cost of £300,000) designed to address a recognised bottleneck within Fair Trade—namely the limited number of products for which international Fair Trade standards exist. The project aims to develop new Fair Trade product standards, secure the registration of new producer groups and help bring additional Fair Trade products to supermarket shelves over the next 2 years. The target is to increase the retail value of Fair Trade sales in the UK to over 100m per annum by 2004 and by so doing extend the benefits of Fair Trade to a greater number of producers in developing countries. By expanding the scale of Fair Trade activities, the project also aims to secure a sustainable future for the Fairtrade Foundation, so that its core operational costs (including the cost of subsequent promotional activities) can be fully funded from the income it receives from licensees.

  Owing to travel commitments, I am unable to attend the launch of the Fairtrade Fortnight this year. However, the Fairtrade Foundation has invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many times since 2001 she has taken flights on departmental duties in the UK; how many of these were(a) charter flights, (b) first or club class and (c) by helicopter; and who accompanied her on each trip. [95387]

  Clare Short
  Since January 2001 I have taken three flights on departmental duties in the UK. They were business class. I have not taken any flights by charter or helicopter.

  I was accompanied by my departmental Private Secretary in each case.

  All travel was undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with the French government regarding the sale to France of UK aircraft carrier designs; and if he will make a statement. [93348]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]: We have made clear to the French Government our view that the best way forward for United Kingdom/French co-operation on a range of carrier issues is at the industry-to-industry level. To facilitate the transition to such industry-to-industry co-operation, three official groups have been established and their work has been carried forward since the France/United Kingdom summit on 4 February 2003 and the UK CVF down-selection decision. This work includes potential future co-operation on procurement issues and information interchange. The last such meeting took place on 13 February 2003. During the course of discussions, we
  554W
  have provided France with some basic design information, to help them decide the best way forward for their own programme.

  The carrier is also regularly mentioned in more general discussions between Ministers and other members of our two Ministries of Defence.

  Camouflaged Clothing
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the amount of camouflaged clothing that has been issued to members of the Armed Forces that are on standby to go to the Gulf; and what the Government's policy is towards members of the armed forces purchasing driving licences prior to finding out if they will be driving vehicles. [98973]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are taking measures to ensure that our Armed Forces have all the equipment they need to do any tasks required of them. The specific information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Where a member of the Armed Forces is required to drive as part of his or her duties and does not already hold an appropriate licence, the cost of any licence or permit required will be met or reimbursed from public funds.

  Depleted Uranium (Dundrennan)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rounds of depleted uranium ammunition are due to be fired during the current testing programme at Dundrennan firing range; over what period of time this firing will take place; what calibre of ammunition the DU rounds will be; what environmental safeguards have been projected and been implemented for this kind of testing; and if he will make a statement. [97046]

  Dr. Moonie
  192 CHARM 3 depleted uranium rounds (120 mm anti-tank rounds) were fired at the Dundrennan range on 3–6 February 2003. With regard to environmental safeguards, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 February 2003,Official Report, column 463W, to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).

  Fleet Readiness
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy warships(a) are and (b) are due to be placed in a state of extended readiness; and for what purpose in each case. [98232]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Bridport and RFA Sir Geraint are currently in extended readiness. HMS Triumph and HMS Glasgow are currently planned to go into extended readiness in 2004, and HMS Invincible in 2006. Decisions to place vessels in extended readiness reflect the capabilities that are required to meet current and contingent operational requirements. These plans are subject to regular review, and vessels that are in extended readiness may be reactivated periodically to cater for unforeseen contingencies and thus allow efficient maintenance of current fleet outputs.

  Procurement
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters he plans to buy in the next three years, broken down by(a) type and (b) arm of the armed forces. [98293]

  Mr. Ingram
  We will take delivery of the outstanding 31 Apache Helicopters for the Army Air Corps during 2003 under an existing contract. In addition, contracts for the RAF to operate four Bell 412s in Cyprus and for the Army to operate three Bell 212s in Belize will come into effect this year, on a commercially owned, military registered basis.

  It is likely that a number of further helicopter acquisition programmes will be approved over the next three years, but decisions have yet to be taken on the number and type of platform to be purchased or on their delivery schedules.

  Smart Weapons
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with European allies on collaboration on targeting of smart weapons. [87929]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the Airborne System for Target Recognition, Identification and Designation (ASTRID), the embryonic European collaborative defence programme involving the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain. In September 2002 signature was obtained on the four nation Statement of Intent, this expresses a commitment to create a common programme through the development of a Joint User Requirement Document and a Memorandum of Understanding. Working level discussions to further both these initial objectives are continuing.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Electricity
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Solicitor-General what changes in unit payments for electricity have resulted from the switch by her Department to purchasing renewable energy which is exempt from the Climate Change Levy. [96483]

  The Solicitor-General
  A holding reply was given on 11 February 2003.

  None of the departments for which the Attorney General is responsible—the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers—have yet switched to purchasing renewable energy.

  Service Delivery Agreement
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the(a) Crown Prosecution Service's, (b) Serious Fraud Office's and (c) Treasury Solicitor's Department's service delivery agreements for 2003 to 2006 will be published. [94110]
  556W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 February 2003].

  The Crown Prosecution Service will publish its Strategic Plan for the period 2003–2006, and a Business Plan for 2003–2004, before the end of March 2003. These plans set out what the CPS will be doing to deliver its Public Service Agreement

  The Serious Fraud Office will publish agreed service delivery targets before the end of March 2003.

  The service delivery agreement for the Treasury Solicitor's Department will be published in April 2003 alongside its Business Plan for 2003–2004. The service delivery targets and how they will be met is a key feature of that Business Plan.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to his Answer of 10 February 2003 to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk),Official Report, column 620W, on world oil prices, what estimate he has made of the effect of (a) a short conflict in Iraq and (b) a prolonged conflict in Iraq on the underlying supply and demand situation for oil. [99133]

  Mr. Wilson
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. Iraqi oil production currently stands at around 2.5 million barrels per day only 3 per cent. of total world oil production and of which only around 1.5 to 2 million barrels per day is exported. There are a number of other factors such as the weather, supply from other countries, etc which affect the underlying demand and supply balance of the oil market: e.g. OPEC producers are likely to increase their production to cover any loss of Iraqi supply; seasonal oil demand is reducing; and the International Energy Agency has general arrangements in place to take international action, including release of stocks, in case of a supply disruption.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research has been completed on the Severn barrage. [98287]

  Mr. Wilson
  Between 1978 and 1994 the Government supported a number of studies under its Tidal Energy Research and Development Programme. Specifically, an assessment of the feasibility of a Severn barrage was published in 1981 as Energy Paper 461. Between 1983 and 1985 an Interim Study2 assessed the technical and financial viability of a Severn barrage leading to a further programme of research reported in 1989 as Energy Paper 573.

  Between 1990 and 1993 further environmental and regional studies were carried out. In 2001 a study was commissioned to examine the merits for a re-appraisal

  557W
  of the Severn barrage. The report was published in early 2003 and can be seen at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/severn.shtml

  1 Energy Paper 46 HMSO 1981 (ISBN 011 4109168 and 410919 2)

  2 Tidal Power from the Severn, STPG, 1986 (ISBN 07277 03587 and 0368 4)

  3Energy Paper 57 HMSO 1989 (ISBN 0 11 412952 5)

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the impact on the environment of the working time directive in respect of carbon dioxide emissions; and if she will seek a derogation from this Directive in respect of the quarrying and construction industries. [99142]

  Alan Johnson
  I have made no such assessment, having received no representations on the matter, and do not intend to seek any derogations on these lines.

  Credit Cards
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to ensure transparency in the credit card market. [93835]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarovicz), on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 366W.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what areas have been targeted for the pilot scheme targeting over-18s throwing fireworks in the street; and how many fixed penalty notices have been issued. [96972]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Penalty notices for 11 disorder offences, including that of throwing fireworks in the street, are being piloted in four police force areas: West Midlands, including the British Transport Police; Essex; North Wales; and Croydon division of the Metropolitan Police. The pilots will be evaluated prior to a decision being made on rolling out the scheme nationally. Detailed data on the numbers of penalty notices issued will be included in this report, which will be published.

  Grant Allocations
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the grant schemes operated by her Department, and (b) the sums of money made available to stimulate new technology in (i) solar power, (ii) heat pumps used for space and water heating purposes, (iii) combined heat and power and micro-chip, (iv) micro-wind power, (v) bio-mass driven electricity generation and (vi) other low, or zero-carbon technologies used for generating heat or electricity. [98671]
  558W
  Mr. Wilson
  The technology stimulation schemes being operated by the Department and the sums of money available are set out as follows:

  £million

  Offshore wind electricity generation: (including £10 million from the New Opportunities Fund)

  74

  Biomass driven electricity and heat generation (including £36 million from the New Opportunities Fund; and £34 million for biomass heat)

  66

  First phase of Major Solar Photo voltaics (PV) Demonstration Programme

  20

  "Clear Skies" scheme for community and household projects (including solar water heating, heat pumps, micro-wind and micro-hydro)

  10

  Wave and Tidal Energy Demonstration Projects

  5

  The Department is also making available £19 million per year for the New and Renewable Energy programme which provides research grants for renewable energy projects.

  DEFRA leads within Government on combined heat and power (CHP) and provides support, as set out as follows:

  £million

  Community Energy to install and refurbish community heating networks, mainly based on CHP

  50

  Energy Crops Scheme to establish energy crops for biomass heat, CHP and electricity generation and to set up producer groups for growers of short rotation coppice

  29

  Bio-energy infrastructure scheme to develop biomass supply-chains

  3.5

  In addition, the Carbon Trust's Low Carbon Innovation Programme can provide, inter alia, grants across a wide range of innovative low carbon projects.

  LPG
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the future growth of the market for automotive liquid petroleum gas. [98642]

  Alan Johnson
  Ministers and officials have regular contact with representatives of the Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) industry, (including those concerned with automotive LPG such as the LP Gas Association) vehicle manufacturers, and other stakeholders.

  In the UK we have over 75,000 vehicles running on LPG, and the market is currently growing at a rate of some 30,000 vehicles per year.

TRANSPORT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will respond to the request from the right hon. Member for Wokingham of 17 June 2002 for information held on the right hon. Member by the Department. [98715]
  559W
  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested was sent to the right hon. Member on 21 February 2003.

  First North Western
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has collected about cancellations of rail services by First North Western Trains during the past 12 months. [99353]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the last 12 months First North Western were scheduled to provide 438,735 train services of which 12,937 or 2.95 per cent. were cancelled. This figure does not include services which were withdrawn as part of a published emergency timetable.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he reconciles the Strategic Rail Authority's goal of a 50 per cent. growth in passenger traffic between 2000–01 and 2010–11 with the Strategic Rail Authority's planning forecast, as reported in their Strategic Plan, that passenger rail travel will be 25 to 35 per cent. greater in passenger kilometre terms than it was at the beginning of the 10 year plan period. [98978]

  Mr. Jamieson
  50 per cent. is a target. The SRA's Strategic Plan gives a snapshot of potential growth. 25–35 per cent. is a current forecast. It is liable to change.

  Thames Gateway
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional allocations for transport infrastructure he has made to support the increase in the numbers of homes and new communities planned for the Thames Gateway London area, as set out in the Deputy Prime Minister's Sustainable Communities Plan. [98621]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Substantial improvements in transport in the Thames Gateway have already taken place, and significant additional resources are already committed or planned for further improvements.

  We are now considering how far and to what timescale we should seek to develop the Thames Gateway further, including the funding implications of the infrastructure required and how those who benefit from new development might contribute to the cost of this infrastructure. We will set out in due course the level of development the Government would like to see in the Gateway and is prepared to support.

WALES

  Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much producing his Department's latest Annual Report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [90893]
  560W
  Peter Hain
  The cost of producing the Department's latest Annual Report was £20,200; the number of copies printed is a matter for the Stationery Office; most copies which were sold are believed to have been bought at a discount by libraries and similar institutions with subscriptions for Command Papers; copies of the report have been provided to hon. and right hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies and some hon. and right. hon. Members with particular Welsh interests, some other Government Departments, the Welsh Assembly and internally within my Department; fewer than 100.

  Departmental Consultations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list consultations his Department has conducted since it was established; and when each consultation(a) opened and (b) closed. [97429]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor gave the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 26 September 2002,Official Report, column 209W.

  Since that date consultations have taken place on:
  the Department's draft Welsh Language scheme, opening on 19 August 2002 and closing on 11 October 2002
  ombudsmen's services in Wales, opening on 4 December 2002 and closing on 7 February 2003

  E-mail Addresses
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what e-mail address members of the public may contact(a) him and (b) each of the Ministers in his Department; and for each e-mail address if he will state (i) the date it became active and (ii) the number of e-mails received in each month since activation. [97446]

  Peter Hain
  Both I and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State may be contacted at wales.office@wales.gsi.gov.uk

  This address has been active since 1 November 2000. Statistics for the amount of mail received are not routinely kept. However in January 2003 it received 131 e-mails.

  Gwydyr House
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when and by whom Gwydyr House headquarters were valued for the purposes of the National Asset Register; what his latest valuation of this property is; and if he will make a statement. [91700]

  Peter Hain
  Gwydyr House was valued on 31 March 2000 by GVA Grimley, Chartered Surveyors; £1.7 million.

  Heritage Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sales of heritage assets and antique assets have been made by his Department since May 1997; if he will list other assets; and if he will estimate the total sales proceeds. [92411]
  561W
  Peter Hain
  No such sales have taken place since my Department was created in July 1999. As a non-executive Department, the Wales Office assets are restricted to its headquarters accommodation (a listed building) and furniture and other office equipment.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list IT contracts in his Department and its predecessors above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [98998]

  Peter Hain
  1 refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 125W.

  The total cost will now be £64.4 million, reflecting the growth in the number of users over the life of the system.

  Laptops
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in his Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if he will make a statement. [98706]

  Peter Hain
  Since the creation of the Wales Office in 1999 there have been no losses or thefts of laptops. During the time of the Welsh Office, there was the loss of ancillary cabling equipment for a laptop total cost of which was £107.00.

  There are currently two laptops allocated to Ministers and special advisers; two allocated to officials and one available for use when the Cabinet Office Briefing Room COBR has been convened.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which overseas delegations and overseas ambassadors met Welsh Office Ministers in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [89950]

  Peter Hain
  Since the Wales Office was established on 1 July 1999, Ministers have met the following overseas delegations or ambassadors:

  1999

  Japanese Ambassador

  American Ambassador

  Belgian Ambassador

  562W

  2000

  Belgium Ambassador

  Delegation from Lower Saxony, Germany

  Delegation from Nigeria

  Delegate from the American Embassy

  Bavarian State Minister for Euro Affairs

  2001

  Delegations from the Government of the Czech Republic

  Delegate from American Embassy

  Hungarian Ambassador

  Delegation from the Spanish Government.

  Delegation from Slovakia

  2002

  Spanish Ambassador

  Danish Ambassador

  Slovakian Ambassador

  Delegate from American Embassy

  2003

  Canadian High Commissioner

  Delegation of Polish MPs

  There were also receptions and other occasions where informal meetings may have taken place with overseas representatives, but no record of these meetings has been kept.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the total expenditure by his Department on ministerial travel(a) in the UK and (b) abroad, in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03(estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92486]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Detailed information requested in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003, Official Report, column 334W.

  Online Sales /Purchases
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) products, (b) goods and (c) services were (i) bought and (ii) sold online by his Department in each of the last five years. [97447]

  Peter Hain
  None since the creation of my Department in July 1999.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each(a) year and (b) quarter from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92487]

  Peter Hain
  The Wales Office does not record its press release count on a quarterly basis.
  563W
  In 1995–96, the Welsh Office issued 581 press releases; in 1996–97 549 press releases; in 1997–98 650 press releases; in 1998–99 774 press releases; in 1999–2000 776 press releases.

  Since its creation in July 1999, the Wales Office has issued 30 press releases in 1999–2000; 100 press releases in 2000–01; 86 press releases in 2001–02; and 129 in 2002–03.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the real rise in the total of public spending on the Welsh Office between 1999–2000 and 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [89959]

  Peter Hain
  Expenditure at 1999–2000 prices (as measured by the GDP deflator at market prices) was £1.485 million in 1999–2000 and £3.368 million in 2001–02, an increase of £1.883 million.

  This increase primarily reflects the fact that the Wales Office was only in existence for three-quarters of 1999–2000 and was still recruiting its staff for much of the year.

  Service Delivery Agreement
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Wales Office's Service Delivery Agreement for 2003 to 2006 will be published. [94107]
  564W
  Peter Hain
  Rather than producing a separate Service Delivery Agreement, the Wales Office will cover its main elements in its departmental reports, which are published each spring.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many statutory instruments have been issued by his Department in each calendar year since 1979. [89843]

  Peter Hain
  The Wales Office was formed on 1 July 1999. The information from 1999 onwards is as follows:

  Number

  1999

  1

  2000

  1

  2001

  4

  2002

  2

  This excludes a number of Orders in Council the drafting of which is the responsibility of my Department and a number of statutory instruments of which my predecessor was a joint signatory.

  Welsh Office Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the expenditure of his Department on(a) the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal and (b) the expenses of the Lord Lieutenant in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [89923]

  Peter Hain
  In 2001–02, expenditure on(a) the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal was £66,000 and (b) Lords-Lieutenant's expenses were £17,000.

TREASURY

  Aggregate Tax
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which quarries in Northern Ireland are paying aggregate tax, broken down by constituency. [99331]

  John Healey
  There are 112 quarry companies in Northern Ireland registered for aggregates levy. A breakdown by constituency is not available but these are broken down by county as follows:

  Belfast—4

  Antrim—14

  Armagh—12

  Derry—15

  Down—23

  Fermanagh—9

  Tyrone—35

  In addition there are quarries in Northern Ireland which are owned by companies in other parts of the UK for aggregates levy.

  Life Insurance
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports he has received on(a) the policy of insurance companies regarding people who have recovered from cancer and who are seeking life insurance and (b) the impact of such policies on securing a mortgage. [99343]

  Ruth Kelly
  None. But if the hon. Member has specific concerns perhaps he would he write to me.

  Retread Tyre Industry
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on discussions his Department has had with the retread tyre industry regarding the Climate Change Levy. [99232]

  John Healey
  As part of the normal process of contact with business, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury ministerial team meet a variety of businesses and business organisations and hear a range of representations. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his answer of 11 February 2003,Official Report, columns 114–15, in line with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of the meetings and discussions they routinely have with a wide range of organisations.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the additional cost to the Treasury in each of the five years from 2006 if all Universities in England and Wales implemented the proposed graduate contribution at the highest level of £3,000 per annum in respect of all eligible students assuming(a) that student numbers remain at the current level and (b) that the Government achieves its target of 50 per cent. participation in higher education. [98631]
  566W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 396W, on higher education, what research his Department commissioned to conclude that the proposals included in the White Paper would have a positive impact on the economy; and if he will publish the research. [99127]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury has not commissioned any external research as part of the formulation of the White Paper proposals. However as part of the process of policy development, the Government makes various analyses. In accordance with Exemption Two (internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information such advice is not usually disclosed.

  Tax Returns
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the trends in revenues from(a) the special investigation, (b) late filing, (c) company non compliance, (d) pre SA intelligence work, (e) company aspect enquiries, (f) non business SA inquiries and (g) section SA investigations, non compliance and full business reviews; and if he will make a statement. [94879]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total revenue from the Inland Revenue's work in these areas increased from £865 million in 1999–2000 to £990 million in 2000–01 and again to £1,090 million in 2001–02. The trends in revenue are therefore firmly upwards.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 185W, on tobacco smuggling, what the costs of the research undertaken for (a) the 2000 report on tobacco smuggling and (b) the 2002 reports were; and if he will make a statement. [97251]

  John Healey
  A mixture of internal and external research was undertaken for the 2000 report "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" and the two reports published by Customs and Excise in November 2002. The estimated cost to HM Customs and Excise of the external research used in "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" is £55,000. The estimated cost to HM Customs and Excise of external research used in the two reports published by HM Customs and Excise in November 2002 is £100,000. No estimate is available of the cost of the internal research. The measures announced in "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" were expected to yield additional revenues of £435 million (in 2000–01), £1,120 million (2001–02), £1,630 million (2002–03), and £2,015 million (2003–04).

  Treasury Stress Audit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of the HM Treasury stress audit carried out in 1999; and what plans there are to carry out another such audit. [93449]

  Ruth Kelly
  The stress audit carried out in 1999 cost 40,901.05. The Department will be carrying out a follow up audit in April 2003.

  Unpaid Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the amount of tax unpaid each year since 1995–96, broken down by(a) tax avoidance,(b) tax evasion, (c) late payment and (d) other causes; and if he will make a statement. [95429]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No reliable overall measure is available in relation to tax evasion and avoidance. In the last 10 years, in proportion to the tax involved, tax unpaid at the end of the Inland Revenue's accounting year has approximately halved, and tax remitted or written off has reduced from around 2 per cent. to around 0.3 per cent. The figures for tax unpaid and tax remitted or written off are set out each year in the Inland Revenue's Annual Report, copies of which are in the Library.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the tax burden is on a single earner family on average earnings with two children, claiming the working families tax credit. [98254]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As set out in Table 13.10 of the 2002–03 Tax Benefit Reference Manual, which is placed in the House of Commons Library, the direct tax burden on a single earner family on male mean earnings with two children was 18.7 per cent. in 2002–03, lower than it was in 1997–98 or any previous year since 1972–73.

  Zambia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that increased multilateral debt relief for Zambia be dependent on the privatisation of(a) the Zambia National Bank, (b) the power utility Zesco and (c) the telephone company Zamtel. [98586]

  John Healey
  Multilateral debt relief for Zambia is provided through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. Under the HIPC initiative a country receives interim debt relief on payments due when it reaches Decision Point and subsequently the debt is irrevocably cancelled at Completion Point. The UK supports this internationally agreed policy.

  To reach Decision Point and demonstrate its commitment to poverty reduction, a country must prepare an Interim-Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). To reach Completion Point it needs to develop a full PRSP, and usually make progress in implementing it for one year.

  The PRSP is drawn up by the country, with the participation of civil society, to show how debt relief and other resources will be targeted on reducing poverty. The country must also be on track with its IMF programme for which there will be a range of conditions, for example on macro-economic stability or public sector management. The IMF is committed to ensuring that the social impact of key macro-economic reforms is analysed to ensure that reforms are designed appropriately and negative consequences addressed. For example, the IMF carried out an analysis of the possible social impact of the privatisation of the Zambia National Bank and the Zambian Government plans to develop a strategic plan that will consider the future of
  568W
  rural branches and design an appropriate institutional structure for rural services, which might include seeking technical and financial assistance from donors for the purpose.

  Hence to reach Completion Point countries must demonstrate a commitment to poverty reduction and economic reform by meeting key conditions (or Completion Point triggers). These conditions may include privatisations or reforms that address the effectiveness and financing of parastatal companies, and thus support the country's strategy for reducing poverty.

  For Zambia the key conditions, for multilateral debt relief through the internationally agreed HIPC initiative, include progress in combating HIV/AIDs, education and health sector reform along with macroeconomic and structural reforms. The Completion Point triggers in relation to the Zambia National Bank and the power utility Zesco require the issuance of international bidding documents for the sale of a majority (controlling) interest. The telephone company Zamtel no longer has a domestic monopoly, and while the sale of a substantial share is part of Zambia's overall poverty reduction strategy it is not a Completion Point trigger.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bail Conditions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders broke the terms of their bail conditions last year and were not recaptured; and what action he is taking to reduce this number. [96007]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2001, about 77,700 people who had been bailed to appear at court failed to do so, representing 13 per cent. of defendants at magistrates' courts and 10 per cent. of Crown Court defendants (13 per cent. overall). Figures are not available for what proportion of those failing to appear were subsequently re-arrested and brought back to court, or how many defendants broke the terms of bail conditions.

  The Government is working with criminal justice agencies to reduce the number of defendants who fail to surrender to bail and to ensure that failure to surrender is dealt with robustly by the prosecution, the courts and the police. In particular we are examining what more can be done to ensure effective enforcement of bench warrants.

  It is important that bail should be used appropriately, and the Government keeps the legislation relating to bail under review in order to ensure that it does everything possible to ensure this. The Criminal Justice Bill now before Parliament makes several changes, including extending the prosecution's right to appeal against a decision by magistrates to grant bail.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose applications are awaiting determination have received work permits in each of the last three years. [94481]
  569W
  Beverley Hughes
  Where an employer applies for a work permit for an overseas national who is already in the United Kingdom, the Home Office will first consider whether the application meets the criteria of the work permit arrangements before considering whether, under the Immigration Rules, the overseas national may be granted leave to remain for the purpose of work permit employment. If the overseas national has an outstanding application for asylum, the usual course would be to defer consideration of granting leave to remain for the purpose of work permit employment until the overseas national's asylum application was resolved.

  However, the outcome of the initial consideration of the application against the work permit criteria is recorded on a separate database to that which holds the immigration application against the work permit criteria is recorded on a separate database to that which holds the immigration status and it is, therefore, not possible to match the data on these separate databases in order to provide the information requested.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will conduct a review of persons granted(a) exceptional leave to remain and (b) indefinite leave to remain in the last five years; if he will assess whether any such persons have breached the conditions of their leave as part of the review; and if he will make a statement. [98644]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: Grants of exceptional leave to remain (ELR) are not normally subject to conditions, and indefinite leave to remain (ILR) cannot be made subject to conditions. The question of a breach of conditions attached to such leave does not therefore arise.

  The cases of those granted ILR are reviewed if they come to serious adverse notice. The cases of those granted ELR are considered when they apply for further leave, or if they come to serious adverse notice in the

  Offenders whose breaches1 of original community sentence or order were proved to the satisfaction of the court by type of sentence or order breached and the proportion breaching original orders—England and Wales

  Numbers and percentages

  2000

  2001

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Number of offenders breaching orders

  Community rehabilitation order2

  10,699

  2,759

  13,458

  10,512

  2,816

  13,328

  Supervision order

  741

  142

  883

  968

  170

  1,138

  Community punishment order2

  15,956

  1,375

  17,331

  14,805

  1,314

  16,119

  Attendance centre order

  1,332

  127

  1,459

  870

  105

  975

  Community punishment and rehabilitation order2

  6,457

  620

  7,077

  6,279

  638

  6,917

  Curfew order

  409

  64

  473

  674

  87

  761

  Reparation order

  38

  5

  43

  127

  42

  169

  Action plan order

  102

  19

  121

  340

  75

  415

  Drug treatment and testing order

  35

  3

  38

  614

  109

  723

  Total community sentences

  35,769

  5,114

  40,883

  35,189

  5,356

  40,545

  570W
  meantime. It would be impractical to review all grants of ILR and ELR made in the past five years but we will continue to review individual cases where appropriate.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff in(a) his Department and (b) other bodies are working (i) full-time and (ii) part-time in connection with the removal of rejected asylum seekers from the UK. [98647]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: The Home Office liaises with a number of different Government Departments and external agencies when dealing with the removal of failed asylum seekers. For example we have links with the Lord Chancellor's Department, Police, Inland Revenue, Department of Works and Pensions and local authorities.

  In total, 12,155 staff work within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. There are 3,969 staff working within the Integrated Casework Directorate, which deals with casework and decision making for asylum, after-entry, nationality and work permits, and 6,213 in the Immigration Service.

  We estimate that around 1,220 full time equivalents are working on direct operational activity and 1,260 providing support to operational activity. Around a further 170 full time equivalents are working on intelligence and 160 on contact management.

  A breakdown of how many staff both in the Department and in other agencies specifically dealing with failed asylum claims may be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Sentences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) men and (b) women serving community sentences in the last two years breached the terms of their sentence. [93303]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested for England and Wales for the years 2000 and 2001 is contained in the table.

  Data for 2002 is not yet available.
  571W

  Offenders whose breaches1 of original community sentence or order were proved to the satisfaction of the court by type of sentence or order breached and the proportion breaching original orders—England and Wales

  Numbers and percentages

  2000

  2001

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Number of offenders sentenced

  Community rehabilitation order2

  44,271

  12,188

  56,459

  46,295

  12,022

  58,497

  Supervision order

  9,711

  1,845

  11,556

  9,330

  1,753

  11,083

  Community punishment order2

  44,517

  5,466

  49,983

  44,052

  5,712

  49,764

  Attendance centre order

  6,459

  582

  7,041

  5,364

  460

  5,824

  Community punishment and rehabilitation order2

  17,300

  1,941

  19,241

  13,199

  1,463

  14,662

  Curfew order

  2,325

  272

  2,597

  3,467

  396

  3,863

  Reparation order

  3,382

  602

  3,984

  6,746

  1,229

  7,975

  Action plan order

  3,678

  678

  4,356

  7,229

  1,421

  8,650

  Drug treatment and testing order

  270

  51

  321

  3,566

  663

  4,229

  Total community sentences

  131,913

  23,625

  155,538

  139,878

  25,119

  164,997

  Offenders breaching orders as a percentage of offenders sentenced3

  Community rehabilitation order2

  24

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  Supervision order

  7

  7

  7

  10

  9

  10

  Community punishment order2

  36

  26

  35

  33

  24

  32

  Attendance centre order

  18

  20

  19

  15

  20

  15

  Community punishment and rehabilitation order2

  36

  31

  35

  41

  37

  41

  Curfew order

  22

  28

  23

  23

  26

  24

  Reparation order

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Action plan order

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Drug treatment and testing order

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Total community sentences

  28

  23

  27

  28

  23

  27

  1 Breaches cover the commission of further offences or the breaking of other conditions laid down in the orders. Examples of such "other conditions" include, among other things: Requirements as to residence; to participate in or refrain from specified activities; attendance at probation centre; to undergo treatment for medical condition or drug/alcohol dependency.

  2 New names for these community sentences came into force in April 2001. Community rehabilitation order was previously probation order, community punishment order was previously community service order and community punishment and rehabilitation order was previously combination order.

  3 An approximation to the breach rate because offenders breaching in one year may have been given the sentence or order in an earlier year. The average of the number of sentences for the year indicated and in the previous year has been used as the denominator to provide a better estimate.

  4 not available. (These orders have not been available for a sufficient length of time for a breach rate to be calculated. Such orders have also been excluded from the breach rate for 'Total Community Sentences').

  Joint Enterprise (Murder)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to propose amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to deal with the use of joint enterprise to reduce a charge of murder by parents or carers of children to a charge of child cruelty. [97858]

  Hilary Benn
  We are considering what measures may be needed to deal with Joint Enterprise, in addition to those already contained in the Bill. The legislative timetable may not permit the measures to be finalised in time for inclusion in the Criminal Justice Bill. If this is the case, we will legislate at the earliest opportunity.

  Memorials (Safety)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance has been given to local authorities about the safety-testing of non-monolithic memorials without approved ground anchor fixing; [98951]

  (2) what action he plans to take to ensure that new memorials are installed to the code of practice produced by the National Association of Memorial Masons. [98950]
  572W
  Hilary Benn
  As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on 27 January 2003,Official Report, Column 622W, we hope to be in a position to issue appropriate guidance later this year in the light of the consideration currently being given to these matters by a Home Office-chaired group of relevant representative and professional organisations.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which overseas students paying the full overseas student fee are required to re-register home addresses under the foreign national rules; and why they are required to do so. [99091]

  Beverley Hughes
  Overseas students who are "relevant foreign nationals" and who have been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a period exceeding six months are normally required to register with their local police force, and to notify them of any subsequent change to their home address. The purpose of the registration scheme is primarily to provide the Security authorities with information about foreign nationals. Countries whose citizens are "relevant foreign nationals" for the purposes of the scheme are listed at Appendix 2 to the Immigration Rules (HC395), as amended by Cm3953.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the budgets of police authorities over each of the last five years. [91884]

  1998–99(£m)

  1999–2000(£m)

  %change

  2000–01(£m)

  %change

  2001–02(£m)

  %change

  2001–02(£m)Adjusted

  2002–03(£m)

  %change

  Avon and Somerset

  164.8

  173.3

  5.2

  181.2

  4.6

  189.7

  4.7

  185.6

  196.1

  5.7

  Bedfordshire

  61.3

  63.4

  3.4

  66.8

  5.4

  70.7

  5.8

  69.2

  72.6

  4.9

  Cambridgeshire

  70.8

  75.2

  6.2

  79.5

  5.7

  84.1

  5.8

  82.3

  90.8

  10.4

  Cheshire

  105.0

  111.1

  5.8

  115.1

  3.6

  121.8

  5.8

  119.1

  125.0

  4.9

  City of London

  57.3

  57.1

  -0.3

  57.9

  1.4

  59.7

  3.1

  58.5

  60.4

  3.2

  Cleveland

  79.3

  83.3

  5.0

  86.5

  3.8

  90.7

  4.9

  88.8

  95.7

  7.8

  Cumbria

  61.9

  64.5

  4.2

  67.4

  4.5

  70.6

  4.7

  69.1

  72.7

  5.2

  Derbyshire

  98.8

  106.5

  7.8

  111.1

  4.3

  117.0

  5.2

  114.4

  123.6

  8.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  164.7

  175.9

  6.8

  182.4

  3.7

  191.1

  4.8

  186.9

  198.4

  6.1

  Dorset

  72.6

  77.4

  6.6

  81.0

  4.7

  84.6

  4.4

  82.7

  87.9

  6.2

  Durham

  77.0

  81.3

  5.6

  84.0

  3.3

  87.7

  4.3

  85.8

  89.2

  4.0

  Dyfed Powys

  52.8

  55.7

  5.5

  59.0

  5.9

  62.9

  6.6

  62.3

  65.3

  4.8

  Essex

  163.6

  169.5

  3.6

  183.1

  8

  194.8

  6.4

  190.6

  198.5

  4.1

  Gloucestershire

  62.4

  66.0

  5.8

  68.6

  3.9

  72.2

  5.2

  70.6

  75.0

  6.2

  Gr. Manchester

  365.7

  382.5

  4.6

  393.6

  2.9

  411.1

  4.4

  402.3

  415.3

  3.2

  Gwent

  67.9

  71.4

  5.2

  76.1

  6.6

  80.7

  6

  79.9

  84.4

  5.6

  Hampshire

  187.1

  196.5

  5.0

  204.7

  4.2

  216.2

  5.6

  211.5

  227.5

  7.6

  Hertfordshire

  96.0

  101.6

  5.8

  121.2

  19.3

  129.3

  6.7

  126.5

  132.7

  4.9

  Humberside

  110.0

  114.3

  3.9

  118.9

  4

  128.2

  7.8

  125.4

  131.6

  4.9

  Kent

  176.1

  184.2

  4.6

  193.1

  4.8

  206.7

  7

  202.2

  214.6

  6.1

  Lancashire

  174.4

  181.3

  4.0

  189.6

  4.6

  198.0

  4.4

  193.7

  202.0

  4.3

  Leicestershire

  101.1

  106.3

  5.1

  110.2

  3.7

  116.4

  5.6

  113.9

  122.6

  7.6

  Lincolnshire

  65.8

  69.7

  5.9

  72.6

  4.2

  76.1

  4.8

  74.4

  77.1

  3.7

  Merseyside

  239.6

  247.0

  3.1

  253.7

  2.7

  271.7

  7.1

  265.9

  268.6

  1.0

  Metropolitan Police

  1,777.5

  1,836.2

  3.3

  1,830.0

  -0.3

  1,980.1

  8.2

  1,941.9

  2,037.7

  4.9

  Norfolk

  81.0

  86.9

  7.3

  91.5

  5.3

  98.4

  7.5

  96.3

  104.4

  8.4

  Northamptonshire

  66.1

  70.4

  6.5

  73.4

  4.3

  76.8

  4.6

  75.1

  81.6

  8.6

  Northumbria

  202.6

  212.6

  4.9

  218.4

  2.7

  227.6

  4.2

  222.7

  228.6

  2.6

  North Wales

  75.2

  79.6

  5.9

  84.0

  5.5

  89.5

  6.5

  88.5

  93.5

  5.6

  North Yorkshire

  74.4

  78.0

  4.8

  81.0

  3.8

  85.9

  6

  84

  93.1

  10.9

  Nottinghamshire

  122.9

  129.6

  5.5

  133.9

  3.2

  140.3

  4.9

  137.2

  145.2

  5.8

  South Wales

  166.9

  170.0

  1.8

  179.1

  5.4

  188.9

  5.5

  187.0

  195.0

  4.3

  South Yorkshire

  165.1

  173.3

  5.0

  179.7

  3.7

  187.2

  4.2

  183.1

  191.4

  4.5

  Staffordshire

  117.2

  122.2

  4.3

  127.0

  3.9

  134.3

  5.7

  131.3

  137.0

  4.3

  Suffolk

  65.8

  69.9

  6.2

  72.9

  4.3

  77.6

  6.4

  75.9

  81.2

  6.9

  Surrey

  88.8

  93.4

  5.2

  119.9

  28.4

  122.4

  2.1

  119.7

  128.6

  7.4

  Sussex

  161.4

  168.0

  4.1

  174.5

  3.9

  183.9

  5.4

  179.9

  189.8

  5.5

  Thames Valley

  217.4

  229.1

  5.4

  238.3

  4

  252.1

  5.8

  246.6

  259.3

  5.1

  Warwickshire

  52.8

  55.9

  5.9

  58.9

  5.4

  62.4

  5.9

  61.

  65.8

  7.8

  West Mercia

  110.3

  116.5

  5.6

  125.7

  7.9

  133.2

  6

  130.3

  144.4

  10.8

  West Midlands

  367.2

  380.9

  3.7

  394.6

  3.6

  410.7

  4.1

  401.8

  415.5

  3.4

  West Yorkshire

  278.2

  289.1

  3.9

  301.4

  4.3

  314.1

  4.2

  307.3

  323.9

  5.4

  Wiltshire

  65.6

  68.9

  5.0

  72.0

  4.5

  75.6

  5.0

  74.0

  77.6

  4.8

  Total

  7,132.40

  7,445.50

  4.4

  7,713.4

  3.6

  8,173.0

  6.0

  8,005.30

  8,421.2

  5.2

  Police Pension Funds
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the budget of each police force in England was spent on pension funds in 2002–03. [98903]

  Mr. Denham
  The proportion of Net Spending Requirement of each police authority in England estimated to be spent on police pensions in 2002–03 is as follows. Information on civilian contributions is not held.

  Police Pension Expenditure as Proportion of Net Spending Requirement in 2002–03

  English authorities

  Proportion (percentage)

  Avon and Somerset

  17.6

  Bedfordshire

  12.8

  Cambridgeshire

  12.8

  Cheshire

  14.1

  Cleveland

  15.6

  Cumbria

  16.6

  Derbyshire

  12.9

  574W
  Mr. Denham
  Information on police authority budget requirements in England and Wales for the last five years and annual percentage changes are set out in the table. Police Authorities have until 1 March 2003 to set their budget requirements for 2003–04.

  Police Pension Expenditure as Proportion of Net Spending Requirement in 2002–03

  English authorities

  Proportion (percentage)

  Devon and Cornwall

  14.8

  Dorset

  15.2

  Durham

  13.3

  Essex

  13.4

  Gloucestershire

  15.5

  Hampshire

  12.3

  Hertfordshire

  10.9

  Humberside

  13.6

  Kent

  13.8

  Lancashire

  15.1

  Leicestershire

  13.6

  Lincolnshire

  17.5

  Norfolk

  12.7

  Northamptonshire

  10.7

  North Yorkshire

  17.0

  Nottinghamshire

  16.5

  Staffordshire

  14.1

  Suffolk

  15.0

  Surrey

  11.1

  Sussex

  15.7

  Thames Valley

  10.9

  575W

  Police Pension Expenditure as Proportion of Net Spending Requirement in 2002–03

  English authorities

  Proportion (percentage)

  Warwickshire

  16.7

  West Mercia

  13.5

  Wiltshire

  12.1

  Greater Manchester

  16.5

  Merseyside

  17.4

  Northumbria

  15.3

  South Yorkshire

  13.4

  West Midlands

  13.0

  West Yorkshire

  15.4

  City of London

  16.5

  Metropolitan Police

  13.1

  Total

  14.1

  Source

  CIPFA Police Statistics 2002–03 estimates, published September 2002.

  Re-registration Fees (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the re-registration fees for relevant foreign nationals are in each police authority area. [99094]

  Beverley Hughes
  The standard police registration fee of £34 applies to each police authority area. Relevant foreign nationals will generally only be charged a £34 fee for re-registration if they have been absent from the UK for more than one year.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of street crime offenders with drug problems are fast-tracked into drug treatment services within 24 hours of their arrest or release from custody; [92111]

  (2) what proportion of street crime offenders with drug problems who were fast-racked into drug treatment services within 24 hours of their arrest or release from custody have subsequently re-offended. [92115]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Tackling the causes of offending is an integral part of the street crime initiative. To this end, provision exists for those who are arrested for a street crime offence and who are drug dependent, whose offence is linked to their drug dependency and who are willing to access treatment to do so within 24 hours of release into the community (whether on bail, following release from custody, or on receipt of a community sentence following a custodial remand). Participation is voluntary and not all those misusing drugs make use of the scheme. Delays in accessing treatment beyond 24 hours can be explained in some cases by release occurring over a weekend or by offenders simply not keeping initial appointments.

  Of those who have, to date 62 per cent. of the reported individuals entered treatment within 24 hours of release. 15 per cent. were seen within two to three days, and
  576W
  21 per cent. were seen between four to seven days. The remaining three per cent. were seen between one to two weeks after release from custody.

  Information on re-offending by those accessing drug treatment under the Street Crime Initiative is not available.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 535W, on permits, if he will break down the figures for 1996 to 2001 by applications granted (a) in country and (b) in the UK; and whether the dates referred to are calendar years. [99115]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: The number of in-country and out-country work permits issued in the last seven years are given in the table:

  Year

  In-Country

  Out-Country

  1996

  12,609

  25,647

  1997

  14,219

  30,739

  1998

  18,096

  35,866

  1999

  21,048

  39,695

  2000

  28,982

  59,669

  2001

  47,755

  73,072

  2002

  64,396

  71,755

  The dates referred to are calendar years.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 542W, on the intensive supervision and surveillance programme, how many young offenders have taken part in the intensive supervision and surveillance programme since 2001; and what the re-offence rate is. [98907]

  Hilary Benn
  3,570 young people have started on the programme. Reconviction rates are not yet available. The programme is being evaluated by Oxford University: the final report with reconvictions is due in March 2004.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Spending
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the spending per head on pupils in Nottingham, North was in 1997; and what the spending per head was in the latest period for which figures are available [98326]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas. The available information for Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City local education authorities is contained in the following tables.
  577W

  Real Terms: net current expenditure (after recharges) 1 per pupil2 in the pre-primary sector, maintained primary schools and maintained secondary schools in Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire local education authority areas, financial years 1996–97 to 2001–02 (real terms)3

  Local education authority areas

  Pre-primary and primary4per pupil spend(£)

  Secondary per pupil spend(£)

  Total spend(£000s)

  Total per pupil spend(£)

  Pre-LGR5

  1996–97

  Nottinghamshire

  2,210

  2,960

  384,590

  2,520

  1997–98

  Nottinghamshire

  2,160

  2,890

  376,180

  2,460

  Post-LGR5

  1998–99

  Nottinghamshire

  2,250

  2,820

  289,770

  2,510

  Nottingham City

  2,440

  3,520

  104,730

  2,770

  1999–2000

  Nottinghamshire

  2,320

  2,810

  299,410

  2,540

  City of Nottingham

  2,610

  3,160

  111,020

  2,800

  2000–01

  Nottinghamshire

  2,580

  2,890

  322,400

  2,720

  Nottingham City

  2,740

  3,510

  117,920

  3,010

  2001–02

  Nottinghamshire

  2,710

  3,170

  345,802

  2,920

  Nottingham City

  3,200

  3,880

  132,837

  3,450

  1 NCE includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by LEAs.

  2 Financial year pupils are used. These are calculated from Annual Schools' Census data.

  3 The real terms figures have been calculated at 2001–02 Prices, using December 2002 gross domestic product deflators.

  4 The spend per pupil figures for pre-primary/primary relates the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  5 Nottinghamshire LEA was subject to the Local Government Re-organisation (LGR) in April 1998, and therefore, pre-LGR and post-LGR and post-LGR Nottinghamshire are not directly comparable.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

  Source 1996–97 to 1998–99 data were drawn from the education Revenue Outturn statements submitted to the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. 1999–2000 and 2000–01 data were drawn from Section 52 (Table 3) outturn statements which LEAs submitted to the DfES.

  Cash Terms: net current expenditure (after recharges)1per pupil2 in the pre-primary sector, maintained primary schools and maintained secondary schools in Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire local education authority areas, financial years 1996–97 to 2001–02 (cash terms)

  Local education authority areas

  Pre-primary and primary3per pupil spend(£)

  Secondary per pupil spend(£)

  Total spend(£000s)

  Total per pupil spend(£)

  Pre-LGR4

  1996–97

  Nottinghamshire

  1,950

  2,610

  339,210

  2,220

  1997–98

  Nottinghamshire

  1,960

  2,630

  342,040

  2,240

  Post-LGR44

  1998–99

  Nottinghamshire

  2,110

  2,630

  270,710

  2,340

  City of Nottingham

  2,280

  3,290

  97,840

  2,580

  1999–2000

  Nottinghamshire

  2,220

  2,690

  286,481

  2,430

  City of Nottingham

  2,490

  3,020

  106,224

  2,680

  2000–01

  Nottinghamshire

  2,520

  2,830

  315,307

  2,660

  City of Nottingham

  2,680

  3,440

  115,330

  2,950

  2001–02

  Nottinghamshire

  2,710

  3,170

  345,802

  2,920

  City of Nottingham

  3,200

  3,880

  132,837

  3,450

  1 NCE includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by LEAs.

  2 Financial year pupils are used. These are calculated from Annual Schools' Census data.

  3 The spend per pupil figures for pre-primary/primary relates the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  4 Nottinghamshire LEA was subject to the Local Government Re-organisation in April 1998, and therefore, pre-LGR and post-LGR Nottinghamshire are not directly comparable.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

  Source:

  1996–97 to 1998–99 data were drawn from the education Revenue Outturn statements submitted to the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. 1999–2000 and 2000–01 data were drawn from Section 52 (Table 3) outturn statements, which LEAs submitted to the DfES.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on the establishment of new faith schools; and how many new faith schools within the maintained sector are proposed. [88892]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government believes parents should have a range of schools to choose from, including faith schools.

  Decisions about opening new schools, including faith schools, are made locally by the School Organisation Committee for the LEA area, or by an independent Schools Adjudicator if the Committee cannot agree. We have been informed of proposals for 12 new faith schools that have been published since September 2001 and approved by School Organisation Committees.

  Higher Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence was assessed on the effect on credit ratings of increasing levels of graduate debt, in drawing up the proposals in the policy document, The Future of Higher Education; and if he will make a statement. [98135]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In setting the maximum level of the variable fee we considered carefully the level of contribution graduates would have to make after graduation. We did not commission specific research on the effect of credit ratings.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the net financial(a) gain and (b) loss per student of his proposals, for students with family incomes of £10,000 pa, and for each additional £1,000 pa up to £80,000 pa, for each university and higher education institution. [94700]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since this will depend on decisions by individual institutions over their fee levels and on students' own choices it is not possible to provide this kind of analysis.

  We are planning to introduce a Higher Education Grant of £1,000 a year for students from lower income backgrounds starting in autumn 2004. The Government will also continue to provide a grant for tuition fees worth £1,100 in 2002/03 for students with family incomes of up to £20,000 and a proportion of that for those students whose family income is between £20,000 and £30,000.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the required shortfall in higher education shortfall funding; and if he will assess the impact of expanding the provision of higher education on the funding for higher education. [98630]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have nothing to add on these matters to my statement on 22 January 2003 and the White Paper published on that day.

  IT Training
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set out the training given 580W
  for the teaching of IT skills in the Post Graduate Certificate of Education (a) for IT specialists and (b) for general certificates. [98695]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All teachers should be competent in the use of information and communications technology (ICT). Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools' Annual Report has confirmed that most generalist courses of initial teacher training prepare trainees appropriately to make best use of ICT in the classroom and all newly-qualified teachers are required to pass a skills test in ICT before their qualification is recognised. It is also a requirement that candidates taking specialist courses of initial teacher training for secondary teachers of ICT must achieve degree-equivalent knowledge of that subject before Qualified Teacher Status can be awarded.

  On 24 January, the Teacher Training Agency announced that it was making an additional £5 million available to support the training of teachers in ICT offered by schools, colleges and universities.

  Online Sales/Purchases
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) products, (b) goods and (c) services were (i) bought and (ii) sold online by his Department in each of the last five years. [97451]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 10 February 2003]: During the last five years my Department has bought the following products, goods and services online:

  official publications and books;

  travel tickets via the framework contract;

  hotel accommodation via the framework contract;

  mobile phones;

  PC's, laptops and computer servers;

  installation of a computer network link;

  maintenance of video conferencing equipment;

  recruitment of temporary administrative and secretarial staff via the framework contract;

  budget air/rail tickets direct from providers.

  Additionally 17 per cent. of Departmental publications are ordered by the public via email, although the vast majority of these are free publications.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of(a) generic skills and (b) specialist learning in 14 to 19 secondary education. [98909]

  Mr. Miliband
  (a) Generic skills

  Our recent statement '14–19: opportunity and excellence' set out our vision for a 14–19 phase where all young people can choose from a range of courses and qualifications covering a wide range of general and specialist subjects and skills. Our statement specifically included the following measures on generic skills.

  To help ensure that all young people are well equipped in literacy, numeracy and computer skills we will introduce (from 2004–05 onwards) an entitlement for them to continue studying up to age 19 until they reach the standard of a good GCSE or the

  581W
  corresponding Level 2 key skill qualification. Those going on to higher education or professional study after 19 should be encouraged to achieve a Level 3 qualification in at least one of these skill areas.

  We will invite the 14–19 working group, chaired by Mike Tomlinson, to look at how young people can develop the essential practical skills for life, and how the content of individual subjects and programmes could place a greater emphasis on analysis, problem solving and thinking skills, as well as the presentation and argument of conclusions. Practical and analytical skills are equally essential in adult life and in the workplace. Existing programme and subject requirements do not always sufficiently emphasise these skills.

  In addition, "Skills for Life", the Government's strategy for improving adults' literacy and numeracy skills, identifies young adults as a priority group. We are determined to bring young people who leave school with poor literacy, language and numeracy skills back into learning. These skills are important prerequisites for young adults to find and keep work and overcome potential barriers to participating fully in society.

  (b) Specialist learning

  We have also asked the 14–19 working group to consider the appropriate balance between specialist and general skills in learning programmes for this age group. At present, we believe that for many young people who follow an academic path, particularly at ages 16–18, the range of studies is too specialised and narrow when compared with advanced level students in other countries. We want young people to be able to combine a broad range of studies with more specialist choices that meet their own individual interests and aspirations.

  Specialist Schools Programme
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the relationship between the specialist schools programme and the aim of diversity of provision; and if he will make a statement. [98906]

  Mr. Miliband
  Specialist schools are a key driver of the Government's plans to create a more diverse secondary education sector. Schools can currently apply for one of eight specialisms (or they can combine any two). In the secondary strategy document 'A New Specialist System' we introduced two new specialisms—Music and Humanities—and an option for rural schools to add a rural dimension to an existing specialism.

  The Specialist Schools Application Guidance encourages headteachers and governing bodies to investigate which specialism is appropriate for them in the context of collaboration with other local secondary schools and their local education authorities (LEAs) in order to increase diversity and maximise the impact of specialist schools in the locality.

  A significant number of LEAs have been working with their schools on developing a strategy for increasing their specialist provision. Excellence in Cities partnerships in particular, have played a significant role in nominating and deciding when schools should go
  582W
  forward for specialist status. The Diversity Pathfinders LEAs are developing and implementing models of diversity based on the Specialist Schools Programme.

  At the beginning of February, 217 new specialist schools were designated across all eight specialims: 29 Arts, 28 Business & Enterprise, 4 Engineering. 14 Language, 26 Mathematics & Computing, 40 Science, 40 Sports and 29 Technology Colleges, and 7 schools with combined specialisms.

  However, our aim of increasing diversity in the secondary sector goes beyond the Specialist Schools Programme. Academies, again with a special curriculum emphasis, will also contribute to diversity of provision. The first three academies opened in September 2002. We expect at least 33 to be open by 2006 and further academies to be opened beyond that. The Department are also encouraging new providers to come forward and offer new types of schools as they are needed. These providers will include: parents and community groups; private and charitable companies; voluntary groups including church and faith communities; those offering distinctive educational philosophies; and existing schools or consortia of schools.

  Teacher Numbers (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers(a) left and (b) joined the teaching profession in (i) Derbyshire and (ii) England and Wales in each year since 1997. [98886]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the numbers of teachers leaving1 full-time or part time2 service in the maintained schools sector and teachers entering or returning3 to full-time or part-time teaching in the maintained schools sector.

  The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for the supply of teacher data in Wales.
  1 Leavers are those who were in full-time or part-time teaching in the maintained schools sector immediately before the period shown, who were not in service in that sector at the end of the period shown. Teachers leaving are based on pension returns. Some teachers may have moved from known service to service not recorded on the teacher pension return. Some leavers will be taking career breaks and will return to service at a later date.2 Around 10 to 20 per cent. of part-timers may not be included.3 Those in service in the maintained schools sector at the end of the period shown who were not in service in that sector in England immediately before the period shown. Includes newly qualified entrants, those who deferred entry and those returning from breaks or transferring from outside the maintained schools sector in England.

  Leavers

  Entrants/returners

  Derbyshire

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 19981

  640

  500

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  340

  500

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 20002

  540

  480

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  n/a2

  n/a2

  583W

  Leavers

  Entrants/returners

  England

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 19981

  39,050

  37,900

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  31,910

  36,470

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 20002

  34,930

  37,030

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  35,440

  40,260

  1 Higher than usual numbers of premature retirements, following changes to the retirement regulations, contributed to the high levels of leavers in 1997–98.

  2 The most recent data available at LEA level are for 1999–2000.

  Note:

  n/a = not available.

  Truancy
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of persistently truant schoolchildren in Lancashire in the last year for which figures are available. [90975]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is not possible to estimate the number of persistently truant school children in Lancashire from the data we have available at present. The data for the national pupil absence survey is collected at school level and there is only one set of figures for each school, so that we cannot identify which children were persistently absent. Information on the characteristics of individual pupils cannot be deduced from this data. However, in 2001/02 there were 17,934 pupils that were absent for at least one half day due to unauthorised absence and the average number of half days they missed was 15.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Exports (Algeria)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to reintroduce a de facto embargo on the sale of military equipment and arms sales to Algeria. [98820]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government closely scrutinise all export licence applications for Algeria according to the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time. In particular, we would be likely to have concerns with any export that might be used for internal repression or affect regional stability.

  British Council
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the cost to the British Council of the programmes(a) UK Today, (b) The Edge, (c) Beyond Babel-English on The World Stage, (d) London Fashion Week, (e) Breaking the Trade—The Abolition of Slavery in the British Empire and (f) Elizabeth II and the Commonwealth in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [99123]

  Mr. MacShane
  There was no cost to the British Council for these TV programmes.
  584W
  They were made available to the British Council free of charge in order to use overseas for English language training and for the promotion of the UK.

  British Prisoners Overseas
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many cases of British nationals convicted abroad since 1997 the Government have intervened to seek release or reduction in sentence; and how many of these people were(a) white and (b) non-white. [98456]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) changed its clemency policy towards British nationals detained overseas in May 2001. Under the new policy, HMG will now consider supporting appeals on compassionate grounds, where there is prima facie evidence of a miscarriage of justice, or where the prisoner is a minor. An appeal for clemency is a request to the detaining state to release the prisoner unconditionally, not reduce the original sentence. Since the new policy came into effect, we have supported appeals on behalf of 15 British nationals. The FCO does not hold statistics on representations made before the introduction of the new clemency policy. Nor does it record the ethnic origin of those who are offered consular assistance.

  As a general rule, HMG will lobby against the death penalty imposed on any British national overseas. In this instance, HMG is not appealing for unconditional release, but for the death penalty to be commuted to imprisonment. We have supported 11 such cases since May 2001.

  Other than lobbying against the death penalty, HMG would not normally appeal for a reduction in sentence. This is on the basis that states must recognise the rights of other sovereign states to sentence according to their own laws. However, HMG would consider making representations to a sentencing state if a British national appeared to have been harshly sentenced purely because of nationality. There have been no instances of this since at least May 2001.

  The welfare of British nationals detained overseas is of primary concern to the FCO. We ensure that prisoners are visited regularly and we raise any concerns that we, prisoners or their relatives may have about their treatment or the conduct of their trial. As a last resort, when all other options have failed, we will consider supporting an appeal for clemency under the criteria outlined above.

  British Victims Overseas
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases the British Government have dealt with involving British nationals abroad since 1997 who have(a) disappeared,(b) been murdered or suspected of being murdered,(c) been kidnapped or held hostage and (d) been incarcerated, broken down by country. [98458]
  585W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Data on cases of British nationals who have disappeared abroad since 1997, broken down by country, cannot be easily obtained and the cost of doing so would be disproportionate.

  (b) In respect of British nationals murdered overseas, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office (Mr. Bradshaw) to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on 16 January 2002, Official Report, column 318W. This sets out the number of murders by country from 1996 to 2001.

  British nationals kidnapped or held hostage overseas between 1997–2003

  Country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total

  Angola

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Cambodia

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Chechnya

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  China

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Colombia

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  Cyprus

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Czech republic

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Ecuador

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Gaza (Occupied Territories)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Georgia

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Liberia

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Nigeria

  4

  4

  18

  15

  6

  —

  —

  43

  Philippines —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Russia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  3

  13

  —

  —

  —

  16

  Slovenia

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Somalia

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  4

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Sudan

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Tajikistan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Turkey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  4

  Uganda

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Yemen

  2

  15

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  20

  Totals

  11

  28

  41

  32

  20

  6

  1

  141

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 10 December 2002 regarding a constituent, ref: GV100/79888/NS. [98396]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: We have learnt that passports were issued to the subjects of the inquiry on 13 December 2002. A substantive reply will be sent to my noble Friend the Baroness Amos shortly.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ethnic monitoring is undertaken by his Department of the recipients of the delivery of its services to UK citizens abroad. [98453]
  586W
  (c) The following table gives details of British nationals kidnapped/held hostage broken down by country since 1997.

  (d) In respect of British nationals incarcerated abroad, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office (Mr. Bradshaw) to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 13 May 2002, Official Report, column 456W. This sets out the number of British nationals imprisoned abroad who have asked the local authorities to inform the British Consulate of their arrest and sentence. The figures are broken down by country, and represent the total on 30 April 2002. To obtain similar data for all years since 1997 would incur disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am told we do not monitor the delivery of our services on the basis of ethnicity.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answers of 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 630W, on EU accession states, and 7 January 2003, Official Report, column 136W, on the EU, whether the Government plan to give non-financial support to campaigning groups or individuals within the 10 EU accession states; and if he will make a statement. [93586]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 136W.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to commemorate 300 years of British sovereignty in Gibraltar. [94866]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government of Gibraltar has established a 2004 Tercentenary Committee. We will carefully consider any suggestion for UK Government participation in commemorative events.

  International Criminal Court
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will resume negotiations with the United States on the proposed Article 98 bilateral agreement concerning the International Criminal Court; and if he will make a statement. [98213]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: Officials met at US request on 17 October 2002 for preliminary discussions. We await a further approach from the US side. The statute of the ICC provides for Article 98.2 agreements in specific circumstances. We will not enter into any agreement with the US unless it is in strict conformity with the statute and the guiding principles agreed with EU partners.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanism is available for determining the legality of a bilateral treaty concerning the Charter on the International Criminal Court. [98385]

  Mr. Rammell
  Article 98.2 of the ICC statute provides that the court may not ask a state for surrender of a suspected person if the request would require that state to act inconsistently with its obligations under a relevant international agreement. If the prosecutor nevertheless made such a request, Article 97 would require the state concerned to consult with the court in order to resolve the matter. The statute also makes provision for a case where a state fails to comply with a request from the court, contrary to its obligations under the statute: in such a case the court may refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties or, where the Security Council has referred the case, to the Council.

  Iran
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Iran's announcement that it intends to produce and reprocess nuclear fuel. [98546]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are long-standing international concerns about Iran's ambitions to pursue a nuclear weapons programme.
  The Director-General of the IAEA has just returned from a visit to Iran to evaluate the concerns that have been raised by a number of reports. We look forward to his report to the IAEA Board of Governors.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom has passed all evidence it has on Iraq's588W
  possession of weapons of mass destruction to the (a) UNMOVIC and (b) IAEA inspectorates in Iraq. [98510]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have regularly briefed the UN inspection teams on such matters. Such briefings have covered all relevant information.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the trilateral French-German-Russian proposals on Iraq. [98517]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The proposal made by France and Germany, and subsequently endorsed by Russia, has been carefully considered. Its central principal is that inspections should be allowed to continue without a specific time-limit. The UK believes that the key issue with regard to the UN inspections programme is that Iraq must demonstrate a willingness to co-operate fully and actively with the inspectors.

  Without that full and unconditional Iraqi cooperation, the mandate of the inspectors, established under UNSCR 1284 and reiterated in UNSCR 1441, would be seriously undermined.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the provision of peacekeeping forces within Iraq in the event of military action being taken against that country. [98953]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. We have been in recent contact (including at the 17–18 February European Council) with all our EU and other major international partners on the role of the international community in the event of military action against Iraq.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list IT contracts in his Department above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional: when it became fully debugged: and what the cost of over-runs has been. [99000]

  Mr. Rammell
  The contract for the FCO's telecommunications network (FTN) (signed in 2000) is worth £165 million over 10 years. The main contract for Prism, which provides an integrated world-wide financial and management accounting and human resources system is worth £53 million (and was signed in 2002).

  The FTN rollout will be completed in summer 2003. The Prism system is scheduled to go live in the UK in mid-2003. Spend to date on both has been within budget.

  Lobsang Dhondup
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions his Department has had with the government of China following the execution of Lobsang Dhondup; and what the outcome was; [98821]
  589W
  (2) what representations his Department has made to the government of China following the execution of Lobsang Dhondup. [99359]

  Mr. Rammell
  I issued a statement on 28 January 2003 expressing strong concern at the execution of Lobsang Dhondup. We also supported strongly worded EU demarches and an EU declaration on the case.

  We have raised Lobsang Dhondup's case three times with the Chinese MFA. They explained that Lobsang Dhondup was a Chinese citizen who had committed very serious crimes which merited severe punishment. China had the right to put him to trial and to pass verdict on him. The legal proceedings were, according to the MFA, in line with the regulations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

  We shall continue to raise our concerns about this case and the treatment of Tibetans more generally with the Chinese.

  Middle East
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are taking place with the United States Government about problems of the Palestinian people. [98415]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, FCO officials and I are in constant touch with US colleagues on Israel/Palestine. The UK Government believe that a secure and stable two-state solution, as called for in President Bush's speech of 24 June 2002 and reached through early implementation of the Quartet roadmap, is the only credible way to deliver to both Israelis and Palestinians the peaceful future they both need.

  North Korea
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of human rights abuses in North Korea. [98268]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: Our diplomatic relations with North Korea and a British Embassy in Pyongyang allow us to express our concerns about reports of widespread and serious violations of human rights in DPRK directly to the North Korean authorities on a regular basis. But a lack of hard evidence and access for independent monitors makes it difficult to substantiate allegations, most of which come from defectors' reports. Freedom of expression is curtailed and criticism severely punished (there are reports of up to 200,000 political prisoners). Freedom of movement is restricted within the country and foreign travel is only permitted for a select few. There are reports of widespread use of the death penalty and detention without trial. The DPRK does not participate in international refugee fora, nor is it in contact with the UNHCR. It is at least six years since a UN rapporteur was allowed into the country. The UK has financed human rights training courses for North Korean government officials, and we will continue to request access for international observers, including UK diplomats, to verify negative reports circulating
  590W
  internationally about the situation in DPRK. We are also pressing North Korea to co-operate fully with UN mechanisms and to fulfil its UN reporting obligations.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the South Korean Government on the heightened security situation facing the Korean Peninsula. [98830]

  Mr. Rammell
  During the last week I have discussed these issues with a delegation of visiting South Korean MPs. I will also discuss them when I meet the new South Korean President in Seoul on 26 February 2003. We have made clear in all our contacts with the South Korean Government, that we support a peaceful resolution of the security problem on the Korean Peninsula through multilateral dialogue.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made on behalf of the Christian community in North Korea. [98829]

  Mr. Rammell
  Reports of human rights abuses, including religious persecution, in North Korea are of grave concern to the Government. Diplomatic relations with North Korea and an Embassy in Pyongyang enable us to express our concerns about reports of widespread and serious violations of human rights in DPRK directly to the North Korean authorities on a regular basis. Our Ambassador expressed concern about the situation during his high-level introductory calls in December 2002. The FCO has financed a human rights training course for North Korean Government officials in the UK, and hopes to build on this through further contacts with the DPRK authorities this year.

  Robert Mugabe
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the French Government and to President Chirac regarding Robert Mugabe's possible visit to a Franco-African summit in Paris; and if he will make a statement; [94905]

  (2) what the policy is of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the attendance by Robert Mugabe at a Franco-African summit in Paris to be held on 19 February 2003; and if he will make a statement. [94906]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 February 2003]: We did not want Robert Mugabe at the France/Africa summit in Paris on 20 to 21 February 2003. We made this clear to the French Government, at various levels as well as to other EU partners. The meeting took place two days after the EU sanctions on Zimbabwe were due to expire. Our priority then was to ensure a roll-over of those sanctions. The roll-over required a consensus among EU member states. This was achieved on 18 February 2003.

  Romania (People Trafficking)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Romanian authorities regarding the trafficking of women. [98822]

  Mr. MacShane
  We talk regularly to the Romanians about the problem of organised crime, including the trafficking of women. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, (Mr. Bob Ainsworth), visited Romania last week to sign a bilateral Readmission Agreement, part of a wider programme of co-operation between the UK and Romania on tackling illegal immigration and people trafficking across Europe. He also discussed this issue with Ministers and officials at the Romanian Ministry of the Interior.

  Surjit Kaur Athwal
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations the British Government have made to the Indian Government in the case of Surjit Kaur Athwal; [98457]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the delay between the disappearance of Surjit Kaur Athwal and the first representations by the UK Government to the Indian Government on her case. [98459]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our Consular Division in London were informed of Mrs. Athwal's disappearance on 22 December 1998. The next day, our High Commission in New Delhi made inquiries with the Indian police and immigration authorities. The Indian authorities confirmed, on 22 January 1999, that, according to their records, Mrs. Athwal was still in India. Since February 1999, we have liaised regularly with the UK police and the Punjabi police to facilitate the investigation into Mrs. Athwal's disappearance. On 15 March 1999 our Consul in Delhi met the Director for Consular Matters in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to discuss the case. We have raised the case with the Indian authorities on a number of occasions since then, most recently on 13 January 2003, when we sent an official note to the Ministry of External Affairs asking for Mrs. Athwal's case to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. We remain in regular contact with the Indian authorities and will continue to offer Mrs. Athwal's family all the consular assistance that we properly can.

  UK Citizens (Disappearance Overseas)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases dealt with by his Department of UK citizens who have disappeared abroad since 1997 were (a) white UK citizens and (b) non-white UK citizens. [98454]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not compile these consular statistics on the basis of ethnicity.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the standard procedure followed by his Department is in dealing with cases of UK citizens who have (a) disappeared and (b) been murdered abroad. [98455]
  592W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Enquirers concerned about the whereabouts of British Nationals abroad are advised to contact the police in the country concerned, and also to report the missing person to their local UK Police. Consular staff in the UK and overseas keep relatives informed of progress and liaise with local authorities, including to consider institution of a search. When a British National is murdered overseas we would normally liaise with the UK police who would inform the next of kin and appoint a Family Liaison Officer. In the country concerned, we can act as liaison between local authorities and the deceased's relatives, friends and/or legal representatives. Any investigation would be conducted by the local authorities.

  United Nations
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the UK's total net financial contribution to the United Nations in each of the last 15 years; and if he will make a statement. [98499]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK is fully supportive of the UN and the work it does, and we recognise the need for the organisation to have adequate funding to perform its role. Accordingly, we choose to supplement our annual assessed contributions to the UN regular and peacekeeping budgets and its Specialised Agencies by a significant number of voluntary contributions targeted at a range of UN activities.

  The UK has contributed the following amounts to the United Nations in each calendar year since 1992.

  Year

  £

  1992

  291,770,697

  1993

  312,116,430

  1994

  304,969,947

  1995

  328,855,981

  1996

  304,577,521

  1997

  309,260,413

  1998

  330,058,906

  1999

  324,407,457

  2000

  32,500,000

  2001

  427,458,550

  These figures represent both assessed and voluntary contributions, except for 2000, which only represents our assessed contributions to the UN Regular Budget: total figures were not collated for that year.

  These figures are taken from the FCO Annual Report, which collates the data on contributions to the UN from all Government Departments. We do not have collated figures prior to 1992, and to obtain them would incur disproportionate cost.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many university students his Department and associated agencies has supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what his policy is on work placements; what plans he has to develop such schemes; and what his policy is on paying their university fees. [98545]
  593W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth currently employs three students for 12 months, as part of their four-year economics degree sandwich course. This gives them the opportunity to work for one year in the Economic Policy or European Union Department. We support work placements as part of our policy to encourage more students to apply for economist jobs. We also have two unpaid work experience schemes for school pupils and undergraduates. 21 pupils and 40 undergraduates had unpaid work placements in 2002. We do not pay any university fees.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers the EU ambassadors meeting has to extend sanctions against Zimbabwe on behalf of the EU. [94729]

  Mr. Rammell
  Common positions, including the targeted measures against the ZANU-PF regime, have to be agreed by the Council of Ministers, prepared by the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper). When consensus is reached at Coreper, the decision is formally passed to the Council, but not discussed there.

  In the Zimbabwe case, Coreper reached consensus for a 12-month continuation of sanctions on 14 February 2003, and the Council formally agreed this on 18 February 2003, from which date the sanctions rolled over. The UK had argued strongly for such a result, and therefore welcomed it.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  English National Opera
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Arts Council about the future of English National Opera. [98373]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon and Noble Friend the Minister of State for the Arts hold regular meetings with the Arts Council of England where they discuss all issues relating to bodies funded by the Arts Council of which, the English National Opera is one.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list IT contracts in her Department and its predecessors above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [98996]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has had no IT contracts of £50 million or above in the last 10 years.

  Lee Valley Authority
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from local authorities regarding the funding of 594W
  the Lee Valley Authority; what recent discussions she has had with the authority; and if she will make a statement. [98207]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department has received no representations from local authorities regarding the funding of the Lee Valley Authority and has held no recent discussions with the Authority.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the spending per head of population for National Lottery grants was in(a) the Ribble Valley, (b) Lancashire, (c) the North West of England and (d) Wales, in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [99344]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, the spending per head of population in the 12 months to 31 January 2003 has been £5.92 in the Ribble Valley constituency, £41.39 in Lancashire, £161.15 in the North West of England and £24.56 in Wales.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of National Lottery grants are spent in (a) the Ribble Valley, (b) Lancashire and (c) the North West of England. [99345]

  Mr. Caborn
  Lottery funding is awarded on merit and specific proportions are not therefore allocated to particular areas although funding is sometimes targeted at areas of deprivation which have received low levels of Lottery funds. According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, the Ribble Valley constituency has received a total of £4,603,634 in Lottery funding since the Lottery's inception. Lancashire has received £744,407,272 and the North West of England has received £1,216,246,401 during the same period. The total amount awarded by the Lottery so far is £11,428,664,244.

  Wembley Stadium (Timber Sourcing)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the reconstruction of Wembley Stadium will be covered by government requirements to ensure timber procured is from legal and sustainable sources. [95496]

  Mr. Caborn
  The National Stadium is a Football Association project whose construction is being delivered by its wholly owned subsidiary company Wembley National Stadium Limited. The Government's policy that its central departments and agencies should actively seek to buy timber from legal and sustainably managed sources does not therefore apply to the reconstruction of the National Stadium.

  Wembley National Stadium Limited has agreed under the terms of Sport England's Lottery Funding Agreement to have regard to obtaining materials from sustainable or renewable sources. Wembley National Stadium Limited have confirmed that Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited, who are building the stadium, have environmental management policies and plans in place, which include specifications for building

  595W
  materials containing clear guidance on their selection and environmental protection. Sub-contractors and suppliers have an obligation to demonstrate to Multiplex the source of materials during manufacture and installation. Multiplex have further confirmed to Wembley National Stadium Limited that they will continue to monitor the source of timber products used throughout the duration of the project.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many university students her Department and associated agencies has supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees. [98541]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2002 the Department employed 3 university students in summer work placements and 5 undergraduates under the Cabinet Office sponsored scheme for students from under-represented groups for the third year. We are currently reviewing policy on work placements but in view of the limited number of work experience opportunities in a relatively small Department, we shall probably concentrate in future on providing places for the Cabinet Office scheme. We have no proposals to pay their university fees. The Royal Parks had no work placements in 2002.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Asbestos
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what means it is proposed that health and safety inspectors will measure the level of asbestos fibres in the air to determine whether the control limit specified in the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 has been exceeded; in what circumstances prosecutions will be brought for the offence of contravening the regulations by exceeding the control limit; and if he will make a statement. [98660]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Trained Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) scientific staff carry out measurements of levels of asbestos fibres in the air on the advice of HSE inspectors when they are seeking to establish the effectiveness of new or modified controls or when they wish to confirm controls stated in the contractor's risk assessments are adequate. Measurements are carried out in compliance with the approved and validated method contained in the "Methods for the Determination of Hazardous Substances" 39/4.

  Circumstances that might lead to consideration of a prosecution would include inadequate or no controls, unsuitable respiratory protective equipment (RPE) and airborne fibre levels such that RPE did not reduce the exposure to as low as reasonably practicable and in any event to a level below the control limit.

  HSE's approach to enforcement of asbestos legislation follows the Health and Safety Commission's principles of enforcement, namely proportionality in applying the law, consistency of approach, targeting of
  596W
  enforcement action and transparency. Where breaches of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 are encountered, appropriate enforcement action is considered, including prosecution.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a health and safety inspector may rely on his own opinion rather than making scientific measurements in order to establish that the permitted levels of asbestos under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 have been exceeded; and what defences are available to a person where a breach of the regulations is established by the opinion of the inspector rather than by a measurement. [98661]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  HSE inspectors are given training and instruction and are provided with guidance and information about the types of situations and incidents, which can give rise to release of asbestos fibres. Many HSE publications provide information on the typical exposure levels likely to be generated by certain activities and which of these will exceed the control limit.

  Exposure limits and levels are never used in isolation. Inspectors check compliance with the range of controls required by the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 to ensure that the hierarchy of control measures has been applied and that exposure has been reduced to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.

  In most cases, inspectors will use this information together with their knowledge, rather than arranging for scientific measurements to be taken, to assist in forming an opinion about a risk of serious personal injury and the appropriateness of serving a Prohibition Notice. In cases of doubt, they will often seek a view from a more experienced senior colleague or a specialist inspector.

  There is a statutory right of appeal to an Employment Tribunal available to the person who, in the opinion of the inspector, has breached the regulations and to whom an enforcement notice has been served.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how a material is defined as containing asbestos for the purposes of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; what minimum quantity of each relevant mineral is required to be present; and how this minimum quantity is measured; [98662]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the definition of the terms (a) asbestos, (b) asbestos fibre and (c) asbestos dust in the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; and what the difference between each of the definitions is. [98663]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Regulation 2(1) of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations defines asbestos as crociodolite, amosite, chrysotile, fibrous actinolite, fibrous anthophyllite and fibrous tremolite. There is no specific definition of either asbestos fibres or asbestos dust within these regulations since the fibres or dust will be one of the six types listed above.

  There is no minimum quantity required to be present because the application of the regulations is dependant upon the nature of the asbestos-containing material and how likely it is to release asbestos fibres.
  597W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on how the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 apply to debris containing asbestos that is found on a site; and what quantities of such debris are acceptable for the purposes of the Regulations. [98664]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Regulation 10 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations requires employers to prevent the exposure of employees to asbestos or where this is not practicable to reduce exposure to asbestos to the lowest level reasonably practicable.

  In order to do this they are also required to ensure the quantity of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials at the premises where work is undertaken, and the spread of asbestos from any place where work under their control is carried out, are reduced to the lowest level reasonably practicable (Regulations 10 (7) and 15 respectively). Where it is not possible to prevent exposure employers must ensure respiratory or personal protective equipment and other control measures are used to reduce exposure to the lowest possible level.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive's review of the science relating to the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; and who is in charge of the review. [98678]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Government have agreed to a review to ensure that dutyholders are adequately preparing for the new duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises, included in the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, by the end of this year. The review will also take account of any new scientific information and, is being undertaken by Health and Safety Executive officials.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many responses were received to the consultation that took place prior to the making of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; how many of the responses objected to the making of the regulations in the form in which they were made; what reasons were given for the objections; and if he will place the responses in the Library. [98683]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: 235 responses were received about the consultation which involved the principle of the duty to manage asbestos in premises, and 268 responses on the two consultations on detailed proposals to amend the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations. The overwhelming majority were in favour of the amendments. There were 10 responses which objected to the proposals.

  A copy of the responses to the detailed proposals-is available in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training in the science of asbestos is given to health and safety inspectors(a) generally and (b) for the purposes of enforcing the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; by whom such training is given; and if he will make a statement. [98684]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]: As part of their training programme, trainee inspectors new to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) attend occupational health tutorials, which
  598W
  include briefing and discussion on the nature and type of asbestos products, the chemical and physical properties of asbestos, exposure levels and the health effects of asbestos. Specialist HSE inspectors normally deliver these tutorials. Asbestos is also covered in the Occupational Health and Safety Diploma course, run by Heriot Watt University, which all trainee inspectors are required to attend.

  Prior to doing any unaccompanied inspections, HSE inspectors, who have been assigned to asbestos work, undergo specific training on the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. This training is more in depth and is organised and delivered by HSE's Asbestos Licensing Unit, in conjunction with other experienced HSE personnel.

  Demography
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the latest estimates are of the proportion of the population aged (a) 50 or over, (b) 55 or over, (c) 60 or over and (d) 65 or over actively engaged in the labour market. [96730]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated economic activity rates of individuals in private households—Autumn 2002

  Economic activity rate (percentage)

  Aged 501

  37.7

  Aged 551

  27.0

  Aged 601

  14.0

  Aged 651

  5.5

  1 or over

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are not seasonally adjusted and are not subject to an adjustment for census 2001 results

  2. Economic Activity is based on International Labour Organisation (ILO) definitions.

  3. Figures exclude those living in communal establishments.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2002

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his assessment is of the reasons underlying the growth in spending on disability benefits between 1997-98 and 2003-04 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [97353]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to him on 12 February 2003,Official Report, column 801W in the case of disability living allowance. Similar reasons apply also in the case of attendance allowance, which provides a contribution towards the extra costs faced by people who become severely disabled after the age of 65. Spending on both these benefits has increased steadily year on year because more people than ever are receiving them and because their value has been maintained by increasing the rates at which they are paid each year in line with the movement in prices as measured by the retail prices index.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of businesses operating in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland without employers' liability cover; and if he will make a statement. [82828]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: In England, Scotland and Wales the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) enforces the legal requirement for companies to maintain Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) and to display a valid certificate. The HSE undertakes this enforcement activity during general inspections by HSE Inspectors and through the work of its Workplace Contact Officers who focus on small and medium-size enterprises.

  Workplace Contact Officers and Inspectors may ask to see a valid ELCI certificate during a visit. Where the certificate cannot be produced at the visit, HSE will write to the employer, and if no satisfactory response is received within a reasonable time that is 21 days under current instructions, will make a statutory request ('Notice to Produce') for its production. However, there may be circumstances where HSE considers it appropriate to issue a Notice to Produce straightaway where an employer fails to produce a valid certificate. Failure to produce a certificate will result in on-site inquires and prosecution, subject to evidence.

  A total of 4,366 contacts were made by Workplace Contact Officers between April and September 2002. Of these, just 14 (or 0.3 per cent.) merited the serving of a statutory notice to produce. In addition, HSE Inspectors carry a large number of issues during regulatory contacts, but because of the varying nature and range of visits undertaken, it is not possible to give exact figures as to how many of these regulatory contacts covered the issue of ELCI. However, during the same period of April to September 2002, HSE inspectors issued an additional 30 Notices to Produce. So the total number of Notices to Produce issued by HSE in this 6-month period was 44.

  Of those served notices, 31 employers (70 per cent.) have subsequently produced valid ELCI certificates. Inquiries relating to the 13 employers who have failed to produce ELCI certificates are continuing and may result in prosecution, subject to evidence.

  There were four prosecutions in 2002 resulting in penalties being imposed in three cases. Between 1997 and 2001, HSE successfully pursued 25 prosecutions for non-compliance.

  The above figures cover England, Scotland and Ireland. There is not available a breakdown for each area.

  In Northern Ireland a total of 1,924 visits to work places were made by HSE (Northern Ireland) Inspectors between April and September 2002. Inspectors routinely check on ELCI cover during visits although, as with HSE in England, Scotland and Wales, it is not possible to give exact figures as to how many of these visits covered the issue of ELCI. However, during the time period referred to above, no employers were detected by HSE (Northern Ireland) to be operating without ELCI.
  600W
  HSE (Northern Ireland) records show one prosecution in recent years relating to ELCI in Northern Ireland. In December 2000, an employer was convicted for non-compliance.

  These figures suggest that levels of compliance remain very high. However, the Government are aware of the recent problems being faced by employers in getting ELCI, and we announced in the Pre-Budget Report our intention I o undertake a formal review of the operation of ELCI.

  European Year of the Disabled
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what projects have been planned for the European Year of the Disabled, broken down by constituency. [97829]

  Maria Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  IFI/Richardsons Plant
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of the IFI/Richardsons plant in Belfast on home workers based outside Northern Ireland. [97206]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  As a result of the closure of the IFI/Richardsons plant in Belfast, three sales personnel based outside of Northern Ireland were made redundant. We understand the problems faced by those affected by redundancy, and we have introduced a range of policies to help people who lose their jobs to find another one quickly.

  New Deal
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have participated in New Deal 25 plus; and how many people have left the scheme for work. [93318]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is in the table.

  Total number of participants

  Total number of people moving into jobs

  Number of leavers moving into unsubsidized, sustained employment1

  New Deal 25 plus (from July 1998 to September 2002)

  534,400

  126,300

  93,600

  1 To have left the programme, New Deal clients must not re-claim Jobseeker's Allowance within 13 weeks. Sustained employment is defined as employment lasting 13 weeks or more. Therefore, all jobs gained by New Deal leavers are sustained jobs.

  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.

  Information on the New Deal 25 plus is published quarterly in the Statistical First Release, which is available in the Library.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.
  601W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the changes in the proportion of New Deal for Young People leavers entering unsubsidised, sustained employment since the scheme began. [97103]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The New Deal for Young People is continuing to help significant numbers of disadvantaged young people into work. Many of these have moved into jobs more quickly and have stayed there longer than they would have done without the New Deal. Up to September 2002, 313,700 New Deal clients had moved into jobs lasting 13 weeks or more.

  Since 1999, the proportion of leavers to known destinations entering unsubsidised, sustained jobs has remained largely constant at around 54 per cent. Research has also shown that people leaving to unknown destinations are just as likely to leave the New Deal for work as those going to known destinations. Further evaluation is planned this year to confirm this position. Jobcentre Plus is working closely with New Deal providers to improve the collection and recording of the destinations of programme participants.

  The change in the proportion of leavers from the New Deal for Young People entering unsubsidised, sustained employment is largely due to an increase in leavers going to unknown destinations (from 25 per cent. in 1998 to just under 33 per cent. so far in 2002).

  As long-term youth unemployment has been virtually eradicated, we are now also getting feedback from those delivering the New Deal that an increasing proportion of people on the programme are facing greater barriers to moving into sustained employment. That is why we have introduced initiatives such as StepUP and progress2work which build on the New Deal and help the most disadvantaged people overcome the barriers they face and move into work.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) young people, (b) single mothers, (c) disabled people, (d) people over 50 and (e) other categories for which information is collected have benefited from the New Deal in Nottingham North since its inception. [98321]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.

  New Deal

  Total number of programme participants in Nottingham north1

  New Deal for young people (from January 1998)

  2720

  New Deal 25 plus (from July 1998)

  1940

  New Deal for Lone Parents (from July 1998)

  2940

  New Deal 50 plus (Employment Credit claim) (from April 2000) 3

  3180

  1 Up to the end of September 2002, unless stated

  2 Of these, 880 participants were female

  3 Figure up to the end of November 2002

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  The information is not available at constituency level for the New Deal for Disabled people and new Deal for partners.
  602W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many New Deal 50-plus participants were first time claimants of (a) the employment credit and (b) the training grant, in each month since the scheme went nationwide. [99055]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Month

  Number of new training grants

  Number of employment credit starts

  2000

  April

  10

  1,730

  May

  20

  2,430

  June

  30

  3,000

  July

  50

  2,560

  August

  60

  2,490

  September

  100

  3,270

  October

  110

  3,290

  November

  120

  3,400

  December

  120

  2,660

  2001

  January

  130

  2,190

  February

  140

  2,720

  March

  190

  3,280

  April

  150

  2,610

  May

  180

  3,290

  June

  170

  3,200

  July

  160

  2,920

  August

  180

  3,160

  September

  160

  3,010

  October

  230

  3,300

  November

  250

  3,670

  December

  130

  1,730

  2002

  January

  160

  1,800

  February

  160

  2,340

  March

  240

  2,920

  April

  130

  2,460

  May

  220

  3,330

  June

  130

  2,540

  July

  130

  2,620

  August

  190

  3,060

  September

  160

  2,480

  October

  280

  2,860

  November

  270

  3,490

  December

  180

  1,940

  Total

  4.910

  91,740

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and may not sum due to rounding

  Source:

  New Deal evaluation database

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what statistics are routinely collected
  on the New Deal for Disabled People; [95235]

  (2) how many people in each region have (a) found work and (b) found sustained work, through the New Deal for Disabled People; 96603

  (3) how many people (a) have found work and (b) have found sustained work through the New Deal for Disabled People, broken down according to the nature of the participants' disabilities. [96606]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) is the first national programme designed specifically to help people with health conditions and disabilities move into and keep jobs. Statistics on customer registration with Job Brokers, job entries and
  603W
  sustainability of employment are collected and published on a quarterly basis on the New Deal and NDDP websites.

  A comprehensive evaluation programme is in place which will enable us to assess the effectiveness of NDDP and ensure that we build on the best of what has been achieved so far. Information about the characteristics of participants, their experiences, views and outcomes of participation in NDDP will be gathered through quantitative research. In addition, qualitative research will examine in greater depth what works for whom, how and why. We will be publishing reports on different elements of the evaluation, as they become available.

  The available information is in the table.

  Cumulative performance from July 2001 to December 2002

  National

  Number registering with an NDDP job Broker1

  Number helped into work by an NDDP job Broker1

  Numbers achieving sustained employment following NDDP asistance2

  Total

  35,316

  8,676

  2,330

  1 Job Brokers are paid on work/outcomes actually achieved. They are paid for customers registering with them and for customers that are helped into work. The figures quoted represent registrations and outcomes for which the Job Brokers have been paid.

  2 Sustained work is defined as the customer remaining in paid employment for at least 26 out of 39 weeks.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of those on each option of the New Deal for Young People went into a sustained job in the East Riding of Yorkshire in the most recent quarter for which figures are available. [97732]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Between July and September 2002 (the latest quarter for which figures are available), 45 young people left the New Deal Options for unsubsidised, sustained jobs in the East Riding local authority area. This is 49 per cent. of all leavers from the Options in that period.

  Due to the small volumes involved, figures for individual New Deal Options cannot be published because of the risk of identifying individuals.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employers have informed him that they are willing to co-operate with his Department in issuing combined pension forecasts to their employees. [98518]

  Mr. McCartney
  The combined pensions forecasting service is open to employers and pension providers. We do not collect information on employers as a distinct group. Currently, 426 private sector pension schemes have expressed an interest in using the combined pension forecasting service. Plans progress to increase take-up, but this is very much dependant on private sector partners' willingness to participate in this voluntary service. We sought views on how to increase coverage, whether on a voluntary or compulsory 604W
  basis, in our recent Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement" (Cm5677).

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of minimum income guarantee claimants who would cease to be eligible if the basic state pension was increased by(a) £5 per week for those below 75, (b) £10 per week for those aged 75-79 and (c) £15 per week for those aged 80 and above, with the additions for those aged over 75 and over 80 being paid in full regardless of contribution record. [97379]

  Mr. McCartney
  We estimate that around 350,000 benefit units could cease to be eligible for the Pension Credit if the maximum rate payable of the basic State Pension was increased by £5 per week and age additions of £5 per week were payable for those aged 75 and over and £10 per week for those aged 80 and over in 2003–04.

  Notes:

  1. The estimate is based on the Department for Work and Pensions Policy Simulation Model for 2003–04.

  2. Calculations assume the maximum rate payable of the Basic State Pension is increased by £5 per week and all other payments proportionately and that age additions of £5 per week are paid to all those aged 75–79 and £10 per week to those aged 80 and over.

  3. For modelling purposes, Pension Credit is assumed to be in place throughout 2003-04. In fact, Pension Credit will begin in October 2003.

  4. The estimate excludes those individuals living in residential care homes.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for the issue of state pension forecasts; in what sequence different groups will be issued with such forecasts and over what timescale; how many such forecasts he expects to issue for each group; and if he will make a statement. [98519]

  Mr. McCartney
  State pension forecast information is issued to customers either directly, or via their pension scheme provider as part of a combined pension forecast.

  The combined pension forecasting service was launched in October 2001 and to date 426 providers have expressed an interest in using the service. Plans progress to increase take-up but this is very much dependant on private sector partners willingness to participate in this voluntary scheme. We sought views on how to increase coverage, whether on a voluntary or compulsory basis, in our recent Green Paper Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement.

  State Pension forecasts have been issued to individuals by DWP on request for a number of years. The Department expects to issue around 0.75 million such forecasts in this financial year.

  The Green Paper also announced that from May 2003, the Department will commence the automatic issue of State Pension forecasts and supporting

  605W
  information to the self-employed with a view to extending this service across the rest of the working-age population over the next five years. We will evaluate the self-employed exercise and alongside other research this will inform the sequencing and volumes of other automatic forecasts.

  Work-focused Interviews
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many(a) income support, (b) incapacity benefit, (c) invalid care allowance, (d) bereavement benefit and (e) severe disablement allowance claimants have had(i)a new claim refused as a result of work focused interview non-attendance and (ii) benefit reduced as a result of failure to attend a repeat work-focused interview, under the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001; [93917]

  The impact work focused interviews on benefit claims 22 October 2001 to 22 October 2002

  Benefit type

  Number of initial work focused meetings (WFM) booked

  Number of claims not pursued1 (percentage of WFM booked

  Trigger meetings booked2

  Customers sanctioned (percentage of trigger meetings booked)

  Income Support

  11,403

  32(0.3)

  672

  53(7.9)

  Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance3

  16,877

  127(0.8)

  48

  0(0)

  Invalid Care Allowance

  1,900

  9(0.5)

  5

  0(0)

  Bereavement Benefit

  82

  0(0)

  2

  0(0)

  1 LMS does not distinguish between those claims not pursued because of failure to attend a work-focused interview and those not pursued for other reasons, eg found other work, sickness, withdrew claim.

  2 Trigger meetings occur after either a specific period of time (eg three years for Incapacity Benefit customers) or when a specified event occurs (eg starting part time work). With Jobcentre Plus Pathfinders only opening in October 2001 very few Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance, Invalid Care Allowance or Bereavement Benefit recipients have been called for a trigger meeting so far.

  3 LMS does not have separate data on Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance claims.

  Source:

  Labour Market System (LMS)

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what measures are being taken to reduce youth unemployment in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK; [96377]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the effect the New Deal has had on youth unemployment in (a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK. [96378]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997, youth unemployment has fallen by a third in Jarrow and South Tyneside, by nearly 40 per cent. in Tyne and Wear and by 47 per cent. in the UK. Over the same period, long-term (over six months) youth unemployment has been cut by 86 per cent. in Jarrow and by around 80 per cent. in south Tyneside, Tyne and Wear and the UK.

  In 1998 we introduced the New Deal for Young People to tackle the waste of long-term youth unemployment. The programme has played an important part in the massive reductions in long-term unemployment among young people across the country. Almost 400,000 young people have moved into work
  606W
  (2) what percentage of (a) income support, (b) incapacity benefit, (c) invalid care allowance, (d) bereavement benefit and (e) severe disablement (i) new claimants in Jobcentre Plus areas have had a claim refused as a result of work focused interview nonattendance and (ii) existing caseload claimants in Jobcentre Plus areas have had their benefit reduced as a result of failure to attend a repeat-work focused interview, under the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interview) Regulations 2001. [93919]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many incapacity benefit claimants have had their benefit entitlement reduced because they have failed to attend a compulsory Jobcentre Plus work-focused interview. [95238]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available, from the 56 Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices, is in the table.

  through the New Deal. Independent research found that the number of young people unemployed for six months or more would be twice as high without the New Deal.

  The New Deal has been successful in the north-east of England. By the end of September 2002, in Tyne and Wear, 13,880 young people had moved from welfare into work through the New Deal, 2,390 in south Tyneside, and 1,070 in Jarrow.

  We are building on the achievements of the New Deal. Early last year, we started tailored pathway pilots, including one in Wearside, to help young people use the New Deal Options more flexibly and move into sustained jobs. In 2002 we launched StepUp in 20 pilot areas, including Sunderland, to provide transitional jobs for people who have not secured sustained jobs through New Deal. We have introduced progress2work to provide additional support to help unemployed drug misusers into work. The initiative is already up and running in Newcastle, and will be starting in Sunderland very shortly, and will be rolled out across the country later this year. We have also developed ambition initiatives to help unemployed people gain the right skills to meet the needs of employers in key sectors. One such initiative for the retail sector is operating in Gateshead. We are introducing progress2work-LinkUP to help those facing the greatest disadvantages in the

  607W
  labour market, including ex-offenders, homeless people and recovering alcohol misusers. One of the pilots will start in south Tyneside later this year. These initiatives are ensuring that all young people, even those who face great disadvantages in the labour market or who live in the most deprived areas, are given the help and support they need to gain independence through moving from welfare to work.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many university students his Department and associated agencies has supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what his policy is on work placements; what plans he has to develop such schemes; and what his policy is on paying their university fees. [98540]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister accommodated five undergraduates in 2002 through summer placement schemes organised by the Cabinet Office (three), Windsor Fellowship (one), and Workable (one).

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is keen to participate in work placements for undergraduates and has an ongoing programme. We have ten placements allocated this summer for undergraduates. The office does not pay the university fees of its summer placements.

  Warm Front Scheme
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to discuss the future funding of the Warm Front scheme with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. [99206]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Warm Front is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans for bilateral meetings to discuss its future funding. The Ministerial Group on Fuel Poverty is expected to meet during the Spring. The date and agenda for that meeting have not yet been agreed.

HEALTH

  Agency Nurses (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many agencies, which have recruited nurses from developing countries, have signed the code of practice on international nurses; what steps the Department will take to prevent the use of agencies which have not signed the code of practice; and if he will make a statement; [98391]

  (2) how many private recruitment agencies the NHS used to recruit nurses from developing countries in each of the last five years; [98392]
  608W
  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of agencies involved in international recruitment of health professionals; and how many have not signed the code of practice; [98917]

  (4) what mechanisms are in place to ensure that NHS trusts (a) are aware of the code of practice on international nurses and (b) have received a copy of the Department's list of agencies operating under the terms of the code; and what steps are taken to ensure that trusts use only agencies from the list when recruiting nurses from overseas; [98915]

  (5) what mechanisms are in place to ensure that NHS trusts are aware of agencies which do not comply with the code of practice on international nurses, and whether NHS trusts are prevented under legislation from entering into contracts with agencies which (a) have not signed the code of practice and (b) recruit nurses from developing countries. [98914]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 24 and 25 February 2003]: Active recruitment from developing countries contravenes the code of practice for national health service employers in the international recruitment of healthcare professionals. If a commercial recruitment agency is alleged to be contravening the code of practice, the Department will carry out an immediate investigation to determine whether that agency should be removed from the list of agencies operating under the terms of the code. Data relating to the number of agencies recruiting nurses from overseas is not held centrally but monitoring is carried out on a quarterly basis. To date, we have not discovered any NHS contravention of the code of practice.

  The Department has written to all the commercial recruitment agencies it is aware of and has requested references from NHS and other customers confirming the agency's compliance with the code of practice. Details of all agencies working in line with the code of practice appear on the Department's website and is updated regularly. NHS organisations are strongly recommended to refer to the current list of approved agencies when establishing new contracts but there is no legislation requiring them to do so. The list is publicised through regular contacts with the NHS and workforce development confederations.

  The Department is aware of 115 recruitment agencies and has invited each of them to sign up to the code of practice. To date 68 of them have signed up to list. The Department is continuing to work with the remainder to ascertain their position.

  Ambulance Service (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fully operational ambulances were stationed at each of the ambulance stations in Derbyshire in each year since 1997.
  [98888]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, I am making arrangements for the Chairman of the East Midlands Ambulance Service National Health Service trust to provide this information direct to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he and his Ministers have had with(a) representatives of South Stoke PCT and (b) North Staffordshire LMC regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. [99100]

  Mr. Lammy
  None.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on GPs being paid for registering asylum seekers. [99101]

  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioners (GPs) who provide general medical services receive a capitation payment for each patient registered with them, either permanently or temporarily. An asylum seeker attracts the same payment as any other patient of the same age.

  Barnet Chase Farm Trust
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) Barnet PCT and (b) other PCTs have contributed, outside the original yearly budget, to the deficits at Barnet Chase Farm, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [98939]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the level of individual service agreements between primary care trusts and National Health Service trusts is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) current and (b) accumulated deficit is of Barnet Chase Farm Trust; and if he will make a statement. [98944]

  Mr. Hutton
  Barnet and Chase Farm's audited financial position for 2002–03 will be available later this year. The accumulated income and expenditure position of the trust as at 31 March 2002, as reported in its 2001-02 audited annual accounts, was a surplus of £562,000.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions in what timeframe at Barnet Chase Farm Trust to bring the costs of their service into line with other comparable trusts; and if he will make a statement. [98945]

  Mr. Hutton
  Barnet and Chase Farm Trust has made considerable progress in bringing the costs of its services in line with comparable trusts as measured by the National Reference Cost Index. The National Reference Cost Index for Barnet and Chase Farm Trust has reduced from 121 in 1999–2000 to 105 in 2001–02, where 100 represents the national average.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make arrangements to require Barnet Chase Farm Trust to submit reports on performance to the PCTs who commission services from them. [98946]

  Mr. Hutton
  Arrangements are already in place for Barnet and Chase Farm Trust to submit reports on performance to the primary care trusts (PCTs) which commission services from it. Regular monthly performance reports are received by Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals National Health Service Trust's Board and are sent to the PCTs. There are also regular review meetings with PCTs to discuss progress on plans.
  610W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent Barnet PCT is permitted to switch the commissioning of services from Barnet Chase Farm Hospital to other hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [98947]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) have the freedom to commission services from wherever they believe appropriate based on the needs of their local population. Barnet PCT already commissions services for its residents from a number of hospitals other than Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Any significant changes in provider would affect local partners and would occur with the agreement of those partners within the context of the local delivery plan. Changes would be expected to result from public and patient involvement and where significant change is planned, from public consultation.

  Barnet Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of capacity at Barnet hospital; and if he will make a statement. [98932]

  Mr. Hutton
  Services at Barnet hospital are improving, but there is much more which needs to be done. Inpatients and outpatients are waiting for shorter periods and recent improvements in practice in the accident and emergency department will also ensure shorter waits. Public and staff are being involved in the further development of services locally.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to reduce accident and emergency waiting times at Barnet Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [98934]

  Mr. Hutton
  Improving the patients experience of emergency care is a top priority for the National Health Service. In light of this, Reforming Emergency Care was launched in October 2001, supported by a £118 million investment. It sets a long term programme of reform supported by extra investment and new capacity to address one of the public's key concerns about the National Health Service—waiting in accident and emergency (A & E).

  After successful introduction of the see and treat initiative at Chase Farm Hospital A & E, which has had a significant impart on the number of patients being seen within four hours, this is now being introduced at Barnet Hospital.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to improve the cleaning services at Barnet Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [98949]

  Mr. Hutton
  Improving the cleanliness of hospitals is the responsibility of local national health service trusts.

  The "National Standards of Cleaning for the NHS" were launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in April 2001. All hospitals are required to ensure that their cleaning services meet these standards. In addition hospitals are inspected annually by patient environment action teams (PEATs) who assess environmental standards across a range of factors

  611W
  including cleanliness. The Commission for Health Improvement also considers hospital cleanliness as part of Clinical Governance reviews.

  The last PEAT assessment of Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust judged the environmental standards, including cleanliness, as acceptable.

  Bushmeat
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Food Standards Agency is taking on the risks posed by toxins in illegally imported bushmeat. [97708]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency has advised local authorities that all illegally imported food products, including bush meat, should be removed from sale. This is because these products have evaded official controls designed to verify compliance with food safety standards and could pose a danger to human health. The Agency is also working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to inform the targeting of enforcement work to detect illegal imports.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the potential health risks from toxins in illegally imported bushmeat. [977091

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency, which has responsibility for food safety matters, that it has received representations about potential public health risks from illegally imported meat, including bush meat. Illegally imported food has evaded official controls designed to verify compliance with food safety standards and therefore poses a potential danger to human health. Such food is destroyed without undue delay and without the requirement for laboratory examination to identify toxins, micro-organisms or other contamination dangerous to human health.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has made to other Government Departments about the level of policing at ports of entry relating to the smuggling of bushmeat. [97755]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA), which has responsibility for food safety matters, is in frequent contact with other Government Departments, in particular the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, about controls on the illegal import of meat.

  Further to a study by the Cabinet Office last year, co-ordination arrangements between the FSA, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and DEFRA are being strengthened to achieve a step-change improvement in controls on the illegal import of meat. DEFRA is running a six month pilot study into the use of dogs for detecting illegally imported foodstuffs, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is taking the lead responsibility for detection of smuggled imports of meat, and the FSA is putting in place arrangements with port health and local authorities to improve inspection arrangements for legitimate imports.
  612W
  The Organisation of the Government's Controls of Imports of Animals, Fish, Plants and their Products' is published on the Cabinet Office website at http://www.cabinet-office.qov.uk/reports/pdf/Illegal%20Imports%20paper.pdf

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the level of toxins in illegally imported bushmeat. [97756]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency, which has responsibility for food safety matters, has advised that information is not available on the level of toxins in illegally imported bush meat. All illegally imported food has evaded official controls designed to verify compliance with food safety standards and could pose a danger to human health. Such food may therefore be destroyed by local authorities without the need for sampling to detect micro-organisms, toxins or other contamination.

  Cancer Treatment
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young people under the age of 25 were(a) diagnosed with cancer and (b) died of cancer last year; and if he will make a statement. [98472]

  Ms Blears
  There were 2,453 new cases of cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) diagnosed in people under the age of 25 in 1999 in England (latest year for which we have data). 527 people under the age of 25 died from cancer in England in 2001.

  Charge Income
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he estimates his Department's total income from charges will be in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [92789]

  Mr. Hutton
  Total income to the Department from charges in 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 is estimated to be around £944 million, £967 million and £992 million respectively.

  Choice Programme Pilot Scheme
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the choice programme pilot scheme announced on 11 February. [99065]

  Mr. Milburn
  On the 11 February I announced a major set of initiatives to introduce more choice for patients into the National Health Service. I gave my hon. Friend an outline of the benefits for patients in Greater Manchester on 11 February,Official Report, column 752–753.

  In Greater Manchester patients waiting six months for orthopaedic; ear, nose and throat; or general surgery will be able to choose to have their treatment in an alternative hospital. Around 3,400 patients are expected to be offered this choice.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the most recent Quarter 3 delayed discharge and emergency readmission figures in the Library; what assessment he has made of the
  613W
  information collected; and how many times the way the information is collated has been altered in the last five years. [97079]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information on Quarter 3, 2002–03, delayed discharge and emergency readmission figures has been placed in the Library. Between September 2001 and December 2002, more than 2,000 fewer people were waiting to be discharged from hospital on any single day. The rate of 28-day emergency readmission for patients of all ages has increased very slightly over last quarter from 5.35 to 5.4 per cent. In the last five years, the basis of the information collection has changed to patients of all ages, rather than only patients over 75 years, and from April 2002, the data have been collected by primary care trust area instead of the former health authorities.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when patients of the Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust will have access to digital hearing aids. [97706]

  Ms Blears
  Funding has been made available for the years 2003–04 and 2004-05 to ensure that a modernised service, providing digital hearing aids, will be available from all National Health Service hearing aids services in England by April 2005.

  Epsom and St Helier Hospitals NHS Trust is discussing with their respective primary care trusts whether they wish to modernise in 2003-04 or 2004-05.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects patients will be able to receive digital hearing aids at the Worthing and Southlands NHS Hospitals Trust. [97879]

  Ms Blears
  Funding has been made available for the years 2003–04 and 2004–05 to ensure that a modernised service, providing digital hearing aids, will be available from all National Health Service hearing aids services in England by April 2005.

  NHS hospital trusts not yet involved in the modernisation project will now need to discuss with their respective primary care trusts whether they wish to modernise in 2003–04 or 2004–05.

  DIY Genetic Tests
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of DIY genetic tests. [97516]

  Ms Blears
  In February 2002, Health and Science Ministers asked the Human Genetics Commission to review the matter of genetic testing services supplied direct to the public.

  The Commission has publicly stated that they will make their formal recommendations to Ministers in the early spring.

  Drug Dependency (Treatment)
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the recommendation in the 2002 Drug Strategy for an increase in the availability of heroin 614W
  prescription to all those who have a clinical need is intended as guidance that heroin is preferable to other maintenance treatments for opiate addiction. [97646]

  Ms Blears
  The Updated Drug Strategy 2002 recommendation, that heroin should be available on prescription to all those who have a clinical need for it, does emphatically not mean that heroin is preferable to other treatments. Heroin prescribing may be a valuable supplement to other treatment but only in a limited number of cases, usually where oral methadone has not proved successful. It is for individual clinicians to make a decision about this on a patient by patient basis.

  Prescribing oral methadone as a substitute for illicit opiates has proven benefits for both the individual and for society, particularly in terms of reducing injecting behaviour and criminal activity. Methadone can be prescribed for a range of treatments including detoxification, stabilisation and longer-term therapies. Additional guidance for practitioners on the use of heroin as a treatment option is due to be published shortly by the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse.

  E-mail Addresses
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what e-mail address members of the public may contact(a) him and (b) each of the Ministers in his Department; and for each e-mail address if he will state (i) the date it became active and (ii) the number of e-mails received in each month since activation. [97442]

  Ms Blears
  Members of the public can contact Ministers at the Department of Health through the email address on the website at dhmail@doh.gsi.gov.uk. This site was introduced in October 1999 and the numbers of emails received are as follows.

  1999

  October

  320

  November

  371

  December

  294

  Total

  985

  2000

  January

  487

  February

  490

  March

  592

  April

  868

  May

  648

  June

  679

  July

  777

  August

  755

  September

  647

  October

  977

  November

  1,035

  December

  804

  Total

  8,759

  2001

  January

  1,391

  February

  1,289

  March

  1,618

  April

  1,517

  May

  1,651

  June

  1,460

  July

  1,653

  August

  1,716

  September

  1,563

  October

  2,204

  November

  2,210

  December

  1,616

  Total

  19,888

  615W

  2002

  January

  2,494

  February

  2,406

  March

  2,312

  April

  2,425

  May

  2,148

  June

  1,829

  July

  2,804

  August

  2,313

  September

  2,224

  October

  2,801

  November

  2,612

  December

  1,768

  Total

  28,136

  2003

  January

  3,003

  Electronic Yellow Card Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adverse drug reactions were reported by nurses to the electronic yellow card scheme in January 2003. [97138]

  Ms Blears
  In January 2003, the Medicines Control Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines received two reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) submitted by nurses using the electronic yellow card, out of a total of 24 electronic reports of suspected ADRs from all health professionals during this time.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information foundation hospitals will cease to need to provide to their strategic health authority, his Department and other regulatory bodies. [99032]

  Mr. Hutton
  Paragraphs 3.22 and 3.23 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts" set out our proposals for the provision of financial and statistical information by national health service foundation trusts. Forthcoming legislation will set out the process for defining information requirements for NHS foundation trusts.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether foundation trusts can choose not to have modern matrons. [99033]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that foundation hospitals cannot disestablish modern matron posts. [98592]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether foundation hospitals will have the right to remove modern matron posts. [98710]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service foundation trusts will have freedom to put in place the staffing and management structures that ensure the necessary mix of skills to provide the best standard of care to patients.
  616W
  Modern matron posts have been a very successful innovation and I would expect foundation trusts to take this into account.

  Gender Reassignment Surgery
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent information he has collated on waiting lists for gender reassignment surgery; [93435]

  (2) how many tertiary level consultants and sessions were devoted to (a) male to female psychiatric assessment, (b) female to male psychiatric assessment, (c) male to female gender confirmation surgery and (d) female to male gender confirmation surgery, in respect of each specialist centre providing medical treatment of gender dysphoria, including transsexualism, within the national health service, in the most recent week for which figures are available and in the same week in each of the previous three years; how many patients there were to whom treatment was provided in each category listed above during the preceding 12 months; and how many patients were on the waiting list for each category of such treatment; [93721]

  (3) if he will list the locations of providers of gender reassignment surgery that have done NHS commissioned work in each of the last five years; and how many FTE staff, broken down by category, worked at each facility in each year. [93436]

  Mr. Hutton
  Gender reassignment surgery consists of a series of different surgical procedures, for example, female to male gender reassignment may require a mastectomy and a hysterectomy and a series of operations to construct a phallus. The Department collects Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) from national health service trusts on operations specifically for sexual transformation, but those procedures such as mastectomies or hysterectomies are collected separately and it is not possible to identify if these were carried out as part of a gender reassignment operation. Details of the NHS trusts who have undertaken any operations for sexual transformation in the past five years are listed in the table.

  The HES data shows that 89 operations were undertaken for male to female gender reassignment surgery in 2001-02. No operations for female to male gender reassignment were recorded during this period.

  Information on the numbers of psychiatric assessments undertaken for gender dysphoria are currently not collected centrally. The mental health minimum dataset will collect data for the first time on psychiatric assessments from April 2003.

  Information on waiting lists and the number of full time equivalent staff and sessions per week devoted to treating patients with gender dysphoria and those working in gender dysphoria clinics is not collected centrally.
  617W

  Trusts that undertake gender reassignment operations 1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  The Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Royal Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  United Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  Central Manchester and Manchester University NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  Leicester General Hospital NHS

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  University Hospitals of Leicestershire NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  The Hammersmith Hospitals NHS

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  University College London Hospital NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  —

  The United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  Liverpool Womens Hospital NHS

  —

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  1—

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  —

  Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  Pilgrim Health NHS Trust

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS

  —

  1—

  —

  1—

  1—

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  Mid Sussex NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospital NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  —

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  1—

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  —

  1 Denotes a trust who have at least one recorded case for the given year.

  Note:

  A null value has been given where there has either been no cases for the given year or the trust did not exist.

  General Practitioners (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to meet patient demand for GPs in Derbyshire. [98889]

  Mr. Lammy
  Provision of access to general practitioner services is a matter for primary care trusts (PCTs). A number of initiatives are being taken by PCTs across Derbyshire to improve access to GPs.

  For example a £1.1 million public finance initiative build project has been approved by Chesterfield PCT to provide a GP practice in Staveley. Greater Derby PCT is using local investment finance trust funding to develop three new primary care resource centres and to enable Greater Derby practices to upgrade and extend their services in line with the NHSPlan.

  GP Vacancies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP vacancies there are at the latest available date; and how many there were in February(a) 2002 and (b) 2001. [97840]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the 2002 general practitioner recruitment retention and vacancy survey, health authorities (HAs) reported 2,615 GP vacancies outstanding at any time during the period March 2001 to February 2002, compared with 2,464 in the period April 2000 to March 2001. There were four non-responding HAs in 2001–02 and two in 2000–01.

  Health Employees
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 12 February to 618W
  questions refs. 96102 and 93640, what proportion of these employees are (a) administrators or managers and (b) clinical staff. [99136]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 12 February to question ref. 93640, if he will break down the posts by grade, indicating whether they are(a) clinical and (b) managerial. [99137]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]The information available centrally has been placed in the Library. These figures cannot be broken down by grade.

  Health Services (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements have been made to local health services available to people in Nottingham North since June 1997. [98324]

  Mr. Lammy
  In March 1997 there were 3,653 patients at acute trusts in Nottingham waiting over 26 weeks for outpatients appointments. In December 2002 there were none. Similarly, there were 1,718 patients waiting over 12 months for inpatient appointments. In December 2002, there were only 28.

  At Queen's Medical Centre, £5.5 million of capital expenditure has been invested in modernising accident and emergency services. Meanwhile, the primary care trusts covering Nottingham will each receive increases in funding of over 28 per cent. over the next three years, to help further increase life expectancy at birth and reduce premature deaths from cancer. This is just a small sample of investment in local modernisation.

  Health Staff
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) general practitioners, (b) nurses and (c) consultants are employed in (i) Derbyshire and (ii) England and Wales. [98890]

  General medical Practitioners and Practice Nurses, Consultants and NHS HCHS Qualified Nurses in England and Derbyshire Health Authorities as at 30 September 2001

  Numbers (headcount) of which:

  England

  North Derbyshire HA

  South Derbyshire HA

  All General Medical Practitioners1 of which:

  31,835

  234

  347

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)2

  27,843

  192

  315

  Qualified Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting staff3

  330,535

  1,859

  3,035

  Practice Nurses

  19,846

  128

  223

  Consultants

  25,690

  110

  188

  Notes:

  Notes:

  1 All practitioners includes: GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, GP Registrars, GP retainers, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA) and PMS others

  2 Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) includes GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  3 Excludes learners

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Healthy Start Scheme
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the healthy start scheme will reduce the value of benefit to mothers who bottle feed their babies. [99017]

  Ms Blears
  Decisions on the future of the Welfare Food Scheme will not be taken until the results of the public consultation on the proposed reforms have been assessed.

  A report on the outcome of the "Healthy Start" consultation will be published in March 2003. The Department of Health's response to the consultation will follow in the spring.

  Hospital Accommodation
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance on the provision of hospital accommodation his Department has issued since December 2000. [98925]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has issued no further guidance on hospital accommodation for doctors in training since the issue of Health Service Circular 2000/036 in December 2000.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what types of hospital accommodation are covered by the guidelines issued by his Department in December 2000. [98926]

  Mr. Hutton
  The December 2000 guidelines cover accommodation provided to doctors, either because of statutory or contractual requirements or where doctors are voluntarily resident and are required to provide an on-call service from their accommodation. Other accommodation is covered by the Houses in Multiple Occupancy Regulations and other local authority standards to ensure basic habitability.
  620W
  Mr. Hutton
  The available data is shown in the table. Information relating to Wales is a matter for the devolved administration.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government spent on improving(a) residential and (b) on-call hospital accommodation in England and Wales in 2002. [98927]

  Mr. Hutton
  Improvement of residential accommodation in hospitals is the responsibility of the individual trust concerned and no details are held centrally on expenditure. However, in addition to that spent by trusts, the Department provides a further £2 million annually to support capital improvements to junior doctors' living and working conditions, much of which is used to improve accommodation.

  We are unable to provide information for Wales, as healthcare there is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Hospital Hygiene
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) of 22 January 2003, Official Report, column 392W, on hospital hygiene, how many cases of gastro-enteritis were reported by NHS hospital trusts in each year since 1999. [96045]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are no definitive data sources for cases of gastro-enteritis in hospitals but the information available is shown in the table.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) has voluntary reporting systems for a range of pathogenic organisms but as these systems do not distinguish between cases acquired in hospital and those acquired elsewhere the requested data are not available.

  In addition the PHLS also has a voluntary reporting system for outbreaks (these involve two or more related cases) of infectious intestinal disease and a report "General outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease (IID)

  621W
  in hospitals, England and Wales, 1992-2000" was published in the Journal of Hospital Infection (2003) 53:1–5.

  Hospital Episode Statistics has the following information which includes cases where the patient was admitted with gastro-enteritis.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCE) of diarrhoea and gastro-enteritis in NHS hospitals, England

  Year

  Number

  1999–2000

  13,498

  2000–01

  11,812

  2001–02

  11,257

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) of 28 January 2003, Official Report, column 810W, on hospital hygiene, what the recommendations on the number of wash-hand basins for specific situations are; and if he will make a statement on infection controls teams. [96082]

  Ms Blears
  Infection control teams play a vital role in promoting good infection control. They will be actively involved in auditing key policies such as hand washing and will help develop trust policy on building services such as hand basins.

  Frequency of hand decontamination is governed by many factors, of which sufficient wash hand basins is only one. For new buildings, NHS Estates has made recommendations on hand basins.

  The exact number of hand-wash basins in a particular situation depends on the design and configuration of the room.

  HPA
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the post of chief executive for the Health Protection Agency will be readvertised. [90079]

  Ms Blears
  The original timetable for appointing the Health Protection Agency (HPA) shadow Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had been for the end of October 2002, to enable the incoming shadow Chair of the HPA to participate in the appointment procedure. Following advertisements in the national press and professional journals, it was felt that the field of responses could be strengthened and that, given the importance of the role of the new HPA, the assistance of executive search consultants should be sought to advise on and co-ordinate the appointment. This was undertaken during November and December 2002, enabling competitive interviews to be held in early January. The result of that process has been the announcement of the CEO appointment (Dr. Pat Troop) on 27 January 2003 and there is therefore no need for this post to be re-advertised.

  Ill Health (Contributory Factors)
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates have been made of the costs to the NHS of(a) the potential lifetime ill health of a low birthweight baby, (b) obesity and (c) indoor winter temperatures below 15 degrees centigrade. [96288]
  622W
  Ms Blears
  The National Audit Office report, "Tackling Obesity in England', puts the cost of obesity to the National Health Service at £0.5 billion a year. Information is not collected on the other costs.

  Source:

  Tackling Obesity in England

  Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General

  HC220 Session 2000–2001: 15 February 2001

  In-Patient Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting in England for in-patient treatment at the latest date for which figures are available. [97837]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of patients waiting for elective inpatient admission at National Health Service trusts and primary care trusts in England at 31 December 2002 was 1,056,600.

  Influenza
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pensioners in England received immunisation against influenza in(a) the last 12 months for which figures are available, (b) the previous 12 months to that and (c) 1996. [97826]

  Ms Blears
  From data collected by the Public Health Laboratory Service on behalf of the Department, we know that as at 31 December 2002, 5,487,645 people aged 65 years and over were immunised against influenza. This compares to 5,135,760 people in 2001–02.

  Prior to 2000, the policy on flu immunisation was to offer vaccine to people aged 75 years and over, and not to people aged 65-74. At this time, there was no systematic collection of uptake data for this age-target group of people.

  International Fellowship Scheme
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of the NHS International Fellowship Scheme. [94050]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 January 2003]: Expenditure on the national health service international fellowship scheme up to the present is £1,171,847.30.

  The Fellowship Scheme is designed to attract experienced, senior consultants from abroad in specialties in high demand worldwide to practise in the NHS for two year fellowships. The number of offers accepted so far is 40 and the overall target is 450 fellows over the lifetime of the scheme.

  International Nurses (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether agencies which have not signed the code of practice on international nurses have been contracted by the Department. [98916]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer Tuesday 25 February]: The Department has not contracted with any agency involved in the international recruitment of nurses and therefore subject to the code of practice for National Health Service employers.

  Irwell Mill, Bacup
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of the proposed development by the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust on the site of Irwell Mill, Rochdale Road, Bacup; who will be responsible for the demolition and at what cost; and what payments in connection with the purchase of this site will be made to Stylegleam Ltd.[91935]

  Jacqui Smith
  [pursuant to her reply, 28 January 2003, Official Report, c 811 W]: I regret my previous response was incorrect. The firs sentence of the second paragraph should read as follows.

  "Most of the mill will be demolished, with the Rossendale Borough Council acting as the agents."

  IVF
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the percentage of children born through IVF born with a recognised disability; and if he will make a statement; [97934]

  (2) what research is being conducted into the possible links between intracytoplasmic sperm injection and Angelman syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [97935]

  Ms Blears
  A number of international studies have raised questions about some in vitro fertilisation (IVF) techniques such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The studies show a small increase in the number of babies with health problems. The Medical Research Council and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority have established a working group that is reviewing current research and will provide advice on any further research needed in assisted conception. Information is not routinely collected on children conceived using an assisted conception technique that are born with a disability or other medical condition.

  Kava-kava
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria the Medicines Control Agency set for the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Commission in their investigation into kava-kava; 96047]

  (2) in what form the conclusions of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Commission into the safety of kava-kava were presented. [96048]

  Ms Blears
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) consulted the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) on the safety of kava-kava, as this falls within its statutory terms of reference which are: "to give advice with respect to safety, quality and efficacy in relation to human use of any substance or article (not being an instrument, apparatus or appliance) to which any provision of the Medicines Act 1968 is applicable; to promote the collection and investigation of information relating to adverse reactions for the purpose of enabling such advice to be given."
  624W
  The CSM convened an expert working group with the following remit.
  To consider the currently available evidence on the issue of hepatotoxicity suspected to be associated with the use of the herbal remedy kava-kava (piper methysticum).
  To assess the risks to public health and whether these can be quantified or prevented and to advise on the risk/benefit balance.
  To consider the possible regulatory actions and provide advice on a recommended course of action including how the information should be distributed to healthcare professionals and consumers.

  The CSM received the working group's recommendations, considered the available evidence and arguments and gave preliminary advice that the most appropriate regulatory option was the revocation of the marketing authorisations for the three licensed products containing kava-kava and prohibition of the supply of the unlicensed products under section 62 of the Medicines Act. Other options considered were label warnings about hepatic adverse reactions; restrictions of strength, dosage or type of formulation; restricting the status of kava-kava to a prescription only medicine or no regulatory action.

  Following preliminary advice from CSM the MCA undertook a public consultation on the prohibition of kava-kava. The MCA sought advice on the responses to the consultation both from the CSM and the Medicines Commission, whose terms of reference are broadly to advise Health Ministers on matters relating to the execution of the Medicines Act 1968. Both bodies were asked to advise on the regulatory options in light of the latest scientific evidence and the responses to public consultation. Both advised that kava-kava should be prohibited in unlicensed medicines and that the marketing authorisations for the licensed products should be revoked.

  The advice of the CSM and Medicines Commission on the safety of kava-kava is contained within the minutes of the meetings, which are available in the Library, together with copies of the assessment reports.

  In the light of this advice and having considered all the evidence the Minister considered that the sale, supply and importation of kava-kava should be prohibited.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what case reports of liver damage suspected to be associated with the consumption of Kava-Kava he has received from countries other than Switzerland, Germany, Australia, Canada, France, USA and the UK; and whether evidence of such cases was sought; [96502]

  (2) if he will list member states of the EEA in which products containing Kava-Kava are not prohibited; [96501]

  (3) when the 70 case reports of liver damage suspected to be associated with the consumption of Kava-Kava received by the MCA occurred; and of the 70 cases, how many included a biopsy taken from the patient's liver. [96503]

  Ms Blears
  The regulatory position of kava-kava in Europe has continually changed over the last 12 months as member states completed their regulatory action. The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has requested this
  625W
  information from all European Economic Area member states. A report has been placed in the Library. It is known that when the various national expert committees considered this issue, kava-kava has been prohibited, suspended or had never been marketed in the following member states: Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

  The MCA has received no case reports of hepatotoxicity associated with kava-kava from countries other than the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, France, Australia, Canada and the USA. The MCA has requested this information from all EEA member states as well as Australia, Canada and the USA.

  The following table provides a breakdown of the number of cases of suspected liver damage associated with kava-kava submitted to regulatory authorities with information relating to the onset date of the hepatic reactions. Information relating to the date of onset of the hepatic adverse reactions suspected to be associated with the use of kava-kava has not been provided in 20 of the 70 cases. Three of the case reports state that a liver biopsy was completed.

  Year reaction occurred

  Number of cases of hepatotoxicity

  1990

  1

  1991

  0

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  1994

  2

  1995

  1

  1996

  0

  1997

  1

  1998

  4

  1999

  4

  2000

  8

  2001

  23

  2002

  4

  A report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the medicine and the number of reports received cannot be used as a basis for determining the incidence of a reaction, as neither the total number of reactions occurring nor the number of patients using the herbal medicine is known.

  Legal Actions
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many legal actions have been taken against(a) general dental practitioners, (b) specialist dental practitioners and (c) health authorities in England and Wales by patients who have received retrograde amalgam fillings and whose general health was adversely affected as a result; how many of these actions were successful; and what was the total amount of damages awarded by the courts in respect of such actions; [98354]

  (2) what (a) testing and (b) assessment was made of the (i) efficacy and (ii) safety in relation to the recipient's health of retrograde amalgam fillings for teeth before their use in England and Wales; [98355]
  626W
  (3) when the use of retrograde amalgam fillings was discontinued in England and Wales; and for what reasons. [98353]

  Mr. Lammy
  Amalgam has been used for over 150 years to fill billions of teeth and is still in general use in England and Wales for dental restorations, including retrograde restorations. Apart from rare instances of hypersensitivity, no adverse reactions have been proven. Alternative dental restorative materials are not so easily, quickly and reliably placed. Neither are they so durable. The 1998 European Union expert report concluded that currently available data indicate that mercury from dental amalgam restorations will not cause an unacceptable health risk to the general population. Information is not held centrally on legal actions involving dental treatment, but the Department is not aware of any recent cases about the use of amalgam.

  Medical Doctors
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he has collated on the percentage of those who qualify as a medical doctor who choose to work part-time(a) immediately after qualification, (b) after five years in the profession and (c) after 10 years in the profession, broken down by gender. [97581]

  Mr. Hutton
  The most recent data from the Medical Careers Research Group shows that as a percentage of the 1999 qualifiers surveyed in summer 2000, part-time working as a pre-registration house officer (PRHO) was undertaken by 1.8 per cent. of women and 0 per cent. of men.

  Data from 1996 qualifiers in 2001–02, shows that a total of 4.7 per cent. of male and 17.1 per cent. of female respondents were working in the national health service five years after qualification.

  Data from 1998 qualifiers in 1998–99 shows that a total of 4.5 per cent. of male respondents and 45.8 per cent. of the female respondents were working part-time in the NHS 10 years after qualification.

  The detailed information is shown in the tables.

  The latest data from the Medical Careers Research Group of Oxford University, on part-time working and working in the NHS, by gender, immediately after qualification and five and 10 years after qualification, are as follows.

  Table 1: Immediately after qualification Numbers and percentages of 1999 and 2000 qualifiers who began their PRHO year in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively and numbers doing so who worked part-time

  Men

  Women

  1999 qualifiers

  Not starting PRHO year

  0

  2

  Working part-time as PRHO

  6(0.6%)

  19(1.3%)

  Working full-time as PRHO

  966

  1,389

  PRHO—work pattern not given

  5

  9

  Total PRHOs

  977

  1,417

  2000 qualifiers(25% sample)

  Not starting PRHO year

  1

  0

  Working part-time as PRHO

  0

  7(1.8%)

  Working full-time as PRHO

  291

  381

  PRHO—work pattern not given

  1

  0

  Total PRHOs

  292

  388

  627W

  Table 2: Five years after qualification1 The most recent available data are for the 1996 qualifiers in 2001–02

  Men

  Women

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  NHS(full-time)

  901

  85.2

  893

  71.3

  NHS(part-time)

  50

  4.7

  214

  17.1

  UK medicine (non-NHS)

  32

  3.0

  23

  1.8

  Medicine abroad

  50

  4.7

  70

  5.6

  Non-medical

  25

  2.4

  53

  4.2

  Total

  1,058

  100.0

  1,253

  100.0

  1 The most recent available data are for the 1996 qualifiers in 2001–02

  Table 3:10 years after qualificationl Numbers and percentages of 1988 qualifiers working in the NHS and elsewhere 10 years after qualification, in 1998–99

  Men

  Women

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  NHS(full-time)

  1,120

  81.9

  508

  41.0

  NHS(part-time)

  61

  4.5

  568

  45.8

  UK medicine (non-NHS)

  48

  3.5

  24

  1.9

  Medicine abroad

  126

  9.2

  74

  6.0

  Non-medical

  12

  0.9

  66

  5.3

  Total

  1,367

  100.0

  1,240

  100.0

  1 The most recent available data are for the 1988 qualifiers in 1998–99.

  Medical Students (Tuition Fees)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely effect on numbers of medical students of the proposed increase in tuition fees; and what steps he is taking to increase the number of medical students. [98072]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: Whilst the proposals contained in the Department for Education and Skills' White Paper include allowing universities to increase tuition fees, there is as yet no clear indication from the higher education sector of the scope or scale of any increased charges. The Department of Health will ensure that any increase in the cost of university courses will not have any adverse impact on the supply of students for health training programmes, including medicine.

  We are already making a significant investment in extra places at existing medical schools and in establishing new medical schools. By autumn 2003, United Kingdom medical school intakes are planned to total over 7,050, the highest figure ever. The number of UK applicants to study medicine is at the highest level since 1986, which is the earliest year we have figures for.

  Mental Health (Separate Facilities)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which NHS trusts have not carried out renovations to provide separate sleeping, toilet and washing facilities for male and female mentally ill patients; when work is expected to start at those trusts to provide such arrangements; and if he will make a statement; [99078]
  628W
  (2) which NHS trusts are undergoing works to provide separate washing facilities for men and women who are mentally ill; when work is expected to be completed at those trusts; and if he will make a statement. [99079]

  Mr. Hutton
  The requirement to provide single-sex accommodation was set in 1997 and applies to all trusts providing in-patient services irrespective of the nature of the services they provide. Information on accommodation used for the mentally ill is not kept separately.

  The Department is not aware of any trust which has yet to take action to deliver the standards which we have set.

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health trusts had reached departmental targets for December 2002 to(a) ensure that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for hospital patients, (b) activate the Patient's Charter Standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the NHS and (c) provide safe facilities for patients in hospitals who are mentally ill which safeguard their privacy and dignity. [92551]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement made on 14 January 2003,Official Report, column 24WS.

  The information cannot be provided in the format requested. Information on mental health trusts is not kept separately as mental health services and accommodation are also provided within acute and multi-service trusts.

  National Insurance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the additional employers NI costs for each NHS trust will be in the next financial year. [98824]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on national insurance costs for each national health service trust are not held centrally.

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that NHS Direct retain its responsibility for out-of-hours calls. [99084]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are working towards implementing the NHS Plan target that by the end of 2004, a single phone-call to NHS Direct will be a one-stop gateway to out-of-hours healthcare, passing on calls, where necessary to the appropriate service provider.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his policy that NHS Direct nurses will be the first point of contact for all out-of-hours calls by the end of 2004. [99089]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are working towards implementing the NHS Plan target that by the end of 2004, a single phone-call to NHS Direct will be a one-stop gateway to out-of-hours healthcare, passing on calls, where
  629W
  necessary to the appropriate service provider. This first point of contact could be a qualified call handler or NHS Direct nurse.

  NHS Finance
  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what financial assistance primary care trusts receive to meet(a) Government requirements and (b) PSA targets; [98301]

  (2) how much financial support his Department gives Strategic Health authorities to meet PSA targets. [98307]

  Mr. Hutton
  Revenue allocations are made directly to primary care trusts (PCTs). The revenue allocations for 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 11 December 2002. PCTs received growth of £12.7 billion or 30.8 per cent. in these allocations over the three years.

  None of the revenue growth money has been identified for specific purposes. PCTs will be able to use these extra resources to deliver on both national and local priorities.

  Capital allocations for 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 8 January 2003. These include operational capital allocated to primary care trusts and National Health Service trusts and strategic capital allocated to strategic health authorities. Operational capital increased by £254 million or 33 per cent. and strategic capital by £263 million or 43 per cent. over the three years. £100 million of capital allocations has been earmarked as the access fund to reward organisations making progress towards improving access.

  NHS Magazine
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) gross and (b) net cost is of (i) production and (ii) distribution of NHS magazine; and what its circulation is. [98812]

  Mr. Lammy
  NHS magazine has two editions; NHS magazine, distributed to 27,000 senior staff in acute and secondary health care teams and primary care magazine, distributed to 30,000 staff in primary health care teams.

  Production and distribution costs can be different for different issues, depending on content, advertising revenue and whether any specific staff groups are being sent material of specific interest.

  Costs for each issue are reduced by income from advertising. Publications are not subject to value added tax.

  The normal average costs of production and distribution are shown in the table.

  £

  NHS magazine

  Primary care magazine

  Production

  50,386

  32,876

  Distribution

  12,500

  13,500

  Total(gross)

  62,386

  46,376

  Income from advertising

  7,900

  7,900

  Total(net)

  54,486

  38,476

  NHS Managers (Payment)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Agenda for Change in relation to the payment of NHS managers. [98958]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is developing a new framework governing pay and contractual arrangements for national health service chief executives, board-level directors and other senior posts of comparable job weight immediately below board level. The "Agenda for Change" pay reforms that were successfully negotiated last year will apply to other NHS managers. Both the new framework for board-level posts and the "Agenda for Change" reforms will be based on a new system of job evaluation to ensure fair and transparent links between the basic pay that staff receive and the levels of responsibility, knowledge, skills and effort required in their jobs.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) of 23 January 2003,Official Report, column 478W, on the NHS Pensions Agency, how many applications for permanent injury benefit for a disorder have been submitted in each year since 1997. [96044]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of permanent injury benefit applications in respect of a disorder or injury for the financial years April 1997 to March 2002 is shown in the table.

  Applications

  Number of applications

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  1,161

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  989

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  846

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  723

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  575

  Total

  4,294

  NHS Project Finance
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding he plans to give to PCTs for extra capital for new hospital projects. [98306]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service capital allocations to primary care trusts for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 8 January. These capital allocations will provide funding for new hospital projects along with other capital investments within the NHS.

  This investment will be supplemented by capital allocated to strategic health authorities for larger developments, and by investment from the Private Finance Initiative. Nationally, strategic capital increased by 13 per cent., 11 per cent., 14 per cent. in the years 2003–04 to 2005–06. Figures are not available for individual StHAs, but those in the south west received average increases of 15 per cent., 22 per cent., 22 per cent. over this period.

  NHS Treatment (Europe)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health[pursuant to his answer of 10 February, ref 92556], what types of operation were carried out on the 190 patients in (a) France and (b) Germany; and whether the £1.1 million includes travelling costs of patients and accompanying relatives. [98156]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: Of the 190 patients that were referred for treatment abroad as part of the overseas pilot, 109 were treated in France, and 81 were treated in Germany. Of the patients that were treated in France, 37 were ophthalmology patients, and 72 were orthopaedic patients. All of the patients treated in Germany were orthopaedic patients.

  The figure of £1.1 million quoted in the answer of 10 February, includes the costs of both treatment and travel for patients. The lead commissioners do not have a general power to fund travel and accommodation costs for companions. Companions can only be funded if it can be demonstrated that it is medically necessary that the patient be accompanied.

  NHS Waste Report
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the report on waste in the NHS produced by the head of the Downing Street Delivery Unit. [96066]

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 1999 Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding HA staff)

  3 month vacancy rate (percentage)

  3 month vacancy number

  March 1999

  England (excluding HA staff)

  2.8

  7,147

  North Derbyshire HA

  1.8

  25

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  3.5

  25

  Community Health Care Services (North Derbyshire) NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  South Derbyshire HA

  0.0

  0

  Community Health Services (South Derbyshire)NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  Derbyshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  Southern Derbyshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey/ March 2002 Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding HA staff)

  3 month vacancy rate (percentage)

  3 month vacancy number

  March 2002

  England (excluding HA staff)

  3.1

  8,394

  North Derbyshire HA

  0.8

  13

  Chesterfield & N Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  1.2

  10

  Chesterfield PCT

  0.0

  0

  Community Health Care Services(North Derbyshire)NHS Trust

  0.8

  3

  North Eastern Derbyshire PCT

  0.0

  0

  South Derbyshire HA

  2.1

  54

  632W
  Ms Blears
  There is no report on waste in the National Health service.

  The delivery unit report is produced by the head of the Downing Street delivery unit twice a year and is an internal discussion and advice document which is exempt from publication under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Exemption 2).

  NICE
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of a technology appraisal has been by NICE since its establishment. [95687]

  Ms Blears
  The average time taken to complete an appraisal is 13.76 months.

  Nursing Vacancies (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing vacancies there were in each Derbyshire NHS trust in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [98891]

  Mr. Lammy
  There is no data available on nursing vacancies prior to 1999. Since March that year the National Health Service has regularly conducted a vacancy survey. This survey collects information on the number of posts that the trusts are actively trying to fill which have been vacant for three months or more.

  The tables show data collected from surveys that were carried out in March 1999 and March 2002.
  633W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey/March 2002 Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff(excluding HA staff)

  3 month vacancy rate (percentage)

  3 month vacancy number

  Amber Valley PCT

  5.1

  6

  Central Derby PCT

  0.0

  0

  Erewash PCT

  8.4

  10

  Greater Derby PCT

  4.5

  5

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  Southern Derbyshire Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  4.6

  33

  Note:

  Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more(whole time equivalents), expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post

  Sources:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 1999

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002

  Obesity
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning obesity and the introduction of national care standards; and what assessment he has made of the impact of care standards regarding obesity on(a) private clinics and (b) nursing homes. [96891]

  Ms Blears
  We have not received any representations concerning obesity and the introduction of national standards. We have not made any assessment specifically related to the impact of the standards regarding obesity in care(nursing) homes or private clinics.

  However, national standards are designed to ensure care provision is fit for the purpose and meet the assessed needs of the home's residents. Among other things there are standards to ensure that care homes promote and maintain their residents health, that residents are given appropriate exercise and physical activity, and that residents receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet.

  Out-Patient Waiting Lists
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for an out-patient appointment was in England in 2002. [97738]

  Mr. Hutton
  The estimated average waiting time for a first consultant outpatient appointment in England in 2002 was 7.25 weeks.

  Overseas Nurses
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the 25 countries were from which the highest number of overseas nurses were recruited in each of the last five years; and how many nurses were recruited from each country in each year. [98393]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: This information is not held centrally. The Nursing and Midwifery Council registers all nurses who work in the United Kingdom and holds statistics for the number of overseas nurses who are accepted onto their register.

  Pathology Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many serious clinical incidents have taken place since 634W
  Hammersmith Hospital took over the contract to provide pathology services to West Middlesex Hospital and Hounslow Primary Care Trust. [96718]

  Mr. Hutton
  There have been 167 serious untoward incidents reported to North West London Strategic Health Authority.

  In order to ensure patient safety, the change in service provision in north-west London has been closely monitored. Clinicians have been required to use the serious untoward incident reporting system to highlight any incidents of the system not functioning smoothly. This is part of a culture of reporting potential risks, even where there has been no actual harm to patients. The aim is to identify and manage potential risks and therefore encourage their reporting.

  Patient Choice
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in London waiting more than six months for elective surgery had a choice of alternative hospital in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001, (e) 2002 and (f) 2003. [98924]

  Mr. Hutton
  The London patient choice project (LPCP) started offering choice on 23 September 2002 to patients with cataracts with the first operation on 1 October 2002. Between 1 October 2002 and 10 February 2003, 2,628 patients were offered choice. Of these, 1,859 accepted.

  The LPCP was extended to include a range of surgical procedures in the specialties of general surgery; orthopaedics and ear, nose and throat in the week commencing 10 February 2003. It will be further extended to cover other specialties and procedures this summer.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in London waiting more than six months for cataract surgery had a choice of alternative hospital in(a)1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001, (e) 2002 and (f) 2003. [98931]

  Mr. Hutton
  The London patient choice project (LPCP) started offering choice on 23 September 2002 to patients with cataracts with the first operation on 1 October 2002.
  635W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients from Hendon he expects to be offered a change of hospital under patient choice in(a) this and (b) the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [98933]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients in Hendon are eligible for the London patient choice project. Barnet and Chase Farm National Health Service Trust has 1,024 patients who have been offered choice in the financial year 2002–03 and expects that, for the financial year 2003–04, a further 1,100 will be made a choice offer.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatments are available to patients in Hendon under "Patient's Choice", at hospitals other than those to which they were originally referred; and if he will make a statement. [98943]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients in Hendon are eligible for the London patient choice project. This project started to offer choice for cataract patients who have already waited more than six months for treatment, in October 2002 and from March 2003 will be offering a similar choice in ear, nose and throat, general surgery and orthopaedics. The scheme rolls out to other surgical specialties such as gynaecology, urology and plastic surgery from summer 2003.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many choices of alternative hospital patients in London waiting for six months for cataract surgery have had since 1997, and what has been the average wait between referral and treatment in the alternative hospital. [99092]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients are usually offered two alternative hospitals for cataract surgery.

  The average wait between referral and treatment would be between two and four weeks, not including the time it may take to contact the patient and for them to make a decision. The contact process usually commences before the patient reaches six months on the list.

  Where a patient is found to have a second cataract, they are expected to be treated within one and three months, should they so choose.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many choices of alternative hospital the 100,000 extra patients identified by him in his speech of 11 February will have; and who will determine their eligibility. [99102]

  Mr. Hutton
  The precise range of choice offered to patients is being designed on a project by project basis. Some projects are offering choice for those patients already on a waiting list for six months, and in others choice is being offered at the point of booking into an out-patient clinic.

  For the six month waiting patients, a choice of one alternative treatment centre will be offered. For choice at the point of booking, two alternative treatment centres will be offered.

  All projects will produce patient care pathways for each procedure, utilising nationally available guidance and advice. The pathways that cover eligibility criteria will then developed with clinicians. The trust on whose waiting list the patient is held before the start of the choice process.
  636W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will determine whether a patient in London waiting more than six months for elective surgery is eligible to choose an alternative hospital. [99105]

  Mr. Hutton
  The London patient choice project takes as a starting point that the whole process of choice must be safe and quality assured from the patient perspective. The project has therefore produced patient care pathways for each procedure. These utilise nationally available guidance and advice, such as that published by the Royal Colleges and the Department of Health, as a core foundation. The pathways that cover eligibility criteria have then been developed in conjunction with clinicians in London.

  The trust on whose waiting list the patient is held before the start of the choice process, checks whether the patient falls within the eligibility criteria for choice. However the transfer of clinical responsibility does not take place until the patient has been seen and accepted in a pre-admission clinic in the alternative hospital.

  Problematic Drug Users
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many problematic drug users were known to the social services as children. [98147]

  Ms Blears
  We are not aware of any relevant statistics held centrally on how many problematic drug users were known to the social services as children.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the Government's campaign to tackle effectively prostate cancer; and if he will make a statement. [97137]

  Ms Blears
  Good progress has been made since the national health service prostate cancer programme was launched on 6 September 2000, setting out the Government's approach to improving prostate cancer services in England and Wales.

  As part of the prostate cancer risk management programme (PCRMP), evidence-based primary care resource packs were sent to all general practitioners in England from 23 September 2002 to aid them in counselling men who are worried about prostate cancer, ensuring the men make an informed choice about whether or not to have a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test.

  Other elements of the PCRMP include ensuring that a systematic and standardised follow-up pathway is available for individuals whose test result is above the PSA threshold and action to improve the quality of laboratory testing of PSA samples. Primary care and laboratories were informed of recommendations from the scientific reference group, which supports the PCRMP, in September 2002.

  By 2003–04, the Department will be directly funding £4.2 million of research a year on prostate cancer. This is a 20-fold increase compared with 1999–2000. Two National Cancer Research Institute prostate cancer research collaboratives have been established in Newcastle and London. Funded research includes studies on various treatments for prostate cancer,

  637W
  improving the PSA test and ethnic differences in prostate cancer incidence. The National Cancer Research Institute considered prostate cancer as part of its strategic analysis in 2002, but made no specific recommendations.

  The Department is funding a Section 64 grant to the Prostate Cancer Charity to increase further information about prostate cancer. This is supporting the creation, review, provision and dissemination of a range of awareness material, supported by £135,000 over three years. 92.4 per cent. of patients with suspected urological cancers, including prostate, were seen for their first out-patient appointment within two weeks of their general practitioner deciding they should be urgently referred, and the hospital receiving the referral within 24 hours, in April to June 2002.

  The cancer services collaborative is modernising cancer care, including prostate cancer, by reducing unnecessary delays in the system for patients throughout the cancer journey.

  The number of consultant urologists grew from 382 in 2000 to 427 in 2001, and is set to grow to 504 in 2005. There may be around an additional 100 trained specialists available to take up consultant posts in urology.

  The Government welcomed the launch of the prostate cancer charter for action on 29 January 2003. We look forward to working closely with the charter. To ensure better collaboration and communication between the charter members, the Government intend to set up a prostate cancer advisory group, allowing us to combine the expertise of the voluntary sector with the national health service for the benefit of patients.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of the reorganisation from the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Social Services Inspectorate. [97814]

  Jacqui Smith
  Work is currently in hand to consider how the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection will be established. Estimates of costing have not yet been made but will be undertaken in due course as it becomes clearer how these independent new bodies will carry out their functions.

  Subject to legislation, the Commission for Social Care Inspection will bring together the functions of the Social Services Inspectorate and the social care functions of the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will encompass the Commission for Health Improvement, the healthcare related functions of the NCSC, the health value for money work of the Audit Commission and, subject to the passage of further legislation, the work of the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS workers, who have received pension 638W
  payouts or redundancy payouts, have been employed by, or given remunerated services to, the NHS following their pension or redundancy payout in the last three years for which figures are available. [95638]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 February 2003]: The information requested is not collected centrally. The Department of Health issued Health Service Guidance (95)25, NHS early retirement arrangements, which clearly states that offers of re-employment or payments for consultancy work are not expected to be made to former national health service employees who have taken early retirement from the NHS at public expense, unless the offer clearly represents good value for money in relation to alternatives.

  Further employment of staff who receive early payment of NHS pension benefits as a result of compulsory redundancy, or who volunteer to retire early with actuarially reduced pension benefits, is not restricted. However, the HSG provides guidelines on the abatement and suspension of NHS pension during reemployment in the NHS.

  Renewable Energy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes in unit payments for electricity have resulted from the switch by his Department to purchasing renewable energy which is exempt from the Climate Change Levy. [96482]

  Ms Blears
  The Department first purchased renewable energy for consumption in its London headquarters buildings from October 2001. The current average unit charge for renewable electricity on the estate, compared to the average unit price charged prior to October 2001, shows a reduction of around 10 per cent.

  Spanish Eggs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the risks to health from eggs imported from Spain. [97710]

  Ms Blears
  During October and November 2002, there was a marked increase in the number of outbreaks of Salmonella Enteritidis. Many of these were linked to the use of eggs in catering and in the majority of these, the eggs appeared to have originated from Spain.

  Investigations of eggs linked to outbreaks and of eggs in catering premises, carried out by the Public Health Laboratory Service, have identified a higher level of contamination of Spanish eggs by Salmonella (5 per cent. of pooled samples) than was found in previous surveys of eggs, whether United Kingdom produced (1 per cent. of pooled samples) or non-UK produced (2 per cent. of pooled samples).

  Eggs, regardless of their origin, cannot be guaranteed to be Salmonella free. However, the risk to public health can be minimised if eggs are properly handled and cooked. The FoodStandards Agency has reiterated advice to a wide range of food businesses, including those catering for vulnerable groups, on the correct handling and use of raw shell eggs. It has drawn the problem with eggs to the attention of the European Commission and the Spanish authorities and has

  639W
  advised importers and wholesalers of imported eggs to send eggs imported from Spain for commercial heat treatment until further notice. Since this advice was issued, the number of outbreaks has fallen to normal background levels.

  Specialist Commissioning
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reasons underlay his decision to postpone the transfer of specialist commissioning to primary care trusts until April 2004; and if he will make a statement. [95856]

  Mr. Hutton
  Decisions on the future arrangements for specialist commissioning will be taken shortly.

  Speech Therapy
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he plans to ensure that primary care trusts provide speech therapy to meet children's statemented needs. [97180]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Shifting the Balance of Power" gives primary care trusts (PCTs) the responsibility of improving the health of the community, securing the provision of high quality services and integrating health and social care locally.

  We are assisting this by increasing the numbers of speech and language therapists (SLTs). Between September 1997 and 2001, the number of SLTs employed in the national health service increased by 17 per cent., from 4,870 to 5,680. The numbers of SLTs entering training have increased by 21 per cent., from 457 to 553 between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. Also, with the extra investment announced in the 2002 Budget, by 2008 the NHS will have net increases of at least 30,000 scientists and therapists, including speech and language therapists. over the September 2001 staff census.

  A children care group work force team was established in December 2001 to take a national view on the health and social care work force pressures and priorities for children and maternity services. It supports the strategy set out in "The HR in the NHS Plan", published in July 2002, which aims to grow and develop the NHS work force.

  One of the main priorities for the care group is to support the development of the children's national service framework. This includes action to develop a framework of the skills and competencies needed in the work force to deliver quality person-centred care for children, young people and expectant mothers. This will help to ensure that national educational needs are identified and action taken through the care group, and that at a local level, primary care trusts have the information needed to make adequate provision for children's services. This would include the provision of speech therapy.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instigate an inquiry into the staffing and funding of speech therapy in(a) special schools and (b) mainstream schools. [97182]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Voluntary Residential Accommodation
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether voluntary residential accommodation is covered by his Department's inspection and enforcement procedures. [98928]

  Mr. Hutton
  Where accommodation is rented from a hospital on a voluntary basis and there is no contractual requirement to provide on-call duties from that accommodation, the accommodation will not be covered by the inspection requirements of HSC2000/036. It will be covered by the Houses in Multiple Occupancy Regulations and other local authority standards to ensure basic habitability.

  Welfare Food Scheme
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the value of benefit under the Welfare Food Scheme is as a proportion of the household food budget, for the poorest 20 per cent. of mothers who bottle feed. [99016]

  Ms Blears
  The Welfare Food Scheme is primarily targeted at low income families in receipt of income support and income based job seekers' allowance. Certain families in receipt of working families' tax credit are also eligible for specific provisions under the scheme. It is not possible to identify the poorest 20 per cent. of beneficiaries within these groups. The majority of eligible mothers in the scheme with a child under one opt to take-up infant formula.

  Bottle-feeding mothers with a child under one in receipt of income support or income based job seekers' allowance are entitled to a benefit which consists of a fixed amount of milk. They receive milk tokens which can be exchanged for seven pints of liquid milk or one 900g tin of infant formula per week. The monetary value of the milk is variable as it is dependent upon the price charged by retailers and manufacturers.

  Certain families in receipt of working families' tax credit are entitled to purchase 900g tins of infant formula at a discounted rate from designated national health service clinics.

  Sigmoidoscopy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospitals in the UK are equipped to perform flexible sigmoidoscopies;. [96070]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of patients subject to rigid sigmoidoscopy procedures who could have a flexible sigmoidoscopy; [96071]

  (3) what percentage of patients investigated for bowel cancer are subject to (a) rigid sigmoidoscopy, (b) flexible sigmoidoscopy and (c) barium enema and (d) colonoscopy. [95993]

  Ms Blears
  Data is not available on the number of hospitals that are equipped to perform flexible sigmoidoscopies, nor on the percentage of bowel cancer
  641W
  patients that have individual investigations. The decision as to the appropriate diagnostic test for any patient will be for the clinical judgment of the clinician in charge of the patient's care, taking full consideration of the patient's presenting symptoms.
  642W
  A national health service bowel cancer programme was announced on 5 February 2003. The aim of the programme is to develop a national screening programme for bowel cancer and speed up diagnosis and treatment for patients with the disease.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Tourism
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  Following the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's review of Planning Policy Guidance note 21 on tourism, I am announcing today the publication of a consultation paper. This seeks views on a proposal to replace PPG21 with good practice guidance on planning for tourism. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Government Association
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  Today we published a protocol agreeing with the Local Government Association (LGA) a clear approach for engagement and intervention where council performance is unacceptable.

  The approach set out in the protocol provides for the Government and LGA to discuss policy for the use of intervention powers, including how best to facilitate a role for the LGA in supporting local authorities.

  It has been broadened in scope to encompass Government engagement with poorly performing local authorities on a voluntary basis. The protocol derives from a Framework for Partnership signed under the central local partnership in November 1997.

  The protocol sets out the general principles that will underpin the engagement of central government with individual local authorities whose performance, including their capacity to improve, is categorised under the system of comprehensive performance assessment as poor or weak with little or no prospect for improvement.

  It also applies to other circumstances where the Government take the view that an authority's performance in a particular service area is sufficiently poor to justify Government engagement or intervention.

  protocol also sets out general principles for the orderly resumption of service by local authorities following intervention.

  Transport and Social Exclusion
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche)
  The Social Exclusion Unit has today published Making the Connections, its final report on Transport and Social Exclusion. Copies have been placed in the Library.
  20WS
  This report sets out a new strategy to help people on low incomes get to work and key services like jobs, schools and hospitals. The report includes a package of measures across government to improve transport links and to support people on low incomes and in deprived areas in reaching the services we all need.

  The cornerstone of the report is a new commitment to accessibility planning, in which local transport authorities will lead a process of auditing and action to ensure accessibility—meaning that people can get where they need to go.

  The report builds on existing Government initiatives to help improve accessibility, like the £123 million funding of the Rural and Urban Bus Challenges. It includes action right across central and local Government, for example:
  Better travel information in Jobcentre Plus offices to help broaden horizons for those seeking work
  £l4 million to help fund new transport to college
  Transport to healthcare organised around the needs of the patient and supported by better information on travel options
  Better joint working between local authorities and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to reduce crime and fear of crime around public transport
  Revised planning guidance so new services are easier to reach

  To help tackle higher rates of pedestrian deaths in deprived areas—a further issue highlighted in the report—Transport Ministers announced last November that £17 million of Government investment will go to the most deprived local authorities to help bring those rates down.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (Northern Ireland)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  During the making of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc) Order 2001 in February 2001, the Government gave an undertaking that they would review the need for the Order after two years. This stage has now been reached and I am therefore requesting views from interested parties as to whether the Order is still applicable to the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland. I shall be writing to the Northern Ireland political parties, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee and the Electoral Commission.

  The Order, made under section 70 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), exempted the Northern Ireland political parties from the requirement to comply with part IV of the Act for four years. Part IV is intended to impose restrictions on the source of donations so as to prohibit foreign and anonymous donations to political parties.

  The provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act are based on the recommendations contained in the fifth report on Standards in Public Life,

  21WS
  chaired by Lord Neill and published in 1998. The Neill Committee concluded that it would be unsafe to disclose the names of those who made donations to the Northern Ireland parties as this may result in their intimidation. It was also recommended that it would not be right to ban contributions from Ireland given its special role in Northern Ireland's political life, as set out in the Belfast Agreement.

  The Government accepted the Neill Committee recommendations including those in respect of Northern Ireland. However, the consequence of this was that donations from countries other than Ireland could not be prohibited as there would be no way to prevent donations from other countries being routed through Ireland. It therefore became apparent that a ban on foreign funding could not be policed in Northern Ireland.

  Once the review is concluded, I will, of course, report back to the House.

TRANSPORT

  Thames Safety (Marchioness Sinking)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  On 20 August 1989 the passenger vessel Marchioness and the dredger Bowbelle collided on the Thames. The Marchioness sank and 51 people tragically lost their lives.

  Ten years later the Deputy Prime Minister announced a wide ranging public inquiry into the current safety regime on the River Thames and the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Marchioness. The public inquiry also considered whether there should be a formal investigation into the tragedy.

  Following all the inquiries Lord Justice Clarke has made a total of 74 recommendations on Thames safety. Since November 2001 I have kept both Houses informed on progress on these through two reports placed in the Libraries at six monthly intervals.

  I have placed a third update in the Libraries today. Much progress has, and continues to be made and this will therefore be the final report of its kind.

  Since the inquiry:
  manning and training on passenger ships has been reviewed and guidance prepared on safety training for crew and support staff on passenger vessels;
  the Safety Management Code for domestic passenger ships has been introduced, and we believe this is supporting a more focussed safety culture in the industry;
  the London Coastguard now co-ordinates all Search and Rescue activities on the tidal River Thames, and the five RNLI lifeboats installed in January 2002 have proved their value by attending 679 incidents in their first 12 months;
  MCA continues to work with other Member States to ensure that the introduction of European standards for passenger ships on inland waterways does not compromise passenger safety in the UK;
  a Formal Safety Assessment, carried out since the introduction of many recommendations from the Thames Safety Inquiry and Marchioness Formal Investigation has shown that the overall level of safety on the River Thames falls within acceptable limits, judged against HSE criteria. Work is continuing to identify areas where additional
  22WS
  safety measures could bring the most significant safety benefits. This work will be completed by the end of this year.
  recommendations in respect of alcohol are being implemented through the Railways and Transport Safety Bill which is currently before the House.

  We believe that the safety measures put in place immediately after the Marchioness disaster and again more recently following the Thames safety inquiry and Marchioness formal investigation, substantially reduce the risk of a further tragedy and would significantly improve the response to such an incident. However, we continue to look for ways to improve safety on all passenger ships through education, proportionate regulation and enforcement.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Buildings
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)
  The quality of school buildings is central to the quality of pupils' education. High—quality buildings are an essential support for our educational vision of ambitious expectations, specialism and excellence, local collaboration, community involvement and high-quality teaching and learning. We are today publishing a consultative document, "Building Schools for the Future", to take forward a radical approach to improving the stock of school buildings. This document, which is being sent to all schools and other relevant bodies, shows how we aim to reform the way we allocate capital funding, design schools and procure school buildings. Our aim is to transform the conditions in which our secondary school children are educated, and to continue improving the quality of primary schools.

  Over the last six years, schools and local education authorities have used increasing capital investment to tackle the backlog of repairs caused by decades of under-funding. Capital investment in this period has risen from less than £700 million to £3 billion. This money has been spread relatively evenly across schools and local education authorities. This has been right when most schools and all local education authorities had urgent repair needs, and they have done well in tackling the backlog. But understandably, investment until now has focused on repairs and maintenance, not on achieving systematic structural change. We believe that the most urgent of the backlog will soon have been addressed.

  The increase in schools capital investment to over £5 billion in 2005–06, announced by the Chancellor last July, gives us the opportunity for a new approach which will aim to support a step change in standards. We can continue existing, successful capital programmes, such as those already available to all schools and local education authorities. But we can do more.

  The Government commit themselves, in "Building schools for the future", to a programme of rebuilding and renewal to ensure that secondary education in every part of England has facilities of 21st-Century standard. The aim of this programme will be to deliver this goal successfully for every secondary school within 10 to 15

  23WS
  years from 2005–06, subject to future public spending decisions. We will also aim to provide substantial investment in primary school buildings.

  The programme will be driven by standards—focused plans generated locally—by partnerships of local education authorities, schools, governors and the wider community. Proposals will be prioritised on the basis of agreed criteria, which could include educational standards, deprivation, condition of buildings, and readiness to deliver step change in provision.

  We need to support local endeavour in the delivery of our aims. Therefore, we are planning a range of exemplar designs for primary and secondary schools as a basis for local decisions about renewal plans. We will consult widely to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are addressed. We also want to reform the procurement process, to address capacity pressures at all levels and to bring innovation and efficiency into the construction of school buildings. We are working on the creation of a new national procurement body for this purpose. A balance of conventional and PFI funding will be used, where each is most appropriate.
  24WS
  We believe this educational vision and new approach to capital investment will benefit all. We aim to have school buildings that:
  drive reform of the secondary system and improvements in educational standards;support teachers' teaching and pupils' learning;are used by the community;are well—designed, built on time and at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer, and properly maintained over their lives.
  Copies of the launch document will be placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Food Standards Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)
  The Food Standards Agency's annual report and accounts 2001–02 was laid before Parliament today.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Personal Statement
  The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall make a brief personal statement. Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked me a question about U2 flights over Iraq. I was given wrong information and answered that there had been none; in fact there had been two. It is regrettable that that occurred, but perhaps understandable because of the flurry of questions yesterday. As soon as I discovered the error yesterday, I wrote at once to the noble Baroness, to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, to explain and apologise. I repeat that explanation and apology to your Lordships today, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.

  Hepatitis C
  2.36 p.m.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest—not a financial one—as president of the Haemophilia Society.
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what new help is under consideration for people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products and the dependants of those who have since died of their infection.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we recently announced an extra £88 million over the next three years to provide synthetic clotting factors for haemophilia patients. Our aim is that by March 2006 the vast majority of haemophilia patients should be receiving those products.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend both for that reply and for the change of policy announced in his written reply to me on 12th February about making the safer recombinant treatment available to haemophilia patients nationwide. When will the promised further meeting take place with the Haemophilia Society to discuss its compensation proposals for people infected with hepatitis C by contaminated NHS blood products?
  232
  Again, is my noble friend aware of the Scottish Executive's proposals for financial recompense and can we be absolutely assured that infected patients will not be treated differently according to where they live in the United Kingdom?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks and pay tribute to him and to the Haemophilia Society for their efforts in this direction. The Government are still considering the details of the report submitted by the Haemophilia Society. We will respond to the society and my noble friend as soon as our consideration of the report is complete.
  A report from a Scottish expert group is being considered by the Scottish Executive. I understand that no decisions have been made. Of course, that does not affect the position in England; it is solely a matter for the Scottish Executive.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, although the infection was accidental and arose from treatment intended to be beneficial, do the Government accept that they have a duty to assist all those who have been infected in coping with the consequences?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that the National Health Service should do everything it can to ensure that the services it provides are as effective as possible. If the noble Lord was raising the question of compensation—I think he may have been—he will know that as soon as the technology to make blood products free from hepatitis C was available, it was introduced by the National Health Service. The Government have given the matter long and hard consideration. We reached the same decision as did the previous government—that there was and is no legal liability on which we could justify paying compensation.
  Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, although the Minister is absolutely right to say that there is no legal liability to compensate those infected by the agent through no fault of their own, and although it is true that the whole spirit of no-fault compensation has been anathema to successive governments, is there not a strong moral obligation on the Government to compensate those individuals infected with hepatitis C through receiving that treatment?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot pretend that it was an easy decision for the Government to make. We gave the matter careful consideration and, in the end, felt that the decision taken by the previous Conservative government was right.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the NHS has made the far-sighted decision to fund synthetic blood treatment for haemophiliacs—we all welcome that Why cannot the Government, for less money than is being made available for synthetic products for those who

  233
  could prospectively be infected by hepatitis C, do the same for those who have been infected by blood products in the past?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot add anything to my previous answers. We have given the matter careful consideration. The fact is that, as soon as the technology became available to make blood products free from hepatitis C, the NHS introduced it. There is no legal liability to justify compensation for those who were so unfortunately affected in that way.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, does the Minister know how many patients infected with hepatitis C who have inherited bleeding disorders are able to access state-of-the-art treatment with pegalated interferon and ribavirin and with specialised hepatology follow-up?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have referred the matter to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. It is considering pegalated interferon; it expects to issue guidance to the NHS in November 2003.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Haemophilia Society. Why are patients in Wales and Scotland receiving recombinant, which is a safer form of blood product, but not patients in England? How long will it take for all English haemophiliacs to receive it?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, we expect that the scheme will have been completely introduced by 2006. The position in Scotland and Wales is an issue relevant to the administrations there.
  The number of haemophilia patients in the rest of the UK is much smaller than that in England. That is also a factor in determining the timescale for introducing the scheme completely. I can also reassure the noble Baroness that the Government will work with the Haemophilia Society to put in place a strategy to implement the scheme effectively.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in 2001, we spent £206 million in compensating those injured by criminals? That is 341 million euros. The combined amount spent by the whole EU, excluding ourselves, is less than what we paid. They paid out 290 million euros. Does the noble Lord agree that the demands on the generosity of the Government with regard to haemophiliacs should be greater? They were injured by the NHS, as opposed to being victims of criminal behaviour, for which the Government are in no way vicariously responsible. Will the noble Lord explain why there is one law for those injured by others and another for those injured by the NHS?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the cases are different. The criminal injuries compensation scheme makes payments to victims of violent crime. That is a
  234
  different set of circumstances from the one we are discussing. I have already explained why the Government made the decision that we did.
  I do not pretend that the question is an easy one. To noble Lords opposite, I say that their government also had to make a difficult decision, and I believe that they made the right one. It is not easy. We all recognise the problems of those affected, but I do not think that it is justifiable to move from the principle that I enunciated.

  Supermarkets: Payments to Suppliers
  2.46 p.m.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will invite the Competition Commission to review the practice of supermarket chains taking 100 days' credit before paying farmers for their produce.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a result of the Competition Commission's detailed report on supermarkets in 2000, the largest four supermarkets signed legally binding undertakings to comply with a code of practice governing relations with their suppliers. Last week, the Office of Fair Trading announced that it was embarking on a review of the code and would write to suppliers' organisations and the supermarkets themselves, requesting views on how the code has worked in practice. If any supplier has evidence that a signatory to the code of practice is not meeting the requirements of the code, he or she should approach the Office of Fair Trading.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that expected reply. The code of practice states that the supermarket should pay "within a reasonable time". That is open to a little interpretation, but 100 days is outwith the normal practice, especially as the farmers have waited for over a year to sell their goods, whereas the supermarkets place them on the shelves and get their money the next day.
  Does the Minister think that there is a case for the Competition Commission to consider again the position of farmers relative to the supermarkets? They recommended the break-up of Milk Marque, which was to the great detriment of the farmers.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is difficult to define what reasonable payment should be. The only safe thing for us to do is to say that it is a matter of a commercial contract between the suppliers and the supermarkets. There is, however, the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, which says that, in default of any other agreement, the payment period should be 30 days. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, would welcome that as an alternative period to the 100 days that he cited.
  The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity to commend direct selling from the farmers to the public, through the farmers' markets and the like that take place in many of the northern dales that I know? That system requires no credit.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I am in a position to commend that system as a Minister, but, as an individual and a user of farmers' markets wherever they can be found, I think that they are a good thing.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. Does the noble Lord agree that, in most sectors, the supermarkets are supplied by processors? Nowadays, they take almost all of a processor's production and call that a "partnership". It is a strange sort of partnership.
  Will the Office of Fair Trading look into the number of processors that have ceased to be public limited companies because they can no longer offer the financial returns that make them attractive to investors? Similarly, the processors do not have a margin to pass back to the farmers.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if that is part of the code of practice, it could well be part of the review that the Office of Fair Trading is to undertake, which I just announced. I see no reason why it should not be part of that review.
  The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, in view of the difficult financial situation in which British farmers find themselves and the problems with supermarkets to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, alluded, is DEFRA paying promptly all the moneys that it owes to farmers in compensation for bovine TB, for example, and for arable area payments and so on? There is a great deal of unease in farming communities that DEFRA payments also are being unduly delayed.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as one who, when I was in the private sector, used to complain about government departments being very slow in paying private suppliers, I have much sympathy with the question. I cannot give an unqualified undertaking that any department is, in all circumstances, paying with a reasonable amount of delay, but there has been a substantial crackdown on late payment by government departments.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, when the Minister last replied to my question on this issue, he kindly subsequently wrote to me to correct the implication in his answer that the code would be reviewed every six months. For the reasons highlighted by my noble friend Lord Mackie, it is obvious that the code is not working very well at the moment, so will the Minister ensure that a review does take place every six
  236
  months? Will he further ensure that the specifications of items that supermarkets make to their suppliers are not unreasonably changed?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that a review is about to start. Any subsequent interval will be decided in due course. It is not necessarily a good thing for a review to take place every six months. One of the issues that the review will have to deal with is the reluctance of suppliers to come forward to make complaints. It is a serious matter. That is why the Office of Fair Trading has made it clear that it will accept complaints from suppliers' organisations rather than from individual suppliers, which will be able to make their complaints to those organisations in confidence. That is a significant step forward. It will help the code of practice to work better than perhaps it has done in the past.

  Home Office: Correspondence
  2.52 p.m.
  Baroness Knight of Collingtreeasked Her Majesty's Government:
  What steps they are taking to improve the way the Home Office deals with correspondence.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and his ministerial colleagues attach the highest importance to the speed and quality of replies to all correspondence. A number of important initiatives, led by Ministers, have helped to drive up performance. These include the development of a new, computer-based correspondence tracking system, which is currently being piloted. This will radically change the way in which the department handles letters and help it to produce more timely responses.
  Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. When dealing with this issue, will the Minister look particularly at the length of time that the Home Office takes to answer letters? Is he aware that since last November I have had no fewer than three different communications from the Home Office? The latest communication is dated 14th January 2003 and refers to a letter of mine of 18th December 1992. Is not that a little too long to wait?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if it is 1992, it is indefensible. My noble friend has reminded me that we had a Conservative government back in 1992. But these matters are above politics. I understand that there is a particular glitch in one of the computer systems which turns back correspondence and dates it from 1992. A few unfortunate replies have been sent with that date on them. The noble Baroness has probably received one or two of those.
  The Home Office is well aware that it has been a poor performer in terms of responding to correspondence. The good news is that over the past year there has been

  237
  a measured improvement. I understand that in 2001–02, for instance, the number of ministerial replies drafted and dispatched within 10 days was 63 per cent; last year it was 74 per cent. More importantly, the public are getting their correspondence responded to on a target of 90 per cent within two working days. That is a cumulative performance figure. So there have been improvements on previous years. The department takes this issue very seriously and it is for that reason that it has introduced the correspondence tracking system.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right, there is a serious concern about delays. If the Government can set targets for removal in failed asylum and immigration cases, would it not be possible to set targets for such cases to be dealt with before the people are removed? There have been cases where replies have been received after the people have been deported. It would be much easier to deal with cases before the people leave these shores.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; that would be highly desirable. It is exactly the objective towards which the Home Office is striving. It should be remembered that the Home Office receives approximately 1 million items of correspondence in any given year. While that is not an excuse for poor performance, it does begin to explain the strain on its correspondence system.
  Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, while the Minister is looking at the way in which the Home Office handles correspondence, will he see what he can do to end the infuriating practice of "pass the parcel"? A letter that I wrote to the Home Office on 12th December was, for some reason or other, shunted to the Lord Chancellor's Department. The officials there decided that they did not like the look of it and it has now gone to the Department for Transport.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not surprised that it has been "shunted" towards the Department for Transport. I apologise for the pun. The department responsible for that particular aspect of a public service will end up dealing with the noble Lord's letter. It is true that some correspondence may have gone incorrectly to a particular department where a departmental responsibility had changed. That may have happened in the instance referred to by the noble Lord.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in early December I wrote a letter to one of his colleagues complaining on behalf of a prisoner who had allegedly been badly treated in prison? I received a letter about six weeks later informing me that the correspondence had been lost. I wrote again and a month after that I at last received a reply. Is it not
  238
  rather shocking that in a case like that, through sheer inefficiency—I do not say on behalf of Ministers, but on behalf of someone—it has taken two and a half months to deal with the matter? Will the Government try to improve on that?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a very serious matter. It is something that we should highlight and focus upon. I shall be more than happy to take up that particular case outside your Lordships' House and ensure that responses to the noble Lord are more prompt in future.
  On a more practical note, one of the reasons the computer-based correspondence tracking system has been introduced is to stop the physical movement of correspondence around the department. All correspondence which comes into the department will be electronically scanned and therefore the process of tracking correspondence and ensuring that there are proper and appropriate follow-up replies will be aided and eased. It is to be hoped that the kind of instances described by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not happen in the future.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, while it was tolerable for Ministers to ask parliamentarians to write to officials rather than to themselves because they were at one stage over-pressed, it was less tolerable that one received letters describing the decision taken in the case nine months after the event—or, indeed, as other noble Lords have said, the papers were lost altogether. Has the pressure on Ministers now eased sufficiently to enable them to absorb the correspondence themselves and not let it disappear into the general maw of the Home Office?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I described the volume of the problem for the Home Office: it receives somewhere in the region of 1 million letters per annum. That is a fantastic volume of correspondence. One would like to imagine that pressures on Ministers have eased, but no doubt those pressures are still there. However, that does not excuse any department from producing timely and courteous replies and ensuring that cases are properly followed up. That is the course that the Home Office and all other government departments wish to follow.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, matters are improving slightly. When I started out in the law, a reply came from the taxes office which began:
  "Reverting to yours of some date in 1937"!
  Does the Minister agree that substance rather than speed is important when replying to correspondence? It is not uncommon these days to have a series of holding letters and to find that several people are dealing with the same issue—for one knows not what reasons.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is hard for me to speculate on each individual item of correspondence. I do not know the noble Lord's view, but I believe that

  239
  it is courteous to send at least an acknowledgement of correspondence. One wants to know where the communication is and who is dealing with it. A particular matter may be complex and may require the attention of different parts of a department. In such a case it would be right for the correspondence to be moved around a department. I described a computer-based correspondence tracking system which will enable and aid that process and make it more speedy. There are many examples across government where correspondence is efficiently and effectively dealt with and there are many success stories. I cite the example of the Passport Office, where response is now very swift; indeed, it is a tip-top service.

  Asylum Judgment: Home Secretary's Remarks
  3.1 p.m.
  Lord Smith of Cliftonasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the criticism by the Home Secretary of Mr Justice Collins's ruling regarding the policy of denying social security benefits to asylum seekers who fail to claim asylum as soon as possible after they arrive breaches the constitutional relationship between the executive and the judiciary in the United Kingdom.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no. We live in a pluralist democracy. Therefore, the Home Secretary was perfectly entitled to give his view about the judgment of Mr Justice Collins and to appeal that decision. I understand that the appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal next Monday. Equally, I stress as emphatically as I can that the Government have an absolute commitment to the rule of law and to the maintenance of the essential independence of the judiciary.
  Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I noted that, yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, accepted the judgment on the Gurkhas' pension case. This time round, the somewhat intemperate outburst by the Home Secretary was disproportionate. In confirming that the Government are committed to the rule of law, does the Minister agree that it is the prime duty of the Lord Chancellor to uphold the independence of the judiciary? So far, he has remained silent. Should he not immediately have admonished his Cabinet colleague for an excess of language?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, time without number to my certain knowledge, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has endorsed the principle that I enunciated a moment or two ago. He has done it in this Chamber and in public lectures and speeches. The noble Lord speaks of an "intemperate"
  240
  response. What the Home Secretary said in one of his newspaper articles was this:
  "I respect the role of our judges to interpret the law. But there has to he a balance between interpreting the law and completely rewriting a law that has been debated and voted for in our democratic Parliament".
  That seems to me a classic statement of constitutional principle with which we can all agree.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if the Government pass laws such as the Human Rights Act, they are asking for judicial interpretation. What the Home Secretary did in commenting in that way was to complain about what the judges were doing—or that is how it appeared to most people who read the article. Surely, if the Government pass such laws they should live up to the consequences of their action.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is exactly what the Home Secretary is doing. He is abiding by the rule of law if he is seeking the view of the Court of Appeal, which will sit as rapidly as next Monday. It is always useful to read and inwardly digest what Mr Blunkett has said. Perhaps I may give a further citation—from Rachel Sylvester's interview published in the Daily Telegraph. Mr. Blunkett said:
  "I understand the role of the judiciary in seeking to reflect the interests of individuals against the state … I merely ask that alongside of that there should be a recognition of the role of government in establishing public policy".
  What on earth is wrong with that?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, one does not usually associate the Daily Mail with a detailed analysis of case law. But, as the noble and learned Lord will know, last Thursday and again last Friday six or seven cases of Mr Justice Collins were analysed in detail in the Daily Mail. I realise that it is not his department, but is the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House able to assure the House that no one in Whitehall had any hand in briefing the Daily Mail against Mr Justice Collins on either of those days?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have not the slightest idea. I think that, on reflection, the noble Lord will understand that I could not possibly answer a question of that sort relating to everyone in Whitehall. Sometimes, some newspapers adversely criticise judges. That has been a commonplace for many years. At the moment, the higher judiciary in this country is, in my opinion, with great respect, of the highest quality that we have ever enjoyed. Judges have to be robust—they ought to be. I think that, occasionally, our colleagues and friends in the press should bear in mind what a pearl an independent judiciary of high quality is in a civil community.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that I for one have some sympathy with Mr Blunkett voicing his exasperation on this occasion, although my sympathy is somewhat mitigated by the knowledge that he was a member of the

  241
  Government who took such great pride in the passage of the Human Rights Act. While not suggesting that the decision in the present case would have been any different had there been no Human Rights Act, is it not obvious that as a result of the passage of the Act there will be more cases where people express the view that the courts are in some way interfering with decisions taken by Parliament? Does he accept that, because of that, the passage of the Act makes it more likely that there will be strains over the years in the relationship between the courts on the one hand and Parliament and the executive on the other, and that this is a matter to which we have to pay great attention?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has previous convictions as a Home Secretary, which is why he is sympathetic to the present incumbent. There has always been a creative, constructive tension between the judiciary and Parliament. There is nothing wrong with that in a free society. I am sure that all your Lordships have looked at the judgment of Mr Justice Collins in great depth, but in case one or two of your Lordships have not had the immediate opportunity to do so, Section 55 of the Act was not found incompatible with the Human Rights Act. The judgment simply says that on six occasions inadequate procedures were followed. This case will go to the Court of Appeal on Monday. The passage of the Human Rights Act was the greatest achievement of this or any recent government.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches—Lord Ackner.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the Home Secretary was in serious breach of the sub judice rule in initiating an appeal and concurrently criticising the judge of first instance who gave the decision? If the noble and learned Lord wants to see the authority for that, he will find it on pages 66 and 67 of the Companion, at paragraphs 4.56 and 4.57.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not accept the proposition at all. What the Home Secretary said was that he did not accept the consequences of the judgment and was therefore about to appeal. Because of the present arrangements overseen by the Lord Chancellor, the appeal will be heard as early as next Monday. I think people are getting a little overheated.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are into the 33rd minute.
  Noble Lords: Next Question!

  Primary Schools: Targets
  3.9 p.m.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they agree with the view reported to have been expressed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools that targets for primary schools are becoming counter-productive and narrowing the curriculum.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I do not think that those reports are an accurate reflection of the chief inspector's views. Target setting at both national and local level makes an important contribution to raising standards of attainment. The dramatic rise in standards in primary schools since 1998 is evidence of that. We will continue to support schools to achieve their targets as part of our strategy to improve teaching and learning across a broad primary curriculum.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why she and other Ministers in the department are so obsessed by tests and targets? Is she aware of the damage this is doing to the broader curriculum? There is too much emphasis on the narrow curriculum on maths and English, which is tested, and not enough on the broader subjects. Can she assure us, in the light of views not necessarily expressed by the Chief Inspector of Schools but which clearly come from among those close to him, that the department is looking again at how useful these targets really are in primary schools?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not accept the premise that we arc obsessed with targets. My ministerial colleagues and I certainly are not. We want a broader primary curriculum in every school, as we have said consistently when speaking about the enrichment of the curriculum. But we are also of the view that teaching children to read, write and do mathematics are core and fundamental things that they need to acquire at primary school if they are successfully to make the transition to secondary school. Local and national targets are good measures of ensuring that we are moving in that direction.
  Of course we look constantly at what we are doing. We are looking all the time at the primary curriculum and at our strategies to make sure that we do it in the right context.
  Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if used sensibly and sensitively, targets are one way—by no means the only one—of pinpointing schools in need of greater help and support in the vital job they do?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, completely that some of the work we have been doing in our target

  243
  setting is to establish the schools that need additional support. Our leadership incentive grant, for example, will be targeted to add additional support to schools where they can work collaboratively with other schools to provide that fundamental need of leadership, which we know is a core requirement to success in schools.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with assessment and testing already established by the previous government and built on by the present Government, it is enough to leave the governors and the parents to set the targets for their schools and for the Government to get off the back of schools? They should stop being obsessed with national targets but leave schools to be accountable for the performance of their own school and for the information to be made public to parents and the wider community.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that there is a key importance in having local targets and that schools are involved, as they are, in the process of establishing those targets. We are, of course, in dialogue. My colleague, Stephen Twigg, is currently talking to thousands of teachers across the country at key stage 2 level to ascertain their views and talk around how we develop further our national strategies.
  A national target is an important statement of what the Government wish to achieve. We want to see every child arriving in secondary school capable of accessing the curriculum in the core subjects. I believe it is a notable and worthy aim.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I share the Minister's ambitions for the children of this country, but is it sensible to submit children to very stressful exams at the age of 11? Is it sensible to submit them at a very early age to a method of coaching which tends to eliminate or may be in danger of eliminating things which are not relevant to those exams? How does the Minister react to the knowledge that, after a large increase in accomplishment at the beginning of the Government's term in office, the level of achievement is now more or less static in English and mathematics and has been for about three years?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are clear that we do not want or require any child to be put under stress regarding these examinations. They are not the equivalent of examinations that determine success or failure; they are our opportunity to see what level of progress children make individually and collectively, which is important. I do not desire to see schools coach children. Ofsted's work shows clearly that the most successful schools can be determined by those who have the broad and balanced curriculum and are creative in the way in which they introduce literacy and numeracy strategies and the science curriculum across the broader curriculum. That is the direction in which we wish to go.
  On static levels of achievement, I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to look carefully at what those figures tell us. The first cohort to have had the literacy and numeracy strategies from the beginning is
  244
  now coming through, and it will be interesting to see the effect. I am sure that the noble Baroness would accept that we must look at what we do to support the children who are not quite reaching that level. This is the largest cohort of children at level 3 who could become level 4. Finally, given the number of children with special needs, this is our opportunity to try to provide additional support for children who can be helped in that way.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for some of the points in that last reply. Has she any personal experience of the atmosphere that develops among pupils about to face a key test? Does she agree that that atmosphere is no more conducive to clear thinking than a fire alarm is to an orderly exit from a crowded theatre?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I currently have a child in year six, so I do have personal experience. As a stepmother and mother, this is my fifth experience. My daughter, I have to tell your Lordships, is looking forward to her SATs exams with great gusto.
  A fire alarm, of course, is a crucial indicator to people that it is time to leave the theatre. I find it difficult to make an analogy, except to say that it is important that we are ambitious. I accept what noble Lords are saying about always needing to be careful to ensure that our strategies work. But I also believe that the whole House endorses our desire to make sure that every child is successful.

  Business
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are 54 names on the speakers' list for today's debate, so the debate will be a long one. It is not timed, but if all Back-Bench Members speak for around eight minutes, the House will rise by approximately 11.45 p.m. if all Back Benchers speak for 10 minutes, the House will rise at approximately 1.15 a.m. On behalf of those whose names appear on the back of the list, I should say that if the clock shows eight minutes, that means that eight minutes are finished, and, if they wish to subscribe to the interests of those at the end of the list, noble Lords should then sit down.

  Iraq
  3.17 p.m.
  The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)rose to move, That this House takes note of Command Paper Cm 5769 on Iraq.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when your Lordships last debated Iraq, on 28th November, we took note of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution set out the objectives of the United Nations in strict and compelling terms. Operational paragraph 2 made clear that its aim was,

  245
  "bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by SCR 687".
  That resolution, 687, required Iraq to accept unconditionally,
  "the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision",
  of its chemical and biological weapons.
  Those were the terms that were unanimously agreed 12 years ago, and they are the terms that Iraq has repeatedly flouted. For the past 12 years, Iraq has withheld its co-operation from the United Nations, or has at best co-operated only superficially and grudgingly with it. As Dr Blix made very clear in his report of 27th January to the Security Council:
  "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament which was demanded of it".
  UNSCR 1441 attracted world attention not only because of the intrinsic gravity of the issue, but because of the clear and unambiguous conditions which it laid down for weapons inspections. Those added up to the immediate, unimpeded and unconditional access to all relevant people, buildings and documentation.
  It is now 15 weeks since UNSCR 1441 was passed and we are no further forward on the requirement that Iraq should immediately and unambiguously divest itself of its weapons of mass destruction. That did not mean waiting and hoping that 150 weapons inspectors can, in what Dr Blix aptly described as a "game of hide and seek", find those weapons in the teeth of obstruction by the huge Iraqi security machine. It did mean that Iraq had to bring proscribed materials and programmes to the notice of the inspectors, or present documentary or witness proof of their destruction.
  So often we hear commentators say that if the evidence were there the inspectors would have found it by now. That supposition is based on a fundamental misconception of why the inspectors are in Iraq. They are not there as part of a detective exercise or an operation of containment. They are there to verify the disarmament process.
  Again, we are asked why, if we know that these weapons exist, we cannot tell the inspectors where to find them. That question is based on the notion that we are looking for really bulky weapons like artillery and fighter planes which are easily identified and hard to conceal. However, the very nature of weapons of mass destruction is that they are very easy to conceal. Nerve agent, chemical precursors, chemical munitions, mustard gas shells and even proscribed missiles can be broken up and dispersed. Stockpiles can be moved from one site to another in small quantities. Missiles can be put on transport platforms and moved from place to place—hidden almost anywhere in a vast country dominated by a network of state terror and intimidation.
  In short, to claim that if they exist, the inspectors can find them, is to fail to understand what those weapons are like; to fail to understand how easy it is to conceal them; and to fail to understand the nature of the state
  246
  that wants them concealed. Above all, it is not up to Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei to find them. It is up to Saddam Hussein to give them up. He has not.
  Many people ask why this issue has come to the top of the agenda now. All too often people forget just how long this history of lying and arrogant defiance of the United Nations has gone on. The 12-year history is clear. It is laid out in the Command Paper before your Lordships, and it is reinforced by the Iraqi regime's behaviour over the past six months.
  We hoped that the very stringency of 1441 would make Saddam understand that this was his chance for peace. Predictably, the Iraqi response to 1441 was the letter of 13th November, in which Iraq said it would, "deal with the resolution". It was followed by a further letter, of 23rd November, asserting, absurdly, that 1441 contradicted international law.
  Those less than reassuring statements were followed by the Iraqis' detailed responses, including the 12,000 page declaration which Dr Blix described as,
  "rich in volume but poor in new information … and practically devoid of new evidence".
  That was followed by the absolute non-co-operation with the inspectors' entirely justified wish to interview scientists in private and unrecorded; the terrorising of such witnesses, including the regime's threats to execute them and their families; the lack of cooperation on procedural matters and on providing the names of those involved in weapons of mass destruction programmes; and the absurd proposal that inspectors needed warrants to enter private premises.
  We have seen what our own Ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, described as a,
  "tightly monitored media circus, with demonstrators ready to harass inspectors if they come too close to hidden material",
  as they did in the military hospital in Kut in January.
  So where are the 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals? Where are the 368 tonnes of bulk CW agents, including VX and the 30,000 special munitions? Where are the growth media capable of producing huge quantities of anthrax? We do not know. We do not know because Saddam Hussein does not want us to know, and we shall not know unless and until he co-operates, voluntarily or under compulsion. That is what makes so misplaced the various suggestions of giving inspectors more time, or increasing their numbers. I am sure that those who make those suggestions genuinely want Saddam to be disarmed. I am sure that they genuinely believe that they are arguing for a peaceful solution. But I also believe that what they argue for is exactly what the regime wants to see: more time, more procrastination, more opportunity to disperse weaponry and to hide documents, not only in the houses of scientists, but also now in the houses of family members who are terrorised into complicity and silence.
  It is therefore not a question of more time. Time is not the issue. The will to co-operate is the issue. Nor is it a question of more inspectors. Let us remember that

  247
  it took just nine inspectors to verify disarmament of South Africa's nuclear weapons programme at the end of apartheid because South Africa co-operated.
  In recent weeks, some commentators have asked, why choose Iraq? The answer is that this is not our choice. The fact is that we are committed to tackling the problem of WMD proliferation wherever in the world it arises, using in each case the tools most effective for the job. But in Iraq there is a uniquely terrible combination of capability and intent. We know that the weapons exist, and we know that the levers for their use are embedded in the structure of a regime where there are no fewer than 12 different organisations of state terror and security. We know that in Saddam Hussein we have a dictator who uses terror as an everyday instrument of government, not just in the murders of women—of mothers in front of their children, as my noble friend Lady Ramsay reminded us on 28th November—but also in the use of the very weapons of mass destruction which are now at issue against tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Iranian soldiers in the 1980s.
  Why do we think that it will happen again? We believe that the Iraqi regime has contingency plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons against some of its own population. We understand enough about the chain of command in Iraq for their use to know that they can be deployed within 45 minutes of an order to use them.
  Saddam's lack of co-operation with the inspectors and with Iraq's obligations means that that he is bringing this crisis to a decisive and final phase. It is not the United Nations or the United States or the United Kingdom which have provoked this terrible situation. Iraq is the only country in such serious and multiple breech of mandatory UN obligations. But even now, at this late stage, there is still time for Saddam to recognise that the time for his lies, deception and non-co-operation is over. The crisis can be resolved peacefully—but that must happen now so that Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei receive full cooperation in their important work.
  UNSCR 1441 did not impose obligations only on Iraq. All 15 members of the Security Council agreed that if Saddam failed to comply immediately with his obligations, we—all of the nations of the United Nations—would have no option but to conclude that the Iraqi regime should face "serious consequences". Diplomatic language can be ambiguous. In this case, however, the terminology had only one meaning: disarmament by force. Iraqi contempt for the United Nations has brought us to this position. In passing SCR 1441, the United Nations steeled itself for the prospect that it would have to demonstrate that the UN resolutions in respect of Iraq have a potency beyond words on paper. That is why the United Kingdom, the United States and Spain tabled a resolution in New York on Monday, making clear that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity that the UNSCR held open. This is no more than a plain statement of fact.
  248
  We are now seeking to build consensus at the Security Council that, by failing to disarm voluntarily, Iraq is making not only a wrong choice, but a choice in which we cannot acquiesce without shying away from our own responsibilities. We shall not be calling for a vote on the draft resolution immediately. We want the text, the proposition, to be examined by the Security Council in full.
  We need that second resolution soon because Resolution 1441 required Iraq's full, active and immediate compliance. Fifteen weeks later, Saddam's compliance has not been full, active or immediate. Not one member of the Security Council, NATO or the European Union says otherwise. Every move of Saddam Hussein's has been cynically timed and calculated to divide and delay. Only last night, Iraq told Dr Blix that they had "found" a bomb apparently containing biological agents. I know that some will argue that this shows that Iraq is being contained or is complying. This was a predictable move in a pattern of behaviour. It is in reality the familiar game—dribbling out small concessions at the last minute—as Saddam may well do on the demands to destroy the al-Samoud missiles as the inspectors have ordered in an attempt to cause further delay and doubt before the UN moves to the next resolution.
  How will the issue of what happens after the next resolution be dealt with in Parliament? My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said clearly today that the debate in another place today is not to endorse military action by UK forces. No decision to deploy British forces in action has yet been taken. He went on to say that if such a decision is taken, it will be put to another place for its endorsement on a substantive Motion. He said that, subject to the safety of our forces, it is as much in the Government's interest as Parliament's to do so before the start of any hostilities.
  Notwithstanding Saddam's lack of co-operation with UNMOVIC inspectors, one thing is clear. There would be no weapons inspectors in Iraq today if we had not brought to bear against him the threat of credible force. History shows us that he has never yielded to the will of the international community unless threatened with military action. Indeed, President Chirac conceded this in his interview with Time magazine recently. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, if such military action should prove necessary, it will be on the basis of Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions. The Government have now announced many deployments from all three services. The UK military presence in theatre is a highly capable force.
  Any decision to embark on military operations is a grave one. It is not right to risk the lives of our servicemen and women unless there is no alternative; unless we believe that all avenues to a peaceful solution have been exhausted. In coming to any decision to initiate military action, the Government have a duty to do everything possible to ensure that our Armed Forces are properly equipped. In part, this is about the

  249
  right training, capabilities and equipment. But it is also about ensuring that there is a clear mission and that we have the right rules of engagement.
  If military action becomes necessary, we envisage that UK forces would play a key part in coalition operations led and directed by the US. To facilitate this, UK commanders would be integrated into an overall coalition command structure. However, UK forces would only undertake missions and tasks approved by UK commanders, and would remain at all times accountable to Her Majesty's Government. I hope that the House will understand that I will not be able to go into details today which could assist a potential enemy. But I can assure the House that our military planning is well advanced, and that we are taking steps to ensure that all the necessary conditions for success will be in place in the event that military action becomes necessary.
  Our servicemen and women are among the finest soldiers, sailors and airmen in the world. They have proved this again and again over recent years in Kosovo, in Afghanistan, and in many peacekeeping operations throughout the world. There is no question that should it come to armed conflict, they will acquit themselves with the integrity and skill that we have come to expect from them. I am sure that all of us will want to pay tribute not only to their professionalism, but to their commitment and their courage and to send our good wishes to them and their families who wait at home.
  Some of your Lordships, in previous discussions of this situation, have asked why we should seek to enforce Security Council resolutions on Iraq when the international community has failed to achieve peace in the Israel/Palestinian conflict. I have made clear on many occasions that Her Majesty's Government believe that the situation in Israel and the occupied territories, and the situation in Iraq, are both of grave concern and need to be addressed urgently. Both issues are important and progress on one should not be held hostage to progress on the other.
  The Prime Minister again yesterday stated his personal commitment to peace in the Middle East. He made clear that urgent progress on the Middle East peace process is essential: terror and violence must stop; Israeli settlement activity must cease. Our priority is for the agreement and publication of the Quartet roadmap leading to a comprehensive settlement based on two viable states by 2005.
  Some noble Lords have also been concerned that we are seeking to enforce UNSCRs on Iraq when we ignore them in respect of Israel. I think it important to reiterate that these two situations are very different. The UNSCRs relating to Iraq are of a special nature, different from other conflict situations. They arise from the ceasefire terms at the end of military action against Iraq carried out under UN authority. They are mandatory. That does not mean that we do not attach importance to the SCRs on the Israeli/Arab conflict because we do. But Resolutions 242 and 338 call on all
  250
  parties to negotiate a peace settlement so the responsibility lies not only with Israel to comply, but also with Israel's neighbours.
  Let us be quite clear what is the basis and objective of our action in the UN: it is the disarmament of Iraq. But as I have said to your Lordships before, if in the process of achieving that disarmament, Saddam Hussein's regime should fall, his departure would be of huge benefit to his country, his region and the rest of the world. His regime has been a proven danger to his region in the course of two attacks on neighbouring countries; and has been, and continues to be, a brutal burden for his own people. We must remember that this is the regime that has presided over an under-five mortality rate that is now 131 in 1,000 live births—worse even than in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has a regime where almost one-third of all children in the centre and south of the country suffer from chronic malnutrition; and where more than half of the Iraqis living in rural areas have no access to safe drinking water. This is not a result of UN sanctions. Iraq's decline from a once prosperous country began well before sanctions were introduced, and well before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and provoked the Gulf War.
  Our government policy objectives on Iraq published on 7th January, include as an immediate priority to,
  "continue to support humanitarian effort to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people".
  We and the UN agencies are planning for a range of humanitarian contingencies, including how to minimise harm to the Iraqi people if military action is taken.
  This House now has the opportunity to debate fully the issues facing us. I look forward to listening to the debate, and to responding to it. Of course, there will be a range of opinions and different points of view. But I am sure that every contribution will share the desire for peace and I am confident that we all hold that desire.
  It is the task facing us all now in the international community—not just the United States, not just the UK. but the whole of the United Nations—to end Saddam Hussein's defiance and the danger he poses to his region and to the rest of the world. Saddam Hussein can end that danger and the prospect of war simply, cleanly and quickly, by complying with what is required of him: not just complying with the inspectors, although that is an absolute prerequisite; not just complying with the spirit of Resolution 1441, although that is an absolute necessity, but complying with what Resolution 1441 and the UN as a whole is determined to achieve, which is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. That is what the world wants to see. I know that is what this House wants to see, and I am confident that today's debate will demonstrate that.
  Saddam's disarmament will happen one way or another. He should be in no doubt about that. I hope, and I am sure that this House and the whole country hope too, that his disarmament can be carried out by wholly peaceful means. That is the best way forward.

  251
  But we have to be ready, if peaceful disarmament proves impossible, to secure it in the face of Saddam's obduracy and to take action.
  None of us wants to see that; none of us wants to see military conflict. We do not want war. It is indeed terrible to contemplate. But the time may soon be upon us all when Saddam Hussein makes his choice, when he rejects the wishes of the international community and instead chooses fear, violence, terrorism and dictatorship. As a result, we will have to make our choice too, choosing determination and democracy in the cause of securing peace. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House takes note of Command Paper Cm 5769 on Iraq.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
  3.39 p.m.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister set out the situation with her usual thoroughness and pinpoint clarity. The noble Baroness mentioned that she has undertaken to wind up for the Government—which is a burden for her but a bonus for the rest of us. I look forward to a very good debate, which I am sure there will be in your Lordships' House.
  For anyone with the slightest sense of history, it is impossible not to appreciate—indeed admire—at this particular moment the tireless determination and what has been called the lonely valour of the Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair. I for one especially admire the robustness of his view, which he reaffirmed unequivocally only yesterday, that our foreign and defence policies, not merely in this matter but in all matters, will be conducted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by no one else—a view that is challenged almost daily in the European Convention, with its view of shared competencies, a single European voice and other fantasies.
  There have been critics of the presentation—not the actions and policies—of the Prime Minister's case. Some of us on this side of the Chamber are among those critics. It is clear from previous debates in your Lordships' House that the Prime Minister has slightly confusingly swung about in making the case for military action. It does seem that the priorities have been altered. I am not too critical because perhaps that is inevitable and should be forgiven. We are dealing with a situation of enormous complexity and anyone with too much certitude in this matters should be suspect. At least the Prime Minister has not tried at any time to ride the tiger of populism, which is an extremely dangerous pursuit that nearly always ends in tears. It is right to remind our French and German friends of that danger as well as—I say this in the friendliest way—some political parties nearer home.
  The core case for disarming Iraq and—at least by a side wind, as the noble Baroness indicated—"ridding the world" of Saddam, in the Prime Minister's words, is not just 12 or 13 years of defiance. It must be something more immediate and I believe that it is. Iraq is at the centre of the jigsaw of global terrorism and the hatred of all Western values that grew and multiplied before and since 9/11. It is a direct threat to our
  252
  national security and society and possibly even an imminent threat—although we cannot prove that and can only make preparations against it.
  The issue is not just Saddam's co-operation, which is important, but his intention. Some of us have believed all along that it is his remorseless intention, unless halted, to destabilise and dominate his own region; to threaten international security and of course energy supplies; and to sponsor terrorist violence wherever and whenever the chances arise. That is what our assessments suggest and why we hack the Prime Minister's stance, as well as admire it, and know that much further delay is incredibly dangerous to all of us—I repeat, incredibly dangerous to all of us—as well as to the wider world.
  Since 9/11, there have apparently been four major terrorist threats against sites in this country—each mercifully and successfully thwarted. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Colin Powell has revealed that dark terrorist leaders have been in and out of Baghdad and that Iraqi cash flows and assistance are being injected into the veins of international terrorism all the time. I had doubts about links with Al'Qaeda, as did many of your Lordships, until hearing this morning that Saddam Hussein, that well known truthmonger, was denying all links—a denial carried uncritically and deferentially by the BBC. After that, I am beginning to believe that there must be links of some kind. Whether or not one can believe Saddam—and most of your Lordships would start from the proposition that one cannot believe a word that he says—we have seen again and again, even if one does believe him, how Iraqi newspapers, all Government controlled, admire Osama Bin Laden's handiwork even if the Iraqis do not share his religious fervour.

  We have reports of arms and missiles being shipped to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, of money being pumped into the hands of Hamas bombers and of a dozen other trouble-stirring involvements. It is all there, staring us in the face, even when we have dealt with the question of Saddam's defiance of the United Nations and all the rest. Sometimes it is better to focus on detailed specifics and minute particulars—as Blake said,
  "To see the world in a grain of sand"
  rather than be guided by generalisations and big assertions. Those are the little signs and they do tell the big story.
  France and Germany are insisting that the answer is more inspectors and more time to hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Many of your Lordships may argue that case this afternoon. We have to ask, as did the noble Baroness, "Why should that help?" Inspectors are not disinterers or, as the Prime Minister said, detectives. They are the auditors. All the facts and figures must be set before them, not hidden away. The noble Baroness emphasised that there is only the smallest chance of finding weapons or nerve agent substances without Saddam's full compliance and the opening of all the books. Will more inspectors—500, 1,000 or whatever number—mean more compliance? One only has to ask that question to know that the answer is that of course it will not.

  253
  The Prime Minister mentioned yesterday that we know from intelligence and simple deduction that weapons, nerve agents, growth media, machining equipment, classified software and technology are all there—hidden and dispersed in a vast country, which is easy to do. We know that getting co-operation from Saddam will be like getting blood from a stone, with a dribble of skilfully timed, last-minute, so-called concessions. The noble Baroness described one from yesterday.
  So what really lies behind the stance of the anti-war countries and groups, which is undoubtedly so widely shared? One must analyse the fears in order to respect them. There is the usual anti-Americanism, although I do not set much store by it, and genuine fears about winning the peace after the war and what the whole operation may do to neighbouring countries. I am sure that your Lordships will have many thoughts on that important consideration. There are also perfectly justifiable fears all round about the humanitarian consequences of war. The noble Baroness reminded us that 60 per cent of Iraqis are already on food rations—in a country that was richer than Greece or Portugal only a few years ago. Almost half the population of Iraq is under 14—an incredible statistic. We need to know a good deal more about the Government's preparations for dealing with millions of starving refugees and how the agencies will cope on top of dealing with all the other humanitarian challenges around the world.
  The biggest fear or concern of the doubters, which I much respect, is that the casus belli or justifying trigger is not yet fully spelt out—at least, it seems not clear to them. Everyone agrees that Saddam is evil—that is easy—but regrettably, far too many are still asking the awkward question, "Why now?". What precisely justifies a pre-emptive strike? I suspect that half of the million people who marched through Hyde Park the other day were the usual suspects—minds closed to American values, western liberties and the other values that we esteem. I suspect that the other half had sincere doubts about the immediate case for war.
  My noble and honourable friends and I believe that there are clear answers to those doubts—but they have not been put as well as they should have been. Now that we are in the final, final phase, those answers need to be put over much better—not by just leaving it to the inspectors. I do not think—the noble Baroness probably does not think it either—that they will light upon some magic discovery of a smoking gun or whatever. It must not he done even by entering into the debate about the moral justification, although that is very important, but by spelling out the direct threat that Saddam and his policies present to us all as of now. That is the case for imminent action, against imminent threat.
  Personally, I hope that further delays will be minimised. A second UN resolution has to be worked for and will be desirable, without a doubt. However, in my view action should follow swiftly thereafter. I have no doubts that Saddam is one of the great murderers of the 20th century, and he is killing more people even
  254
  now. At the time of the Gulf War, I took a particular personal objection to him. Having just left the Cabinet, I noticed that it was his habit to strangle outgoing Ministers. That seemed to me a very bad idea.
  Confronting Saddam now is not only a question of upholding UN authority. That is what the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness have said before. We all value that authority. Without the UN, what is there in its place? Frankly, however, the UN is not always the fount of all moral authority, considering some of its members and their practices. There is also the question of putting a stop to the cycle of unending violence and perpetuated terror by someone who is clearly a lead contractor and sponsor of the terrorist business.
  I hope that everything is over speedily and with a minimum of casualties. The US is about to go to war with the highest technology ever used, with weapons for pulverising radar tracking stations and with thermobaric bombs that paralyse all electrical apparatus, and therefore whole cities and the working of cities. If Iraqi military morale collapses fast, things should be over and done with in short order, or so we pray, should it come to that.
  I emphasise that more delay is just what Baghdad wants. If Saddam is left in place, it might mean peace, but it will be the peace of the dead. To take a phrase from another context,
  "twere well it were done quickly".
  Action will open the pathway for real peace and progress in the Middle East, instead of the current real insecurity and real uncertainty plaguing the entire planet, and the real terrorism close to us all and coming closer every day.
  3.52 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too thank the Deputy Leader of the House for the very forceful, although not at all untypical, way in which she addressed the House. We on these Benches share completely the objective of the disarmament of Iraq. There is no question about that.
  I want to remind the noble Baroness of the second part of Resolution 1441. It states that Iraq should have,
  "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council",
  and that it has been accordingly decided,
  "to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process".
  The difference between these Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is straightforwardly that we believe that the present draft resolutions pre-empt that process, that it is not yet completed, and that there is still an opportunity to avoid war.
  Let me say very clearly, in case there is any misunderstanding, that we believe that we, as powerfully as any other part of this House, have an obligation to our troops to make absolutely certain that

  255
  men and women are not put into war, risking their lives, unless it can he shown to be absolutely necessary to do so. It is to that that I intend to address my remarks.
  The first question is whether we are convinced that Iraq is an imminent and present threat. There is no question but that it could be a potential threat, although I must dispute briefly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. Not only the CIA in the United States but Ministers in this House have on more than one recent occasion admitted that there is no clear evidence to link Al'Qaeda to the Government of Iraq, much as we might find things easier if that were so. That must be stated very explicitly, because repeating a misconception over and again does not turn that misconception into a truth. Therefore, I doubt whether we can show that Iraq is an imminent threat.
  If we are seeking imminent threat, I need only quote from a very senior colleague of mine who is the head of the security unit in the Belfer Center at Harvard University. Ash Carter is a former National Security Agency assistant secretary. He said:
  "News reports late last week indicated that … North Korea is trucking the fuel rods away where they can neither be inspected nor entombed by an airstrike … as this loose nukes disaster unfolds and the options for dealing with it narrow, the world does nothing".
  That is a much more imminent threat.
  Secondly, we are not convinced that containment has failed. I can quote from an authoritative source. These are the words of the Prime Minister himself in November 2000:
  "We believe that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein in the last 10 years. During this time he has not attacked his neighbours, nor used chemical weapons against his own people".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/00; col. 511w.]
  Nor has he done either in the past three years—since that statement.
  Another authoritative source said:
  "Through a process of inspection and verified destruction, the UNSCOM inspectors have demolished more weapons capability than was destroyed by the allied forces during the Gulf war".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/2/98; col. 900.]
  Those are the words of Robin Cook, then the Foreign Secretary. Even much more recently, it has been restated more than once that containment has proved more effective in destroying weapons of mass destruction than any war at any time in the past few years.
  The third issue is whether we believe that the peaceful options have been exhausted. Again, I quote from two unimpeachable sources. The first is the Congressional Research Service of the United States Congress, which said:
  "In meetings with Blix and ElBaradei in Baghdad on February 8 and 9, 2003, Iraqi officials handed over documents on anthrax, VX, and missile programs … On February 10, Iraq notified the UN that it would permit overflights of American U-2, French Mirage, and Russian Antonov aircraft".
  Let us add to that the report in the Independent today, which said:
  "Mr Blix said the details of the weapons"—
  256
  I have described when they were handed over to the inspectors—
  "were 'positive steps which need to be explored further'. Asked if there was any indication by the Iraqis of 'substantive progress or proactive co-operation",
  which are exactly the requirements mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, Mr Blix, a man of few words, replied, "Yes". That was only yesterday. We on these Benches are not persuaded that all peaceful options have been exhausted. We point. not to illusions or statements by Members on these Benches, but to clear and unimpeachable sources such as the Congressional Research Service and the chief inspector, Mr Blix himself.
  None of this would matter so much if the consequences of war were less serious than they are. I wish to say a few words about them. First, the Financial Times states:
  "The coalition of the willing sounds ever more like a coalition of the reluctant".
  Huge pressures are being brought to bear, not least on moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and others, to subscribe to being part of an alliance to destroy the Iraqi regime. Those countries have protested over and over again that they do not wish to be involved in the war.
  Let me give two examples. There was a great deal of controversy over Turkey because it was argued that it had been refused Patriot missiles as a result of a disagreeable coalition between France and Germany. It later emerged that Turkey had never asked for Patriot missiles or for any of the other equipment that was sent to it. Turkey had asked for consultation under Article 4 of the NATO treaty. It had not invoked Article 5, which is the article concerning mutual defence. Even now, Turkey is driving a colossally hard bargain. Members of the House will have seen that one part of the bargain is that Turkey should be allowed to bring 55,000 troops into northern Iraq—the Kurdish area, much of which is protected by a no-fly-zone—a situation which, at the very least, is likely to foment great anger and, at worst, could lead to civil war and the disintegration of Iraq. It has also—incidentally, almost—helped to destroy the real prospect of a united Cyprus entering the European Union some time in the next seven or eight years.
  The International Crisis Group—I declare an interest as a board member—has discovered that there is tremendous public concern about the possibility of a war against Iraq in the Middle East. In its report, it states:
  "ICG interviews throughout the region, in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and Algeria, indicate that there exists wide and deep scepticism about US motives".
  That may be unfair, but it is a fact that we have to take into account when deciding whether the price of war is too high. It also emphasises the importance of pursuing every other possible alternative.
  I need not add the special complication of the wretched situation in the Middle East, referred to in another place yesterday by that distinguished and brave Member of Parliament, Gerald Kaufman, as the

  257
  daily almost casual slaughter of Palestinians by the IDF and the daily almost casual slaughter of Israelis by terrorists from the West Bank and Gaza. We cannot pretend that this is not a desperately serious complication. With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, she and I both know that the reason why the UN resolutions are mandatory on Iraq, and not mandatory on Israel, which has also broken many of them, is because the United States refuses to agree to their being made mandatory on Israel.
  I have the greatest respect for the Prime Minister. He has virtually ripped himself into pieces trying to hold the Administration in the United States to the UN process. He is the reason why George Bush went to the United Nations: I pay the Prime Minister great credit for that. But the distinction I have just drawn between Israel and Iraq shows all too clearly that it is not the Prime Minister who is in the driving seat. It is concern about who is in the driving seat that underlies much of the scepticism.
  I do not need to mention at length the possible humanitarian consequences of a war. That has been done effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. But they are extreme. One has only to consider the desperate plight with regard to food. According to a leaked UN document, 30 per cent of children under five will be at risk of death from malnutrition if the war lasts more than a week or so. There are also warnings about cholera and many other extreme diseases. The warnings come from a United Nations leaked document, called the "Humanitarian Consequences of the War".
  Before I come to my conclusion, I shall say in the words of a famous politician whom many Labour Members of this House will remember,
  "You don't need to look at the crystal if you can read the book".
  What is the book? The book concerns Afghanistan. I shall quote again from two sources, the first of which is The Times of 13 February, which states that
  "large parts of the country are once more on the verge of anarchy".
  An article by the senior fellow at the American Council on Foreign Relations—I declare an interest as a member of its international advisory council—states:
  "Basic security and stability have still not been achieved".
  Worst of all, when the President drew up his budget for 2004, he forgot to put even a penny for the reconstruction of Afghanistan into it. Paul Krugman, of the New York Times, states:
  "The Bush team forgot about it. Embarrassed Congressional staff members had to write in $300 million to cover the lapse".
  So much for Afghanistan, already largely forgotten, coming back to anarchy, and neglected by the international community.
  I conclude with two thoughts. First, there is clear evidence that the obsession with Iraq is drawing us away from what should be our first priority, which is to attack international terrorism. For that we need the widest possible support. I shall not go on quoting, but it was President Jimmy Carter who said a few days ago that the
  258
  obsession with Iraq had essentially diverted the American Administration from concern about terrorism. There is more evidence that we are beginning to neglect the remnants—not dead remnants, but live ones—of Al'Qaeda in many other parts of the world.
  Finally, there is a fundamental thought, to which my colleague Lord Wallace of Saltaire will address himself. There is undoubtedly among European opinion, including the United Kingdom, more than 80 per cent opposition to a war without UN support and considerable opposition to a war even with UN support. That does not reflect anti-Americanism, except perhaps among a small minority. Many of us regard America as one of the most enterprising, imaginative, democratic and open societies in the world. What it reflects is concern with an Administration propelled to some extent by what I can only describe as a fundamentalist Christian and fundamentalist Jewish drive that is almost as powerful as fundamentalist Islam itself. The Administration have set aside the structures of the multilateral community by removing themselves from treaties and conventions, by refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement or agreeing to the biological weapons convention being resumed, and now by embarking on nuclear plans that threaten even the nuclear proliferation treaty. It is who is in the driving seat that frightens many of us; certainly not that great country the United States.
  4.8 p.m.
  Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, that great war strategist Carl von Clausewitz wrote:
  "No one starts a war—or rather. no one in his senses ought to do so—without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it".
  That is sound advice. Governments should define the purpose and desired end state of any conflict. There must be clear political objectives to establish a guiding framework for the military planner. Without establishing a purpose for war, one will never know how to fight, or when indeed the fighting might end.
  If we go to war, what is its purpose? By now, with all that has been said about Saddam Hussein and his evil regime, his weapons of mass destruction and his possible and likely links with terrorist organisations, there should be a clear understanding about the purpose. But, for all the efforts of the Minister and others, I wonder if part of the problem that the Prime Minister and his Government are having in gaining the support and confidence of the public is not down to confusion about the precise purpose.
  For much of the earlier part of last year the oft-repeated phrase was "regime change", which was accepted then to mean that Saddam must go. The main proponent of that approach was the US Administration, even before the arrival of President Bush. It had echoes on this side of the Atlantic, too, and in Parliament. Regime change in Iraq is clear enough. It expresses a broad purpose or aim, to which diplomatic, economic and, if necessary, military effort could be directed.

  259
  I set to one side the very important dilemma about whether it would be lawful and right to launch a military contribution to topple a head of state by means of a pre-emptive strike, or what steps are necessary to make such action lawful. Maybe it should not be described as lawful.
  Some time later the aim seemed to have been adjusted: it was still "regime change" but that was now being described as meaning, that so long as Saddam surrendered his weapons, and thus changed his stance on them, that would be a satisfactory "regime change". In other words, Saddam need not be got rid of if he got rid of his weapons.
  Recently, all the emphasis has been on the efforts of the weapons inspectors, and there has been a clear focus on the weapons themselves. Their removal has to be the aim. I pay tribute to the consistency with which the Minister has stuck to that formulation. But in his speech in Glasgow at the Labour Party conference, the Prime Minister said that if Saddam went as well as the weapons, that would be "great". At the press conference he gave last week, he was quoted as saying that he wished to see the back of Saddam Hussein. In his Statement yesterday, the Prime Minister said,
  "the purpose in our acting is disarmament".
  However, later—in answer to a question—he said:
  "The objective is the ridding of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and while Saddam's regime stands in the way of that it is an obstacle that has to be removed".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/03, cols. 125–34.]
  So it seems that we go round in a rather confusing circle about the purposes of our actions. Of course, to a large extent, the differing purposes are interrelated, although I believe that from Saddam's point of view whether he himself is to go or just his weapons is a very material difference.
  I fear that that rather mixed message does not help the country to be clear about what is intended, and indeed about what contribution military operations—if they take place—are to make. Differing assertions about links between Iraq and terrorist organs and poorly prepared dossiers have added to public disquiet. There must be confidence that the United States' purpose and the UK's purpose are sufficiently the same that the military operations of both countries—if ordered—are going to be in step and directed towards the same political goals.
  The first key principle of war is "selection and maintenance of the aim". Turning destruction of weapons of mass destruction into a military plan presupposes occupation and overthrow of the Iraqi forces. All that should be clear. However, it is disingenuous to argue that little can be said about operations and their aftermath for fear that we forgo the element of surprise and so endanger our forces in the field. No one would want to do that. In the last Gulf conflict we made it very clear to Saddam what was required: he had to withdraw from Kuwait. Not for one moment did we tell him how we might go about achieving the removal of his forces if he did not order them to withdraw. The methods of attack, and where our forces would come from, were of course not
  260
  mentioned, although, with a deadline set, it would have been clear to him that hostilities would begin at or soon after the date he had been given.
  One thing is clear about Saddam: he is not a quitter. He has held on through thick and thin for many years. The default presumption before Her Majesty's Government embarked on this strategy of confrontation and pressure on the Iraqi regime had to be that Saddam would not be persuaded to do that which was required of him. There would be no change of heart. At best there would be small tactical-type concessions as he strung the United Nations and the Security Council along. In his eyes, he has done so successfully for more than a decade.
  So I accept that having embarked on this strategy, there can be no turning back. As the Prime Minister so pointedly said in his Statement in the other place on 3rd February:
  "if, having made a demand backed up by a threat of force, we fail to enforce that demand, the result will not be peace or security. It will simply be returning to confront the issue again at a later time, with the world less stable, the will of the international community less certain, and those repressive states or terrorist groups that would destroy our way of life, emboldened and undeterred".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/03; col. 23.]
  So we must face up now. If we are to take the Prime Minister at his word, we are almost certainly committed to taking part in hostilities. It is therefore most important that those members of the Armed Forces who will be undertaking these operations and their loved ones know that this cause is just and that they have the hacking of this House and of another place. They will deserve that at least from us all, once the die is cast. To the extent that it is possible, I also hope that the Government will be forthcoming about the future for Iraq if we are to be committed to hostilities. At least let them indicate what comes next, whether they intend to maintain forces on the ground in Iraq and what the prospects are for that period being short. Fighting draws heavily on resources and stretches the forces. However, the prospect of maintaining some form of peacekeeping force on the ground for weeks, months or even a year or more will be an even greater strain on the forces, particularly the Army. Our Armed Forces and the public deserve to know what lies ahead. We can be sure to win the war but we must also be sure to win the peace that follows.
  Now is not the time for hand-wringing doubts, for looking back in anger at what could have been done differently or for moral uncertainties. We are where we are now. The past is for the historians. The future has to be faced as things stand today. The Government's aim must be even more clearly stated and then achieved with as widespread support as is possible and most particularly if—as seems likely—our forces are committed to battle. If they are, we wish them God speed.
  4.17 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I would like to begin by making a distinction between what should be the distinctive contribution of the Church at a time like this and what might be the judgment, however considered, of an individual Church leader. The prime

  261
  responsibility of the Church, qua Church, is to draw attention to the long tradition of Christian thinking on the morality of war and to insist that the criteria or conditions of this tradition are met. In doing that, we are very conscious that it is the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, who carry the heavy responsibility for actually making such decisions. So, aware of this, I would want to assure all those who have those awesome responsibilities that they are very much in the prayers of the whole Christian community at this time and that the divine wisdom might prevail in this as in all matters. That theme was very much emphasised by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster in their recent joint statement.
  That said, in a democracy, the individual judgments of Church leaders will, I hope, contribute to the debate but they will be put forward with proper modesty and there will be a distinction between them and what I believe to be the distinctive, authoritative voice of the Church, which is actually to set out those criteria and to insist that they be met.
  I do not intend to go through all the criteria but I do wish to focus very briefly on three of them. First, there must be lawful authority. For the past few hundred years, final authority has rested with the ruler of the nation state. In our time, however, we have the significant achievement of the United Nations. Leaving aside the pre-World War II League of Nations, whose collapse is a warning to us all, for the first time in human history we have the makings of a truly international authority. Some argue that even without a fresh resolution specifically authorising military action there is a legal basis for war. Professor Adam Roberts, for example, has argued that there is a legal basis as a result of already existing UN resolutions.
  Other people, such as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in a recent article in the Tablet, have argued against that position. My point, however, is that even if there are legal grounds for war on the basis of present resolutions, and even if unilateral action is sometimes morally right—as I believe it to have been over Kosovo—in the present situation it is imperative to obtain a fresh mandate if force is to be used. The reason is that the UN exists to be a focus for and an expression of a truly international consensus. When the right course of action is fiercely contested, as it is at the moment, it is that much more important to ensure the widest possible international support and authority.
  Some argue that it would he quite wrong to desist from military action because of a veto from another member of the Security Council put forward on purely political grounds. That argument might apply in certain extreme circumstances. But the UN has never operated in the stratosphere above political considerations. It is, and always will be, an arena in which political goals are pursued and conflicting goals are worked through. But this is precisely the process by which we ensure that any UN decision is based on as wide as possible a consensus
  262
  and the resulting decision has in mind the good of the international order as a whole and not just the national interest of a particular state or group of states.

  I want to emphasise at this point that what is at stake is the authority of the United Nations As the Prime Minister said yesterday:
  "At stake in Iraq is not just peace or war. It is the authority of the United Nations".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/03; col. 126.]
  This is vital, as the Prime Minister emphasised, not just to what might happen over Iraq but for the Middle East and indeed the world as a whole, not just for now but for the future. It follows from this that because it is the authority of the UN that needs to be upheld in relation to Iraq, it is that much more crucial that what is done is done in the name of the UN as a whole and not simply of a few member states.
  If there is a fresh resolution of the UN Security Council, recognising that the end of the road has been reached in trying to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions by peaceful means and authorising the use of military force, those of us who have been sceptical about whether other criteria have been met will need to think again. However, in the absence of such a specific resolution that scepticism will remain.
  The second criterion of the tradition is that of just cause. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a cruel tyrant to his own people and a threat to the region, but is that threat both imminent and serious enough to justify crossing the awesome threshold of war with all its unpredictable and potentially destructive consequences for the region and for the world? A policy of containment and deterrence has worked for the past 12 years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out. It has not worked perfectly, not least because of the undermining actions of some states, but it has kept Saddam Hussein within certain constraints.
  There is a temptation to believe that some decisive action will put right all that is wrong. Less than perfect solutions are difficult to live with and there is always a level of continuing frustration. Because of this frustration we are sometimes tempted to go for the big, bold decisive step that will somehow remedy everything. Sometimes that is a temptation to be resisted.
  The third criterion I want to touch on is that of last resort. Every effort to resolve the dispute by peaceful means must first have been tried and found to fail. The Prime Minister has rightly emphasised that Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions on disarmament. He has indeed had all that time, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, emphasised, the inspectors reported significant success in getting him to disarm in 1998 and there is some reported co-operation now. I believe that they still have a role to play.
  The authority of the United Nations is the issue. It needs to be upheld for the whole future of international order. Its authority depends in part on the threat of force now operating on the mind of Saddam Hussein. It may come to the use of actual force. But we are not yet at the end of the road. If we do come to the end of that

  263
  road, when it is clear that the UN inspectors can achieve no more, a clear sign of that would be a new UN resolution indicating that force was now the only remaining option.
  4.25 p.m.
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the case for action against Iraq does not start now, does not start with resolution 1441, does not start with 11th September 2001—in fact, I believe that even without the events of 11th September we should sooner rather than later have had to act against Iraq. The case started 13 years ago, which is clear from Command Paper Cm 5769. So to the questions: why Iraq and not other horrible murdering regimes; or others who have been subject to UN resolutions; and why now, the answers to me are clear.
  Saddam Hussein's regime had a war waged against it on an UN mandate in 1991 and the resolutions concerning him are all under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, covering,
  "Action with respect to threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression",
  which uniquely provides for the use of coercive force to counter these threats and authorises collective military action. That is the significant and serious difference between resolutions under Chapter 7 and those under Chapter 6, which covers peaceful resolution of conflict and situations such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Kashmir.
  The Chapter 7 resolutions all embody and arise from the ceasefire agreement which Iraq was party to and has evaded for the past 12 years. The activity of the regime through those years, rendering the work of UNSCOM impossible so that it left in 1998, and the accumulating evidence of the regime seeking material for which there was no credible civilian purpose in places such as the Congo and in Belarus—in fact, an Iraqi mission was reported visiting Minsk just before UNMOVIC arrived in Iraq—all mean that Iraq is an ever increasing threat prepared to spend its money, from, among other sources, illegal sales of oil, on luxuries for the Ba'ath elite and its weapons of mass destruction programmes rather than medicine to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi children, which the regime makes such propaganda capital out of and which is the result not of sanctions but of the way the regime chooses to manage its affairs.
  The idea advanced that containment is an answer ignores history. Containment most certainly has not been working. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about that. Although it has had its successes in its time, neither the inspectors nor sanctions were inhibiting the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by this regime. Does anyone doubt that only the real and credible threat of force has achieved the return of the UN inspectors? Resolution 1441 demands full co-operation from Iraq and is a final and last chance which the regime is patently not taking.
  Although I am not a lawyer, I really have problems understanding how anyone can raise fears about international law being breached by military action
  264
  against Iraq. Chapter 7 specifically allows the use of force and Saddam has failed to comply with 23 separate obligations under a series of resolutions under Chapter 7. I said when the House was recalled last September that, as someone who had spent the last 12 months of her government service completely immersed in the Gulf crisis and the war of 1990–91, I felt a sense of déjà vu. It gives me no pleasure to have to say that t hat sense has only become stronger.
  I agree with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his intellectually powerful and moving speech in Glasgow, when he said that what we are seeing, in the way Saddam is playing at co-operation with the inspectors, is a repeat of the 1990s. Even the very faces around Saddam's military council table are exactly the same. Those of us who have seen all of this before know only too well how this game goes: the serial last-minute concessions, always with a twist of a qualification; visits and interviews with western politicians; the parading of the Christian religion of Tariq Aziz; and so on and so on.
  Twelve years after the UN gave him 15 days to disarm—15 days, my Lords—Resolution 1441 gave him a final opportunity to disarm. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said—most recently in his Statement yesterday—if Saddam really takes the opportunity and starts to co-operate, the inspectors can have as long as it takes. But if the evasion continues, there has to be action now. It cannot be that 1441's "serious consequences" turn out only to mean an increased number of inspectors or an extension of inspection time. As my noble friend the Minister made clear today in her comprehensive introduction to this debate, "serious consequences" really have to mean "serious consequences".
  As someone who was in the hall in Glasgow listening very carefully to the Prime Minister's speech, which I have subsequently re-read several times, I want to say that the point I heard and understood the Prime Minister making about morality was not, as the media would have it, the case for the morality of war, but rather he was addressing those who are understandably disturbed about the possible consequences of war and the morality of causing those consequences and saying that there were consequences of not taking military action and that these also are disturbing, and morality has to come into that, too.
  I have to say to your Lordships that that point has great personal resonance for me. In over 22 years of government service, through many stressful and difficult decisions and situations in my career, there is one outstandingly painful experience which troubles me still, and that is the massacre in 1991 by Saddam of the Shia in Basra and southern Iraq. He was able to massacre them because we stopped our military action earlier than might have been expected. There were issues raised then, too, about international law and a public outcry about continuing to fight and kill Iraqi soldiers after Kuwait had been liberated. But the consequences of us not taking the required action were terrible. Surely there has to be a question of our moral responsibility for not taking action then, and there are surely lessons to be learnt today.

  265
  War is always bad but it is not always the worst option. The stark choice is Saddam's: disarm now or be disarmed.
  4.33 p.m.
  Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for her extremely lucid and forceful presentation, supported as it was by my noble friend Lord Howell and amplified by the remarkable speech—unsurprising but remarkable none the less—that we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay.
  However, I venture to raise, and shall try to answer, a question which worries me at this point. How does it come about that, in the face of this desperately serious problem, the formidable multilateral organisations of the United Nations and NATO, put together at the end of World War II under the notable leadership of the United States, are currently under threat of disintegration, with leading democracies almost at each other's throats as they try to grapple with this problem?
  The fact that that is so is due not to any inherent weakness, fragility or stupidity on the part of some of our long-standing allies; it is because we have not yet been able to reach a clear and concerted conclusion on how to tackle this matter. Yet, we were able to do so, as my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who is sitting beside me, knows so well, in the face of recurrent threats and challenges of a far greater gravity than those that are posed—to put it in an absurd fashion—by this tiny statelet in the Middle East, with a gross domestic product smaller than that of Essex, which has been twice defeated in the past 20 years in head-on conflict. Yet, it has managed to throw us into this hideous turmoil. We understand why, of course. It is because the hapless, wretched, long-suffering and cruelly treated people of Iraq are under the leadership of this cruel dictator with whom we have been fighting in one way or another for so long.
  I understand the growing urgency of the situation. But I ask whether we have yet reached the point of taking the final decision—urged upon us by many colleagues—without balancing the other factors, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, did in her speech.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, presented a simple and persuasive case: an ever-increasing threat, but accompanied, alas, over a long period of time by an ever-diminishing determination on the part of the West to confront the hazard. In the years immediately following the noble Baroness's agonising experiences in 1991, there was clear determination, but that was allowed to diminish. The inspectors were withdrawn and suddenly the alarm bells rang for us all on 11th September. From then on, the pressure has gradually built up. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, alongside President Bush, the threat of force to persuade Saddam Hussein to move has been renewed. Resumed pressure is there and it is achieving change, albeit desperately slowly.
  266
  In those circumstances, one needs to consider, before reaching a final conclusion, the hazards of going to war, as has already been touched on by many noble Lords. Those hazards relate not only to our troops or our own side, as it were, but to the long-suffering people of Iraq.
  I do not believe that the hazards with which we are now grappling—for example, weapons of mass destruction—are likely to manifest themselves while the pressure is being maintained and while Saddam Hussein is in this ever-tightening box. Ironically, almost the only circumstance in which weapons of mass destruction might be deployed is in response to an attack to enforce the resolutions. We must take that factor into account in weighing the balance.
  There are two other more substantial factors which we must consider. First, can we be confident that the consequences of war will increase the prospect of peace, security and stability throughout the region? That question must be faced. One reason that it must be faced directly is because one of the engines driving the cause of conflict springs from some thinking in the United States which regards the removal of Iraq's administration as only the precursor to a much wider set of onslaughts to destabilise the entire region. That undoubtedly provokes anxiety there but it also provokes anxiety elsewhere. Therefore, can we be sure of that?
  Secondly, can we be confident that success in such an attack will, in the long run, diminish, but not eliminate, the threat of terrorism for the people of this country? Is there not a real danger that, if we are seen as one of the involved and engaged parties in this operation, we shall be seen not as the liberators but as the returning imperial power which created the state of Iraq and, for a long time, governed it?
  I believe that those two arguments must be borne in mind before we reach the final conclusion in favour of triggering the war, which is being widely and understandably advocated at present. That is why I think there is a need for us to work even harder than the Prime Minister, to put together support throughout the alliance, if the cause is as important and as vital—even if not risk free—as it is rightly being presented. There is then some justification for believing that we have to go that further distance to achieve that consolidation. It is easy to put the argument, "Action now, and not a minute later". We need to consider that aspect.
  My final point is at the heart of this argument. If Iraq is to be disarmed, as it certainly must be—that case cannot be stated too often and too strongly—then the Prime Minister is right, as he has been from the outset, to insist that that should be achieved with the authority of the United Nations. It is very easy to become profoundly impatient with, and almost dismissive of, the United Nations. However, it represents the best international authority that we have. So it is right to wish to secure that authority. Above all, the fundamental reason for wanting to act in this way is the breach of Resolution 1441. If it is our determination to uphold the authority of the United Nations, we need to be sure that we can reaffirm that authority. That is why the Prime Minister is right to be pressing for a second, final and conclusive resolution.

  267
  Before then our pressure must be maintained and sustained under the threat of force. If it comes to that, so be it. If, in pursuit of enforcing that determination of the United Nations, our forces are to be engaged as they must be, of course they are entitled to the fullest possible support of this House and of the entire nation.
  4.41 p.m.
  Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, in view of the time factor I want to concentrate on one main point in my remarks. I believe that the American and British Governments are getting their priorities confused, and indeed the wrong way round, in dealing with the twin evils of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The horrors of the Saddam tyranny have for a long time been well known, and have been vividly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. The region in which he operates would be a far better place without him.
  There was a unanimous consensus at the UN Security Council around Resolution 1441 for a serious fresh effort to disarm him after the long years of stalemate. President Bush was persuaded again to go down what he no doubt regards as the rather dreary United Nations route. That owes a very great deal to the influence of the Prime Minister. The fact that the UN inspectors have gone hack to Iraq, and some progress, albeit modest, has been made, owes a great deal to the joint military pressure mounted by both the United States and the United Kingdom. That cannot be denied.
  However, Hans Blix is surely right that after years of defiance of the UN by Saddam, and only weeks of the present inspection programme, it would be wise to give a good deal more time and enhanced resources. An army of occupation of United Nations inspectors is a good deal better than an army of occupation amid the ruins of war. If that last resort of war can be prevented by patient diplomacy, that ought to be the priority.
  There is always a danger that decent men draw the wrong lessons from their own historic experiences. In 1956, at the time of Suez, Anthony Eden equated Nasser with Hitler. He was rescued from a foolish war only by the government of the United States. Today, sadly, the leaders of both America and Britain appear to be falling into the same historic fallacy over Saddam Hussein.
  Hussein, for all his horrors—described vividly by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay—is no Hitler. He poses no immediate threat to the security of the United States or the United Kingdom. He is not a global threat to the world's safety and security. However, Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda are such a threat. There is nothing new about rogue states like Iraq. When they commit inter-state aggression, as Iraq did with Kuwait, the United Nations Charter has machinery to deal with such aggression.
  However, there is something frighteningly new about stateless terrorism. It is fuelled by religious fanaticism and prepared globally, from Bali to Manhattan, using the ultimate human weapon of suicide missions, to cause the mass murder of innocent civilians. The international
  268
  community is still fumbling to find effective means to counter and control this new global threat. There are many uncertainties about the outcome of the present crisis, but I do think that one thing is certain. A resort to war with Iraq, without full United Nations authority, would inflame and aggravate the phenomenon of Al'Qaeda terrorism throughout the world.
  There are no easy answers to this non-state underground terrorism. Perhaps a starting point is to apply internationally the Government's domestic policy on crime and violence; that is, to be tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism. The starting point for that policy is right in the heart of the Middle East on Iraq's borders with the Israeli and Palestine conflict. If it were possible to make progress with the famous road-map to an independent Palestine state, alongside a secure Israel, that would do more than anything else to create a climate in which the Al'Qaeda brand of terrorism would steadily wither.
  The prospect of a war to disarm Iraq has provoked much moral debate. I enter into that side of it with due diffidence. It is ironic that a secular and reputedly atheistic tyrant like Saddam Hussein should provoke such a debate in the very cradle of the great monotheistic religions. Personally, I prefer the tone of our Archbishop of Canterbury and our Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster—and the Pope—to the Christian fundamentalism of Texas, the Muslim fundamentalism of bin Laden, or the Jewish fundamentalism within Israel.
  The Manichaean black and white moral view does not sit easily with the realities of creating peace among nations. I prefer a modest pragmatism. I simply pray that we are going to find a way to enable the United Nations to survive, and to adapt its charter to a world with a single superpower. Perhaps we can also find a way to build a coherent European foreign and defence policy that might provide a useful and healthy balance to the role of that single superpower.
  An invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, with all its serious consequences for relations between the Muslim world and the international community, should be absolutely a policy of last resort—it may be a necessary policy of last resort—and only undertaken with clear UN authority. To do otherwise would seriously risk the undermining of the UN and risk the splitting of the European Union. Here at home it would be greatly destabilising to the Government and to a Prime Minister who does not deserve it, because he has shown great courage and conviction—even for those who disagree with some of his emphasis.
  It would be too high a price to pay to throw away all that by tackling Iraq by war without United Nations authority, in order to topple a vicious but second-rate Middle East dictator, as against tackling the much greater, more global, more serious problem of the new menace of international terrorism.
  4.50 p.m.
  Lord Bramall: My Lords, this very important debate may be the last time that some of us can allow ourselves to be critical or cautionary about our readiness to take

  269
  part in military action without a resolution specifically authorising it. Once our Armed Forces were committed, I, and I am sure others, would want to give full support to what the Government required them to do and to wish them Godspeed.
  Nor would I want to make it harder for the Prime Minister to secure the nation's support for those forces were they to be committed to battle. But I think it is very important that everyone is quite clear what we are likely to be letting ourselves in for if we go down the military path.
  Even now—and I agree with my noble and gallant friend—involving this country may, sadly, be inevitable—and I imagine the Government, despite statements to the contrary, must be resigned to this—with the removal of Saddam Hussein being the "name of the game".
  History has shown that when land forces are deployed to battle positions, as ours soon will be, it becomes difficult to reverse the process. And having so overtly supported the Americans on the possible need for military action, the Prime Minister can hardly withdraw that support now; while, unless there is absolute proof—always very difficult to obtain—that no nuclear chemical and biological weapons remain in Saddam Hussein's grasp, and probably without him opting, in advance, for exile, it is difficult to see how the President of the United States, after all the rhetoric, can pull back without very serious political consequences, both domestic and further afield, however well or badly the case for imminent action has been made.
  Of course, should Saddam Hussein pre-empt it by voluntarily seeking asylum, there would be general rejoicing and an understandable rush to praise the statesmanship of the President and our own Prime Minister. It seems so unlikely, however, that all the necessary conditions would be met, and I think our most fervent hope must be that the Security Council can, despite the turmoil within NATO and Europe, be persuaded that military action is the only way to uphold its vital authority.
  This does not necessarily mean that war is the best thing for the region—far from it—but most of us who have been critical would feel obliged to accept specific authorisation as being the proper way to deal with international problems in the 21st century.
  Over six months ago—and for the moment putting on one side the difficult moral question of the greater or lesser of two evils—I set out in a letter to The Times differing views as to what the aftermath of military action might be. The first was that if Iraq was successfully attacked and Saddam Hussein was removed, preferably with the help of a popular uprising, the terrorist-ridden, war-torn Middle East would somehow unravel beneficially. It would become a more benign and tolerant area in which moderate Muslim governments could take heart; a Palestinian solution might even become possible; and the ability of terrorists to strike another blow at the United States, or indeed at Europe, would be neutralised.
  270
  The second was quite the opposite, with a conflict in Iraq producing in that "cauldron of anti-western feeling", as Secretary of State Powell described it, the sort of display of massive United States activity which has for some time provided one of the mainsprings for terrorist motivation. Far from calming things down, making the Middle East, or the world, a safer place, enhancing any peace process and advancing the war against terrorism, it would make things infinitely worse.
  To some extent, you pay your money and you take your choice, although I did point out strongly that, even with all America's military power and the high technology, getting into Iraq to implement a political aim—whatever that may turn out to be—was always going to be easier than handling what you did when you got there and being able to extricate yourself after the battle was over.
  Well, either of those scenarios, I suppose, remains a possibility. And should the first one happily be more accurate, one good thing that could result would be that the Americans, from a position of apparent strength and should they be so disposed, could enforce as only they can a fair and just solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. Indeed, any odium in the Muslim world which the Americans and ourselves would be bound to incur over coalition military action might be reduced if that action were to be linked to solving and underwriting the Palestine problem.
  But the downside of the more likely second scenario, and to some extent of the first, has also to be appreciated and thought through. Winston Churchill once wrote:
  "Never, never, never believe that any war will be smooth and easy or that anyone who embarks on that strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter".
  Well, there are bound to be risks in terms of casualties both to innocent civilians and to Anglo-American forces, and over a longer than anticipated duration, bearing in mind the possibility of fighting in built-up areas where the effect of fire power would be greatly reduced.
  After all, in Kosovo it took NATO warplanes—admittedly without ground force action—71 days to bring the Yugoslav dictator to his knees, and then it was only the intervention of the Russians that clinched the capitulation; and the Yugoslav ground troops had hardly been weakened at all. Although it took only 100 hours to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, the Republican Guard was able to extricate itself back into its homeland without too much difficulty. With those sorts of risks, the moral justification and the threat have to be particularly strong, as they were in Korea, in the Falklands and in the first Gulf War.
  Then it must be recognised that such largely American military action would constitute, whether intended or not, a massive piece of imperial policing in an area where it is probably less, not more, western intervention that is needed. Any satisfactory rearrangement of Iraq is bound to require a quite lengthy occupation; and like imperial interventions in the past, it is often difficult to know when and where to

  271
  stop and all too easy to get drawn forward to yet more rearrangements in other areas. After all, Afghanistan is still an ongoing and tense issue.
  So the burdens of this sort of policing are often of long duration, very expensive and ultimately dangerous and democracies particularly soon become impatient of such burdens; and this time, I suspect, even more quickly. And of course by then the funding and resources of our already greatly overstretched Armed Forces will have been woefully and totally inadequate because of their underfunding during the past decade.
  From the outset, when he took the view that America should not be left to deal with the difficult problem on its own, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister has been a key player and a major influence in steering the whole question into the UN arena and securing that diplomatic triumph of a unanimous vote in the Security Council. For that, I believe the country should be very grateful to him. I would like to think also that our hearts are with him at this very difficult time in the nation's affairs.
  So what is it that we should reasonably and constructively ask of him even at this late hour? There are four things. First, that he sees that the United Nations inspectors are given all possible intelligence of the sort that has convinced him and the President that Iraq still has these weapons and that they still pose a threat, so that they can seek them out and get rid of them. That is far the most painless and easy way of disarmament. If they can do so, they should be allowed to continue to do so. They will of course need more time and one has to accept that the longer they have the less credible and immediately practicable any fallback military option becomes.
  Secondly, the right honourable gentleman must continue to do all in his power to build on that earlier UN consensus to secure an agreed, positive and effective course of action, not ruling out a permanent United Nations inspectors' presence, and perhaps trying to bring together the two resolutions in order to ensure complete disarmament, on which everyone agrees, or a resolution specifically authorising force in certain circumstances. A successful outcome will of course be influenced by how Dr Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei report and what they feel they can do subsequently.
  Then, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I believe that the Prime Minister and his Ministers must do more to get the nation's support. So far, some of their efforts, including that absurd dossier, have not done them justice. Despite—perhaps because of—the continual changes of direction in justification for various actions, they have failed to convince.
  A national consensus affects their standing but, even more important, it is essential for the morale and motivation of the men and women of the Armed Forces who will put their lives on the line. Before going into battle, they need to know that the country is behind them. Convincing the country that there is a good, constructive case for such action will largely depend on the progress that the Prime Minister makes on the first two tasks.
  272
  Finally—this point has already been extremely well dealt with—there must be a proper political aim at every stage of the operation, so that the military objectives and plan can fit into it. The wider implications of war must also be thought through, so that any damage limitation exercise can be in place from the outset.
  If all those matters are handled well, I suppose that there is just the possibility that a damaging war could be averted or, if not, at least that military operations will be conducted as quickly and intelligently as possible. By that I mean a land battle of 14 days at the outside, otherwise we are in deep trouble.
  If anything goes wrong, certainly in the short term but probably in the longer term, serious questions will undoubtedly be asked about why the Government, with Her Majesty's Opposition close in their wake, went down that road in the first place, instead of that of continued containment of Iraq and concentrating on the more imminent threat posed by Al'Qaeda and other terrorist organisations—which, after September 11th, continue to be the real and most pressing threat.
  5.2 p.m.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House with regard to its rules. Owing to the unfortunate fact that I am more than 90 years of age and consequently find it difficult for medical reasons to be up much after normal dinner time, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence in this respect. I shall not be able to be here at the end of the debate—after, no doubt, some distinguished speeches. I hope that the House will extend its generosity to me if I disobey that rule on this one occasion.
  I do not believe in war. I do not believe in war because it is one of the most immoral acts that organised or semi-organised society can perpetrate. We talk of collateral damage in the event of any war. I wonder whether we understand what is really meant by collateral damage. In the case of the people of Iraq, it means that in addition to whatever disabilities they may face now—I should not want to minimise them—they will be blown up and torn apart, men, women and children who have never played any part in even mildly inconveniencing our life here.
  It is more than 50 years ago since, as a serving officer in Her Majesty's Army during the war—I was a member of the Territorial Army even before that—I was asked to go before the North Portsmouth Labour Party, which was looking for a candidate at the time. When they invited me, party members knew perfectly well my military record at the time—risible and uninteresting though it may be. So I went to see them. It was probably an unwinnable seat, but I eventually won it. Praise be to luck; praise be to my good luck.
  But one thing that my party in Portsmouth impressed on me was that one of the cardinal tenets, one of the built-in beliefs, of my party was the wickedness of war. My party said that it quite understood that I had been involved in both the TA and in the then current conflict but, for the future, my party through to its core did not

  273
  believe in war; it believed passionately in peace. It secured my agreement to obey that edict. Thus I have tried ever since.
  I very much regret the way in which the current argument has occasionally been conducted. It has not always been conducted in public. Where it has been aired in public, it has not always been other than rather loose with the truth. I have abundant examples of that, which only the constraints of time permit me to ignore.
  War is an evil thing. It is not something to be brushed over or set aside. It is not something to be borne and tolerated in the back of one's mind on the basis of some probability occurring in future. It is a terrible thing and has terrible consequences for the individuals concerned. If we go to war—if we were unwise enough to go to war—we should be doing rather more than that. We should be implicitly harming the whole political structure of the world—a political structure based in the main on the sovereignty of individual states to arrive at their own decisions, to consult their own people and, through the United Nations, to express their collective view.
  What would happen in the event of our opening hostilities with the rest of the world—because that is what it would be? We would be destroying its civil structure. Instead, we would be substituting—for perfectly good, sincere reasons—the power and authority of one state, the United States, which, thereafter, would in effect conduct the affairs of mankind in general.
  One may find that difficult to realise, until one comes to consider one small matter—it is very small, but illustrative. It concerns the European Community, in which I have a more than passing interest. One of the reasons why Turkey has, so far, been denied membership of the European Community is, ironically, its record in dealing with the Kurds. It is small things like that—there are many more like them—that go to illustrate that, if we go to war in support of our colleagues in the United States, we shall do rather more than achieve a bloody victory; we shall achieve a transformation in the way that the affairs of the world outside the United Kingdom and America are conducted.
  5.10 p.m.
  Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, if the war starts in March, as seems almost certain, it will be, in my view, a war of cynicism, aggression, greed and unpopularity. In Glasgow, the Prime Minister claimed that unpopularity was the price of leadership; in fact, Mr Blair has been unpopular not because he has been leading but because he has been following President Bush. His unpopularity is the price not of leadership but of "followership".
  During the past century, the United States was, undoubtedly, a considerable force for good. However, it would be difficult to argue that the current Administration in Washington are a force for good. That is why they are so generally unpopular in much of the world. Their arrogant bullying; their opposition to
  274
  measures to improve the environment and to arms control, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby; their attitude to the international court; their meanness over foreign aid; and their economic policy—free trade for everybody else but subsidies and tariffs for themselves—which damages the economy of many poor countries, make it difficult to argue that they are a force for good. Yet, it is that most benighted American Administration for many years—probably over a century—that this country has followed so slavishly. That is what causes the Government's unpopularity.
  It will be a cynical war because the reasons given for it are largely bogus. The idea that Saddam Hussein—odious though he be—presents an imminent threat to this country or the United States is deeply implausible. In an article in the New York Times entitled "Bush should start telling the truth about this war", the pro-war, pro-Israeli right-wing American columnist Thomas Friedman admitted that Saddam,
  "does not threaten America. He can be deterred".
  Friedman added:
  "It is a war of choice".
  That is plainly true. It is certainly not a war of necessity, still less a just war.
  Another reason given for the war—the alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden—is even more bogus. There is no evidence for it.
  The third reason given is that Saddam defies UN resolutions. That will not wash either: Israel also defies UN resolutions. Instead of being bombed by the Americans, however, Israel is showered with weapons and dollars for its defiance. In her interesting speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, sought to differentiate between Israel and Iraq, but there are many other UN resolutions concerning Israel besides Nos. 242 and 338. Unlike Iraq, Israel occupies territory and rules people in Syria and Palestine with no conceivable right to do so. Israel also wages a vicious colonial war against the Palestinians, who are struggling to free themselves from a brutal occupation. Yet, the Bush Administration give the Israeli Government unconditional support and allow Sharon to go on building illegal Jewish settlements in contravention of United Nations Resolution 465, as well as international law. Thus continues Sharon's robbery with violence of the small amount of land still left to the Palestinians.
  If our Prime Minister had made his support of the United States over Iraq conditional on serious action—rather than inaction—from Bush to settle the Palestinian issue on the basis of UN resolutions, he would, at least, have been consistent and just, unlike the president. Unfortunately, he has done nothing of the sort.
  The fourth reason—that there is a moral case for war because of the undoubtedly bestial nature of the Iraqi regime—was produced by the Prime Minister in some desperation, after his other reasons were shown to be unconvincing. As Harold Macmillan said, morals are best left to the archbishops; we all know what the

  275
  archbishops—and the Pope—think about war in Iraq. In consequence, many fewer people than before believe what the Prime Minister says. In the late 1940s, there was a saying about President Truman that ran:
  "Washington could not tell a lie; Roosevelt could not tell the truth; Truman does not know the difference".
  That is increasingly applicable to the Prime Minister. He says that we are making a final push for peace, when, clearly, we are making a final push for war.
  It will be a war of aggression. As many noble Lords have said, Saddam—horrendous though he is—has done nothing recently to merit being attacked. The principal warmongers in America are called "chicken-hawks". Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and company were not brave enough to risk their own lives fighting in Vietnam, but they are plenty brave enough to risk other people's lives attacking Iraq. Aggression against Iraq takes attention away from America's flagging economy and the failure to find bin Laden. They also want Iraq's oil, which is where the greed comes in, and they aim to establish US-Israeli imperial hegemony throughout the Middle East. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon touched briefly on that.
  Probably—far from certainly—the Iraqis will crumble, not fight. Probably, America, through persuasion of various sorts, will get a UN resolution. That will mean that the president and the Prime Minister will get away with their aggression for the time being. But, as many noble Lords have said, Heaven knows what will happen after that. As the fine Israeli writer Amos Oz has said, the dangers of the war are immense, and, as others have pointed out, what has happened in Afghanistan is not very encouraging.
  The only sure result of the aggression will be even greater hatred of the United States and the recruitment of more terrorists. The eventual victims of those terrorists will he innocent, but the president will be guilty.
  5.18 p.m
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as a lawyer, I shall speak about the Iraq crisis in the context of international law. I do so as someone who is British and American by birth and has strong links to both countries.
  I shall start from a basic principle: there should be an international rule of law that governs the external actions of states in the same way that, as we now accept, the rule of law must govern the conduct of the state in the internal exercise of its powers. In that context, it is a matter of great concern that, in some respects, the USA—the present Administration, at least—rejects that principle, which it sees as a limitation on its powers. That is true of, at least, some of the aspects of the handling of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and it is true of the American attitude to the International Criminal Court, which has been not just a refusal to co-operate but a policy of active obstruction.
  International law is more amorphous and uncertain than domestic law. It has something equivalent to statute law, with the Charter of the United Nations and the numerous covenants, conventions and treaties made since the end of the Second World War.
  276
  However, those are not exhaustive sources of international law. International law develops outside the treaty system, as well as within it. There is only a rudimentary court system. There is the International Court of Justice, but it has limited jurisdiction. We now have the International Criminal Court and the ad hoc tribunals on Rwanda and former Yugoslavia.
  Finally, there is of course no central agency for law enforcement. We must rely on the willingness of states to contribute their own forces and logistics support to enforcement actions.
  If we are to support action against Iraq we must be satisfied that that action is within the rule of law and not outside it. There are three possible legal justifications for military intervention in Iraq: first, the right of humanitarian intervention; secondly, self-defence; and, thirdly, the failure to comply with the United Nations resolutions. There has been confusion between these three justifications, which has at times been shared by our own Government.
  Let us look first at humanitarian intervention. This is a new principle which has arisen outside the charter. It was most clearly recognised in Kosovo. It is widely, but not universally, accepted by international lawyers. In cases such as genocide by rulers against their own people, as in Rwanda and Cambodia, it is hard to deny that such a principle exists.
  Can it apply to Iraq? Can we invade Iraq to save its own people from tyranny? Saddam Hussein is certainly a murderous tyrant. He has killed thousands of his opponents and he has caused many thousands of deaths among Iraqis by the way he has spent money on arms and palaces which he was supposed to spend on food and medicines. But the right of humanitarian intervention is an exceptional power and can be used only in exceptional circumstances such as genocide or major ethnic cleansing. The closest Saddam has come to this is in his treatment of the Marsh Arabs, whose culture he has destroyed and many of whose people he has killed. But it would be unrealistic to treat even that as a justification for war. I do not believe that we are entitled to go to war with Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, desirable as that result would be.
  As regards self-defence, individual and collective rights of self-defence are recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. However, evidence of Iraqi involvement in the events of 11th September are non-existent. We plainly cannot use that as a justification for an attack. We are looking therefore at the question of pre-emptive self-defence—the right to strike first to forestall an attack which will happen in the future.
  It is questionable whether a right of pre-emptive self-defence exists in international law. Most, but not all, international lawyers believe that it does. But most are also agreed that the right can exist only when an attack is imminent. What "imminent" means is, admittedly, unclear when weapons of mass destruction can be transported in a container on a lorry or a ship, or, indeed, even in a test-tube.

  277
  The most that can be said now is that at some time in the future Saddam may choose to make a weapon of mass destruction available to a terrorist group. We cannot regard that as a sufficiently clear and imminent threat to justify an attack now. On that issue, I beg leave to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, of Guildford.
  And so we come back to the third ground for intervention, the failure of Iraq to comply with the United Nations orders to destroy weapons of mass destruction and not to re-equip itself, and, in particular, its non-compliance with resolutions 687 and 1441. I believe that this is a far stronger ground for intervention, and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, was right to concentrate entirely on it.
  The United Nations has power under Article 39 to decide on the measures to take to maintain peace and security; under Article 41 the measures may be sanctions; and under Article 42, if sanctions prove to be inadequate, the United Nations may use armed force.
  I have little doubt that Iraq still has biological and chemical weapons; I have little doubt that an Iraq in possession of weapons of mass destruction is, and would become increasingly, a threat to the peace and security of its region, if not of the wider world. I therefore have to accept that the use of armed force would be a proportionate and legitimate response if no other form of pressure can induce Iraq to disclose and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and its facilities for making them.
  But the use of armed force would be legitimate only if other methods had failed. The question is, have they failed? Certainly they have not yet succeeded, but it is not clear that they have yet failed. We must not allow a timetable to be dictated by logistics and climate. We must act with deliberate speed and not with haste. Others have discussed, and will discuss, possible alternatives to armed force. I will say, once again, that force must be used only as a last resort.
  I turn to the final issue, which is perhaps the most important of all. A decision under Article 42 of the United Nations Charter to use force is a matter that must be decided by the international community, acting through the United Nations. That brings me back to where I started—the rule of law must be paramount.
  I recognise that without the commitment of the USA there would be no chance whatever of enforcing compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations resolutions. That gives the USA a right to respect for its views and to a strong voice in the decision-making process. But it must balance its great powers with great restraint. As Shakespeare said in "Measure for Measure",
  "O, it is excellent
  To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous
  To use it like a giant".
  The United States and the United Kingdom should act only with the authority of the international community behind them. Without that authority, military force would not be legitimate. I believe that
  278
  what I have said represents the views not only of most of the British people but of very many Americans as well.
  5.26 p.m.
  Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, in my entire career as a British diplomat I cannot recall a crisis to compare with our present situation vis-à-vis Iraq, with the possible exception of the Cuba missile crisis of 1962. I say this not because I think there is any risk, as there certainly was in the case of Cuba, of Iraq targeting the West with weapons of mass destruction; quite the contrary. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I have never believed that there was an immediate threat from Iraq either against the United States or against Europe.
  It seems to me much more likely, as has been argued by both the Sheikh of Al Azhar and the Prime Minister of Malaysia, that an attack against Iraq, which may well be necessary as a last resort, will be seen in the Islamic world as a direct attack against Islam and will fuel further terrorist attacks against the West. This is all the more likely given the Government's failure to convince our American friends of the need for a balanced approach to the deteriorating situation as regards the Palestinians and Israel.
  I believe that we are now facing some decisions, and possible misjudgments, that will have profound effects on our long-term national interests in the Middle East and in Europe and on the stability of the neighbouring countries in the Middle East.
  The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, referred to confusing objectives. Let us consider the arguments that have been deployed to justify military action against Iraq. First, we were told that it was a necessary reaction to the events of September 11th against a regime which had close links with terrorists, if not with the perpetrators of those horrendous events. But senior members of the United States Administration had been pressing, long before September 11th, for an attack against rogue states, including Iraq.
  Then we were told that the justification for this new policy of pre-emptive attacks, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred, was the evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and Al'Qaeda. But I do not believe that I am alone in finding the evidence produced, both in the Government's dossiers and by Secretary of State Colin Powell in the Security Council, not at all convincing.
  Then moral arguments were put forward to show what an evil regime it is in Baghdad and that therefore we should press for regime change in order to install some kind of western democracy in Iraq as a basis for democratising other regimes in the region. Ministers have repeatedly confirmed, both in this House and elsewhere, that our prime objective was not regime change but disarmament. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary is specifically on record as saying that we should not be in the business of changing other people's governments. So the inspectors were sent in, backed—quite rightly—by the threats inherent in Resolution 1441, and the

  279
  benchmark was to be Iraqi co-operation or non-co-operation. Now we are told—in advance of further reports by Mr Blix and Mr El Baradei, and in the face of reports that Saddam Hussein is indeed starting to co-operate—that the Iraqis are clearly in serious breach of Resolution 1441 and that an invasion of Iraq should now be authorised.
  What is the urgency? This is not 1991, when we had an urgent need, with strong international support and involvement, to rescue the Kuwaitis from their invaders. Why cannot we wait, as the French, Russians and Chinese argue, for the inspectors to continue their work, and for further time to be given to diplomacy? We may not believe Saddam's assurances to Mr Primakov; we may not trust anything Saddam says; but it is hardly the way to gather international support for our objectives if we are seen to dismiss the efforts of the weapons inspectors even before they have reported to the Security Council. Why not maintain the pressure, and see whether it works?
  I acknowledge that those of us who argue against immediate war face a genuine dilemma; namely, the risk of appearing to reduce the pressure on Saddam Hussein. If that were the true purpose of massing our troops in the Gulf, I would support that. But I fear that the truth is that the Americans, or at least the President's senior advisers, have long been determined to attack Iraq.
  I find myself in the position of the Irish guide who advised—rather unhelpfully—that we should not be starting from here. But we are, and I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. Have we taken into account the likely, though uncertain, effects of a military assault on Baghdad? Do we share the improbable view of some Americans that it will be a short and "successful" campaign (whatever that means) followed by democratic elections? Have we not learnt the lesson of Bosnia, where we and our allies have tried to install a democratic system in conditions far better understood than those in Iraq? Are we prepared to stay in Iraq for the 10 years it has taken us in Bosnia?
  Do we share the stated American view that we can then use Iraq as an example to install Western-style democracy in Syria and Saudi Arabia, for starters? Having been ambassador to both countries, I can assure your Lordships that this would not be an easy task, even if it could be justified in international law.
  It is often said that our troops should not be sent into battle without the support of public opinion at home. But they should at least be clear about the Government's objectives. Are they adequately prepared for the horrendous tasks which I believe await any invading force in Baghdad: the need to control a bloody civil war of revenge; a flood of refugees into neighbouring states; a massive humanitarian crisis; and, of course, the threat from those weapons of mass destruction which the inspectors have not yet been able to find?
  5.33 p.m.
  Lord Brennan: My Lords, war is the killing of people and the destruction of things. Let us remember that in the 20th century 160 million people were killed in war—the majority of them civilians. The failure of the
  280
  League of Nations to prevent the first stage of that horror was followed by the creation of the United Nations after the Second World War, with the declared aim of ridding mankind of the scourge of war.
  The UN has sought to achieve that simple but noble objective by introducing a system of world government, a charter to which we and other countries signed up as a treaty, recognising within its terms that it represented a higher level than other treaty obligations. So we have agreed to the following: that war is not justified without the lawful authority of self-defence or a United Nations decision; and that self-defence is justified if there is armed attack until the United Nations can then seek to resolve the problem. But, beyond that, war is justified only when it has been established to the satisfaction of the international community that it is the last resort to protect international peace and security. That is the question that we face, and which the Security Council faces in making its decisions.
  Professor Glover of London University said only last week:
  "Some of us"—
  I think he meant many—
  "fear the instability of a world of unauthorised pre-emptive strikes".
  He said that undermining the United Nations would lead to,
  "the erosion of the world's [present and only] attempt at international authority".
  At the end of the 20th century—within three years of it—are we to say to ourselves that this is a new world, in which unilateralism will prevail over multilateralism and in which the youth, inexperience and difficulties of the United Nations mean that we can pass it by? I think not—and I suspect that most people agree.
  So I want to deal plainly with the questions asked by the Prime Minister yesterday and previously. Is there a will for war? The answer is: yes, if it is justified. The moral certainty of someone telling me that he thinks a war is justified is not enough. That moral certainty must be accompanied by rational, objective and convincing reasons why it is necessary, why it is the last resort, and why people's lives should be put at stake. Questioning the will begs that question. It is there.
  Secondly, it is, I am afraid, a question of timing. The inspectorate that the nations of the world established to carry out its task in Iraq has said, through Hans Blix, that it has not finished its task. It does not predict an interminable process. It gives the clear impression of expedition, objectivity and good sense. Was the appointment of the inspectors a charade? Are we to say within weeks that the fact that they have found nothing illustrates the virtue of our cause and then pass on, whatever they say? How can that be? Would we accept such a state of affairs in relations between each other, in communities within our own country? I think not.
  What of the peoples of our countries? Of course politicians must lead us into war and our generals and soldiers must fight those wars. But, usually, one hopes

  281
  and prays that it is with the will of their people behind them. In the United States, where I was last week, the New York Times and CBS polls indicated that 60 per cent of the American population did not want a war now. They wanted to give more time. Are we to doubt that in our own country the proportion is any less? Are we to face war through political decision-making which fails to take into account the sentiment of the very people we say we are protecting?
  If timing is to be looked at in terms of national support and the inspectors' decisions, surely the critical question is: if we have agreed that the rule of international law will be reflected through the United Nations, should we not wait for the UN to decide? I may be accused of legal rigidity; I hope I simply reflect a citizen's good sense when I say that war is the result of a clear decision. We, in the words of the United Nations, agree to all necessary means being employed to fulfil the need to protect international peace and security.
  War is not a penalty for breaching United Nations resolutions. It is a consequence of breaching them in circumstances that threaten international peace and security. Many in the world do not think we are at that stage yet. Timing is therefore critical. I mean war sooner rather than later, but I cannot understand the need for war now.
  Next, beyond will and timing, surely the critical question is judgment. Is this war necessary and justified? Let us examine some of the arguments—first, terrorism. Within the past two years, on the Floor of this House, we have debated 11 draft conventions of the United Nations to combat terrorism agreed to before September 11th. How many have been agreed to by now? Very few. We agreed to support an international campaign against the financing of terrorism. Where are we? Are we to forget those very important objectives and suddenly find that we are being told the real problem is Iraq? I find this state of affairs wholly unconvincing.
  I therefore turn to the second point. Is there evidence that Iraq is a threat to international peace and security now, so that war is necessary? Let us wait for the inspectors to tell us, and the answer will be one of two. Either we have discovered such a state of weaponry as plainly to constitute such a threat or we have not but we are convinced that they exist. One of the two must be the connotation. I am sure they will not take much longer to establish.
  Thirdly, I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary to have a second further resolution of the Security Council before war can be undertaken. Why? Pre-emptive strikes and regime change are concepts unknown to international law. However, we know that when you go to the Security Council and it agrees, you can take action to protect the international community. I hope that in a few weeks' time we will not be faced with a semantic analysis of a Security Council resolution to determine, cryptographically, whether it means war or peace.
  282
  Last of all, I turn to judgment. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, reminded us that soldiers go into war intending to come out of it—an exit strategy, militarily and politically. Are we to invade Iraq, then abandon it to a Kurdish war in the north, perhaps, a Shia uprising in the south, chaos in the middle, run by a military regime until we tire of it and leave them to their own resources? Is that what making peace is about in the 21st century? Surely not.
  So, the will is there, the timing not yet decided, the judgment ready to be made. Underneath that judgment is the underpinning value that at the beginning of this century I, for one, do not want politicians, no matter how well intentioned, as our Prime Minister very clearly is, to make decisions about Iraq which destroy the international authority of the United Nations, returning us to the very chaos we fought to avoid only 50 years ago.
  There is a simple saying which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, captured in his remarks: wisdom is the anticipation of consequences. If we are to make a wise decision about this war, let us consider all the consequences before we make it. If it is war, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, we will support our troops to the hilt, perhaps with a heavy heart, but afterwards we will ask: was this a just war? That is the critical question. Is this a just war for the right reasons, with the right intentions, aiming for the right result?
  This debate is not about will or national sentiment; it is about legal, moral and rational discernment before we expose our world to a calculated, deliberate war.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Blaker: My Lords, I was reminded by the declaration of his pacifism by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of an organisation which flourished in the late 1930s called the Peace Pledge Union. Most of its members were not pacifists; they believed that by demonstrating and calling for peace they could help to achieve peace. But in fact they achieved the opposite. They were so effective that they helped defeat the government of the day in the Fulham by-election. That gave the government such a shock that, in the years until the Second World War broke out, they were very cautious about rearming, when they should have been rearming. The consequence, of course, was that Hitler took courage and proceeded to undertake his series of annexations, confident that the British people were so feeble that they would not resist him.
  When I look at pictures of the recent march, which 1 million people went on, I say to myself that it is probable that if they have any effect it will be to encourage Saddam Hussein to believe that he can continue longer in his obstruction of the United Nations. The marchers were very sincere and genuine people, and they certainly had the right to demonstrate, but I think the result of their efforts, so far as there was a result at all, would have been the negative one that I have just described.
  I have been asking myself why there is such doubt in the country about the wisdom of the Government's policy. I think that it is, to some extent, a question of

  283
  public relations. They started by allowing the impression to get about that the purpose of the inspectors was to discover a smoking gun. That, as we now understand, is not the purpose. It is to monitor the observance of the United Nations' resolution. But the impression spread that the smoking gun search was the objective, and of course, no smoking gun has yet been discovered. I think that is still bothering the public, because that was the first impression that formed in their mind when this affair was at an early stage.
  The inspectors have done well to correct people's understanding by referring to Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to comply with the United Nations' resolution, but there is still a residual feeling that the absence of a smoking gun reflects badly on the Government's policies.
  I should like to talk about North Korea, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. One is asked, if we are about to wage war against Iraq, why are we not contemplating something similar in relation to North Korea? It is more dangerous than Iraq: it may have, as is generally believed, several nuclear weapons already. It certainly has chemical and biological weapons. It has one of the biggest armed forces in the world. It has a cruel and aggressive dictator. But there are two points to be made in explaining why the United States in particular, as well as China and North Korea's neighbouring countries, are approaching the problem of the recent North Korean renunciation of its treaty obligations regarding weapons of mass destruction with some caution. North Korea has in fact negotiated with the United States an agreement which was effective for eight years, but which has just been rejected. So North Korea has shown itself willing to negotiate, which I think is not true of Saddam Hussein.
  The main point, however, is the possible possession by North Korea of nuclear weapons and its certain possession of other types of weapons of mass destruction. North Korea has 10,000 artillery pieces on the border with South Korea. As the capital of South Korea, Seoul, is very close to the border, the South Koreans are not very keen on an attack on North Korea. I think that one has to ask the following question. If Saddam Hussein were not restrained at all by the inspectors or by some other measure, would he not very soon have the same sort of weapons, including nuclear weapons, which he had almost developed in 1991? If that were so, I think that the West would be very cautious about attacking Saddam Hussein.
  My last, and most important point is to reinforce those who talked about the implications for the Middle East of a war against Iraq. What will happen after a successful war is ended? The American hawks would say that there would be a democratisation of the countries in the Middle East which would usher in an era of peace, which would make it easier rather than more difficult to resolve the problem of Israel and the Palestinians. I am very sceptical about that scenario, and I think that other noble Lords who have spoken are right to be sceptical of it. My noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell wrote a very interesting—indeed, brilliant—article in the current issue
  284
  of the RUSI Journal in which he referred to the possibility of the Middle East being in a state of sullen humiliation. He talked of an increased threat of terrorism.
  So I believe that one thing that is absolutely essential for the United States in particular to do at the end of a war against Iraq, if such a war occurs, is to show unprecedented energy, skill and determination in promoting a solution to the Arab-Israeli problem. I think that it is a great pity that the road map has not yet been published by the Quartet. The actions of the Quartet were apparently put in suspense during the Israeli election period and I think that that too was a mistake.
  As we would all agree, the solution has to be fair to both sides. It has to safeguard the existence of Israel. It has to involve withdrawal from the occupied territories, which are illegally occupied in international law. When I say "withdrawal", I mean total withdrawal, not just a partial withdrawal. I do not think that it is very encouraging how Mr Sharon has formed his new government as it contains elements which I think will be very resistant to withdrawal from the territories. It must involve the demolition of what I call Mr Sharon's wall, which is dividing what territory the Palestinians have. I believe that unless these things are done, we shall live to regret it.
  5.53 p.m.
  Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, Resolution 1441 is unequivocal. All United Nations Security Council members forged a common position based on the view that Iraq today poses a major threat inside and outside its borders, a threat sufficiently serious to trigger the gravest consequences of all—military action—to force her to comply with all resolutions passed by the United Nations since 1991. Resolution 1441 goes right back to Resolution 687. One of the prohibitions placed on Iraq then was terrorism. Resolution 687, in paragraph 32, required Iraq,
  "to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organisation directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism".
  Three weeks ago, I questioned the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Al Douri, on terrorism. He told me:
  "Iraq has no links with international terrorist organisations".
  Others have questioned Saddam Hussein, who declared in his interview last night with Dan Rather, of' the US television channel, that Iraq has no links with the Al'Qaeda network. I do not think that we need to look that far to see that Iraq is in grave breach of paragraph 32 of Resolution 687.
  I call noble Lords' attention to the MKO, an organisation proscribed by the United Kingdom, the USA and the European Union. What is it? How does it work? The MKO has a clear history. The organisation was set up in 1960 to operate against the Shah—who was himself an impostor as his grandfather took the throne from the hereditary Shah in 1924. The MKO was a part

  285
  of the Iranian revolution in 1979. However, it had a disagreement with the new government, in 1981, and moved to Iraq, where it has based itself since 1986. The MKO claims to be a modern human rights movement, the true opposition to the current government in Iran, and that it fights only the Iranian military. It says that it never attacks civilians or nationalities other than Iranians.
  In fact, the MKO's guiding rules are not based on human rights at all. It is deeply unpopular in Iran, inter alia because of its involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, when it fought against Iran. One of its great claims is that it promotes women's rights and that it opposes the wearing of the Hijab. However, every one of the women who is a member of the MKO or serves in its forces wears the Hijab. The MKO has separate training camps for women. It rules by brainwashing, force and weapons. It is a personality cult of Mr Rajavi, its head.
  Let us look at the claim that the MKO fights only against Iranian military forces and never assaults civilians. The actuality is that the MKO participated actively, in August 1998, in the chemical weapons assault on the northern Kurdish Iraqis at Halabja. What did its forces do? Evidence given to me by those involved declares that the MKO troops guarded the Iraqi border so that the unfortunate Kurds could not escape. The MKO was involved, according to evidence given to me, in the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It supplied the Iraqi army with weapons and tanks. There is also Kuwaiti evidence of its involvement.
  In 1991, MKO forces brutally crushed the subsequent uprising of the Kurds. They said:
  "We killed thousands of them".
  MKO forces were active in support of the Iraqi army's brutal oppression of the southern Shias, where thousands more were killed. I have evidence, too, that they were involved in the draining of the Iraqi marshlands—a subject to which I shall return on the genocide against the Iraqi Marsh people, against whom draining of the marshland has been the final weapon. MKO forces have been involved in attacking the Marsh Arabs from 1992 onwards. The MKO is a mercenary force, armed, trained, mobilised and deployed by the Iraqi military. Indeed, its leader, Mr Rajavi, constantly claims that he walks,
  "hand in hand with Saddam".
  What is the MKO's international links? Those, too, can be proven by the people trained in the M KO's own military camps in Iraq. They are European—French, Italian, British. They are Arab, from other Arab nations. They are from South America. If one wants to trace the elusive link with the Al'Qaeda network and Saddam Hussein, one should note that the MKO was active in the Taliban. The Taliban, of course, provided the nursery for Al'Qaeda's network. On Iraq's links with international terrorism, I urge noble Lords to look no further than the MKO.
  In the global post-9/11 fight against terrorism, Iraq is in the dock, in clear breach of 687 and therefore of 1441. Iraq's MKO ownership and direction makes the
  286
  Iraqi denial of links with any international terrorist organisation frankly untrue. This organisation, owned by Iraq, is a threat outside Iraq. Inside Iraq, I have evidence from others that the MKO has actively hidden weapons of mass destruction from the earlier inspectors.
  Let us examine the case for weapons of mass destruction and Iraq. Once more, I refer to Resolution 687 of 1991, which declares that the United Nations Security Council was:
  "Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons".
  The resolution, in paragraph 8:
  "Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: … All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities … All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres".
  Indeed, it states that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified.
  I asked Ambassador Al Douri about Iraq's retention of weapons of mass destruction. He told me clearly in front of witnesses that Iraq had disarmed from all weapons of mass destruction two to three years ago. He added spontaneously that nor did Iraq poison her own citizens. As a mouthpiece of his master, Saddam Hussein, Mr Al Douri says only what he is authorised to say. Saddam Hussein's television interview last night reiterates those views.
  Is Iraq in breach of Resolution 687? What is the evidence? I have first-hand evidence over the years when I paid many visits to the Iraq and Iranian borders, the Iraqi marshlands and the Iraqi refugees. From 1992 I have clear evidence from an eye-witness of three parcels being dropped from a helicopter which burst on landing. Seven people died within three hours. There were no external wounds at all, but bleeding from apertures in their face. Their skin turned blue. Others were made very ill.
  In 1996 I reported to Geneva to those charged with monitoring the chemical weapons convention, to which I have just referred, that there was a yellow explosion from an aeroplane over the marshlands. I interviewed some of the victims. They said that it was a great, yellow cloud that spread across their land. Hundreds of people died and many were very ill. I interviewed a handful of the survivors shortly afterwards.
  In 1998 I had clear evidence of the defeat of the weapons inspectors' only visit to an MKO camp. That was the only visit that they were allowed because Saddam Hussein declared to the weapons inspectors that the MKO camps and sites were diplomatically protected; that they were inside Iraq, but they had to be treated as though they were foreign embassies. That meant that the inspectors went in only once. I have clear

  287
  evidence of the ways in which the M KO shifted around weapons of mass destruction. Their commanders pushed them away, hid them, and boasted afterwards of having been successful in fooling the inspectors.
  In 1999 and 2000 there is clear evidence again of tarred boxes which were thought by those observing them to contain weapons of mass destruction in terms of biological or chemical weapons. Many hundreds of tarred boxes were transported and buried deep inside the marshes. Today I have much evidence of where thousands of missing documents are stored, orders for new weapons and evidence of dual use technology. I have given some of the evidence to Dr Blix and I am of course fully informing the British Government. It is my view that Iraq's breach of Resolution 687 in terms of chemical weapons is absolutely clear.
  I turn to human rights. Resolution 688 immediately followed 687. Mr Al Douri said that human rights were all up to standard and that he had a dossier in production to prove that. I believe that that is farcical. In my most recent visit to the Iran/Iraq border two weeks ago the plight of the Marsh Arabs was pitiful. I saw once again thousands of refugees. Four million people have fled Iraq, which is a quarter of Iraq's total population under Saddam Hussein. I was reminded of the ancient cry, "How long, oh Lord, how long!" because the Iraqi refugees are begging for relief and so, I believe, are the Iraqi people inside Iraq.
  Neighbouring countries in the region are planning for millions more refugees, including Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran. The backwash of human misery caused by Saddam Hussein has barely been recognised by the international community. As regards the Iraqi refugees in Iran, the average cost of keeping a refugee alive is 695 dollars a year giving very modest hospitality. The international community provides six dollars per head per annum.
  I turn to the International Criminal Court, genocide, international law and Halabja. I have been committed to this most powerful course of action since 1988. The difficulties then of setting up a special tribunal have now been overcome for the special case of the Marsh Arabs through the installation of the International Criminal Court. Genocide against the Marsh Arabs has continued unceasingly since last July when the International Court was brought into being. Why the Marsh Arabs? The massacre of the northern Kurds is well known in the West and internationally accepted as genocide. But I claim that in contrast the Iraq regime's long-planned and near-finalised extinction of the indigenous inhabitants of the lower Mesopotamian marshlands of Iraq, known in the West as the Marsh Arabs, has gone virtually unnoticed.
  I believe that the Marsh Arabs can be defined as a group under the 1948 genocide convention through the actus rea, the physical act of destruction in whole or in part of the group, and mens rea the specific intent to commit genocide. I have collected contemporaneous and historic evidence from the Marsh Arabs themselves during the time of their destruction, travelling both inside the marshes and nearby from the most destructive period from 1991 until today. That can be verified.
  288
  I remind noble Lords that the duty on state parties to the genocide convention is to stop the genocide and to punish those engaged in this ethnic mass murder. If the Security Council cannot be persuaded to act, an operation should be mounted by any signatory to the convention to secure the perpetrators and bring them to trial before a court specially constituted to try such crimes against humanity. Has genocide been committed against the Marsh Arabs? Yes; then action is imperative.
  On the broader front the policy of containment has wholly failed. Since Resolution 687 was passed the Iraqi people have endured 12 more years of deepest suffering. In my view and that of others, the Marsh Arabs have been the victims of genocide. Saddam Hussein has successfully retained his weapons of mass destruction and international terrorist organisation is under his control. I submit that the region and beyond is at grave risk.
  6.8 p.m.
  The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who is well known in this House for her first-hand knowledge of the suffering of the Iraqi people and of the causes of that suffering.
  I return to the wider question. I support the Prime Minister's call yesterday for an even-handed approach to the Middle East peace process. I very much welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness in response to my noble friend Lord Hylton and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, yesterday. But in the midst of the campaign against Iraq, can the Government really claim to be sincere about peace in the Middle Fast and be believed by anyone in that region? The website for the British embassy in Cairo informs Egyptian citizens that the two governments,
  "are working together against international terrorism and creating the conditions for the revival of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians".
  That is what we want the Arab world to hear, but not what it actually believes. We present a common front, but what happened to the international coalition against terrorism? The days when Ministers toured Arab capitals in search of diplomatic solutions are in the past. We actually offer the assumption that terrorism is to be found in Iraq and we are going after it regardless of a Palestinian settlement or, it seems, of the opinion of anyone in the Middle East.
  Today's debate may be too late. We have left the era of peaceful negotiation behind and have entered the zone of wartime propaganda. How many people in the Arab world, even in Kuwait, genuinely believe that we are serious about Palestine? Bishop Abu El-Assal Riah of the Episcopal Church, whom I met a year ago in Jerusalem and who is one of the church leaders who visited Tony Blair and Clare Short last week, has said:
  "The road to Baghdad would be much easier if it went through Jerusalem. Going to war will shelve the Palestinian issue for God knows how many years from now. It facilitates the hidden agenda of the Israeli leadership. It will be seen as another crusade".
  He added:
  "War if it comes will be catastrophic for the faithful remnant of Christians in the birthplace of our faith".

  289
  That is just one of many voices—Christian, Jewish and Muslim—and we are not listening to them. Our current diplomacy is shaped not for the Middle East but for the White House. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is scraping by on promises, occasional protests and conferences in Downing Street—arranged only by the permission of Sharon and President Bush. The Prime Minister deserves credit for helping to keep the Iraq issue within the United Nations but ultimately it is a kith-and-kin issue. We will stand by the US rather than succumb to what is perceived as the European Union-United Nations quagmire.
  That solidarity with the US is Israel's agenda too. Whatever its behaviour in Palestine, we are incapable of seeing Israel as an aggressor—yet Israel, the victim of the holocaust, is behind the axis of evil concept and is the architect of a new order in the Middle East. One can hear that on Israeli radio. A report on 1st February referred to
  "the opportunity for a regional strategic change",
  and later to,
  "an opportunity for establishing a new world order".
  In other words, once Saddam has been dealt with, we can clean up Iraq and move on to other inconvenient regimes in the Middle East. There may even be new territories for the Palestinians.
  That policy is labelled anti-terrorism. September 11th gave Israel carte blanche to turn the intifada into a state of war and repression and to flush out whole communities surrounding the homes of Palestinian suspects and, where possible, eliminating them. That daily attack, with curfews and closures, goes on largely unreported. There have been hundreds more Palestinian casualties than Israeli casualties. We hear of outrages against Israeli civilians but rarely of the extra-judicial killings and torture of Palestinians.
  Meanwhile, we pretend to be active on the diplomatic side. Tony Blair invited the Quartet back to discuss the roadmap but the talks have stalled again and again. Israel has raised up to 100 objections and the US says nothing. No wonder the Palestinian local government Minister, Dr. Sa'ib Urayqat, dismissed the Israeli position on Al-Jazeera TV on 21st February:
  "Sharon's road map is one of settlement, destruction, confiscation of land and entrenchment of the occupation".
  Is that view unreasonable? Do the Government have a more optimistic view of the talks? They were interrupted by the intifada and postponed for the elections. Are they indefinitely shelved because of Iraq? How does the Cabinet square geo-political support for Israel—not to mention our arms trade with that country and the other matters mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour—with the poverty in Gaza described recently by Clare Short as reaching African proportions?
  Christian Aid—I declare an interest as a board member—is extremely concerned about the regional repercussions of war across the Middle East. There is a real risk of political and economic shocks in
  290
  neighbouring states, Israel and the Occupied Territories. The situation is already critical. The noble Baroness mentioned malnutrition in Iraq. Nearly three in four Palestinians are already on the poverty line. The noble Baroness mentioned also Iraq's contempt for the UN. How can the Government reconcile their policy with Israel's callous attitude to the UN—in particular, to the work of the United Nations Relief Works Agency in the Occupied Territories? Why have they heard nothing about the death of lain Hook, the British UNWRA project worker who was killed in so-called crossfire by the IDF in November? What about the brutal treatment of many Palestinians who work with the UN? Does it take one British life for us to complain? Are we more concerned about the threat to Israeli soldiers from terrorists, real and imagined, than to Palestinians?
  This debate may be about Iraq but millions of British citizens—not to say Arab and Muslim friends throughout the world—know that by embarking on war we are selling our Palestinian friends down the river in the North Atlantic cause.
  What about the humanitarian consequences already mentioned by many of your Lordships and acknowledged as a critical element? After years of sanctions, 50 per cent to 60 per cent of Iraqis depend on the Oil for Food programme. Despite the hardship, that programme is acknowledged to be working efficiently. A war would cause it to collapse. Non-governmental organisations working in Iraq say that there is nothing to replace it. Nor does the UN have sufficient stocks to meet the inevitable demands of perhaps 2 million displaced persons—half of them fleeing as refugees to Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.
  I will repeat a number of questions posed by Save the Children, Oxfam and other agencies. Who will be responsible for co-ordinating humanitarian action in Iraq—the UN or the US as part of its war effort, as many fear? What extra funding has the Department for International Development set aside for humanitarian action? It is believed that while billions are available for war, nothing has been budgeted for the humanitarian consequences. How much will the Government give to the latest UN RWA 90 million dollar appeal in Palestine?
  With the second Security Council resolution still to be discussed, there is still time for a European solution—for the Prime Minister to insist that weapons inspectors should carry on and that an even-handed approach is just as important to the Middle East as terrorism and more important even than war with Saddam Hussein.
  6.19 p.m.
  Baroness Uddin: My Lords, these are the last hours of hope. My heart also goes out to the Prime Minister and I pay tribute to his gallant efforts to achieve Resolution 1441. I am sure that no one disagrees.
  I sat through the whole of the Prime Minister's Statement in another place yesterday and agree wholeheartedly with and believe my right honourable

  291
  friend when he says that he does not want war and knows that no one in the House wants war. But my agreement stops at that point.
  After hearing moving contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I feel humbled by my own contribution. I almost withdrew my name from the list of speakers, thinking that there was nothing more to be said.
  However, as we approach the beginning of this inevitable, horrible war that will end the world as we know it, as a mother I have to share my opinion and have my say. It is a difficult endeavour, but the Prophet of Islam instructed that even at the moment that we are surrounded by Armageddon, the believer should continue to plant trees. The wisdom there is that the end of something is always the beginning of something else. I am not for one moment suggesting that we plant trees.
  As a child of war in Bangladesh—it had its fair share of violent conflict, to which members of my family were lost—I carry many of the scars of my then countrymen and women: scars of rape, death, pain, broken limbs, devastated lives, pain and revenge. My abhorrence towards the particular conflict that we face by no means comes from the fact that I am a pacifist.
  My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will acknowledge our absolute and total support for his efforts in Afghanistan. My criticism of the current approach of the Government whom I support comes with equal commitment to the fact that what I believed then about Afghanistan, I believe about Iraq now. Any war against Iraq would be both unjust and immoral in my opinion. Thank God, I share that opinion with a number of noble Lords and other people in Britain.
  Support for action is incredibly unwise and inhumane. The context in which the war is to be waged is not only based on untruths—I hesitate to say lies—and duplicity, but is frightening in its avowed barbarity and ferocity. The message coming from the US is that Iraq and whoever "happens" to be there is about to he annihilated. Recently at Mayport Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Florida, US President George Bush told hundreds of naval personnel, on the eve of the war, that rules of war did not apply to terrorists. He said:
  "On 9–11, the terrorists brought war to us—now we're taking it to them".
  He called terrorists—whom else could he be referring to but the Iraqis, with whom the US is about to go to war—"cold-blooded thugs" and "outlaws".
  Earlier, the US public was told that Saddam Hussein was using his own citizens as human shields. Pentagon reports claimed that the Iraqi army was hiding among the Iraqi citizenry. The Pentagon also showed satellite images of what it claimed were missile launchers "parked" outside mosques. In January, Iraq "experts" Frank Gaffney and Richard Perle said that the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq's possession were hidden in the private homes of Iraqi citizens, and
  292
  in hospitals, universities and mosques. All those locations have effectively been made fair game and open to attack.
  Actually that was a cue: here we had helicopters and 150 policemen invading a mosque in Finsbury Park. The rash action, which had the effect of tarnishing the image of mosques and demonising Muslims, political asylum seekers and exiles, has also set a scenario for people in this country to accept the bombing and destruction of mosques in Iraq when the war begins. I am not suggesting that anything is leading to propaganda.
  At the same time as our armed police were desecrating a holy place, the same was happening in Baghdad. Five UNMOVIC inspectors invaded the Al-Nidaa mosque, the largest and most populated in Baghdad, and interrogated the Imam, Shaykh Qutaiba Ammash. The "weapons inspectors" inquired as to the dimensions of the mosque and how many people it could house during prayers. The outraged Imam later held a press conference and asked:
  "Are the inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction or are they trying to measure the extent of faith in our hearts?".
  CNN's Nick Robertson, speaking during a live broadcast, said that the head of the inspections team in Baghdad had no idea who gave the orders for the five inspectors to intrude on the mosque. Many well-respected analysts in the region believe that the inspection was ordered and orchestrated directly by the US National Security adviser, Miss Rice, to raise the level of tension between Iraq and the UN and provoke Iraq into the daring, if not foolish, act of not co-operating. That would then give President Bush's Administration the excuse that they need to wage war unilaterally.
  I am no expert, and I do not suggest that that is the truth, but we need to ask what the truth is. How can we know what the truth is any more? All those provocations and allegations, coupled with bits and pieces of reports that have been plagiarized or are quite old, and also the fact that the US has refused to sign on to the International Criminal Court, which holds military personnel accountable for war crimes, spells doom for the innocent Iraqi civilians, among them Iraqi children.
  The statement that the Iraqi army is hiding among the civilian population indicates that the US Administration are expecting mass civilian casualties. It exonerates them—it does so in advance of a breakout of hostilities, I might add—because it places blame for the casualties on the Iraqi army chiefs and Saddam Hussein himself. The US Administration are effectively warning us all, saying, "Look, we told you before we went in that Saddam was hiding his weapons in civilian areas and didn't care for his civilians anyway, so the blame doesn't lie with us".
  President Bush concluded his speech on the naval base to which I referred earlier by saying,
  "we're gonna smoke 'em out".
  That has become paraphrased and used by every child on streets in inner-city areas.

  293
  A war against Iraq would have numerous consequences, and not only those that I have mentioned. Most of them would not benefit humanity. The allegation from numerous Muslim quarters that the war is against Islam would certainly be reaffirmed. There will be huge consequences. Going to war—I accept everything that colleagues have said on the subject—will certainly mean an increase in extremism. There may even be retaliation by terrorists, mostly against civilians because that is the most easy and effective manner to damage and hurt any country. Moderate Muslim nations with no extremist tendencies will be unable to control the sizeable numbers of their population who already believe that the United States supports the notion of wiping a billion of them from the face of the earth. Those are rising fears, which are not desirable at this vulnerable time.
  The economic balance of the world will be altered, as has been said, when the United States has control over the bulk of oil. At least in part, the war is against European oil treaties with Iraq. The economic costs of the war itself will create turmoil in all parts of the world's marketplace, although the people who usually push for such actions because they profit from them will do so again.
  I cannot say any more than has already been said on the demise of the United Nations, but when the US Administration thumb their noses at world opinion, it will end the credibility of that organisation and its international authority for ever. Those who do not already fear the United States as a rogue nation will start doing so. The tinderbox of the Middle East, already smouldering for 50 years, will ignite. Let there not be any doubt that we told you so.
  I am almost ashamed to talk about the environmental disaster that is estimated to happen as a consequence, given that we are talking about human beings and the desecration of a historical part of the earth, Iraq itself. All those who previously looked towards the United States as their friend and ally will for ever be mindful of having to watch their backs. The special relations that Britain has in particular with the Arab and Muslim world will be irrevocably damaged. Last, but not least, many innocent men, women and children will die. For them there is no voice in this or the other place.
  What is going on is profoundly depressing and sad. It is difficult to articulate the sense of frustration and disappointment that I feel, as well as the rage that has gripped me as we head towards disastrous consequences. We might not be able to stop the war, but we must, even if it is only for the sake of posterity, at least have the courage to say, "Please, not in our name". I do that today.
  When the might of the then Pakistani army inflicted death and destruction upon the gentle people of Bangladesh, I took part in protest marches with my family. Even as a child I was not silent. I was certainly not silent when the fascists took hold of the East End in the early 1980s. As a young mother I took my children to the South African embassy in Trafalgar Square to protest against apartheid and to support the release of Nelson Mandela.
  294
  On all those occasions the words of Martin Luther King echoed in my mind when he said:
  "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter".
  May God protect us from the folly of our friends, the evil of our enemies and the laziness of our actions. In saying my piece today, I echo the call of Archbishop Williams and Cardinal Murphy O'Connor who said that we must hope and pray that with God's guidance, an outcome that will bring peace with justice to Iraq and the Middle East may yet be found.
  6.32 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, if ever there was a function for a Parliament, it is that we should discuss all the ramifications and totally different views on these hugely important issues.
  I was lucky enough to spend four days in the United States earlier this month with quite a large group of more than 100 financial people. I was interested to find that they shared many of our anxieties, hesitations and concerns about the prospect of war with Iraq. I shall run through some of those.
  First, there are few, if any, moral inhibitions at the idea of eliminating Saddam Hussein and his odious clique of tyrants. I admit that I was amazed that the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart, said that the elimination of the Marsh Arabs was not in his view an example of genocide that justified an attack on Saddam. I was much more persuaded by the magnificent and well documented speech of his noble friend Lady Nicholson who, in that one speech, gave ample justification for the removal of Saddam Hussein.
  Secondly, although because of containment Saddam is at the moment merely a monster in his own backyard, who doubts that given the opportunity, he would continue the process of threatening his neighbours and would continue with a clear policy of getting his hands on middle eastern oil—first in Kuwait, then the Arab emirates and finally, Saudi Arabia. He would have total control and might hope to achieve it when there may be a less robust leadership in the US and Britain.
  Thirdly, there was in America, as there is here, widespread sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians and deep disapproval for the refusal of the Israelis to remove the illegal West Bank settlements. Although we can all condemn the suicide bombers attacking Israel, it is pretty clear that it is the Sharon Government who have provoked them. Palestine is clearly the major reservoir of hatred from which both Saddam and the various international terrorist organisations draw sustenance. The only way in which to drain that reservoir is for the United States to enforce, which it has the power to do, a political settlement based on the two-state solution. Although President Bush used to refer to that as a desirable outcome of the Middle East peace process, I fear that he may no longer be committed to it. There are powerful and malevolent forces inside the United States that support the Sharon Government in both their philosophy and their policies.

  295
  Let us not forget that as long ago as 4th April last year, President Bush gave the Israelis an ultimatum to withdraw their forces from the West Bank Palestinian areas. Indeed, Colin Powell was sent to Israel, yet both the President and his Secretary of State have been ignored.
  Fourthly, there is a real worry that there is no proper preparation, or even plan—referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall—to bring back a semblance of civilised, humane and sustainable administration to Iraq once a successful military operation has been completed. I think that the idea of General Tommy Franks having this responsibility is unbelievably naïve.
  Fifthly, there is profound worry about the political impact on the whole of the Middle East of a military operation that has not been sanctioned by the United Nations.
  Sixthly—I regard this as exceedingly important—there is the danger to the whole future of the United Nations as a viable source of any form of world peacekeeping if it fails to face up to the need to enforce Resolution 1441. That danger will be greatly increased if there is unilateral US-led military action against Iraq without UN authority.
  Seventhly, it is becoming increasingly clear—this has not been mentioned this afternoon—that the world economy, which is now in danger of recession, will not start to pick up while the shadow of military action in Iraq remains. Thus it is essential for economic reasons that the matter be resolved, one way or the other, as rapidly as possible.
  There is an eighth worry, which I suspect is not shared on the other side of the Atlantic. It is that America, with its new status as a world "super-duper" power, may be sucked into becoming a direct imperial power, particularly in protecting its oil interests. That would be dangerous and quite inappropriate in this century.
  Finally, I shall say a word about the dangers that the West faces from the solidarity of terrorist factions and the effect of a war with Iraq. Although I believe that the solution of the Israel-Palestine problem would help to reduce a major source of terrorism, there is a further factor that is deeply depressing. Many potential terrorists have an irreconcilable dislike for what they regard as the intrinsic decadence of the western way of life. That applies particularly to the Islamic fundamentalists. It is epitomised by the description often used by the Iranians of the United States as the "Great Satan".
  If the objective of those groups is to use terror to destroy the western democracy, culture and way of life so that it can be replaced by one based on the precepts of Islamic fundamentalism, with its appalling treatment of women, no deal can be done and we shall have to fight back. None of us would give up our way of life to have it replaced by theirs.
  The danger of that sort of terrorism is that it is global and unrelenting. It has an impact like that on a patient who is suffering from a large number of widespread, rapidly growing and highly malignant tumours. The
  296
  real danger is greatly increased if terrorist groups act together in some form of cross solidarity. Solidarity can come in many forms: religious, racial, tribal, national, class, economic, linguistic, cultural and even military.
  There is a chilling example of the synergy from the combination of solidarities in the history of Iran. In 1979 the Shah was overthrown because he alienated both the mullahs and the bazaar. One of the great dangers of a war in Iraq is that it could increase such synergies. The most obvious is the one between Arabs and Islamic fundamentalists, who in other respects do not share the same agenda. There is also a risk from racial minorities in Europe, particularly in France and Britain, who may feel and express solidarity with Saddam. To counter the risk of such solidarity underlines the need for UN hacking of any military action against Iraq.
  Saddam needs no more than days to demonstrate that he will co-operate fully with Resolution 1441; that is a matter not of complying but of demonstrating that he wishes to comply. He has rejected the possibility of saving his country from war by abdicating his rule. It is that rejection which has converted me personally to the view that he must be removed. America's preparations for war now seem to be irreversible. It cannot be in the interests of France for the UN to be discredited nor for the large North African minority in France to be alienated and given a reason to make common cause with Saddam. Despite President Chirac's atavistic dislike of America, his former but long-standing friendship with Saddam and his pursuit of French commercial interests in the Gulf, he should not use the French veto on the new resolution coming before the Security Council.
  In conclusion, the inability to remove every monster in the world is not a reason for not removing one of the worst. I therefore support the Prime Minister but I do hope that a second UN resolution will precede military action.
  6.41 p.m.
  Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, for many of us, the prospect of war in Iraq has become an intensely personal issue. We debate it with those closest to us and we agonise over our own position in the light of our most cherished values. In my case, that takes me back to Germany, where I grew up in the 1930s as the son of a Social Democrat politician who had become a prominent resistance fighter against the Nazi regime. It would have made a world of difference to us—and enabled millions of others to survive—if the western powers had stopped Hitler in his tracks during that fateful year from September 1938 to September 1939.
  To be sure, such analogies beg many questions. Is Saddam Hussein really another Hitler? But on one point I have no doubt: the values of liberty and of an enlightened society in which I believe have to be defended, if need be by force, and sometimes the only effective defence is to strike before the attack occurs.
  That does not make war a desirable option. In my understanding, war is never morally justified. However, there are times when it is necessary to do the

  297
  morally dubious in the interest of preserving the framework which allows our values to prevail. Unfortunately, the Iraq debate is beset by confusions of motives. In my view, the need to contain Saddam Hussein is not about fighting terrorism. Totalitarian rulers may pretend to support terrorists at a safe distance but are far too jealous of their monopoly of power to give them much space. There are instructive lessons to be learnt from the tense relationship between the West German Baader-Meinhof terrorists and the East German communist regime in the 1970s.
  The need to contain Saddam Hussein certainly has to do with the threat arising from "weapons of mass destruction". While the dictator may no longer possess battle-ready weapons to any significant extent, he would clearly wish to acquire them, given the time and the room for manoeuvre to do so. In this sense, it is the underlying nature of the regime which makes me accept the necessity of containment by intervention. Incidentally, the fact that there are others against whom a similar case could be made is not an argument for inaction. Is anyone seriously arguing that we should cease to pursue one killer because there are others about who have so far escaped justice?
  Like others, I have many questions of significant detail about military action against Iraq. It would clearly be infinitely preferable if the present leadership of Iraq stepped aside without intervention. Moreover, there are points that I must stress in order to make sure that my line of reasoning is not misunderstood. Everything that I have said about values—which, if need be, have to be defended pre-emptively—has two implications. One is that every effort must be made to persuade not just potential allies but the people in democratic countries and beyond of the need for action involving the use of force. The other need is that we must never lose sight of the motives for using force. That is not about bringing to bear the power of one country against another, let alone about asserting superiority. That would be the world from which Thomas Hobbes tried to free us 350 years ago—the war of all against all, in which one man is the other's wolf. Whatever action is taken has to be inspired by the desire to create a world of rules designed to govern all human beings and thus a cosmopolitan rule of law. That is why the role of the United Nations in the process of preparing, taking and following up decisions is so crucial.
  Such comments may seem far from the practicalities which are now rightly discussed, although I take comfort from the fact that the Prime Minister has adopted a similar line of principled argument. The Iraq crisis is a watershed for those of us who believe in an international order of law. We therefore have to be clear about why we are doing what we are doing. Having said that, however, I come down firmly in support of the position that the Prime Minister has taken consistently and courageously.
  6.47 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I was very struck earlier this afternoon by the speech of the noble
  298
  and learned Lord, Lord Howe, which built interestingly, from a political point of view, on the argument so well deployed by my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
  I want to make three brief points, and I wear two hats in so doing. The first is that I am president of an organisation called Sabeel UK, which is a voice for Palestinian Christians in this country. Secondly, I am chair of the board of Christian Aid, on which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and I serve together.
  I begin with a quote from an interesting article by Fouad Ajami in the magazine Foreign Affairs entitled, "Iraq and the Arabs' Future", and subtitled, "The road to modernity",. It was not at all anti-American but it raises some striking issues. It begins by stating:
  "There should be no illusions about the sort of Arab landscape that America is destined to find if, or when, it embarks on a war against the Iraqi regime. There would be no 'hearts and minds' to be won in the Arab world, no public diplomacy that would convince the overwhelming majority of Arabs that this war would be a just war. An American expedition in the wake of thwarted UN inspections would be seen by the vast majority of Arabs as an imperial reach into their world, a favour to Israel, or a way for the United States to secure control over Iraq's oil. No hearing would be given to the great foreign power".
  As we talk about the United Nations we cannot avoid the power of the United States of America in these matters. As we heard earlier, 55 per cent of the people of Saudi Arabia are under 15. The young men who drove the planes into the twin towers in New York and the plane that crashed in Philadelphia were young Saudis The documents recovered from those planes indicated that they carried a religious, pious vision of what they were doing.
  The question before us is, can the United States of America use its power to engage with the issues that stir the hearts and minds of the Arab world? It is not an adequate policy for the Middle East to get rid of Saddam Hussein, nor to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, desirable though both those outcomes may be. Neither necessarily provides for peace and justice for the Middle East. It is therefore vital that our American friends, supported by our Government, set out the broad context for peace and justice and our relationships with the Arab world and the Middle East.
  As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, there is no escape from a public and clear commitment to resolving the Palestinian situation in relation to Israel. A clear commitment and the publication of the road map to an independent, properly resourced free and dignified Palestinian state along the lines of Resolution 242 is inescapable to this process. Some of the growing sense of anger and frustration among Arab peoples in the Middle East might be reduced if our American friends made clear their commitment in that respect.
  I was with the delegation with the Bishop of Jerusalem. He said to the Prime Minister that the road to peace in Iraq goes through Jerusalem. The American church leaders there also made it clear—lest these remarks should be interpreted as anti-American—that the American churches have never been as united as they are in their opposition to the war. A debate is taking place on the other side of the Atlantic as well.

  299
  I turn to the appalling situation with regard to humanitarian issues. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Winchester handed to me earlier an e-mail from a relief agency in Nairobi. It says:
  "Baghdad is a long way from the Kakuma refugee camp in northwestern Kenya, but the repercussions of a potential war in Iraq are already being felt by the refugees there—in their stomachs.
  "A lack of donations from rich countries has forced aid agencies to cut food rations to refugees in the Kenyan camps and elsewhere in Africa. Humanitarian officials say this is just one example of how increased focus on the Middle East and Iraq is lessening the resources devoted to solving Africa's problems".
  The Government have declared Africa a priority. It seems that focusing on these issues is leading us to drift away from those matters.
  When we launched the Christian Aid document Losing Ground, which is in the Library, which states that 1.2 million Palestinians were living as close to destitution as the people of Zimbabwe, the Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, immediately said that the figure was now 1.8 million. What are we going to do? What plans do we have for 2 million refugees in Jordan when the war begins? The Government need to set out those matters clearly and publicly.
  I return to the anger over what is perceived to be—no matter what we may think about it—American and western imperialism. Will it threaten our social cohesion? Some of my colleagues who live with delicate multi-cultural communities are very worried about the impact of this conflict on social cohesion. We need to think about these matters.
  In my sleepless nights over this issue I have a nightmare that Osama bin Laden is smiling about the prospect of this war in the Middle East. Al'Qaeda works outside the structures of international order and law. Is it possible that a war prosecuted in this way will fulfil its desire to create increasing chaos and disorder; increasing Islamic fundamentalism and radicalisation in the Middle East; and that we will find in this post-Cold War world that we have not yet found a way of living together in peace in the international community? Is there anything this debate can do to exorcise that nightmare, which I suspect is not only in my mind?
  6.56 p.m.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, I can reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on one point: that nightmare is not only in his mind. In the light of a lifetime—if I may put it in personal terms—involved in international and humanitarian work, it is a nightmare I share virtually every night.
  We all need to think of the Prime Minister at this juncture. There can be few people carrying more responsibility than he is on our behalf. He must frequently be in genuine anguish. But because of the responsibility he carries and because of his candour, we would do him no service to hold back where we have alternative analyses to offer.
  300
  In expressing respect for the Prime Minister's integrity, I would like to do the same—if she will forgive me—to my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. We are fortunate in this House to have someone of her calibre and integrity handling international affairs.
  If there was one lesson of the 20th century, it was that global interdependence had become an inescapable reality. It was no longer possible to regard it as something in the realms of idealistic commitment. It was an everyday practicality. Alongside that realisation came the realisation of our vulnerability; that the more technocratic and developed—if we can use that often misused word—we became, the more vulnerable we became.
  President Bush is right in one respect when he argues that there is a connection between Iraq and global terrorism, but it is not the connection that he makes. The connection between Iraq and global terrorism is that there are in the world not only millions of economically and socially deprived people—which is in itself a huge challenge—but also millions of politically alienated people who are fed up to the back teeth with the cultural and political arrogance of a few self-appointed nations that want to run the world as they wish.
  Where President Bush may have reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons is that if Iraq goes wrong—pray God we have not already gone too far in that respect—this alienation will be strengthened and the accompanying dangers will be all the greater.
  Alliances have to be built; they cannot be imposed. That is why the UN is so essential. The tragedy of the United States' position is that the well-being, safety and security of future generations of the United States depend every bit as much on effective successful international institutions as those of people anywhere else in the world. The vulnerability of which I have just spoken illustrates that point.
  In that context, it is sad beyond measure that, at a time when we need the strength and power of the United States to contribute to this essential cause, that country seems so often to be determined to move in the opposite direction. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made that point very tellingly.
  Within the context of what I have just described, and in what I personally found a very helpful speech, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford also made another point very well. Of course, the United Nations Security Council is a legal requirement if we are to uphold international law before force is deployed. But perhaps even more important than the legal requirement is its political indispensability. For the reasons that I have just given, I believe it is absolutely crazy to embark upon an enterprise of this scale when, arguably, the majority of the world is totally unconvinced. To do that would be to play right into the hands of the extremists and terrorists.
  Therefore, what do we do? In recent days, I have been impressed not once but twice by the former Chief of Defence Staff in our midst, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, emphasising from his own experience

  301
  and standpoint that he believes the inspectors should be given more time, more resources and a chance to complete their work. We have heard the Government argue that that is not compatible with Resolution 1441. But I say to the Government with all respect that that is their view; clearly it is not the view of our colleagues in France and Germany. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who is usually so encouraging in these matters, has not taken that point on board. I do not see why, in our society, we should not listen more carefully to the analysis of those with whom we want to work in so many respects.
  I am afraid that the deadline that we are up against—I speak with some humility as a former junior defence Minister and a former Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—is one of our own making. We know that it is difficult to fight a war in the desert in temperatures of 40°. Therefore, having deployed all these forces on such a scale, if we are to go to war, we must do so quickly. I ask: how did we get into this predicament and is it really impossible to draw back before it is too late?
  I ask noble Lords what the judgment of history will be when people see an inspectorate set up as never before, with the authority and muscular backing that an inspectorate of that kind has never had before. What will that judgment be when people see an inspectorate of that kind unable to complete its work before certain members within the United Nations with more muscle than others say, "We cannot go on waiting around. We must take military action now"? I believe that the judgment of history will be harsh.
  The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, raised another point. He said that, before we deploy men and women in war, it is essential to be certain of our political analysis. Of course, he is right. We do not hear convincing arguments about the impact of an impetuous war on the recruitment of new terrorists for bin Laden and the rest; nor do we hear enough about what the future political state of Iraq will be or the position of the Kurds, for example, under the new arrangement being discussed. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, spoke tellingly of 55,000 Turkish troops being deployed in northern Iraq.
  What are the regional implications and—another point made so well this evening that it is hardly necessary to underline it—what are the implications for the Middle East as a whole? How will those who are part of this alienated body of opinion in the world view us when, whatever we may argue, we take such an unyielding and tough line in an immediate setting on Iraq but totally fail to make the same kind of setting on the Middle East?
  I want to make one other point, although I should like to say a great deal more. It has often been argued that one of the first casualties in war is truth. I am sorry to say this, but yesterday I was worried by the fact that the Prime Minister said on page two of his Statement, "That is the history". It was a very partial record of history. What about the failure to go into Baghdad during the last Gulf War? What about the failure to get Saddam Hussein to sign the surrender, as distinct from
  302
  leaving it to his generals? What was behind that? Was it possible that we wanted to leave Saddam in place because, in a difficult situation, we needed something to balance Iran? When we suddenly tell the world that this is a matter of rights, wrongs and absolutes, the rest of the world poses questions of that kind which need to be answered. We need to be a little cautious about our credibility in that respect.
  In conclusion, I believe that in the middle of this issue are two principles to which we must stick and which need to guide us in our anxiety. The first is that military action without the specific authority of the UN Security Council is unthinkable. We should be absolutely and specifically clear about that. Alongside that, the second point on which we need to be clear is that military action has to be seen by the world to be essential. There have to be no other possibilities and, if there are, they must have been tried. I do not believe that that is the case.
  That is why I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford was right to share his nightmare with us. It would be unforgivable if, because of our concern about Saddam, we played into the hands of the extremists of the world and provoked the greater crisis which we say we are trying to contain.
  7.07 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, over the past 20 years, we have been involved in four wars: the Falklands, Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait. On all those occasions, doubts were expressed beforehand and, on all those occasions, the end result was considerably better than what had existed before the evil was removed, although obviously it was not removed completely.
  Originally, I had several doubts about this matter. I was not convinced, because the Prime Minister, who, on this occasion, has eventually shown considerable courage, was incoherent in his reasons. Those reasons seemed to chop and change and the evidence seemed to be flimsy. However, once he put together all the elements, I found myself convinced.
  I do not believe that it would be necessary, for example, to take unilateral action against Switzerland if, peradventure, that country had weapons of mass destruction. But I believe that the man who currently has them is, beyond par, evil. There is a story in today's Evening Standard of a lady professor who was heavily pregnant. She was in a canteen in Baghdad and made a slightly off-colour joke about Saddam's wife. A few hours later, she was arrested. She gave birth to a baby, which was starved to death. It was hauled from her breast as she clung to it and she was then murdered. That is what the man is like. He is disgusting.
  So, combining Saddam's weapons of mass destruction with his being disgusting, his unreliability, and above all his inherent desire to use those horrible things, I come round to the view that even though I sometimes find the Prime Minister irritating, I am quite convinced that he is a good man. This may be why I find him irritating—I do not know. He is a good man; he believes in this; and he is showing considerable courage. This is the first time he has had to show it during his premiership, because there

  303
  are terrible downsides to what he is doing. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, about the Marsh Arabs. I do not need to go on about that; we know.
  However, I have become convinced that it is necessary to do something. It is also reasonable to say that Resolution 1441 gives authority to act. Several lawyers have said this. The cry for the second resolution comes from those who want to procrastinate. They want to give us a cover—"We don't like it, perhaps it will stop"—but we do not need such procrastination.
  Let us assume that the French purse is bigger than the American purse, and the Congolese, or the Angolan or the Guinean ambassador takes a larger bribe from the French than from the Americans. I would not suggest that this is going to happen, but such suspicions have entered peoples' minds. Does this make the second motion any more morally correct or necessary? Did St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine weigh up the bags of gold that were handed round to ambassadors of nations south of Cape Mogador? I do not think so.
  The just authority is already there. What has happened? What the Western world has said, as did the Roman ambassadors to Saguntum when Hannibal was besieging it at the beginning of the second Punic War:
  "In the sleeves of my toga I have peace or war. Quid placet tibi"—
  take that which pleases you. That "Quid placet tibi" choice is open to Saddam Hussein. If he does as he is told, there need not be a war. Unfortunately, I think that he likely to react like Hannibal. Luckily, unlike Hannibal, I do not think he shows signs of military genius.
  The following possibility rears its ugly head. It is unlike the possibility put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wright. That is also definitely possible, and I do not say that he is wrong or I am right. The Iraqi resistance could collapse, and the soldiers could be greeted by cheering mobs as they enter into Baghdad and Basra. In this happy event, and to make sure that that cheering continues, we have to do two things.
  First, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford have said, the Israeli-Arab question must be dealt with head on. It is hard to imagine a nastier regime than the one currently in Tel Aviv. It is a thoroughly nasty, unattractive and tyrannical regime. They have brought much of the current despair upon their own heads. We should be brave enough to say that.
  Also, when the troops go into Iraq, they must make sure that they proclaim to the Iraqis that they can choose their own future. We must not set up a satrapy run by "General Tommy Franks" or even "Field Marshal Sir Somebody Something" as commander in chief of Basra. We cannot have that. We must make it absolutely clear to the Iraqi people that they can choose their own future. It must not be imposed upon them.
  If we do those two things, and convince the Arabs in Iraq that those two possibilities are open to them, there is a possibility—even a likelihood—that things will go
  304
  right and in the right way; and that is essential. Mesopotamia—the scene of the death of Julian "The Apostate", the seat of Harun-al-Rashid, and I he place where man first learned to count time—must be allowed, with the encouragement of the outside world, to choose its own future after this war, if it happens. We must help them to do so.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall deal with the long-term questions that would be raised by military action in Iraq. Many of my questions will not be able to be answered by the Minister, because they are questions to which I believe nobody has an answer at the moment. The first question on the chain of command does have an answer. The Minister outlined what the chain of command would he in any military action. I hope she will assure us that any decisions taken by the Americans will be closely scrutinised by their British counterparts. I hope there will be a British Army counterpart in liaison with any American commander. That is particularly important, because we would have to make sure that their aims and objectives were exactly the same.
  All that is based on the assumption that military action is about to take place, and I hope that it will be avoided. However, if it is to take place, it will have to be based on a new UN resolution—itself based on 1441. I hope that the Government have thought carefully and consulted with their allies and the Turkish authorities about the possible intervention by 55,000 Turkish troops into the north. This has real implications as regards 1441. The resolution sets out:
  "The UN is reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq".
  This is a real issue because 55,000 troops invading from the north may well wish to stay there.
  Any military action will be guided by everyone's aim, which is disarmament. Military action will almost inevitably lead to a further aim—regime change. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his opening speech quoted from "Macbeth". It was a speech from Lady Macbeth, who was unfortunately contemplating a particularly horrific murder. He quoted:
  "If it were done when 't is done, then 't were well
  It were done quickly"
  However, dragging up all the knowledge I have of Shakespeare, I realised that there were two more sections to the speech that should be quoted. It carries on immediately:
  "if the assassination
  "Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
  "With his surcease success; that but this blow
  "Might be the be-all and end-all here".
  That is what we would like to happen. By regime change that would be the end of the situation. However if you go further into the speech, it has some prophetic judgment
  "We still have judgment here; that we but teach
  "Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
  "To plague the inventor".

  305
  Regime change is going to have major consequences, because it will have massive implications on the eventual reconstruction of Iraq. It is going to lead to a further military objective—and that is the reconstruction of Iraq. However before that it is going to lead to an objective of maintaining civil authority. That is going to be difficult, because Saddam Hussein has been extremely efficient in making sure that he has no ready successor—no group that could take over. To believe that democratic elections could be held in the short to medium term in Iraq, does not take into account the political reality of the situation where, after any military action one might have civil war in the north and in the south. Furthermore, in the light of the situation which existed after the war in 1991, there might be an enormous amount of bloodletting and civil war to fill the power vacuum in the centre.
  Post-conflict reconstruction will not be "a mere washing-up job", as it was called in Afghanistan. As my noble friend Lady Williams pointed out, Afghanistan is a prime example of how things can go horribly wrong. Afghanistan is regressing into the lawless state that led to the rise of the Taliban and, ultimately, Al'Qaeda.
  The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, mentioned an exit strategy. That will, I fear, be extremely difficult in Iraq. In that regard, we will need the United Nations. Can we expect the United Nations to deal with a civil war? I very much doubt it. However, one civil authority is maintained. We will need the UN peacekeepers to deal with a number of issues; for instance, prisoners of war. This war will be different from the first Gulf War in which we dealt only with those who invaded Kuwait; we are dealing with the entire armed forces of Iraq. There will be vast numbers of refugees—and not only those internally displaced, but those in Syria, Jordan and Iran. Furthermore, we shall be faced with the horrific prospect of dealing with mass casualties which could be caused if Saddam Hussein indiscriminately uses the weapons of mass destruction. That could have an horrendous effect on his own population.
  If the UN is not to take on that role, it will be left to America and Britain. Do we have enough troops to deal with it in the long term? The commitment that we are already placing on our Armed Forces has led to overstretch. Could we really expect large numbers of troops to be based in Iraq, considering our commitments in Northern Ireland, in the Balkans, in Sierra Leone and elsewhere? There are also difficulties at home; for instance, a prolonged engagement to deal with the fire strike.
  There will be real implications for the Army because it will lead to problems of retention. The Army must therefore believe in the cause in which the Prime Minister is asking it to take part. I served as a Territorial Army commissioned officer. It is difficult currently to retain troops in the Army because there are many other easy alternatives. Some of my friends who have recently had children and left the Army tell me that they do not want to be away from home for
  306
  long periods. We must think carefully about how we retain soldiers. They must believe in the cause that is set out.
  That is a problem, because many in this country do not believe in the immediate necessity of war. That view is shared by millions of people who took part in the march in London two Saturdays ago. We cannot underestimate the view expressed by them and by people around the world. There is a great deal of discontent in America. I want to read from a speech made by the Democratic Leader in the Senate, Senator Robert Byrd, Dean of the Congress. The paragraph that I read from his speech is telling on how the American people are being led from the top and how not everyone believes in the immediate need for war. He said:
  "This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption—the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future—is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be a convention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our—or some other nation's—hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honoured alliances, and US intentions are suddenly subject to damaging world-wide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from US leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11th".
  I do not underestimate the threat that Saddam Hussein poses. However, the consequences of military action also cannot be underestimated.
  7.25 p.m.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to take issue with some of the wilder flights of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism which seem to have crept into our debate. I want to concentrate on two basic issues which are less controversial but which have come very much alive as a result of the Iraq crisis. The first is the role of armed force as an instrument of foreign policy; and the second is the importance of discretion in the treatment of intelligence material.
  So far as the first is concerned, there seems to be some confused thinking about the preparations for war which are now taking place. Listening to some of the sentiments expressed at the demonstration in London last week, one might have gained the impression that everyone who was not on the demonstration was in favour of war. No intelligent person, especially no one who has ever taken part in a war, is likely to be in favour of it. It is a brutal and uncivilised way of conducting international affairs, but it is what the distinguished historian, Michael Howard, has called,
  "an ineluctable part of the human condition".
  This debate is not an occasion to analyse or refute the pacifist position, although I am bound to say I have grave doubts about its intellectual respectability. Nor is

  307
  it an occasion on which to discuss the doctrine of the just war, especially in the presence of several right reverend Prelates—except to say that I think a great deal of ill-informed nonsense has been talked about it recently.
  We are now faced with the possibility of war and, whatever views one may have about its appalling nature, it is surely right and sensible that we should prepare for it. In my view, the Government have been wise to deploy some of our Armed Forces and to bring them to a state of readiness. The actions of our own Government and of the United States Administration are designed to send a clear message to Saddam Hussein to the effect that if he does not comply with the demands of the international community he may face serious consequences—or, in plain English, war, whatever the United Nations might say.
  The Prime Minister is clearly acting upon the same wise precept as one of his predecessors. It was in 1982 that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, then Prime Minister, said:
  "When you stop a dictator there are always risks. But there are greater risks in not stopping a dictator".
  In my view, the Government's policy reflects a sensible appreciation of the fact that, in situations of this kind, diplomacy, however patiently pursued, cannot be effective without the credible threat of the use of military force. And, of course, that threat will not be credible if the slogan of "No war" sends a message that, however powerful our Armed Forces may be, we shall never use them.
  That is the danger of the mass demonstrations and the emotive outbursts of some politicians who hold similar views to the demonstrators. One of the reasons why Saddam Hussein has made the modest concessions referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is that he is fearful of the possibility of war, and it is vital that that possibility should remain real in his mind.
  One of the most important factors in the decision to go to war, and the strategy and tactics used to conduct it, is intelligence. It has in recent weeks been disturbing to find the Government pressed to reveal more and more about the intelligence picture concerning Iraq. In the case of the media, that is unsurprising—that is their stock in trade. But it is a matter of concern, to me at least, when Members of this House and another place attempt to draw the Government on the detail and sources of their intelligence assessments.
  The dangers of that must be obvious, but it is perhaps worth while repeating some of them. Revealing any unnecessary detail of the intelligence picture has the obvious danger that it may enable a potential enemy to identify and eliminate the sources of intelligence, if they are human, or to disrupt or defend against them, if they are electronic or technological. It is often not realised that it is sometimes dangerous even to let the potential enemy know that we are in possession of a piece of intelligence—he can often deduce the source simply from the nature of the information.
  That has led to some strange developments. In your Lordships' House only recently I heard it suggested that it was not good enough to go to war on a nod and a
  308
  wink. It is not a question of nodding or winking, it is an important matter of trust. One of the hallmarks of a mature and civilised parliamentary democracy is that, in matters of national security, we trust our leaders once we have elected them. In domestic affairs, we may have doubts about their wisdom—indeed, sometimes about their sanity—but in matters affecting national security we assume, I think rightly, that our leaders will not invent or distort intelligence reports or lead the country into war for trivial or disreputable ends, as has been suggested once or twice during the debate. If our democratically elected political leaders tell us that there is a threat to security, based on intelligence in their possession, we owe them at least the duty of believing that they are behaving honestly.
  Finally, I shall mention the impact of all the "No war" demonstrations, whether public or parliamentary, on our Armed Forces. It is customary, even among the more pacifist element in our society, to pay lip service to the bravery and courage of the men and women of our Army, Navy and Air Force. It is taken for granted that they will behave as they have always done and be prepared to sacrifice their comfort and safety, and even their lives, without question when they are asked to do so. It cannot be altogether good for the morale of those men and women to learn that substantial numbers of the people whom they are fighting to defend are questioning the rightness of the cause for which they are putting their lives at risk. They must be especially demoralised to see on the mass protests large numbers of small children, who could have had no possible idea what the protest was about.
  The morale of fighting men comes from three things: first, a knowledge that they have an important job to do; secondly, a conviction that they are trailed and equipped to do it well; and, finally, a feeling that what they are doing is appreciated and recognised. The first two are up to them and their military leaders; the third is up to us at home.
  7.35 p.m.
  Lord Rea: My Lords, one of the nicest slogans that I saw on the peace march on 15th February read, "War is so 20th century". As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, during that century, 160 million people were killed in wars. Sadly, the 21st century is shaping up to repeat 20th century habits. From my knowledge, I can count at least 10 wars so far in the new millennium, and the most destructive so far now looms on the horizon.
  Although the initiation of war is always a final option, it can sometimes be justified—for example, in an operation to restore order in a failed state in which human rights are being grossly abused and the economy is in chaos. Examples often forgotten when citing the usual example of Kosovo are Tanzania's removal of Idi Amin from Uganda and Vietnam's expulsion of Pol Pot from Cambodia. Of course, a less happy example was the UN attempt to knock heads together in Somalia. At present, Zimbabwe is heading towards a state in which such intervention may be justified—but by whom, without incurring the accusation of a return to imperialism?

  309
  At present, Iraq is not a failed state, despite the tyrannical rule of Saddam and the Ba'athist Party, with its scant regard for the life of anyone suspected of opposing it. There might have been a case for the further invasion of Iraq in 1991, after the Gulf War and the brutal suppression of the Kurdish and Shia uprisings. My noble friend Lady Ramsay spoke movingly about the pain that she felt at that time. Because of the action of Iraq on those uprisings, it might have been possible for world opinion to have been mobilised and another Security Council resolution passed to allow the further invasion of Iraq, but the United States was against that. That may have been because it wanted Saddam to stay in power to counterbalance Iran; but it is also strongly possible that it did not want the body bags that an invasion that took US forces to Baghdad would involve—that is certainly the Iraqi view. In any case, many must be regretting missing that opportunity to go further.
  However much we may condemn Saddam, Iraq is a functioning state, although the economy is still reeling from the effects of the sanctions regime—whether or not we blame Saddam entirely for that. There are schools, hospitals, medical schools and universities. There are plenty of vehicles in Baghdad. Petrol is cheap. As we have heard, the food-for-oil programme provides rations for 60 per cent of the population. Although inadequate, they are equitably distributed.
  When I was there with a BBC team last May, while shopkeepers and the public on the streets of Baghdad would not be drawn on their opinion of Saddam—almost certainly for fear that they would be reported if they said what they thought—they universally pleaded with us to stop our Prime Minister, Tony Blair, from assisting George W Bush with his war plans. The Prime Minister now speaks of the moral case for overthrowing Saddam, by force if necessary, because many people are being arrested and killed in Iraq. Of course, that is true. But the huge disruption, hardship and many civilian deaths that would be caused by a war that would disrupt and destroy lives, would affect many more than are now contained in Saddam's gaols.
  My noble friend Lady Symons knows the World Health Organisation's estimates of damage from this war: 100,000 direct casualties and 500,000 indirect casualties, apart from the huge number of displaced persons and refugees mentioned by several speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Apart from the direct effect on people, there is the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure that would be destroyed. Twelve years after the Gulf War, all the bridges in Basra are still down and the hulks of sunk cargo ships still lie in the docks.
  Would the United Nations pay for the damage caused by a coming war this time, if it initiated it? The cost to us and to the United States of military action itself will be enormous. Can my noble friend give us figures for the cost of the present deployment of United Kingdom forces and, if she has them, of United States forces to the Gulf so far? I doubt that she could give even an estimate of the cost, if military action were initiated. A figure of 100 billion dollars has been
  310
  mentioned. That is 10 times the amount required annually for the global fund for AIDS, TB and malaria set up by Kofi Annan. That fund is grossly undersubscribed.
  Can my noble friend spell out in more detail the contingency plans drawn up to ensure that, in the event of military action, sufficient food aid is available? How will the flow of food and medical supplies under the food-for-oil programme be restored? The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also asked about that.
  Iraq's non-compliance with requests to reveal whether it still has weapons of mass destruction may be cited as a material breach and, thus, a casus belli. However, there is no immediate threat to Iraq's neighbours, to ourselves or to the USA. There is, of course, the theoretical possibility that Iraq may supply terrorists with chemical and biological weapons, although no link has been shown. It is possible that, in the event of an attack on Iraq, the distribution of such weapons to terrorists would be more likely.
  I join those who believe that the threat of terrorism will, in any case, increase if Iraq is attacked. Many noble Lords have said that. I am afraid that we are being pulled into a possible conflict under false pretences, as are the American people. If there are chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, UNMOVIC will need more time to find them, as the Franco-Russo-German draft resolution suggests. That point was made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. When South Africa decided to get rid of its nuclear weapons, it took two years to satisfy the inspectors, even though the Government co-operated fully. If it has such weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has limited capacity to deliver them. In any case, such action is effectively deterred. Israel has the nuclear weapon, and the United States has overwhelming air power.
  The reasons for the US Administration's brinkmanship are to be found in the economic and political situation on the other side of the Atlantic. Those who have carefully watched the scene develop are well aware of that. I am saddened that our Government have not listened to the advice of those who can stand back and see what is going on. We should distance ourselves from the rush to war, for the sake not only of the people of Iraq but of ourselves and the American people.
  7.43 p.m.
  Lord Alderdice: My Lords, at the end of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, gave three important elements of good morale among troops. However, there was one important element that he did not mention: a sense of conviction in soldiers' hearts that what they are doing is right. Tonight's debate is a struggle among ourselves to become convinced of what is right. That is a proper and appropriate use of Parliament.
  The debate was launched by the Minister with her customary verve and passion. She gave a thoughtful and rational presentation of her views. That being the case and the Minister being no mean speaker, I ask myself why I remain unconvinced. So, I work my way through what I understand to be her argument.

  311
  The first argument is that the option for Saddam is that either he disarms completely in the context of the weapons inspections or it will be done forcibly. I remain unconvinced. In the United Kingdom, we had a situation for 30 years in which the British Government, in co-operation with the Irish Government, were in full control of Northern Ireland and the Irish Government in full control of the Republic of Ireland. They sought to achieve disarmament but were not able to do so—in a small place. The conclusion was reached that, without co-operation, it was impossible to get decommissioning. Therefore, any suggestion that Iraq will be identifiably, verifiably and completely rid of weapons of mass destruction because the monitors are there is, without regime change, an illusion. As long as the regime is there, it will always be possible to hide things inside people's heads, as well as in buildings and under the ground.
  The Minister is not a foolish person; nor is the Prime Minister. They will have seen that argument, and one is left with the uneasy feeling that the purpose of the weapons inspections was to try to unearth something of the smoking gun, which would demonstrate the justification for war. In other words, the decision for war had already been taken, and the weapons inspectors were there to provide the evidence to justify going to war. There is no possibility of proving that there are no weapons of mass destruction. It is a bit like the case of the woman in the medieval witches' ducking-stool. If she goes under and stays under, the river has accepted her; if she is rejected by the river and even the river did not want her, it is justifiable to burn her at the stake as a witch. I find myself unconvinced by that argument. It suggests that a decision was made—perhaps a justifiable decision—that regime change was needed after all this time.
  The pattern of the past few years has been outlined. We can go back to the war. After the war, we had the weapons inspectors from 1991 until 1998. They contained the situation, but Saddam was still there. There were United Nations resolutions, and deadlines were set down for Saddam—I was going to say that he had the gun put to his head, but that would have been an unfortunate turn of phrase. Requirements were made of him, and he ignored them. Finally, we are left with no alternative, after that clear and conscientiously followed policy line, but to take action.
  I have no doubt that that is the story of the past 10 or 12 years that the Bush Administration would like to believe is true. They want to believe that there was a seamless move from the policy of the first Bush Administration to that of the second Bush Administration. They regard the Clinton years as a little aberration that would be better put to the side. I did not think that that was how this Government thought of the Clinton years. President Clinton had a different approach to policy; he had a different strategy. It is not just I who say that: President Bush is clear about it. If he is asked whether he is following the policies of his predecessor, he will say, "Of course, I'm not. On almost every issue of foreign policy, I am taking a different line. They were wasted, foolish years of international social work".
  312
  What was that policy? It was that, if there is a conflict, we should identify the partisans. Then, we try to identify those who influence the partisans and create a peace process, through which—over years of political pressure, economic development and confidence-building measures—we bring to an end the conflict and the issues around it. That is what happened in South Africa. It is what we have been trying to do in Northern Ireland. That is what President Clinton tried to do in the Middle East, as I remember it. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said, in quoting a colleague, President Clinton saw that the road to Iraq ran through Jerusalem. In other words, the central issue in the Middle East is Israel and Palestine. Until that issue is addressed, nothing else can be resolved.
  But someone will say, "Yes, but you are forgetting 9/11, when everything changed". Some things did change. Many people in the Middle East who previously had had no sympathy with America, began to have sympathy with America. Many countries that would not naturally have felt an affection for the American people and what they were going through, came on-side. There was an incipient alliance within the Arab countries for dealing with conflict in that area.
  I always had the sense that President Clinton wanted people to like him and that he did not want to lose them. If either he or a Clinton-type Democrat President had been around and that kind of alliance had been presented on a plate after 9/11, I do not believe that a handful of years later those countries would all have left.
  Unlike the first Gulf War, as I feel it will be called—not the "Gulf War" but the "First Gulf War"—we are moving into this without allies in the Arab world. It is a very different situation. That is not because the Arab world wants Saddam Hussein—it wants rid of him—but we have found ways of getting it on the wrong side.
  But it is not only that. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the policy currently being pursued by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Administration is followed through; that we have a fair wind and that Saddam Hussein is toppled within a couple of weeks. What will we be left with? Vv e will be left in Iraq with the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shi'ites rapidly at each others' throats. Noble Lords who believe that a liberating army is always welcome after the first week have short memories. Very often the army gets tea and biscuits for the first week, but the one way that it unites everyone is against itself.
  I do not believe a successful war will resolve immediately the problem of Iraq. Will it resolve the problem in the Middle East generally? Indeed not; it will create the possibility of even greater chaos. Major instabilities which already exist in the Middle East will not be resolved. Will the United Nations be strengthened? Will it become an instrument that we can turn to in order to address these issues? It will have been effectively set to the side.
  Another major cost is the profound damage that has been done to North Atlantic institutions and relationships which have served us well. I do not say

  313
  that out of anti-Americanism; I say it for precisely the opposite reason. I have a great fear that our relationship will be set to the side. That is part of the danger that we are in.
  When you are cycling up a one-way street and you begin to have doubts about what is further along the street, you are very unwise to keep pedalling. The wise thing to do is to at least stop, contain the situation and review it. You may not go back down the street—after all, it is a one-way street—but you may try to find other ways of reaching the destination at which you wish to arrive, rather than forcing yourself to go to the destination at which you are no longer sure you wish to arrive.
  For me, that is the rationale for giving the weapons inspectors more time. That is not because they will, over a period of time, rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction without regime change—I do not believe that and I do not believe that the Government believe that—nor that that in itself will get rid of Saddam Hussein, but it may give us time to think through our strategy.
  This is not the only strategy for getting rid of Saddam Hussein and for addressing the issues in the Middle East. For eight years Her Majesty's Government seemed to believe that the strategy adopted by President Clinton was perfectly reasonable and ought to be given more time. I still hold to that old-fashioned view, perhaps because I have to study the outcomes of that Clinton approach in my own part of the United Kingdom. If there is a doubt, it might be wise to give ourselves and our world a little more time.
  7.55 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was right—even if we reach different conclusions—to return us to the central question of whether what we are doing is right. Inside and outside your Lordships' House much has been made of the principles for a just war and whether there is a just cause for using armed force in Iraq. As was heard earlier in the debate, Thomas Aquinas's tests for a just war include self-defence and war as a last resort. As many noble Lords noted, these principles still provide us with a moral compass.
  Once those tests are answered, we are then required to address the ius in bello, or "war conduct" issues. These include "proportionality", which requires the use of no more force than necessary to vindicate the just cause. That is sometimes also called "non-combatant immunity". The unleashing of a massive aerial bombardment that could kill large numbers of civilians would, for instance, certainly raise serious questions about the legitimacy of such military action.
  But what is often not stated is that, having weighed these issues, the clear path of reasoning leaves the ultimate responsibility, the final judgment for waging war, with the competent civil authority. Churchmen, who are obliged to go the extra mile for peace, and political leaders, whose primary duty is to protect their
  314
  citizens, may arrive at different conclusions. Last Thursday's statement by the two archbishops conceded this.
  If statesmen and governments have knowledge that inertia will place their citizens at risk, then they are under a clear duty to act. That is the nub of the Prime Minister's case, a case with which I personally agree and which deserves to be heard.
  Outside your Lordships' House, some of the demonisation of both the Prime Minister and President Bush, imputing a moral equivalence between them and Saddam Hussein, beggars belief. So does the risible and simplistic claim that this is all about oil.
  As our Government justly confront Saddam, we must be acutely aware that it undermines their efforts and even makes war more likely if Baghdad believes there is a lack of resolve in bringing this issue to a conclusion. Saddam has demonstrated repeatedly over the past 12 years that he will exploit any divisions within or between United Nations member states.
  There are moments when governments have to be, and deserve to be, trusted. Heads of government alone have access to all of the necessary intelligence needed to make these awesome decisions. It is facile to imply that they are not weighing the risks of further destabilising an already volatile region, or weighing the role that may be played by Iran, or assessing the consequences for the beleaguered and suffering people of Iraq.
  One of the criticisms often levelled at the Government is that too often they measure public opinion before acting. In the case of Iraq, precisely the reverse criticism is now being made. The Government's steadfast and determined stance can be explained only if we accept that they truly believe that the dangers of not acting against Iraq far outweigh any short-term craving for public esteem.
  The 1991 Gulf War, which both Houses supported, was waged after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. It was a condition of his continuing tenure that he disarm and prove that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, including mustard gas, sarin, botulinium and 5,000 litres of anthrax. Despite an ever-increasing number of United Nations resolutions instructing him to do so, he has never complied. Without the threat of force, who seriously believes that Dr Hans Blix would have recommenced his weapons inspection programme?
  For Iraq, the issue has not changed since 1991 nor since Resolution 1441 was first tabled. Saddam's prevarication sadly indicates little intention to obey either the spirit or the letter of that resolution.
  Dr Blix has distinguished between procedure and substance. These two issues must now converge. Without real and tangible disarmament, procedural nuances are a mere sleight of hand.
  Saddam's absurd insistence that his stockpiles of biological and chemical materials have simply vanished cannot give rise to calibrated concessions. If we do not ultimately stand firm on this question, we

  315
  shall have made the world infinitely more dangerous. I particularly agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in that context.
  In 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn spoke of the need for courage in the face of deadly evil. He said that there had been,
  "a decline in courage which may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the west in our days".
  The temptation may be to hope that threats will recede, but it is always a mistake to appease tyranny.
  Saddam and his deputy, Tariq Aziz, who has made great play of his Christian background, have been responsible for the brutal attacks on the Marsh Arabs—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson—and for attacks on the Kurds and on Iraq's political dissenters. In the past 15 years their regime has slaughtered 150,000 Shia Muslims; and Christians, not least the Assyrian community, have suffered too.
  Like many others, I am sorry that at times there have been confusing mixed messages—not least on the linkage with Al'Qaeda. It is not, and never has been, necessary to prove a link between Saddam and Al'Qaeda to see the justice of disarming and liberating Iraq.
  Although disarmament and the threat to our future security are the central issue, a welcome by-product could be an end to the continuing suffering and misery of the Iraqi people. It is essential that their suffering is minimised in the aftermath of any possible conflict.
  I return to a point made by my noble friend Lord Sandwich. In another place, Clare Short recently told the International Development Select Committee that, in the event of such a war, in the short term as many as 8 million people could be displaced. Given that some 60 per cent of the population are reliant on food generated by the oil-for-food programme, I should like to ask the Minister the following questions. What contingencies are being made to feed those people and to sustain that programme should Iraq's oil fields be torched during hostilities; and is it true that no neighbouring country, other than Syria, has indicated a preparedness to take refugees? In the event of war, what strategy is being put in place to assist them?
  I have two brief points about the future. Articles 41 and 42 set out the responsibility of the United Nations Charter,
  "to maintain or restore international peace and security".
  Working within the UN, the Government have rightly sustained an internationalist approach to the crisis in Iraq. If they are successful in maintaining that focus, the UN will be a better vehicle for championing justice elsewhere. If they are not, it could become wholly ineffectual.
  Secondly, if the UN were merely to follow the Roman injunction:
  "si vis pacem para bellum"—
  if you want peace, prepare for war—we could easily become blind to the need to build civil structures and institutions that can deliver long-term progress and
  316
  which spare us from further violence. If you want peace, you need to work harder to remove some of the conditions in which conflict has festered.
  Since 1980, when I first visited Palestinian refugee camps at Shatilla and Shabra before the massacres there, I have believed that the creation of a Palestinian state is a sine qua non for both the security of the state of Israel and stability throughout the region. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, is right to say—in an article quoted earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker-that without such a resolution this will be,
  "a region of sullen humiliation".
  In addition, Iraq's four million Kurds and the Shia Muslim community must also be given justice once the fog of war has cleared. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, in her telling and persuasive speech, reminded us of the betrayal in 1991 and that both the Kurds and the four million Iraqi exiles must be fully involved in the reconstruction of the country. I wholeheartedly endorse and agree with that. I am sorry that the second Security Council resolution does not set out arrangements for the exercise of authority in Iraq after conflict is concluded.
  After years of suffering and privation, we shall need a generosity and resolve unwitnessed since the Marshall Aid programme. The Government have handled this crisis with tenacity and skill. We must always use all our energy to avoid war. But if it becomes inevitable, we shall all need to do more to explain the justness of the Government's case.
  8.5 p.m.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I support the Government. War is abhorrent—and so is tyranny, torture and terror. Saddam Hussein continues to use torture as a means of sustaining terror in order to provide himself with the basis for the continuance of his tyranny.
  We talk about the Gulf War as though we had started it. The Gulf War was started when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The United Nations—or some parts of the United Nations—sent military contributions to make sure that he left Kuwait. He did—and he left it blazing in an environmental obscenity. When he returned, politicians in most countries in Europe rejoiced in trumph at the great victory in removing the aggressor. While they were enjoying the triumph, as my noble friend Lady Ramsay and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, pointed out, Saddam was content to massacre large numbers of those who were not absolutely reliable from the Ba'athist point of view.
  Then Saddam Hussein continued with his priorities. He continued to oppress the people of Iraq, and he continued to maintain his military capacity. So we introduced sanctions. Then, those who did not like war and those who wanted to proclaim their virtue said that the sanctions were cruel. So he was allowed to sell oil for food. Yet people are still starving in Iraq, even though billions of pounds' worth of oil has been sold, purportedly for food. The weaponry has been maintained, but the people have not been fed; and

  317
  neither their medical needs nor their educational needs have been met. One of the national newspapers today contains a letter from an apparent apologist for Saddam Hussein who says that his intent is to develop a high-tech modern society. Yet 66 per cent of the people in Iraq are illiterate. That is not the basis for building a civilised society—yet he has a very powerful military presence.
  It has been said that Iraq's neighbours are not at all happy about military action. Given their experience when we left after the Gulf War and saw massacres in Iraq, with Saddam developing his weaponry, I am not surprised that his neighbours are uneasy in case the West pulls back.
  The size of the Iraqi forces is incredible. The population of 23.5 million provides an army of full-time military force of 520,000 personnel. We have a military force of considerable competence which occupies 0.5 per cent of the British population. The Iraqi army takes five times the share of its population into its military, plus hundreds of thousands of reservists. Saddam has, despite sanctions and despite his 1991 pledge to disarm, 4,600 tanks and armoured cars, 316 combat aircraft and 100 armed helicopters.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that he is addressing points which are not an issue? I have not heard a single noble Lord say a word in defence of Saddam Hussein. The question is whether the evil of Saddam Hussein or the evil of a war whose consequences cannot be confined to Iraq is the greater. Could the noble Lord address that point?
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I shall address that as I proceed.
  The fact remains that Saddam Hussein has an army five times larger than he needs to defend his country. Why does he have an army and an air force and armoured regiments of that size? It is no wonder, given what has happened over the past 15 years, that his neighbours are uneasy about offering any support at this stage.
  It has been said that a smoking gun has not been found. The fact remains that on the international black market—it is in the report that some of us received today—Saddam bought 380 missile engines for the largest size of missile. Some people suggested the other day that the increase in the missile capacity is insignificant. I think it is grossly significant in the sense that he had agreed not to possess missiles which had a capacity and a range exceeding 150 kilometres. He agreed to destroy his casting chambers which allowed the missiles to be produced, and he did. Then he rebuilt them, which I think he did to ensure that the missile capacity will be larger than the maximum to which he has agreed. That is very much like a gun which looks as if it could soon be smoking.
  The West cannot allow such a situation to continue. If we were to pull back, would Saddam Hussein suddenly reform? No. Would the message sent out to other parts of the world be pacific? No. The noble Earl, Lord
  318
  Russell, who asked about the wider implications, should understand that sometimes it pays to be firm. If the West gives a message of infirmity or weakness, those who benefit will be the future tyrants and the terrorists. Al'Qaeda already views the West with contempt as a depraved and feeble people who ought to be slaughtered.
  I am not in favour of war, but if action is taken, I am in favour of it being taken with some aims and ends clearly in sight. One of them must be the settlement of the Middle East. There must be a trading of land for peace in Israel. If we make progress in that area, the chances of promoting peace and balance in other parts of the world and in that particular region are very good. But delay may not be wise.
  I do not want to detain the House long, but I read the other day of an example where delay in Iraq was quite significant. In 1941, when our ships were being torpedoed, our Eighth Army was back in Egypt, the German axis power spread from the Russian border to the Pyrenees and Britain stood alone and in danger, there was an interesting development which was regarded as a minor epic of the Royal Air Force and lasted about six days. There was a putsch in Baghdad and a pro-German nationalist secured power. Because the king was a baby, the regent had to escape dressed as a woman. Anti-British propaganda in Baghdad was intense and Rashid Ali, who had considerable contact with the Germans, invited them to come to Iraq to drive the British out.
  The RAF had bases there under the Anglo-Iraq treaty, and one of them was at Habbaniyah, 60 miles from Baghdad. It was purely a training base, with aircraft of considerable antiquity. Rashid Ali sent a very large force of the Iraqi army with tanks and artillery to occupy higher ground a few yards away. The RAF was instructed to stop flying. All airfields had been promised to the Luftwaffe.
  There was some hesitation because the task of facing a large modern army with antiquated biplanes was not terribly attractive. However, bomb racks were put on and the aircraft flew. There were quite a few casualties, hut, after six days, the Iraqi army decided that it had had enough and took off. The first German aircraft were delayed, arriving six days after the Habbaniya siege was lifted. They would have been even slower had the Vichy French not decided to allow them to overfly Syria and also to give them weapons. Although the siege lasted only a short time and the aircraft and other equipment were very old, the interests of the United Kingdom, and therefore of the free world, were greatly assisted by the delay of our German and Italian enemies at that time, assisted as they were by the French. Is not that involvement of Germany and France interesting, as history turns in circles?
  I am not suggesting that we should go in haste. I am not suggesting that we should go without clear aims, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned. However, I am suggesting that we cannot pull back. Nor can we rely on the European Council. The document issued on 17th February contains some wonderful words. In it, the Council says that Saddam Hussein must disarm and that the military build-up has been essential.

  319
  One thing that the European Council does not recognise is that the military build-up could be removed if Saddam disarmed. The whole world wants him to disarm. However, at no point does the document say that there will have to be a logical conclusion to the military build-up if Saddam Hussein does not disarm fully and completely within a matter of days.
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord Sandberg: My Lords, Oliver Hardy, the fat half of the Laurel and Hardy partnership, used to wag his finger at his smaller partner and exclaim,
  "that's another fine mess you've got us into".
  We are certainly in a tine mess at the moment, but there is not much use in pointing fingers at those who lost the opportunity of finishing the Iraqi problem 12 years ago.
  Many noble Lords have commented, and will continue to comment, on the pros and cons of war. Although I do not suppose that many people have any time for Saddam Hussein, many more worry about the legitimacy of a war. Most of us, therefore, would much prefer a second resolution from the United Nations. If we do not get one and there is any suggestion that Britain and the US have flouted the rules of that organisation, we shall, as others have said, be in danger of putting the United Nations in the same position as the League of Nations found itself in the 1930s. That would be a tragedy. If the rules are broken once, the problem is that it will set a nasty precedent for breaking them again. However, many noble Lords will speak on that subject. I should like to concentrate on what happens after we have got rid of Saddam Hussein, if that happens.
  It is a truism to say that the Middle East is a fragile area. It is also a very large area, extending from the Mediterranean in the west to the Pakistani border in the east, from the Caspian Sea in the north to the Indian Ocean in the south. It contains a number of countries with very different constitutions, many of which look vulnerable. I shall try to touch on a few of those countries before coming to Iraq itself.
  One has to start with Afghanistan. Although, thankfully, we have got rid of the Taliban leaders, in no way can we claim to have brought peace and stability to that unhappy country. Rival warlords abound, as does, unfortunately, the growing of crops to produce large amounts of dope. We must avoid such a lack of stability and of real progress for the people of Iraq.
  To the west of Afghanistan is Iran with its horrendous human rights record. It may have bettered itself slightly, but news of hangings and torture are rife, with horrendous stories of eye gouging being all too common. It is an awful thought that such regimes can continue to claim legitimacy in the 21st century.
  South of the region we have Jordan and Oman, both good examples of what democratic Islamic states can achieve. Enormous credit must go to the rulers of both those countries. I think that it behoves us to help them, especially Jordan, which is vulnerable to a possible war. Near them is the Yemen whose recent past is at best murky. One of its industries, and certainly one of
  320
  its main exports, appears to be terrorists. To the extreme west of the area there is Syria, which is still in a state of war with Israel. There is then Israel itself.
  While we realise that Israel has every right to exist and must defend its borders, its methods of so doing are more than a tooth for a tooth; they are really a terrorist for a terrorist. It is a continuing and a sad story. Many of us believe that the US could exert much more pressure on that country with its democratically elected government, to persuade them that the illegal occupancy of Palestinian territory and meeting terror with terror is not working and is not going to work.
  Life would be easier, of course, if the Palestinian leadership took bold steps and action to get rid of its incompetency, not to say its corruption. One can only hope that that will eventually happen. If Yasser Arafat were convinced, he could certainly correct these problems.
  In the north there is Turkey, which is both able and only too willing to take part in any attack on Iraq because she can see rich oilfields within her grasp. Sandwiched between Turkey and Iraq proper are the Kurdish people whose history of misery and exploitation is there for all to see. Saudi Arabia, long a friend of the US, is not as stable as we would like. A reduction in the number of US forces in that country would be welcomed both in and outside Saudi Arabia. That is something which we would like to see.
  Lastly, there is Iraq itself, which is not a natural nation as such, but one which was set up by the allies after the First World War. I have already mentioned the Kurds in the north. There are divisions of race and religion with the Shi'ite Muslims in the south who are almost equally exploited and butchered by Saddam Hussein.
  We have a fine mess in the region. It is easy enough to delineate the many problems, but their solution is certainly not so easy. The Americans have been great defenders of the freedoms which many of us enjoy and we owe them a great debt. They have not been so good at solving subsequent problems. One has only to look at Sudan in the recent past to see that. There is the problem which still tragically exists in Afghanistan. We pray that the same problems are not going to arise in Iraq when Saddam Hussein and his thugs are merely a memory.
  So where do we start? It would be impossible to achieve any lasting peace in the Middle East, as everyone knows, while the Israeli/Palestine troubles continue. Yet we see no end to them. If there is no progress in that conflict there will be continuing strife in the area. I believe that Britain probably understands that, but I am not so sure that the US does so yet.
  8.24 p.m.
  Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, I have listened in this debate and more widely in the country at large to the concerns expressed in many quarters about the prospect of military action against Iraq. As I discern them, those concerns arise for a variety of reasons. Examples range from an abhorrence of war, whatever its causes or theoretical justification, to a strong perception that there is still insufficient evidence to

  321
  justify such military action in Iraq now and, not least, whether military operations against Iraq will make the world and our part of it a safer place.
  I agree that it would be more compelling if clearer examples of evidence had been uncovered or could be safely revealed—there is a difficult security problem—of weapons of mass destruction in usable forms and operational quantities. But as long ago as the Gulf War, we had sufficiently clear evidence—for example, about Iraq's biological weapons—to make the difficult decision at that time to vaccinate our forces most at risk, to protect them from that specific threat. Since then, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and has failed repeatedly over 12 years to comply with 17 Security Council resolutions, including his latest cat-and-mouse response to Resolution 1441.
  None of that may satisfy those who will only accept the open revelation of smoking guns pointing in our direction but the circumstantial evidence is very substantial indeed. If Saddam Hussein wishes to rebut it, all that he and his officials have to do—very quickly now—is to co-operate fully with the inspectors by responding comprehensively and openly to Resolution 1441 as called for by every member of the Security Council.
  Beyond that, before any judgment is made about launching a military action, the key question is whether such action will ensure greater security for the citizens of this country and the other nations most directly concerned. I believe that with sound operational plans to meet clearly stated objectives—which have yet to be made public—such operations would have a high probability of success in their own limited military context. But given the complex and potentially destructive nature of society and politics in Iraq today, together with the unstable situation in the Middle East at large, military operations will not in themselves automatically deliver a safer international security environment.
  What non-military measures are now in preparation with proper international authority and adequate resources to address effectively in all its dimensions the chaotic aftermath of a military operation in Iraq? Such measures will be essential if Iraq is to develop into a more stable and less dangerous state and if the consequences of war are not to add to the risks to our security rather than reduce them. I found myself asking that question several times in a quite different strategic context in the North Atlantic Council in the mid-1990s as I sought formal political guidance and approval for NATO's military preparations to separate the warring factions in Bosnia after the long and costly failure of UNPROFOR. That question was not at first welcomed by ambassadors and their Governments in NATO, who in many cases would have preferred to scrutinise plans in evermore detail, rather than address such complex and illusive non-operational matters.
  In the end in that campaign, those details were dealt with in respect of Bosnia, initially by the Dayton peace process—so despite the enormity of the task,
  322
  reconstruction, reinvestment and the establishment of law and order under emerging democratic processes have slowly taken route in that part of the world. If we do not prepare similarly agreed and relevant arrangements for Iraq before military operations are launched, there must be a serious risk that in the longer term the world will not become a safer place, however effective our military action is in disarming Saddam Hussein.
  Against that background, I would be interested to know at the end of our debate what preparations are now in hand to ensure that if we take military action against Iraq, we do not then find that we have won the war but lost the peace.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, for very long, the nations of the world have relied on the classic principles of the just war theory to give moral backing to our military interventions and to defend the oppressed. We know the arguments. However, the pursuit of their own ends by small but powerfully armed groups of terrorists has changed our concept of war between sovereign states.
  That change may be characterised in three ways. First, no longer do recognised armies fight for control of territory with conventional weapons. Instead, we are subject to strikes on civilian targets by means that would be outlawed by existing conventions. Neither Thomas Aquinas nor von Clausewitz envisaged that. Secondly, often the cause of violence is not threat to the sovereign state, but threat to cultural or religious identity. How do the Muslim and Arab worlds see us? Why do they feel so deeply angry with us and the United States? Thirdly, weapons of mass destruction like economic strength and cultural dominance are used as tools of oppression. That changes the nature of warfare and our definitions of oppression quite dramatically.
  In response to that changed situation in the global society, in which no nation state can exist independently and securely, and in which one would have thought that we would all cherish the opportunities of working together within the fragile structures of the United Nations, a new doctrine has emerged from the White House. It is enshrined in the national security strategy of the USA, published late last year, which states unambiguously that,
  "as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best … In the new world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action".
  As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others have clearly stated, we are now faced with the possibility of the new doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence being put into operation. We will strike Iraq because there is a risk that, at some unspecified time in future, Iraq or rather some Iraqis will strike us. Alternatively, we will strike Iraq because we believe that Iraq is concealing its weapons of mass destruction. In neither case need Iraq have actually done anything. What has decided its fate has been our perception of it, and the cultural, historic and religious lenses through which that perception has been formed.

  323
  That new definition of pre-emptive self-defence is at odds with the English common law doctrine, which I think means what it says in a common-sense way. One is entitled to use reasonable force to defend oneself against the use or threat of force by another. However, that threat must be immediate and apparent, or one is transparently not defending oneself but attacking another in anticipation. I do not believe that any court of law would accept the defence plea of a gangster if he said that he had blown up the house of a rival because he had heard that his rival was plotting to kill him.
  The new American strategy tears up what has long been the basis of international convention, and replaces it with new standards for conduct, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made clear. It is a dangerous doctrine, because pre-emptive self-defence hands all power to the powerful. The party that has the necessary muscle becomes the only arbiter and can choose enemies when and where it pleases. There are no checks on the exercise of such power and it is accountable to no one. I do not think that we should encourage that. I see it as having three consequences that will undo our faltering steps to build a world order.
  First, such power is destructive of honesty. When the mighty hold absolute sway there is no incentive to be truthful. In the current situation, America has made it clear that it disbelieves what Iraq says and will attack anyway. Truth has become the first casualty of this engagement.
  Secondly, it damages trust, enthroning power in its place. The only possible global alignment is with the powerful state on that state's terms. The alternative is death. No nation can trust another; nor can its people. After all, weapons may be concealed anywhere and we shall now presume that those who possess them will conceal them more effectively. Out of the window goes trust.
  Thirdly, such power is contemptuous of hope. It dismisses that looking forward with anticipation to a better world that is at the heart of the Christian gospel. While that vision is by no means the exclusive prerogative of the Christian tradition, the cynical assumption that people will always behave at their worst is deeply corrosive. We need to keep alive our belief in the potential goodness of the human race. What is at stake is not just Iraq in the next few months. The precedents set by conduct now are of far-reaching importance. They affect the kind of world that we shall inherit.
  Such a world order that we are being offered is at odds with the one that the Christian tradition has long advocated, which has at its heart the twin characteristics of human diversity and individual worth. It also manifests a very different theology of power.
  I shall quote from an interview with David Potari whose brother was one of the victims of 9/11 that was published in the Guardian last Saturday. Mr Potari was asked whether he wanted justice and saw war on Iraq as part of that. In response, he said:
  "Justice for me would he a more equitable world, where people did not live in such misery that they had to hate each other … A world in which the US contributes to a sense of equality, rather
  324
  than making it worse … The thing to atone for my brother's death would be for there to he more honesty in the world, for America to start being more honest about the repercussions of its world policy".
  The majority in this House abhor the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, his duplicity and the potential threat that he poses to the safety of the world and the values that we hold dear. But we should not be seduced into what we might kid ourselves is a quick and definitive solution. I have seen too much of the devastation wrought in the Sudan by 40 years of civil war to believe in quick fixes, let alone the intractable Palestinian-Israeli situation. Only when the fighting stops—it may take months or years—can the real task of rebuilding trust and hope, which will make the world a safe place, begin. We can unleash war in a moment, but building peace takes a lifetime.
  8.38 p.m.
  Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I do not come to the debate this evening with the expertise of so many noble Lords who have spoken, but I want to go on record as supporting the Government and, in particular, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in this extraordinarily difficult matter.
  I was always taught that resolutions say what they mean and mean what they say. It is clear from the past few weeks that many commentators have neither read nor understood what the many Security Council resolutions on Iraq say. I am speaking about Security Council Resolution 687 of 1991 and the more recent Resolution 1441 in particular.
  It is clear from Resolution 687 that the ending of the Iraqi war was in reality a ceasefire, based on the acceptance of the Iraqi Government that within 15 days they would declare the location, amounts and types of all specified items of weapons of mass destruct ion and co-operate in the destruction of those items.
  What has happened since? There have been a great many more Security Council resolutions, and Saddam has complied with none of them—not with the terms in which they were written. The process of obfuscation has continued to the present day and the most recent resolution—1441—demands,
  "immediate, active and unconditional co-operation",
  with UNMOVIC.
  To listen to many commentators and many politicians, one would believe that Saddam is co-operating with the weapons inspectors—or, they say, he will in time co-operate. He may be co-operating, but only in terms of process. There is no evidence whatever that I have seen that Saddam Hussein is co-operating in terms of substance. That might be okay if the UN inspectors were detectives or investigators; that is what the general public believes and it is what a considerable number of politicians appear to believe. If the UN wanted to send in investigators or detectives, it would not have set up an inspection regime. Inspection is different, and it means co-operation on substance.

  325
  Indeed, Dr Blix, in his 14th February report, made it clear that there were serious concerns. He concluded his report by saying that a decade of such sanctions could have been avoided if Iraq had co-operated. Dr Blix went on to say:
  "Today, three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441 … the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short if 'immediate, active and unconditional co-operation' with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming".
  A mere 12 days ago, it was clear that there was little or no co-operation on process with the inspectors. It cannot be clearer that that is the case than with regard to the refusal of the Iraqi regime to allow unrestricted access to scientists and other officials without minders and tape recorders. The natural conclusion to draw from that is that there is indeed something to hide. We should recall that Saddam denied the existence of much of his biological weapons programme until the defection of his son-in-law. The inspectors never found any of that material during several years of work. It was only after that defection that they were able to destroy some of the material, much of which still appears to be unaccounted for.
  I have discovered in the workplace that one cannot deal with harassers or bullies without having a big stick to back up diplomacy, and I am fairly certain that the same happens on the international stage. Resolution 1441 allows for diplomacy and the big stick. The answer lies entirely in the hands of the Iraqi regime. If there is complete co-operation, there is no reason why the inspectors cannot take as long as they need to destroy weapons and to monitor the situation thereafter, thereby avoiding military action. If there is less than such complete co-operation, the big stick may well have to be used. If the United Nations is to have a future with any authority, it cannot have its resolutions ignored with impunity.
  In that respect, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has played a hugely effective role. I regard it as a complete nonsense that the Prime Minister is blindly following President George Bush. Tony Blair was completely correct about Kosovo, as he was right about Sierra Leone, Macedonia and Afghanistan. I know that people say—we heard it today—that things in Afghanistan are not right; they are not right in Bosnia or Kosovo, and probably not in Sierra Leone. Who is to say that we should have left the killing fields in Sierra Leone, the Taliban when it would not give up Al'Qaeda, or Milosevic in former Yugoslavia? Who is to say that we were wrong in doing what we did?
  There is no certainty in this world but I believe that the Prime Minister is right about Iraq. By his leadership and diplomacy, he has done a great deal in an understated way to keep the USA in the United Nations family. Anyone who is familiar with American attitudes to the United Nations over many years—certainly not just on George W Bush's watch—should reflect seriously on that. Of course we must seek another resolution if that is at all possible but we cannot allow Resolution 1441 to be put on the proverbial long finger. We cannot allow the United Nations to go the
  326
  way of the League of Nations. The dread of war so soon after World War I kept that body from doing anything about the fascist invasion of Abyssinia. The wringing of hands did not stop World War II, but it put an end to the League of Nations.
  Nor should we have a situation where the only superpower in the world, the United States of America, operates outside the United Nations, or indeed without any influence from the UN or the UK on how it sees the world. Our influence or that of the United Nations may not always be successful, but it has to be kept in place, not least if there is to be any realistic prospect of dealing with the Israeli-Palestine issue.
  The Prime Minister deserves the support of all noble Lords on all sides of the House. The more that the big stick is held over the Saddam regime, the better chance there will be of avoiding conflict.
  8.45 p.m.
  Baroness Northover: My Lords, Saddam is a tyrant; and he must comply with the UN. What is in doubt is whether there is justification, legitimacy and efficacy in taking action now. I want to address the question of efficacy and in particular the humanitarian consequences of action.
  As my noble friend Lady Williams pointed out, we already have evidence of what may happen in Iraq from the war in Afghanistan. That war was closely linked to the terrorist threat in a way that any attack on Iraq simply is not. It followed 9/11, seeking the detention of bin Laden—which it did not achieve despite overwhelming force—the break-up of Al'Qaeda, which it achieved only on a modest basis, and the overthrow of the Taliban government who were harbouring Al'Qaeda. There was international support for such a war.
  Before the Afghanistan campaign, the Prime Minister promised that this time the world,
  "will not walk away from Afghanistan, as it has done so many times before".
  Despite that promise and international support, and despite the knowledge that not delivering on humanitarian aid would foster more terrorism, Afghanistan is rapidly being forgotten. As the International Development Committee recently found, the funds available "are simply not enough". International donors have pledged 5 billion dollars—less than half of what may be necessary. The Independent reported on 24th February:
  "a deep concern in Kabul that the international community is losing interest even though the task of repairing the wreckage of war—let alone the even more massive job of nation-building—has only just begun".
  As we heard earlier, the US Congress had to step in to find nearly 300 million dollars in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush Administration failed to include any such money in their latest budget. How is that supposed to augur well for Iraq? There was worldwide support for a war in Afghanistan, and yet the international community has been less than half-hearted in addressing its aftermath.

  327
  There is no such consensus over Iraq. Why do we think that countries will put in money to pick up the pieces after a war they do not want?
  There will be many pieces to pick up. The Iraqi people are particularly vulnerable. UN agencies say that the effect of war in Iraq would be far worse than in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is largely rural and the people have a long tradition of coping with want and disaster. By contrast Iraq has a relatively urbanised population, with the state providing many of their basic needs. The destruction wrought by the Gulf War, followed by sanctions and Saddam's own repression, has seriously weakened the population.
  Most of Iraq's food is currently imported under the UN Oil for Food programme and 16 million Iraqis—two-thirds of the population—now depend on that. They would be very vulnerable if the programme were suspended or supply lines severed, as will happen when attacks are made on roads, bridges, ports and railways. A leaked UN document dated 7th January 2003 states that,
  "in the event of a crisis, 30 per cent of children under 5 would he at risk of death from malnutrition".
  Before 1991, Iraq had a modern water and sanitation network, but much of that was destroyed in the Gulf War. Unsafe water has driven up child mortality figures and now 10 per cent of Iraqi children die before the age of five. Many more people died from disease and hunger in Afghanistan than from bombing. That is likely to be far worse in Iraq.
  What else may we see? As Clare Short herself pointed out, there is a very serious risk that,
  "large-scale ethnic fighting could break out in the country…With the different ethnic groups, that fighting could result in a humanitarian nightmare".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/03; col. 1055.]
  That was said by a member of the Government; and there is the possibility that chemical and biological weapons may be used in the fighting as Saddam is backed into a corner.
  Already three-quarters of a million people within Iraq are internally displaced. A UN report produced in December 2002 estimates that that could increase to 2 million people. A large proportion of those may well become refugees. Political, economic and social problems will hardly be confined to Iraq. Syria and Iran have agreed to allow refugees to cross their borders. Jordan is preparing camps, but with the border closed except to a few. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have refused to take refugees. Iran already has more than 3 million refugees within its borders—the largest number in the world. Two-and-a-half million are from the conflict in Afghanistan and half a million are from Iraq. Refugees will clearly put a strain on neighbouring countries. Emergency relief will cost billions. As we have heard, other Middle Eastern countries may well be destabilised.
  Terrorism is likely to increase, not decrease. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford so effectively pointed out, this crisis is in danger of deflecting the international community from other areas. On 10th February, the head of the United Nations lead
  328
  agency for Palestinian refugees, Peter Hansen, appealed to the international community not to forget the West Bank and Gaza as the world focuses on Iraq. He warned that the agency would soon run out of resources at a time when Israel was stepping up its demolition programme and rendering more people homeless. As we know, there is also dire need in southern Africa, Afghanistan and elsewhere. But, as Clare Short pointed out in the Commons on 30th January:
  "My Department's resources and those of the international humanitarian system are … strained. We will, of course, play our part in any international humanitarian effort, but no one should be complacent about the international system's resources or, indeed, those of my Department".—[Oficial Report, Commons, 30/1/03; col. 1057.]
  In its document of 7th January 2003, the UN states that,
  "the collapse of essential services in Iraq … could lead to a humanitarian emergency of proportions well beyond the capacity of UN agencies and other aid organisations".
  Both immediate and long-term humanitarian considerations simply have to be given greater attention by governments and the United Nations Security Council before a war is waged on Iraq. The scale of the disaster is potentially immense.
  But if the risk of war is taken, humanitarian aid and reconstruction must be a long-standing process. Iraq needed that anyway. Its plight after another war will be much worse. This is not something that a smart bomb or a two-week campaign can put right. The late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead described the Prime Minister's vision as being like that of a lighthouse beacon, focused intensely on one area before it swings round to focus on another, leaving the rest in darkness. The Prime Minister focused that attention on Afghanistan. He focused that attention all too briefly on Africa. If war goes ahead, he will need to keep his attention, but that of the world, on the long-term peace and reconstruction of the whole region. If he thinks he cannot keep that focus, and more importantly that of the United Nations, surely even at this late stage he—and we—should be thinking again.
  8.56 p.m.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, when one comes as late as this in the speaking order, there is little to add to what has already been said in this debate. None the less I cannot let this moment pass. More than 30 years fighting the evil of terrorism—both as an officer in Her Majesty's forces and as a parliamentarian—has given me considerable insight into what we face with the Saddam regime.
  This point is crucial—we should refrain from identifying the threat we face as an Iraqi problem. It is not. The West has no problem with the people of Iraq. It is exclusively from the menace from the Saddam terrorist regime. We should admit that we in the United Kingdom adopted an ambivalent attitude when he attacked Iran. With the benefit of hindsight we might now do better.

  329
  The Saddam regime is one that will not be changed by the Blix weapons inspectors. It would not happen now, after 12 years, or if we allowed yet another year—or even if the inspectorate had 1,000 years to pursue its impossible task. It must be evident, except to the most recalcitrant observer, that Saddam will take us to the brink. He will bluff us again and again, and has no intention to deliver. If it were otherwise, we would by now have complete information on what has happened to the weapons of mass destruction. We would not then be fobbed off by the "I forgot I had it in the back of the cupboard" chemical bomb, as happened earlier this week.
  The United Nations must now decide what it really intended by Resolutions 688 and 1441, if it is not to become a League of Nations Mark 2. We all understand, I expect, that high-grade intelligence cannot be disseminated throughout the public arena, and that the proverbial red herring may have to be trailed. However, it only confuses the public if the Government continuously make suggestions about links between Saddam and Al'Qaeda. Bluntly, those of us who understand terrorism know that Saddam and Al'Qaeda will use each other if and when it is convenient. The nature of terrorism is "each to his own ends".
  It is much more significant that as we know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and their components, and used them against both Iran and his own people. The Government owe it to the public to expand on, and explain the indisputable facts. So far, they have miserably and dangerously failed to achieve this.
  For example, what is the veracity or otherwise of the report in the Independent on 19th February about three cargo ships suspected of carrying the Saddam regime's weapons of mass destruction leaving Iraq concurrent with the arrival of Herr Blix's team and continuing incommunicado to sail around the Indian Ocean?
  It would appear that such a tactic would be eminently sensible from Saddam's perspective. Are there any means by which the weapons inspectors can extend their authority beyond the boundaries of Iraq? Can the Minister, without compromising intelligence operations, enlarge on this point? Does every hour wasted not facilitate such potential deception? Have the USA and the United Kingdom not been forced by collective UN indecision to engage in a phoney war for the past three months—a phoney war that may yet endanger our forces? I am no warmonger, neither do I have to convince anyone that I would prefer peace. But I have learnt the hard way to be a realist. We should waste very, very little more time.
  The Minister spoke of her hope for peace, but I believe it is now time to take action for peace. What then? The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, rightly spoke about humanitarian aid, as have other noble Lords. That issue has, I trust, already been addressed. What about the future government in Iraq?
  330
  We cannot afford merely to have yet another Baghdad-centred administration, with Kurds and Marsh Arabs losing out on the periphery. I do not want to expand on the fact that governments sometimes forget their friends and reward their enemies—most noble Lords will get my specific meaning.
  I conclude with this thought. Neither the United States of America nor the United Kingdom can forever be the world's policemen, but both can help to ensure that the United Nations collectively fulfils that role now as far as possible. If the UN fails with Saddam, it endangers peace world-wide and can never again be taken seriously. What other despots, dictators and megalomaniacs are watching from the wings?
  To fail to act is to give notice that democracy—that word which drops so lightly off our tongues—is, for the foreseeable future, to succumb to terrorism and terrorist regimes and that the bleached bones in Cambodia, the Balkans and Sierra Leone have taught us nothing.
  9.3 p.m.
  Lord Morgan: My Lords, it is late. As a historian, I want to reflect briefly on the observable and wide gulf between the views of the Government and the views of the British people. Normally in a war crisis, historically government and people converge as they did in 1914 and in 1939. This time, they have grown further and further apart. At the present time, perhaps three-quarters of the British people do not support a war. At least 30 per cent have said that they will not support a war under any circumstances, even with a second UN resolution.
  The Government say that the facts need to be explained and the message elucidated and then people will form correct views. Well, the message has been elucidated; the spinners have spun; the plagiarists have plagiarised; and the people are more hostile than ever and public opposition to an attack on Iraq has grown stronger. Why is that? Have our people suddenly turned uniformly into Trotskyists and pacifists? They find the Government's case unconvincing; they simply do not believe it.
  In the first place, it is evident that people are not persuaded that Saddam Hussein is an obvious threat to the United Kingdom—perhaps not immediately a threat to anywhere. After all, he was successfully contained by international force for 12 years previous to this crisis. It was only after September 11th—indeed, some time after that—that the United States turned its attention, in a way that future historians will find mysterious and interesting to penetrate, from Al'Qaeda to Iraq, which, after all, had been there all along.
  The public recognise that Saddam Hussein is an unpleasant man and that his regime is cruel. They do not regard the case for his having weapons of mass destruction—certainly not nuclear weapons—as currently proven. Saddam Hussein certainly has some unpleasant weapons—of course he has, we gave him some of them; the United States gave him others. The

  331
  United States was responsible for selling Iraq anthrax, West Nile virus and botuliniol toxin in the 1980s, the salesman being Mr Donald Rumsfeld.
  In spite of that, the reports by Dr Blix have so far been temperate. Things are by no means satisfactory, but they are moderately encouraging. He talks of positive progress and it is surely reasonable to ask for inspection to be undertaken properly and to reach its appointed time, rather than to resort to the extreme response of war.
  Secondly, as many noble Lords have said, people are not convinced of any link between Iraq and international terrorism. The evidence for that is derisory. The people of this country fear that the threat of terrorism will be greatly increased by an attack on Iraq—as may be tension between the different ethnic communities in this country.
  Thirdly, people deeply suspect the motives of the United States. That is not just anti-Americanism; our people are not anti-American. I am not anti-American; I taught American history in universities for 30 years and greatly enjoyed it. But there is great hostility to and distrust of an extreme Right-wing administration. People distrust the unilateralism of American foreign and external policy in relation to the environment, armaments, the International Criminal Court and many other issues.
  There is mass popular distrust in this country about the American concern with oil and the hypocrisy that is shown in not acting against an aggressive Israeli regime with an extremely Right-wing government who consistently defy the UN's edicts and deny fundamental human rights for Palestinians. There is great disbelief in this country that the United States, rather late in the day, has decided that this is a crusade for human rights. What human rights, when the Kurds, for example, are specifically omitted? Why are they omitted? Because it would upset the Turks and a large number of Kurds live in Turkey, which is a valuable base.
  It is also recognised that the United States has for decades propped up and continues to prop up some of the most atrocious regimes in the world, which have flouted human rights—at present, Uzbekistan, which provides virtually no human rights, but is a convenient base. That is recognised and regarded with a good deal of suspicion.
  The British people also believe in the United Nations. Admirably, our Prime Minister also believes in the United Nations. People in this country suspect that that the Americans do not—at any rate, to nothing like the same degree. The Commonwealth background of this country makes us attuned to dialogue and international discourse, whereas the history, background and outlook of the United States are different.
  People see the United States apparently overruling or ignoring United Nations resolutions and probably not wanting to use the United Nations at all, had it not been admirably pressurised into it by Tony Blair. They see the US regarding the Blix inspection as an irrelevant interlude, as they have already decided on war. They see the Americans trying to impose their
  332
  definition of regime change unilaterally and in complete defiance of the edicts and principles of international law. They see a United States committed to following its own interests, whatever the rest of the world thinks. Speaking historically, I fear that that is the other side of America's so-called isolationism; it is an interventionist consequence of isolationism. It frightens people.
  Finally, the British people fear war because they think that it will be barbarous and will lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people—children, old people and others—in Iraq. They think that it will be far worse than the atrocities undoubtedly committed by Saddam Hussein and will result in a humanitarian catastrophe. They feel that war should be the last resort and that we are a long way short of the last resort.
  In addition to what I have tried to identify as popular concerns about Iraq, there are some more specialist concerns. Economists are anxious about the long-term damage to the world economy and the prospects for economic recovery, particularly given the high price of oil. As we have heard in the debate, military experts are worried about the absence of clearly defined strategic objectives and ask about the purpose of the projected war. Those who are expert in international analysis fear the probability of extreme instability for many decades throughout the Middle East. I noticed a remarkable statement by the former Prime Minister, Mr John Major, pointing out the difficulties of getting a stable settlement in Iraq, given the deep animosities between Shias and Sunnis, the position of the Kurds and so on. The effect of the war will be to exacerbate the problems, not to cure them.
  Others worry about the new gulf emerging between us and our allies and comrades in France and Germany and the effect that it will have on the European ideal. We are being alienated from France and cosying up to the neo-fascist President Berlusconi, with whom this country has little common interest.
  As a historian, I worry about the crude use of history, particularly our old friend the 1930s. Time and again we hear that this crisis is the 1930s come again—what nonsense. Saddam is not another Hitler. Where is his Mein Kampf? Where is his dream of universal conquest? George Bush is certainly no Churchill; it would be a calumny on the reputation of that great man to suggest it. It is a facile argument, and it disturbs me that Downing Street produces it, all the more because I taught one or two of them. My efforts were clearly somewhat in vain.
  We should anatomise public opinion. The polls show the components of alienated public opinion on the threatened policy. Every element that brought new Labour to power is hostile. Women are strongly hostile, more so than men. At least 70 per cent of women are hostile to war under almost any circumstances. Young people are deeply alienated, as are the trade unions. In Scotland, only 13 per cent of the people would support a war. God help the Labour Party in the elections in May. It will be a bonus for the SNP and perhaps, in my own nation, for Plaid Cymru. All faiths are opposed to

  333
  the war. Today, we heard the bishops speak out with courage and vision. They do not see it as a just war. There is also the powerful opposition of the Pope. All political parties are united, even Conservatives who reject the gung-ho militarism of lain Duncan Smith.
  That opposition was reflected on 15th February in a great and moving protest comparable with any in our history, comparable with the Chartists or the Suffragettes. The extent of that protest shows how the crisis can destabilise our country. Nearer home, it is certainly destabilising the Labour Party. I have been a member of the Labour Party since 1955.1 was a member of the Labour League of Youth before Tony Blair was born. It grieves me to see the haemorrhaging of good members from our party. There are masses of them, and friends of mine are leaving the party.
  Tony Blair is a brave man who prides himself on being another Churchill. He must be wary of not being another Ramsay MacDonald. This is said to be a listening Government; one that listens to the people. They should listen—not to transatlantic ideologues but to the wisdom, humanity and decency of the British people.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the economic costs of a war with Iraq. I do so with a degree of diffidence because, at one level, it seems heartless and irrelevant to count the economic costs of toppling Saddam against the human costs of war. But there will be economic costs and consequences, and any informed debate on the issue should surely be aware of them.
  As regards the short-term direct costs, the best estimate of the cost to the United States has been made by the US Congressional Budget Committee. It suggests that the cost of a short war, followed by a mere 10 weeks of post-combat presence in the region, will be about 44 billion US dollars. Other US congressional studies produce a higher figure. The 44 billion US dollars is in excess of what would otherwise be spent on the defence budget over an equivalent period.
  As for the United Kingdom, the Chancellor has already made provision for £1.75 billion-worth of additional expenditure. However, estimates produced by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which takes as its starting point the cost of UK involvement in the Gulf War, suggest that our expenditure could be nearer £3.2 billion.
  These costs assume that all goes well militarily. If the Iraqi forces pursue a stubborn urban defence strategy and, as appears inevitable, there is less than total co-operation from some of the neighbouring countries in the region, the costs could easily be more than double this amount, possibly some 100 billion US dollars in all.
  Dr Blix has, by contrast, estimated that the cost of the weapons inspection process is approximately £50 million per annum. A stark contrast.
  334
  On the assumption that the war is successful—all economists like simplistic assumptions—the next relevant costs will be those of post-war occupation and reconstruction. These will include the costs for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial functions, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance and preparations for a transitional governing body. The costs of simply keeping an occupation peacekeeping force in Iraq have been estimated, again by the Congressional Budget Committee, as between 17 billion and 46 billion US dollars per annum. Estimates by William Nordhaus at Yale University suggest that the cost of reconstruction could range from 30 billion to 105 billion US dollars, and humanitarian assistance could cost between 1 billion and 10 billion US dollars.
  The really worrying thing about these figures is that the track record of the US and its allies, including the UK, of committing adequate funds to civilian reconstruction—most recently in Afghanistan—is poor. In Afghanistan, in the 12 months from September 2001, the US spent 13 billion US dollars on the war effort, but the Pentagon contributed only some 10 million US dollars to civil works and humanitarian aid. As my noble friends Lady Williams and Lady Northover have pointed out, the White House forgot completely to include any provision for such expenditure in the budget it submitted to Congress for the upcoming financial year.
  At a time when the US spends only 15 billion US dollars on foreign aid for the entire world, the likelihood of it undertaking an adequate nation-building programme in post-war Iraq is not good. Indeed, the most realistic prospect is, I am afraid, a half-hearted and half-completed job. I hope at the very least that here the Chancellor will use the opportunity of the Budget to indicate how much the UK Government will contribute to the reconstruction effort.
  I have so far looked simply at the direct costs of the war. Important as they are, they are arguably less significant than the potential wider economic consequences. Recent wars have had mixed economic consequences. The Korean War gave a powerful stimulus to growth, as did Vietnam—although in that case high levels of borrowing and inflation helped to cause the US economic crises of the early 1970s.
  The economic effects of any war in the Gulf, however, are bound to be strongly linked to its effect on oil supplies and oil prices. The short-term effect of a war, which is arguably already being felt, is that of an oil shock, in which oil importing countries are hit by rising prices and falling demand. Optimists, particularly in the US, argue that there are adequate reserves to deal with any temporary disruption during the war itself, that Saudi Arabia and Russia would step up production to deal with any shortfall, and that once the war was over increased Iraqi production could force oil prices down from their current level of over 30 dollars a barrel to as low as 10 dollars a barrel.
  This optimistic view is, however, clouded by a number of worrying uncertainties. The first relates to the conduct of the war itself. It' it were prolonged for

  335
  any reason, it would undoubtedly cause major uncertainty and instability in international commodity markets. Oil prices will almost certainly be high during the war, and for anything other than a very short war this would suppress world growth. The IMF estimates that a 10 dollar per barrel rise over the course of a year would reduce global GDP by 0.6 per cent. Secondly, if the war led to a collapse of the Saudi regime, either from increased anti-Western sentiments or from a medium-term fall in oil revenues as post-war Iraqi production increased and prices fell, the longer-term prospects for Saudi oil supplies could become extremely uncertain.
  The greatest potential risk facing the global economy, however, relates to how the war is financed. Under current economic conditions, with relatively low levels of unused capacity, additional government borrowing will spill over into inflation or imports, or both, adding to the current account deficit, which is already 5 per cent of GDP in the US and 2 per cent in Britain; and to their fiscal deficits, which are already 3 per cent and 1.5 per cent of GDP, and set to rise significantly, even without the consequences of the war.
  In the case of the US, the effect of the proposed Bush tax cuts will already cause a budgetary deficit of at least 2,000 billion dollars over the next decade. An expensive war will significantly increase that figure in the short term. That will require higher borrowing, and the US Administration is literally banking on foreign investors buying large additional volumes of government debt. It is plausible that this could cause a sharp fall in the dollar exchange rate—possibly even its collapse. This would raise debt servicing costs in the US further, possibly forcing the administration to raise taxes, which would in turn hit consumer confidence. A dollar fall and reduced consumer confidence would export recession to US trading partners, including the UK.
  Imbalances in the UK are less extreme than in the US, but our balance of payments deficit is at its highest ever level, investment is severely depressed and the budget deficit is growing rapidly. We are not an oil importer to the same extent as the US, but a general downturn in the oil importing countries would clearly hit UK exports further. In turn, this would harm growth and employment.
  Even a short, militarily successful war would therefore impose significant economic costs. A longer war, and one which led to the collapse of the Saudi regime and/or the dollar, could plausibly be expected to herald a world recession.
  These costs of war represent only one of the factors which have to be weighed in any decision about military action. They are, however, too important to be ignored.
  9.25 p.m.
  Lord Chan: My Lords, no one doubts that Saddam Hussein has caused the current crisis in Iraq by ignoring the UN resolution of 1991 and again ignoring Resolution 1441 in November 2002. On his past record, it is not likely that Saddam will comply with
  336
  Resolution 1441 and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. It will be a miracle if he were to relent and, to this end, 1 million people are praying for this to happen, according to e-mail messages that I have been receiving since November.
  Many noble Lords have rightly argued that we must support the rule of law. Further, that war against Saddam should be embarked upon only as a last resort and only with the authority of the United Nations. I support this need for the UN to authorise military intervention. But there are issues that trouble me about the prospect of using war to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction. Our Prime Minister said in his Statement yesterday:
  "The issue is not time. The issue is will. If Saddam is willing genuinely to co-operate, the inspectors should have up to July, and beyond July—as much time as they want".—[Official Report. 25/02/03; col. 125.]
  How much time will Saddam he given to demonstrate he is willing genuinely to co-operate with Resolution 1441 by offering his weapons of mass destruction to the UN inspectors? Will Dr. Hans Blix's report in March be the watershed for deciding on the use of military force to disarm Saddam? If this is the case, I agree with my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall that the UN inspectors should be given more time to do their work and to be certain that Saddam is willing to co-operate. Is patience not a virtue for political decisions?
  My second concern is the terrible effects of war on the civilian population, especially on women and children. I join my noble friend Lord Sandwich and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, regarding their questions to the Minister about the preparations being made for food and water supplies to the civilian population in the event of military intervention. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has already given us the gloomy prospect of 30 per cent of Iraq's children dying of malnutrition. Then there will be the need for more medicines and other medical supplies for the injured.
  Our Government must no doubt have calculated the cost and made plans for a system of peacekeeping after military intervention in Iraq. Our Armed Forces continue to be involved in all locations where military conflict has occurred in recent years in eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. How will the health and welfare of our military men and women be maintained? I ask this question in view of the mysterious illness that afflicted some of our military personnel in the Gulf War.
  Finally, there is the issue of the so-called clash of civilisations. This prospect of military intervention in Iraq will be exploited by people of ill will to cause fear and dissension among our ethnic minority communities. The war will be portrayed as a war against a Muslim state, but that is certainly not the case.
  The disturbances in our northern English towns 18 months ago remain fresh in the mind of some of LIS. The isolation of some of our South Asian communities, mainly Muslim, from their white neighbours is beginning to be addressed in those northern towns. I hope the Minister will assure us that measures are being taken to reassure our Muslim communities that

  337
  military action in Iraq will not cause them to be discriminated against or to be attacked here. We must not allow this effort to bring peace in Iraq to cause fear, unrest and dissension to occur here at home, in Britain.
  9.29 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I begin on an entirely uncontroversial note—to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, from her operation.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not know whether I will get any more cheers.
  This has been a remarkable debate which has reflected the views of a very divided public, some of whom—a minority—are undoubtedly in favour of war. A majority want to avoid that situation. I remember as a young child, growing up in 1938—when I was nine or 10; I cannot remember—when people taking to the streets would have enormously favoured Neville Chamberlain. Barely a year later, however, when we went to war, the situation changed. I am not arguing that that situation is parallel in any way. It is a matter that the Government have to face, but it is not absolutely critical. Come a war, I think that people will rally round and say that the war is just. However, that is not my argument today.
  I think that the Government, on the whole, are rather benign. They have taken a view that Saddam Hussein had 12 years in which to disarm. I do not think that that is strictly true. The pressure to accomplish change has not been consistently applied until now. There has been more than an element of ambiguity over the period. It took the events of 11th September to produce a riposte to Saddam, although there was no clear evidence that he was responsible for those terrible events. There is no unequivocal evidence that Al'Qaeda and he were united in their aspirations. However, both of them represent threats, albeit different threats, to the world community.
  There are some who entertain the notion that we can—indeed, should—do little or nothing. I think that that view is wholly wrong. Others take the view that there is no alternative but to go to war, and the sooner, the better. I think that that view, which amounts to the United Nations being a sideshow, is also wrong. In my view, the way forward lies somewhere between those extremes.
  Now is not the time to be swayed by semantics. The fact that, some weeks ago, the United Nations Security Council determined on a resolution is highly significant. However, situations change. The question we have to ask ourselves now is whether there has been a significant change in the past few weeks. I understand that, only tonight, Dr Blix said that Saddam Hussein has not made the advances that are needed. I think that that is a highly relevant piece of evidence.
  I am not persuaded by the antics, or perhaps they may be called the tactics, of President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder. I believe that theirs is a recipe for
  338
  inaction. Their counter-resolution involves little that can be unacceptable to Saddam Hussein in maintaining the status quo. His disinclination to disarm is not just a matter for him; it affects us all. While he is not the only tyrant in the world today, he has slain innumerable people. He has shown nothing but contempt for the United Nations and, for that matter, most of his own people.
  So how long should we give him? What should we be demanding of him? I believe that even at this late hour there is an acceptable and legitimate halfway house: allow the inspectors some further leeway; give them a further opportunity to search. But it has to be a final ultimatum as well. Saddam Hussein must be under no illusion that he has to identify the weapons of mass destruction and other noxious weapons which are under his control. We must allow the inspectors a limited, but a reasonable time. I would make it abundantly clear that Saddam Hussein must co-operate fully with them; otherwise he will reap a whirlwind.
  I hope against hope that many innocent civilians in Iraq will not be cut down. Already time is short for the preferred United States option. I believe that that is their clear policy. There is an alternative and we should go down that route.
  It is incumbent on us to declare our war aims unequivocally. We have to do that and I make no bones about it. What are they? What about the refugees? What about the rehabilitation of Iraq and its people after the war? There is a duty to answer all these questions. I believe that is what the British people want.
  I conclude by declaring my interest as the President of BALPA, the British Airline Pilots Association. In the event of an armed conflict there will be effects on the aviation industry. The International Air Transport Association, which represents 280 airlines, has calculated a 20 per cent slump in passenger numbers if war proceeds. What have we to say to them? Inevitably, there will be a number of redundancies. It may be that civil aircraft will be commandeered to assist in the carrying of personnel and in medical evacuation. In that situation the livery of such civil aviation companies and their national identity may well be removed.
  I pose the following questions to the Minister for response, either tonight or in the near future in writing. Will the Ministry of Defence be responsible for the cost of work undertaken on aircraft in this situation? What enhanced security measures will be taken at airports for those on civil aircraft? What further support will be forthcoming as far as insurance cover is concerned? My noble friend may not be able to reply to my specific questions but on the wider issue, the arguments are many and complex. I only hope that the solution to which I have pointed will be of some value.
  9.40 p.m.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I rise to speak on an entirely uncontroversial note. I assure the noble Lord that he was 10 years old for the last 25 days of 1928—which puts him 15 months ahead of me. We therefore shared a childhood

  339
  in the gathering shadows of the Second World War. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, struck a strong chord with me because I saw with my youthful eyes the terrible price paid for indecision before a major war.
  We are asked whether there is sufficient evidence on which to conduct a war under Resolution 1441.I believe that there is sufficient evidence. Dr Blix's update of 22nd January points to 6,500 chemical bombs with a payload of 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent missing; 8,500 litres of biological agent unaccounted for; and 650 kilograms of bacterial growth media—enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax—also unaccounted for. The gun may not be smoking but it is obviously there.
  Bush junior refers from time to time to Bush senior, who obviously has much influenced him. I too had a father—once a Member of your Lordships' House—with experience of the Gulf or thereabouts. He was part of the British Expeditionary Force that came to a stop at Kut-el- Amara in Mesopotamia and was among the handful of survivors of both the siege and the horrific 1,000-mile march into captivity. It is not a theatre of war to which we should lightly commit our children.
  Bush senior prosecuted a just and successful war that was, without question, legal under a United Nations mandate. Bush junior proposes to conduct a war that, according to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, is not quite just—and which, according to a mass of public opinion and not only in this country, is not quite legal under the United Nations. I do not think that it matters absolutely in the last resort whether it could be proved in a court of law that Resolution 1441 would countenance this war, as I believe it would; what matters is what the world thinks.
  We live now in an undivided world in which everybody has an opinion. Thanks to television and other communications media, everybody has good information on which to base their opinions. Opinion is hardening against the idea that Resolution 1441 alone is sufficient justification. However, I think that if push came to shove, it would be.
  It is at this point—when I am longing to go, thanks to the encouragement given by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and convinced of the tremendous advantages of immediate action, thanks to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, that I pause to think. It seems to me that we are not in a position so to proceed, for lack of proper planning. I am talking not of military planning—although it was interesting to hear the military comments on the political planning, because soldiers have to think what will happen next because their skins depend on it. Like other retired commanders before him, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked what is to happen next.
  The political preparation is insufficient because we do not have a united alliance; we have a terrible division between us and Europe. I shall not go into the detail of that. Those who shout "Oil" at the Americans should remember that they have to shout "Oil" at the French and Russians too, because they have an interest in preserving the status quo from an economic point of
  340
  view, just as the Americans may have one for changing it. All that I observe is that there is no unity of political will on the part of those intending to prosecute the war.
  The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that it was incumbent on the West to do something. That shows the terrible failure of planning, because the war ought not to be West versus Middle East any more than it ought to be Christian versus Muslim, Europe against sub-Asia, or whatever. It ought to be a war between law and justice, as evinced by the operation of the Security Council of the United Nations, against lawbreakers. The case for that has not yet been built.
  More serious still is what happens at the end of the war. The Gulf War was conducted under a mandate that expired as the last Iraqi crossed the Kuwait-Iraq border. That did not pose a problem at the time, because there was only the question of the Kuwaiti Government being reinstalled. However, it has left us a huge problem for now, because it left the Iraqi machine more or less intact. The present mandate expires when the troops reach Baghdad and are in the position to enforce disarmament—but who rules then?
  Will the spoils simply go to the conqueror? Will there be repetition of British gunboat diplomacy, or the great game in Afghanistan? I do not like to mention Afghanistan, because we claimed that we were going to start nation-building there. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said, we have not succeeded very well in that. However, we have not even started to plan nation-building in Iraq. Therefore, if time is needed, it is not needed to put the finishing touches to Resolution 1441 or for a new resolution that makes it absolutely clear that we are able to go in; it is needed for a resolution that states the terms under which we shall come out and what we shall leave behind us.
  Will it be spoils for the victor, or justice for the poor and the oppressed? We keep praying them in aid of our liberating efforts in Iraq, but have done nothing to plan for them. It is a keynote of the Christian religion—of the teaching of our Lord—that we should tend first to the poor and the weak. I think that that is the true Islamic message as well. There could be international co-operation in this respect to build a settled Middle East for the future, provided that we settle the problem in Palestine and Israel as well. I have had eight minutes, so I shall say only that the solution to that is essential to a final settlement in Iraq. Until we know what we shall finish up doing, we should not start doing it.
  9.49 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I want to touch on an issue that the national and international debate has been remarkably silent on, which is the environmental consequence of war. I will approach it from two angles: first, that we should be aware of the environmental dimension; and, secondly, that if we need to prepare military plans—being prepared they certainly are—we should do so with environmental consequences in mind.

  341
  The Geneva Convention was amended in 1977 when it became apparent that it was not able to cope with environmental issues. Perhaps noble Lords would be happy to be reminded of how it was amended. Article 55 states:
  "Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population".
  It also states:
  "Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited".
  I am sure that the Government intend that we shall abide in any military action by that section of the Geneva Convention, as much as we intend to abide by all the others. Those who do not abide by it have been illustrated this evening. We were reminded of Saddam Hussein's actions, which the world saw graphically illustrated in pictures from the Gulf War of burning oil wells, which had been set alight by Saddam Hussein. They were clearly visible even from space and spilled some 10 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf, resulting in irrevocable ecological damage and thousands of oiled birds in the sea.
  Perhaps not so visible, but also passionately referred to by my noble friend Lady Nicholson, was the act of ecological vandalism and, in her opinion, genocide in the draining of the marshes.
  In the international context of agreements, there was in 1992 the Rio declaration on the environment and development, of which Britain is a signatory. It stated in Principle 24:
  "Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and co-operate in its further development, as necessary".
  That was designed explicitly to protect the environment during war conflicts, and was adopted at the 47th session of the United Nations. It is a sad fact that there is a new term in the vocabulary of war—ecocide. It means the deliberate and conscious causation of environmental damage to achieve war aims. Recent history is full of examples of both ecocide and damage caused by war that has had catastrophic unplanned environmental consequences. An example of the first ecocide would be defoliant use in Vietnam, and the second example would be the bombing in Yugoslavia, which resulted in the Danube basin pollution.
  Awareness of the scale of damage that war was causing to the environment prompted the United Nations to set up the first study that it ever undertook to assess the consequences of such environmental damage and the suffering that it caused.
  Traditionally, humanitarian aid has meant feeding and shelter, but it became obvious from the UN study that the eradication of severe contamination of environmental hotspots was crucial because drinking water was at risk. Several noble Lords this evening
  342
  have mentioned the issue of drinking water. If it is polluted by military action, the problem will be far greater.
  The United Nations Environment Programme and its sister agency, UN Habitat, collected and analysed the consequences for the environment and human settlements of military actions. Since then they have worked in Albania, Macedonia and Guinea to establish the environmental impact of refugees. They have also worked most recently in Afghanistan to pinpoint areas of environmental degradation. Have the UK Government asked them about the lessons they have learned from that work? If war is undertaken, many of the issues that have been explored would be relevant in planning for the aftermath.
  Among the issues that must be considered are pollution and other collateral damage to the environment, such as oil spills and chemical leaks. The effects of depleted uranium contamination on populations that are in the area at the time, or who may return to the land afterwards, is an issue that is hotly debated, but it can affect populations of the area for generations to come. It is not just a matter of the time when the war takes place or for a few years afterwards. There is evidence that depleted uranium use may affect generations to come.
  I also refer to the ruin of farmland by landmines and unexploded bombs, which means that it becomes too dangerous to use, and to land that becomes disused because of the displacement of people, which makes feeding people more difficult. When I visited Croatia in 1999 I saw for myself the vast fertile valleys of abandoned farmland that stretched from the Vlebit mountains far inland across the Krayina. I believe that Britain has a duty to prepare military plans with environmental consequences in mind.
  It is not deemed acceptable directly to target civilian communities. Targeting industrial facilities may produce dangerous pollution and, as a result, nearby cities may suffer from, for example, asbestos pollution. I ask the Minister whether an environmental impact assessment has been prepared. Who has the responsibility for its recommendations being translated into a clean-up plan?
  Some may say that the environmental consequences are a small price to pay for regime change. I do not believe that to be the case. The environmental price is paid most dearly by the people and wildlife living in the conflict region at the time of the conflict. It is a price that is paid for years and, in some cases, for generations thereafter. We have a duty to them.
  9.56 p.m.
  Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I do not believe that the war against Iraq, when it comes—as I fear it will—will have much to do with weapons of mass destruction. We already have the instruments in place to keep Saddam Hussein and his weapons bottled up in Baghdad indefinitely. Further measures of disarmament can be secured without war.
  On paper, the Government agree with that. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have repeatedly said that they seek to disarm Saddam, not to overthrow

  343
  him, and that can be achieved without war if he co-operates. The Government's policy is disarmament, not regime change.
  But no one believes that that is President Bush's policy. The US Administration are committed to regime change, come what may. That, barring coup, assassination or the voluntary retirement of Saddam, means war. The Prime Minister, who courageously set out to divert the American drive towards war into the endless complexity of UN procedure, finds himself a passenger in a run-away car without any further influence on the driver.
  True enough, a formula has been discovered to paper over the cracks. It might even be enough to avoid a Security Council veto. Saddam has not fully complied with Security Council Resolutions 687 and 1441. He is in material breach of his obligations and must now face the consequences.
  Those, I submit, are legal fictions that are designed to cover up the drive to war. Saddam's military capacity has been much reduced since 1991. I do not believe that anyone disputes that. The Government have admitted as much. Their own dossier, Weapons of Mass Destruction, which was published last September and which was certainly not intended to maximise Saddam's contributions to world peace, pointed out that between 1991 and 1998, his nuclear weapons programme was destroyed and, with it, large parts of his chemical, biological and ballistic missile programmes. The new generation of inspectors has not found that those programmes have been reconstituted.
  One might think that that was a record of success, not failure and of substantial compliance, not substantial breach. However, the Government cannot acknowledge that because it underscores the case for keeping up the pressure and, in fact, possibly producing more pressure for Saddam to deliver. It does not support the case for going to war.
  I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday. He said that 50 per cent compliance was not good enough; it had to be 100 per cent. Of course ideally we would like 100 per cent, but where in the world do a government have a 100 per cent success rate in meeting their targets? I daresay this Government would be pleased with 50 per cent.
  The only reasonable test of compliance is whether Saddam retains or could quickly develop a capacity in present circumstances to wage aggressive war. I stress "in present circumstances", because the choice has never been between destroying Saddam and leaving him free to do what he wants. There is the middle course represented by the regime of sanctions and coercive inspections. The Prime Minister has said that Saddam has been given 12 years to comply and has not done so. But the fact is that he has been bottled up in Baghdad for 12 years.
  I regard this as a killer argument. Saddam has not been good, but he has been kept quiet. His expansionist ambitions have been completely frustrated. Why do we believe that a system that has achieved these results over
  344
  12 years cannot keep him trussed up for another 12 years, or as long as he lives? He is 65, so maybe it will take 12 years.
  One could argue that 9/11 has changed everything; now we face a terrorist threat and Saddam might pass on his small supplies of chemicals and bacteria to terrorist groups. But we need to consider carefully what incentive he might have to do so. I do not think that his incentive is strong; it is extremely weak. If small amounts of these substances can do as much damage as is claimed—and I am very sceptical—destroying government laboratories will not do much good. Small-scale private enterprise operating on well-tried principles, located almost anywhere in the world, could produce as much anthrax or nerve gas as demanded by any terrorist group.
  If the looming war is not about Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction, what is it that drives American policy? That is fundamental to the whole question. I believe it is a desire to reshape the geopolitics of the Middle East, and beyond that, of other areas of the world, backed by the conviction that the United States alone has the power to do so.
  This line of argument can be traced through the thinking of a number of neo-conservative hawks associated with the Project for the New American Century, most of whom—I am talking especially of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Armitage, William Bennett, John Bolton and Richard Perle—occupy key places in the Bush Administration or his entourage. These people were advocating the overthrow of Saddam Hussein long before the election of George W Bush and before 9/11. Those events gave them the opportunity to carry out their plans.
  But Saddam's overthrow was simply to be a first step in a larger programme which amounts to the establishment of long-term American rule in the Middle East, with Israel as its junior partner. I am using my own language, but I know enough history and enough about international relations to be confident of decoding language that has to be kept coded if it is not to sound too alarming.
  Traces of this grand design can be found in President Bush's "axis of evil" speech and the new strategic doctrine of premption. But the underlying philosophy is most cogently expressed in Robert Kagan's remarkable book Paradise and Power. In essence, the argument is that a liberal order rests on the foundation of armed might; that the United States is the only power possessed of the will and force to ensure such an order; and that therefore it must be prepared to use its "unipolar moment" to secure the world order it wants. That is coupled with the view that the Europeans are decadent and therefore hopeless as partners in such a project. As Kagan puts it,
  "the Americans are from Mars and the Europeans are from Venus";
  or, as the title of his book suggests, the paradise in which the Europeans live depends on America's willingness to use force to deter or defeat those who lack the requisite degree of moral maturity. That is the

  345
  choice between peace and war that we face. It is not about how many vials of poison Saddam Hussein has or whether he is in technical breach of UN resolutions.
  I describe this neo-conservative project not to belittle it. In some moods, I am quite attracted by it. I admire its daring, and its aims are not ignoble. But, on balance, I find it chilling, mainly because I do not believe that it can be made to work, at least in a democracy. A democracy that embarks on a career of conquest will soon cease to be a democracy. That is the lesson that we have learnt. That is why, in the end, we in old Europe abandoned the old imperialism. And that is why we should pause long and think hard before sanctioning a new imperialism.
  10.6 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have been away from your Lordships' House for several weeks but I have endeavoured to keep up to date with what has been happening. I am horrified that we appear to be moving inexorably towards war, despite assurances from members of the Government that war is not inevitable. I do not believe that the present Iraqi regime represents a threat to anyone—not even to the countries closest to it.
  Iraq suffered a crushing defeat in the first Gulf War. Since then, there have been punitive sanctions; inspections which were carried out extensively until 1998 have now been resumed; and there have been regular bombing raids by ourselves and the United States. As a result, a country which once had one of the highest living standards in the Arab world is now at a third-world level.
  The idea that this battered country offers any threat to ourselves or the United States is, in my view, simply absurd. Indeed, the Americans seem to recognise that themselves—hence the rather desperate attempt to link the regime with Al'Qaeda. There is of course no evidence for that, as our own Government have said on more than one occasion. The notion of a pre-emptive strike against a country that does not threaten us or anyone else, whatever the past history may be, is quite unacceptable. It is a cover for aggression and a breach of the United Nations charter.
  The Government have been applauded for having, it is said, persuaded the United States to go the UN route. But it is clear that the United States Government are interested in that route only if the UN agrees with the US view and gives authority for military action. The same applies to the inspectors—there is so much anxiety about identifying a "smoking gun". There was palpable disappointment when, in their last report, the inspectors did not come up with this. Indeed, they stated categorically that there was no evidence of a nuclear programme. What? No weapons of mass destruction? They must be hidden somewhere. So there must be biological or chemical weapons.
  The Iraqis claim that what they once had was destroyed, and they have offered the names of about 80 people who can attest to that. A previous inspector has said that the material that the Iraqis once had
  346
  would now be so degraded as to be no longer useable, even if it exists. But, in any event, why not let the inspectors do their job and, if we have contrary information based on intelligence, why do we not supply it to the inspectors and let them check it out? But no, President Bush's patience is running out, so decisions have to be made.
  Obviously the United States Administration would prefer a UN cloak of respectability. That is necessary to silence criticism at home, let alone in this country and throughout Europe. But it is clear that the US will go to war, with us tagging along behind, whether or not UN authorisation is obtained. The war programme is based on hostilities commencing around the middle of March. Later, the climatic conditions may not be so favourable.
  I do not believe that a moral case can be made for this war. It will involve the deaths and injuries of many civilians. It is likely to commence with a massive aerial attack, and that is always destructive of civilian lives and civilian infrastructure. Water supplies are disrupted and poisoned, occasioning more deaths. Hospitals are unable to work because of the destruction of power supplies. Food supplies are disrupted—in particular the Oil for Food scheme, which enables some poorer people at least to exist, is likely to be destroyed. The people not killed in the bombing will starve.
  Millions will be made homeless, and jobless, as the factories, homes and workplaces are destroyed. Modern warfare requires that civilian morale is totally and brutally crushed. It is a truly terrifying prospect for a civilian population.
  We are told that there is a moral case for war, and that Saddam Hussein is so awful a ruler that he is killing his own people through his interpretation of the sanctions imposed by ourselves and others. Of course, Saddam Hussein's worst crimes were committed when he was an ally of ourselves and the United States—so nothing much was said about Halabja at the time.
  I find the argument about sanctions astonishing. They are administered by a UN sanctions committee, as regards which we, and the US, have a substantial input. Radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by the United States and ourselves, on the grounds that they could be converted into chemical and other weapons. Therefore Iraqi children are denied pain-killing medicines through our actions, rather than those of the Iraqi rulers.
  Meanwhile, we and the US are constantly bombing Iraq on the pretext of protecting the no-fly zones. These are clearly attempts to degrade Iraqi installations in advance of war. There is no UN authority for these bombing raids. This was recently made clear by a UN spokesperson. Basra has been bombed repeatedly—as has northern Iraq—and there have been civilian casualties. They are acts of war, and as such totally breach the UN charter.
  However, the powerful can get away with it, and that is also the problem with the United Nations route. Many people have said that they would reluctantly support military action if there were UN authorisation. However, it is clear that a lot of arm-twisting is going on

  347
  behind the scenes to try to gain support for the US position. Countries facing economic problems have been offered loans or aid—or else there are threats that aid would be withdrawn. In domestic politics the purchase of votes is regarded as unacceptable. Why is it countenanced in international affairs, when issues of life and death are involved?
  The world population has a right to be sure that the decisions taken on its behalf are on the merits of the issues themselves—rather than as a result of backstage bullying and bribery. It now seems that France, Germany and Russia have produced a plan offering an alternative to war. This involves more inspectors, more monitoring and a longer timescale and so forth. It is surely worthy of consideration, particularly in view of the widespread concern that exists in this country and throughout Europe. The Motion drafted by ourselves and the United States is intended as a trigger for war, despite its anodyne wording.
  The Government have not convinced the British public that there is a case for war. Myself and others question whether it is about disarmament of Saddam Hussein at all. I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I believe that there is an agenda to which the Republican advisers around President Bush subscribe, and which they made known before he was elected. They believe that if the United States dominates Iraq, it will be able to reshape the Middle East. They believe they would be stabilising one of the world's most important oil producing regions. They think that they would eventually produce a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on terms which are likely to be much more welcome to Ariel Sharon than to the Palestinians.
  Most people would not want to go to war for such a strategy—so we have the farce of the dossiers about a threat, in which many people simply do not believe. Those of us who oppose war are often derided as appeasers—or else are told that we are anti-American. I know that there are many Americans who share our feelings against war. It takes some time for them to get organised and to make their views known. But they will do so and they are already being joined by a number of prominent United States citizens.
  As to the charge of appeasement, that makes me very angry. I am old enough to remember the Second World War. I know what it is like to huddle in an air-raid shelter and hear the scream of the bombs as they come down—and to see people, or what remains of them, dug out of the wreckage of their homes. The generation who challenged Hitler's regime—and Saddam Hussein is no Hitler—knew very well what had to be faced. Today's armchair worriers face no such threat. They will watch the war on television while others pay the price.
  In my experience, those who have first-hand knowledge of war are often those most opposed to it and critical of those who want to start another one. That was certainly true of my late husband, a former RAF pilot with a string of medals for bravery earned during the Second World War. I remember how we watched the first Gulf War on television and saw the
  348
  bombing of Baghdad. I remember how he said to me, "Smart bombs, smart bombs. Don't you believe it. We are watching people being killed down there". And of course so we were.
  My Lords, we must not let it happen again.
  10.16 p.m.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, made comparisons in a derogatory manner. He compared the attitude I had at the age of 19 towards Neville Chamberlain in 1938 with the attitude applying today to Saddam Hussein. Of course there is no comparison between someone in charge of an enormous, able, well-paid nation such as Germany and this man in a small country which is slipping increasingly backward.
  One cannot ignore history. People say, "I know he's a bad man, but—", but they must take account of that. Firmness might well have led Saddam to accept the Saudi offer of shelter. I am afraid that the marches which took place world-wide and the attitude of a number of politicians of vision have strengthened his resolve to hang on. One can understand that.
  I believe that the Government and the Prime Minister—particularly the Prime Minister—have done extremely well in giving us a chance of avoiding war. That depends on Saddam Hussein believing that we might well go to war unless he concurs.
  Those are my views and they are not the same as those held by most members of my party. I shall say no more—merely that my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf expressed that point of view better than I can. I do not want a war, but firm opposition to this evil man, situated in a very dangerous position, will do more to avert a war than anything else.
  10.18 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support noble Lords who today have opposed what is clearly the inexorable drive to war. I do so not because I am a pacifist; I am not. Indeed, I supported the campaign to regain the Falklands when at least one member of the present Government marched in favour of bringing troops home and ceding sovereignty to a fascist dictator. It would be interesting to know how many members of the Government were against our retaking the Falklands—perhaps we ought to send them a questionnaire to discover exactly what their attitude was.
  I also supported the Gulf War in 1991 to eject Iraq from Kuwait, because I do not believe in dictators, or anyone else, invading other people's countries and removing their sovereignty. Again, it would be interesting to know how many members of the present administration were opposed to that war and to taking back Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.
  I was also in favour of pursuing Saddam, taking over Baghdad and removing the regime at that time. We failed to do so. I urged that we should. If we had, we would not be having this debate. So we missed the opportunity to get rid of that awful man about whom everyone is talking. We did not do it then and there is

  349
  no reason why we should do it now, because, as many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, have said, he is contained and cannot get out of his box.
  The Prime Minister's Statement yesterday referred to 4 million refugees. But of course, many of those refugees are Shia Muslims, who were encouraged by the first Bush Administration to rise up against the Iraqi regime. When they did so, they were abandoned by Mr Bush I. Many of them were killed and many of them went into exile. That is one reason why we have so many refugees.
  As many noble Lords have said, the West was also complicit in the use of chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. Indeed, they supplied them and were aware that they were being used, but did nothing. That suited them at the time because the policy was to contain Iran. So the policy then pursued by Saddam was agreed by the West.
  What has concerned me during the past four or five months has been the implausible and chameleon-like case for immediate war against Iraq. First, the case was the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Then it was that Iraq posed a military threat to the United States and Europe, which of course it does not. It is absurd to suggest that Saddam does; he has neither the weapons nor the means to deliver them. That was always absurd. Then it was because he had links with Osama bin Laden, which the CIA itself denied. Then there was regime change, followed, of course, by the moral duty to free the people of Iraq from Saddam's tyranny. But yesterday, the Prime Minister's Statement returned to ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam could remain in power—presumably to continue to tyrannise his own people.
  It is that incoherent message that has confused so many people and led them to suspect the real motives of the United States and, to some degree, of the United Kingdom. Speculation about the real agenda ranges from grabbing Iraq's oil to taking over the whole of the Middle East for their own purposes.
  What I have found reprehensible about the stance taken by the United States and the United Kingdom is that their policy has been underpinned not only by a threat of massive military action against Iraq—a country of 20 million poor people, not Hitler's Germany—but by a threat to the future of the United Nations. The threat is that if the United Nations does not bow to their wishes, it will be undermined. If it does not come to heel, the United States will undermine its position in the world. That is not only unacceptable but dangerous for world peace and order.
  What has not yet been properly tried is real diplomacy. We used to have diplomacy before war, but it has not been tried. Mr Blair has been all over the world to solicit support for belligerence. Why has not he or any other British Minister visited Iraq to attempt to negotiate? The same goes for the United States. The United Nations arms inspectors are just that; they are not negotiators and should not be seen as such.
  350
  War should always be the last resort for democracies. As Churchill said so well:
  "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war".
  Diplomacy should not consist simply of threats. It should offer carrots as well as sticks, in return for co-operation and reformation, rather than humiliating a country and its leaders. Why cannot we offer Iraq a deal that would gradually end sanctions and no-fly zones in return for full co-operation on weapons of mass destruction? There has already been movement on that and moves to end military rule and establish a democratic system.
  No doubt I shall be accused of being naïve, but, before we embark on military action that is likely to kill thousands of innocent civilians and is bound to destabilise the Middle East further and put the United Kingdom and its citizens at heightened risk of terrorist attack, we should seriously try the diplomatic route. True, that will take months of patient negotiation, but is not that what democracy is about and what makes democracy superior to dictatorship and tyranny?
  10.28 p.m.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I apologise, first of all, to my noble friend for not being present at the start of the debate. My flight was delayed.
  Like many people, I am aware that our policy on Iraq is made up of several strands. People often find that going into an operation for more than one reason is somehow dishonest. Perhaps there should be only one story. There are concerns about weapons of mass destruction; there are possible links with terrorism, not just Al'Qaeda but other terrorist organisations; and there is a problem with human rights.
  I have supported the Government in this matter for a long time on the grounds of the human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein's regime. I said that in the previous debate on Iraq, and I say it again. I was impressed by the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne. She said that it was not a matter of Saddam Hussein being a threat to us. Hitler was not a threat to us; he did not threaten the United Kingdom. Indeed, a famous historian at the University of East Anglia, Professor John Charmley, argues persuasively that it was wrong of Churchill to persist with the war with Germany and that it would have been in our interest to settle, so that we could save the British Empire. If we looked after only our own interests we would not fight any tyranny which was not attacking us. That is quite right. Why should we? What is it to us? "A distant country about which we know little", as a famous British Prime Minister said.
  But we have to fight Iraq and Saddam Hussein because while he is contained and trussed up, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelski said, he is killing his own people. If he is allowed to survive because we do not like wars, we shall be abandoning the people of Iraq to die silently. They will not be seen dying on television or dramatically, but they will still be dying, day after day, as they have been ever since Saddam came to power.

  351
  The fact that we may have supported Saddam in the past does not mean that we should go on supporting him in the future. The fact that we may have supplied him with weapons in the past does not mean that we should sell him more weapons, as some German and French companies have been doing, or that we should allow him to buy them somewhere else, or that we should allow him to develop them on his own. The fact that there are other dictators and evil people in the world does not mean that we should not go after Saddam Hussein.
  Although the United States may have an ambitious plan which was concocted long ago—I do not doubt that there is such a plan in the minds of some people—at least in this case we arrived at a unanimous decision of the Security Council. As my noble friend Lady Turner said—I am glad to see her back in her place—that resolution received unanimous support without any bribes. As far as I am aware, the 15 countries that voted for Resolution 1441 were not bribed.
  The history of the resolution is listed in the paper we are discussing. Command Paper 5769 lays out clearly the entire history. It shows how, under Resolution 687, way back in 1991, Saddam Hussein was supposed to comply within 15 days—and still people say, "Why can't we give him more time?" The first part of the history is that he was given seven years, between 1991 and 1998, instead of 15 days. And he threw out the inspectors in 1998; and we then got another resolution; and now it has taken six months; and some people may want another 11 years to go by.
  But who is going to guarantee that in the meantime the people of Iraq will not be tortured, raped, murdered, put in prison and so on? Who will guarantee that? My colleague, Professor Mary Kaldor, has said that she would like to have human rights inspectors in Iraq. Of course that would be nice, but people are not saying that. Because they do not want to see blood on their televisions they are saying, "We will let Saddam go on killing his own people". That is not a very moral position to take.
  People now ask why we did not go to Baghdad in 1991. My noble friend Lord Judd asked that. I was shocked when he did so because United Nations Resolutions 660, 678 and 687 laid down very clearly the precise limits under which that intervention was practised. It would not have been legal or moral to go to Baghdad. That was clearly discussed at the time. I remember that the then President of the United States, who had experience of the United Nations because he was once America's ambassador there, said that there was no mandate to go to Baghdad, and therefore General Schwarzkopf was called back.
  Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Does he agree that we have to look at why the mandate was crafted in the way it was? I suggest that the ambivalence in the past—which has been disastrous because of the tyrannical nature of Saddam, which was so well described by my noble friend—was reflected in the terms of the UN resolution.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, so far as I know, the resolution asserts the sovereignty of Iraq and Kuwait.
  352
  Resolution 660 urged Iraq to settle the quarrel peacefully. When it was not settled peacefully, the two subsequent resolutions proceeded to talk in legal terms—not in regard to individuals such as Saddam but in regard to sovereign nations. At that time the terms were clearly set out: there was no mandate for doing anything other than liberating Kuwait, and that was that. It is not remembered that at that time all kinds of people were urging America to wield its power—in 1991, America was the most powerful nation in the world, the Soviet Union having collapsed—and that did not happen.
  I do not deny that Wolfowitz, Perle and so on have all kinds of plans. People who sit in think-tanks make up mad plans. They are supposed to think like that; that is the nature of think-tank people. It does not necessarily mean that all those mad plans will be realised—and if they are going to be realised, I am sure that we shall have enough time to do something about stopping them.
  I turn briefly to the economics of the war. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was on the one hand concerned about the costs of the war and, on the other, thought that the costs of post-war reconstruction, which will be very high, may not be met and that we may spend very little money. I hope that it is clear that in terms of the GNP of the developed countries these costs do not represent significant amounts of money. It would be appalling if we said that rather than spend £3.5 billion, which is one-third of 1 per cent of UK GDP, we would let people die. I would rather not do that.
  10.37 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, this is probably the first time in history that a world crisis has unfolded in real time in our sitting-rooms. Twist by twist and turn by turn, everyone has been able to follow the complex and intractable Iraqi tragedy. The deep public engagement puts, I suggest, unique strains on political leadership.
  I am proud of the reaction of the British public. I am proud of their maturity and balance, and of that remarkable demonstration on 15th February which shattered the notion that we have become a frivolous nation, disengaged from serious politics. It is also fair to say that, like others, I have been impressed by the role and intent of the Prime Minister, although I disagree with aspects of his strategy now. We all wish him and his Ministers wisdom and stamina in the months ahead.
  Before turning to the single issue that I want to deal with at this late hour, perhaps I may say a word about the legality and status of the different UN resolutions. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, fairly and accurately referred to the differences between the Iraq resolutions—Resolutions 687 and 1441—and the Israeli occupied territory resolutions, Resolutions 242 and 338. My noble friend Lord Goodhart gave a very able analysis of the legalities and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made some apposite remarks. But there is a danger. On the one hand we are insistent—at least on this side of the House and I think on all sides

  353
  of the House—that everything that we do now is in accord with international law, for itself and also for the preservation and strengthening of the United Nations; but it is a strange lawyer who will advise his client that merely because the law is on his side he should use the rights that it bestows. The trick is in the political judgment as to whether to utilise resolutions that may at this moment allow intervention.
  I return to the issue that the Prime Minister so acutely and correctly identified shortly after September 11th when he said that the battle in respect of international terrorism is one of hearts and minds. He seems to some extent to have forgotten that, yet it colours every prospect and every consequence, every hope and every fear.
  I do not think I need spend much time convincing your Lordships that Britain has an ambiguous enough history and relationship with the Middle East and that that of the USA is more contentious still. Unfortunately, in the Muslim world, few believe that a President backed by the US oil industry has no designs on Iraqi oil or that the influence of the likes of Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle at the heart of his Administration, to say nothing of the fiercely pro-Israeli lobby, is unrelated to what they see as double standards applied by the United States towards Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians as compared with Iraq.
  I, too, welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, back in her place. She said all that I would have wished to say and more on the human and moral concerns that are at the forefront of Anglo-American justification for war. However, people in the Middle East have long memories when it comes to their attitude to the Americans and to us. They do not forget that one of the two invasions that are now used by us as justification for invading Iraq—namely, the invasion of Iran in 1980—was undertaken by Saddam with the support of the United States, ourselves and France and that we supplied him with all his arms in that eight-year war, during which over 1 million Iranians were killed or seriously wounded. Mr. Cheney himself authorised the supply of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam which he then used with devastating and horrific effects against the Iranians. The Muslims do not forget the double standards—the hypocrisy as they see it—which this represents.
  I listened avidly to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said about the other political background. It is no surprise that America in particular is seen by many decent Muslims as ignorant, if not contemptuous, of their way of life and the values of traditional Islam. It is characterised in the eyes of many by its righteous aggressiveness and capitalist fundamentalism, and I say this as a staunch friend of America.
  In his speech yesterday, Mr Blair talked of our looking foolish if we were to delay war much longer and of our loss of potential authority and credibility. I urge him to concentrate on the issue of hearts and minds. If our invasion of Iraq is generally perceived as unjust here, will it be fair to commit our soldiers to it, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked?
  354
  Above all, if the American and British Governments have not convinced a clear majority of their own citizens of the justness and wisdom of war, how on earth do we think we are anywhere near convincing those in the Middle East of its justness and wisdom?
  If war is perceived as unjust in the Middle East, as I believe it is, no ease of military victory will compensate for the aftermath, particularly if massive Iraqi casualties are paralleled by only a handful of our own. If the overwhelming might of our means of war is felt to be unjust as well as the ends, the bad blood—indeed, hatred—which could be vented would convert military victory into political disaster. We would have won a truly Pyrrhic triumph. Instead of being rooted out, terrorism would be sown like dragon's teeth around the Muslim world. Then we could, and I think would, reap a savage harvest.
  What will President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have to say to us if, in the year following "victory", there is launched against the cities of the West a series of devastating suicide attacks which we know would be virtually unstoppable? What if the position in Palestine goes from disastrous to worse, with the level of conflict and killing escalating exponentially and in the process energising further hatred and violence? All that would be grist to the mill of Al' Qaeda and provoke other nascent terrorist groups, accelerate the prospect of unintended regime change in other Middle Eastern states, and risk regional chaos with who knows what world economic circumstances, to which my noble friend Lord Newby has referred.
  Of course there is no guarantee that holding back unless and until there is an unequivocal second United Nations resolution for invasion will avoid those prospects. But to my mind what is unanswerable is that the "soft war"—the war of allegiance—is infinitely more important and difficult to win, and can only be done by consensus and restraint up to and if necessary beyond the 11th hour.
  It is against that assessment that I am convinced that only an invasion fully endorsed by the United Nations, as was the case with Kuwait, can avoid these malign and self-defeating outcomes.
  10.46 p.m.
  Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I have never been the 49th speaker anywhere before, and as such I shall be remarkably brief. In any case, so much has already been said most eloquently. I do not usually speak in debates on international affairs although I have been involved in and worked in international development programmes. Perhaps that is why I feel so passionately about many issues related to dealings with Iraq; why I speak with a deep anxiety about the processes in which we are now engaged; and why I feel that debate must continue and indeed be encouraged.
  I preface my remarks by stating that I, like others, have great regard for the energy and leadership of the Prime Minister. He has undoubtedly exerted a restraining influence on the United States over many months. I accept that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator with a violent history. I know that after

  355
  September 11th there was justifiably a deep sense of outrage in the United States and many parts of the world. The terrorist issue is very real. However, is Iraq the legitimate focus or a scapegoat? I want to summarise my concerns at the beginning and then illustrate them with material drawn from American sources.
  I believe that we should not act without United Nations consensus. However difficult international negotiation may he, it is the only mechanism we have for avoiding war, even if those negotiations need to be long and tortuous. The consequences and aftermath of war in Iraq in humanitarian terms have not, for me, been sufficiently and convincingly detailed, although they have been mentioned many times tonight. The consequences of military action may increase, not diffuse tension and terrorism in the Middle East and the rest of the world.
  I am deeply concerned about the impact of military action on the domestic economies of both the United States and Britain. What would be the benefits of such a war to the US? Do we know, honestly and realistically? What would be the benefits to Britain, and what would be the negative impacts? Has such an analysis been done? I am deeply concerned about Britain being seen to be irrevocably attached to an American regime which has a poor record in support of issues that I believe are important: reproductive rights, the environment, children's rights and poverty. It also has a poor record of humanitarian support for nations following military action, such as in Afghanistan. As that has already been mentioned, I will not go into it.
  I am not anti-American. I have lived and worked in the US and admire its founding principles of justice and human rights and its get up and go-ism. However, I have serious misgivings about its sometimes simplistic approaches to complex problems, its materialism and self-interest. My noble friend Lord Morgan expressed it better than I can.
  Perhaps I may now illustrate my concerns by examples from an article in the New York Times last week and from a declaration opposing war with Iraq signed by over 60 towns in the United States. The New York Times article suggests that the American Administration have,
  "turned the regular foreign aid budget into a tool of war diplomacy".
  Small countries who have seats on the UN Security Council have suddenly received aid. Is this an attempt to influence votes? Is this a "coalition of the willing" spoken of by President Bush or a "coalition of the bought off" asks the author. What about the promises to Afghanistan to help rebuild when the 2004 budget ignored aid and had hastily to add it later? At least one senior American administrator has said that Iraq must pay for its own reconstruction.
  Some talk of Iraqi oil being the spoils of war. What would happen, as others have asked, to Iraqi Kurdistan? Would Turkey be allowed to occupy the territory? Would Saddam be replaced by American governance, but many of his officials remain in post? Would the Sunni
  356
  minority rule the Shi'ite majority? Those questions are posed in an American newspaper. They are terrifying in their implications. I see no adequate responses.
  A recent declaration by American towns opposing war makes the following points. I summarise and edit. This is from a copy sent to me by a friend in a town in Illinois. First, issues between Iraq and the world community have not proved to be unresolvable by traditional diplomatic efforts. Secondly, sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN at the urging of the US Government have resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of non-combatants, an overwhelming number of them under the age of five. Thirdly, in a war the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians would be in jeopardy. I add a note that around 50 per cent of the Iraqi population is under the age of 15. Fourthly, the cost estimate to the US for a war with Iraq is between 9 billion dollars and 18 billion dollars a month 80 per cent of the school districts in Illinois face budget crises. Fifthly, the billions of dollars spent on war could be better spent on schools, nutrition, healthcare, housing and eliminating poverty in the United States. Sixthly, the US is urged in this declaration to work through the UN, disarm Iraq, and reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law in international relationships.
  Again, these are Americans raising concerns. We all know that many people in the UK share similar concerns for similar reasons. I believe that we have a duty to support the concept and principles of the United Nations. I believe that the full consequences of war with Iraq have not been thoroughly explored: the aftermath remains uncertain. Just getting rid of Saddam and his weapons is not enough for me and I would not wish to see Britain launched on military commitments with the US under these circumstances. I hope that the Government will think very carefully about their alliances and the terrible complexities of their undertakings.
  10.54 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: My Lords, I start by stating where I stand. I took part in the march on 15th February, along with at least 15 of my noble friends. I was proud to be led by my noble friend Lady Williams and by Charles Kennedy. I am also proud that 52 of my colleagues in another place turned out, with the exception of Menzies Campbell who is away sick, to vote against the Government today. I stand firm with my party on this issue but, having said that, I want to pick up a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. I refer to the effect of current developments on Muslim communities in this country.
  The noble Baroness referred to the demonising of Muslims and said that people feel able to make forced entries into mosques willy-nilly. An excellent report published last August by the Minority Rights Group International, Muslims in Britain, refers to
  "long-standing marginalization and the worrying rise in open hostility against Muslims".

  357
  My experience of the 1.5 million Muslims in this country is largely based on communities in Lancashire consisting of people of Pakistani and Indian origin. My friends in those communities have an increasing sense that they are under siege and suffer a growing lack of confidence in their future in this country.
  A few weeks ago, The Times surveyed children in a primary school playground in Surrey, asking them to suggest terms with which they associated the word "Muslim". Forty per cent of the children equated "Muslim" with "terrorist". In the British media, terms such as "terrorist", "Muslim" "asylum seeker", "crime" and "disease" go round and round in any order, with disgraceful exploitation of individual cases—some of which are unfounded. It is therefore not surprising that many British-born Muslims ask, as one did of me this morning, "What the hell are we doing here?"
  Muslim communities are increasingly retreating into their own media. In almost all the Asian households in Nelson in Lancashire, the main TV channel is PTV—Pakistan Television. That reflects a typical retreat from British society to something with which Muslims feel much safer. That relatively recent trend has come with the development of cable and satellite TV.
  There is much perceived petty racism, such as spitting at women in headscarves. If someone spat at one of your Lordships or myself, we would regard it as rudeness. If one is used to being on the receiving end of petty racism, one assumes that it is racist. Young people perceive that they are being harassed by the police.
  More importantly, I am told by people whose information and views I respect that ordinary individuals are moving money out of the UK to safety pots, as they are called, in other countries. That was common in the 1970s, when immigrants would bank surplus money in Pakistan, commenting, "We do not know how long we'll be here. We don't know when they'll kick us out". That practice is starting up again. At weddings, funerals and other family gatherings, the gossip usually gets around to, "Where are you putting your money now? Switzerland, Canada or Dubai?"
  Economically more important is the growing belief since September 11th that there has been a dramatic increase in the targeting of Muslim businesses in this country by the security services and fraud investigators in a way that does not apply to other ethnic minorities or communities. I have been provided with details of a number of instances in which it appears that that is taking place. People are finding that they are unable to get banking facilities any longer in this country, or that their businesses are raided and their computers and records taken away, only to be brought back a week later with no charges laid. When the businesses are in financial services or trading, that is very serious as those records may be used for all sorts of purposes, and the people concerned have no idea that it is happening.
  I have no idea whether that is taking place on a discriminatory basis, because all the evidence that I have been provided with is anecdotal, and I do not
  358
  know how to find out. I have tabled Written Questions, but the Government say that they do not keep records about that kind of thing on an ethnic basis. That is probably right. Whether it is right or wrong, the fact is that there is a perception that it is happening. People are moving large sums of money out of this country and into places such as Dubai where they believe that their funds and businesses will be safe.
  At a different level, one of the advantages of the Government's rather incompetently organised asylum seekers' dispersal programme is that, in an area such as mine, the ethnic composition of the population has been greatly enriched, at least temporarily. We have lots of asylum seekers, including Kurds and Arabs of various sorts from Iraq. There are concerns that the Government intend, if there is a war—perhaps I should say "when the war on Iraq starts"—that there will be a general rounding-up of Iraqis. The concern is that it will be used as an excuse to round up, intern or detain people, including large numbers of people who have come here to escape the tyranny of the brutal Saddam Hussein regime.
  Of course, that happened during the Second World War when many Jews who came here for safe haven found themselves interned for the duration. It would be a disgrace if that were to happen again. I should like to ask the Minister specifically for an assurance that that is not planned. If it is planned, what powers are intended to be used? Who will be responsible for choosing the people to be interned? I hope that she will be able to answer that.
  I support most of what has been said by many noble Lords, particularly those on these Benches, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
  11.2 p.m.
  Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the three speeches that I enjoyed most in the debate were those from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. From that, noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I support the Government's position on the matter wholeheartedly, even though, I confess, a year or so ago I had some apprehensions. I have changed my mind in certain respects, and now I fully support what the Prime Minister is trying to do.
  I rather deplore the use of the word "war" time and again. We are not talking about a war in the sense of the First or Second World War, or anything remotely like it. However, the articles in the press these days have stories about the mass bombing of Hanover, Hamburg and Kassel. That is not going to happen in Baghdad, any more than it happened in Belgrade or Kabul. In fact, I shall be very surprised if the military side of any events to come in Iraq takes more than a matter of days.
  I want to make one other point, in response to a question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He intervened in the speech of my noble friend Lord Hardy to say that we all knew that Saddam Hussein had a terrible regime but the question was of a balance of evils,

  359
  and what could we offer that would not be as bad as having Saddam Hussein. I can offer quite a lot, such as closing the dungeons, stopping the executions, getting some decent water to the Shias, and seeing that the children get the food and medicines that they should get from the food programmes, but that are not reaching them. What is more, I do not shrink from the repercussions of regime change elsewhere in that area. We could have some healthy developments.
  I am not in a position to guarantee that any or all of those things will come about. I have no crystal ball, but I defy the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or anybody else to tell me that they can guarantee that they will not come about. Those things remain to be seen.
  I thought that one of the most important remarks made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, whom I am glad to see is in his place, was the importance of giving the military clear objectives. We have some difficulties. There are clearly two objectives: one is the removal of weapons of mass destruction; and the other is achieving regime change in Iraq. It is far easier to get a regime change and then eliminate weapons of mass destruction than to go in and try to find weapons of mass destruction and hope that regime change will follow.
  Unfortunately, under international law, regime change is not an acceptable objective or policy, which shows just how damned silly international lawyers can be. I mean that seriously. If anybody thinks that it would not have been in the world's interests for us some years ago to intervene to remove the regime of Pol Pot, I should like to hear from him. International law forbids us to do that.
  I turn to some remarks that were made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, whom I hold in the highest esteem. It is only because I hold him in the highest esteem that I am taking the trouble to quote him. I made some notes diligently, and accurately I hope, of one or two of his remarks. He said that we must have a "truly international consensus" before we move on Iraq. He said that what is going to be done must be done "in the name of the UN as a whole". But it is not going to be done in the name of the UN as a whole. Whatever happens, it will be done in the name of the Security Council. It is just as well that it is not done in the name of the UN as a whole because that body elected Libya to be chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission and planned to have the presidency of the conference on disarmament passed to Iraq. That is what the UN as a whole does for us.
  Let us consider the Security Council to see who is not on it first of all. The biggest democracy in Asia is not a member of the Security Council. The biggest Hindu country in the world is not a member of the Security Council. The biggest Muslim country in the world is not a member of the Security Council. When we look at South America—I am sorry if the Front Bench opposite has difficulty with the geography. I shall be more specific and helpful to the noble Lords opposite. In South America, neither Brazil nor Argentina are on the Security Council. The most populous country in
  360
  Africa—Nigeria—is not on the Security Council, and neither is the richest country—the Republic of South Africa.
  I know how the Security Council is composed and why it is composed in that way. But let no one tell me, with great respect to the right reverend Prelate, that the Security Council has the authority of the world as a whole behind it.
  As for the states that are on it, several of those are quite disreputable, but I shall not identify them as I shall probably get into trouble. However, it is interesting to see who takes the decisions on the Security Council. The President of Russia is a former full-time KGB officer who takes decisions in the name of the rest of the world. He has a permanent place on the Security Council and has a veto over what we do.
  We have Mr Hu Jintao. I acquit him of any responsibility for Tibet or Tiananmen Square, as he was not involved in decisions at that time. The regime that he represents is the regime that is stained by that. kind of history.
  We then come—I shall be in serious trouble in a moment—to one of our neighbours. There is more than one regional bully with weapons of mass destruction at its disposal. One of them is on the Security Council, and I should be surprised if Members of this House took its moral authority as a guide when coming to decisions of their own.
  If one says that one resolution from the Security Council is not enough but that two resolutions make the situation okay, one is submitting one's judgment to that of Mr Hu Jintao, Mr Putin and Mr Chirac. If one really says that one would rather trust those people than Mr Blair, I am very, very sorry indeed.
  I fully understand the political imperatives of the Security Council but I have said enough to make it clear that I do not believe that the Security Council is vested with any power to confer morality on any decisions that we may take. It may confer legality but that depends on one's interpretation of individual resolutions.
  My final point is about British-American relations, which will be at the heart of matters in the future. The die is probably now cast. The only thing that I believe will avoid military action is not a few more concessions to the inspectors but if Mr Saddam Hussein were to leave Baghdad lock, stock and barrel with his family. Other than that, we are in for military action. I believe that we are talking about days, not weeks; we are very close indeed.
  It is extremely important that this country marches in lock step with the United States. I have always held the principle that it is of supreme importance to this country to be on intimate terms with our American friends. I need not tell people that I am a friend of the United States. Actually, I should like to be called a poodle because I am told that poodles are quite intelligent dogs. That may be arrogating too much to myself. Anyone who has had any contact, however tangential, with intelligence matters, must know precisely how valuable to this country the relationship with the United States is and will continue to be. I hope

  361
  that the events of the next few days and weeks will produce great and permanent benefit for the people of Iraq and their wretched neighbours.
  11.13 p.m.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a sober debate on a vital subject. In a powerful speech to the American Senate 10 days ago, the Democratic Senator for West Virginia, Robert Byrd, said:
  "This coming battle, if it materialises, represents a turning point in US foreign policy".
  It will also represent a turning point in British foreign policy. We must therefore give it very serious attention, as all noble Lords have done. The balance of the debate in this Chamber has reflected the balance of debate in the country that the overwhelming majority are not yet convinced of the case that the Government put forward.
  During the early stages of this debate, I felt that the unusual emptiness of the Government Benches spoke strongly of the hesitation of the Government's party on this matter. It is the first occasion on which I have noticed that the Cross Benches are markedly fuller than the Labour Benches.
  We have heard a number of extremely helpful speeches and powerful critical speeches from behind the Government Front Bench, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who answered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, about the relevance or irrelevance of international law. I was glad to hear from those on my own Benches a number of speeches on the many different dimensions of this complex issue.
  The Government's rationale, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in her opening speech seemed to present the American position more than the British. To summarise, it states that Iraq is an immediate threat to world order. She made only a passing reference to the Arab-Israel conflict and, unless I misheard her, no reference to the terrorist threat or to the implications for the Middle East region as a whole or the rest of the Muslim world in south and south-east Asia; nor, as the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and my noble friend Lord Greaves remarked, for Europe and our own country.
  The concerns in the debate have been widely repeated on all sides of the House: concerns that the war on Iraq will spark increased terrorism, not lessen it; that the implications for the region as a whole have not been addressed; that we hear absurd ideas floating around Washington and Tel-Aviv on how a simple intervention in Iraq would bring peace to the entire region and that, to quote Henry Kissinger, the road to Jerusalem lies through Baghdad; that the management of Iraq post-conflict has not yet been set out in any way that commands confidence; and that the potential damage to world order, to the United Nations and to other institutions and to the structure of international law itself may be considerable.
  We all accept the appalling nature of the Saddam regime. Iraq and its neighbours would benefit if he were to be removed. But we cannot treat this question in
  362
  isolation without considering why the Bush Administration are pursuing it now and the wider context and implications. As I listened to some of the opening speeches, Thomas a Becket's speech in Murder in the Cathedral suddenly came to me, where he talks about the courses he has to take and says:
  "The last temptation is the greatest treason:
  To do the right thing for the wrong reason".
  We have to consider the Bush Administration's reasons and our Government's reasons, which follow the Bush Administration, for attacking Saddam. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, accused those who criticised the Bush Administration of being anti-American and anti-Semitic. That is the argument used by right-wing Americans to silence criticism. I would like to quote from a number of American sources, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky did.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I did not accuse anyone of anything. I said that there was a degree of anti-Americanism in the debate, which there was.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the noble Lord also referred to anti-Semitism. There may be a certain amount of it, but many noble Lords who are neither anti-Semitic nor anti-American have justifiable criticisms to make.
  The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, remarked on the neo-conservatives in the United States and their power in the Bush Administration. At the weekend I pulled out Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War. He remarks that three days after September 11th, the briefing to the President was given by the Deputy Defense Secretary—the noble Lord, Lord Desai, will note that it is not just people in think tanks—Paul Wolfowitz, whom I have known personally for nearly 40 years. It says that he,
  "often voiced the views of an outspoken group of national security conservatives in Washington … These were men who believed that there was no greater menace in the world than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein".
  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is quoted as saying:
  "In his analysis, the only justification for going after Iraq would be clear evidence linking the Iraqis to the September 11 attacks. Short of that, targeting Iraq was not worth the risk of angering moderate Arab states whose support was crucial not only to any campaign in Afghanistan, but to reviving the Middle East peace process".
  Colin Powell is quoted as saying to him on the aside:
  "What the hell, what are these guys thinking about? Can't you get these guys back in the box?"
  Those are Americans in the Administration criticising the push, which was there among the neo-conservatives well before September 11th, for taking Saddam out.
  I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said about the determination to use the unipolar moment to establish what they call a "democratic imperialism" across the world. At Davos on 26th January, Colin Powell said to his audience:
  "I believe that the United States has earned the trust of men, women and children around the world".

  363
  That is currently the pitch: you do not need the UN; you can trust the United States, and you can trust the Bush Administration.
  Robert Kagan, in the opening paragraph of the book which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, quoted, starts by saying:
  "It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world".
  So much for the Prime Minister's appeal to our "shared values", which make Britain a natural bridge, as he argues, between Europe and the United States. Tom Friedman, one of the best, and rather conservative, commentators in the American press, said in the New York Times on 20th February:
  "The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy, and terrible on diplomacy".
  We have heard many comparisons in this debate about Munich. I believe that it is important also to remember Suez and Vietnam. I was studying and teaching in the United States in the early years of the Vietnam war and I remember very well the twisting of intelligence information by the political masters of intelligence and the denigration of the experts on the region. I was at Cornell University, which had an Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. It was vigorously attacked by the State Department and in Congress with threats of withdrawal of funds. There was over-confidence in the ability to resolve the problem through military force, a refusal to pay any attention to the different culture and assumptions of the opponent, and, indeed, denigration of the enemy as such.
  Now, I am afraid to say, we have a similar mood within the United States. There have been some bitter attacks on the Middle East studies community, including calls for federal funding for all university institutes on Middle East studies in the United States to be withdrawn. Tom Friedman, whom I quote again, said:
  "Every time I hear [the Bush Administration try to justify war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden], I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie".
  As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, say that there was amazing evidence that terrorists were closely linked to Saddam Hussein and that, indeed, since September 11th Iraq was at the heart of a new network of international terrorism, I have to say that I was not sure where he got that from.
  I quote again Senator Byrd's powerful speech, which, sadly, received almost no attention in the American media. He complains:
  "There is no debate",
  within the United States,
  "no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war … The doctrine of pre-emption … appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN charter … This reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences … to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of destabilising foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable".
  364
  That is not an anti-American diatribe from a European; it is from a member of the US Senate.
  Many other speakers have referred to the radical character of this Administration and to the fundamentalist groups which have gained so much influence over it. Political fundamentalism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, pointed out, means tax cuts, which are intended to force the dismantling of the welfare state, and cuts in funding for education, which are clearly and explicitly a radical departure from the Rooseveltian values which we all share and are intended to complete what the Reagan administration hesitated to carry through. There is also economic fundamentalism, which says that deficits do not matter, and religious fundamentalism, which includes support for Israel to occupy all the historic land, including further expansion of settlements and the expulsion of Palestinians. The capture of American Middle East policy by Likud is one of the most worrying dimensions of this. I quote again from the international edition of the New York Times of 25th February. The Israeli defence Minister said hopefully:
  "'We have great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after a war".
  The article continued:
  "Israel regards Iran and Syria as greater threats and hopes that once Saddam is dispensed with, the dominoes will start to tumble".
  Later in the article, a senior Israeli official is reported as hoping that,
  "after the war would come a fork in the road for American policy",
  in which the Americans would choose Israel rather than Europe. It went on to say that,
  "the Quartet may itself prove a casualty of an Iraqi war … there are people in Washington who are going to say 'What do we need these people for?"
  By "these people", he meant the Europeans. The Israelis hope that the Quartet will die the death quietly during the course of the war.
  There are circumstances in which it may he justifiable to intervene in Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power. However, that has to be through the meticulous and careful use of UN procedures. It should also be with the understanding and, if possible, the support of other states in the region. This is not a strong basis for Britain and the United States alone to decide whether Iraq has met its objectives. We need to carry others with us.
  There are some circumstances in which British forces should not follow American forces into Iraq alone—not without broader support from the international community, and not without parallel progress on the Arab/Israel conflict, which includes the publication of the road-map, which has been blocked by the Sharon government. There are now bilateral negotiations between the Israelis and the United States about the parts that the Israelis want changed. It seems to me to be a sine qua non of British involvement that the road-map is published beforehand and not left until afterwards.
  We need a strategy towards terrorism. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that we need also to be tough on the causes of terrorism. The

  365
  most depressing thing about President Bush's Jacksonville speech was the extent to which he entirely merged intervention in Iraq with the war on terrorism. It was as if defeating Iraq would solve the terrorist problem. We all know that is not the case.
  Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He was asking where all the evidence about Iraq's links with terrorism came from. The answer is that there is a very wide range of sources, mostly coming from Washington and from senior members of the Administration. However, if he does not want to look at those, he needs only to consult the excellent speech made by his noble friend Lady Nicholson. She gave ample evidence of Iraq's habit of being involved in terrorism.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I listened carefully to the speech of my noble friend Lady Nicholson. She referred to the use of MKO in Iraq and Iran. It was not the sort of world-wide network of which I understood the noble Lord to be talking.
  We need a multilateral approach to energy supplies and conservation. One of the many disturbing things about the current debate in Washington is that in the State of the Union message President Bush spoke only about the use of hydrogen-powered vehicles at some time within the next 10 to 15 years as resolving the problem of energy dependence in the United States. We need to have the US coming back into multilateral discussions about energy dependence. We also want the Government to pursue the re-establishment of some consensus among European governments. We want to see a government who will ensure that the United Nations and international institutions come out of this stronger and not weaker.
  Why is there a rush to war now? Why is there an assumption that the United Kingdom will, together with the United States, intervene in Iraq, even if no other significant government, except Australia, accompany them? The Prime Minister, in his Glasgow speech on 15th February justifying intervention, talked about the,
  "threat of chaos, disorder, and instability",
  if we do not go in. The threat of chaos, disorder and instability if we do go in without a clear sense of why we are going and what we are going to do after the war is serious. The absence of any coherent strategy for post-conflict Iraq or the Middle East as a whole is one of the underlying weaknesses. We are not yet convinced. The Government have not yet made a reasonable case. British troops should not be sent into action on such a thin basis of policy with such unclear objectives and with so large a proportion of the British public doubtful of the whole enterprise.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I suspect that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House who as a refugee from next door remembers sitting late at night in the Commons, looking with envy at the
  366
  early nights in the Lords and thinking what a wonderful move it would be. I cannot help now noticing the Commons going home after its vote at seven o'clock while I stagger to my feet at 11.30 p.m. Surely there is some mistake somewhere!
  This has been a serious and unquestionably important debate. I was going to say that practically every speaker has seen both sides of the issue, although if I do not misunderstand her, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who we welcome back to the Chamber, is in the category of which there are many respectable Members with deeply held beliefs who are totally opposed to war under any circumstances and think it is wrong. I was also going to say that she is joined by someone who perhaps does not see both sides of the issues as clearly as others might suggest—that is, my colleague from the Intelligence and Security Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, who managed to put forward a clear view of these issues.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in an impressive speech, said that this was a watershed debate. Everyone in the House will agree with that. I am sorry if that led to disagreement on the Liberal Democrat Benches because the noble Lord did not agree with the view taken by his noble friends Lady Williams and Lord Wallace.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, made an interesting and impressive speech and referred to the sense of déjà vu. I understand why she said that. One might say that we have been here before—but she will understand if I say, "Well, not quite". There are so many clear and obvious differences in the situation we see today from what might otherwise appear to be yet another engagement with Iraq, trying to bring it back into order from the events of 1991.
  In 1991, the issue was clear cut. There was manifest aggression against Kuwait. I and others charged with the responsibility were able overwhelmingly to persuade the British people that we should support the cause. There was strong international backing, not least within the Arab world and the region. Many countries felt threatened and believed they might be the next victims if the aggression against Kuwait were to go uncorrected.
  We gained considerable public and parliamentary support. I took the trouble of looking up the debate and the voting figures in another place on 21st January 1991. Perhaps it is a little unfair because the debate took place four days after hostilities began. A more accurate reflection might be gained from the debate on 15th January, two days before hostilities began, when 534 Members voted in favour and 57 voted against. The fact that there were then 57 compared with 199 in today's vote in another place clearly illustrates the task that lies ahead of the Government in carrying the degree of conviction for which a number of us have pressed. It will be important if we are to obtain the support of the largest number of nations and, if possible, the Security Council and the United Nations. If we ask our Armed Forces in the Gulf to undertake the task, they must know that they have the support of Parliament and the people in doing so.

  367
  The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, drew attention to what he and others have referred to as the unfortunately rather muddled presentation, which has not helped the Government in trying to carry conviction. It has been something of a trans-Atlantic muddle as well. There is no question but that the policy started out based on what I believe to be valid grounds.
  Perhaps 9/11 was a wake-up call. I never forget—I am sure that none of your Lordships does—that more British people were killed on 9/11 than have been killed in any other terrorist outrage in all my time in Northern Ireland or in other outrages committed in this country. That was the greatest single outrage committed against British people—quite apart from the overwhelming number of Americans who were also killed.
  The recognition that there were weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups in the world that now had no compunction about what they would use or the casualties that they would seek to cause was certainly a compelling argument. I shall discuss the issue of whether there was then a direct link with Al' Qaeda in a moment, but to continue with the confusion of the story, we seemed to switch to regime change and then switch back to linkage of terrorism with weapons of mass destruction, coupled with the desirable secondary objective of regime change.
  Then came what I believe to have been confusion about the role and tasks of the inspectors. Only recently have we received the obvious and necessary clarification that the inspectors' role is as verifiers, not detectives. They cannot be detectives trying to discover concealed material. That was well articulated by the Prime Minister's response yesterday. Speaking of the inspectors' difficulty in searching out weapons, he said:
  "The best proof of that is what happened in the 1990s when there was a complete denial of the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme. For four years, the inspectors were in there searching for it and they did not find it … Then Saddam's son-in-law, defected to Jordan and said that there was an offensive biological weapons programme. The Iraqis then admitted as much, and at that point the programme was at least partially shut down".—[Official Report, Commons 25/2/03; col. 132.]
  I simply draw those four years of the inspectors' activities to the attention of those who say, "How about a little bit longer, and a little bit longer?" After four years of inspections, that occurred only when the son-in-law defected—tragically, he is now a late son-in-law, because he unwisely returned to Iraq under a safe passage guarantee from Saddam Hussein, to be killed shortly thereafter.
  I visited Baghdad on a ministerial mission 20 years ago, and I remember being appalled by the police state in which I found myself, with the secret police monitoring every activity. That was 20 years ago. There is no chance of the inspectors operating freely and being able to go about their work. They are in an impossible situation. Although they say that there is co-operation on process, as Dr Blix confirmed today, the full co-operation required under Resolution 1441 is still not available.
  368
  That is the background against which to judge the failure to convey to the wider public the difficulties and challenges of the situation and the Government's case. It is aggravated by a worrying absence of information about what is planned to follow any military action. The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked about the succession and about the means of ensuring the security of Iraq and its population. What is the position on humanitarian aid and the terrible challenges that may be faced?
  Some of the rumours that can spread are damaging. The idea that there might be an interim American military administration for five or six years is hardly something that will capture Arab hearts. The incipient democrats who might emerge from their hunkers in Iraq will hardly feel that that is an attractive proposition. I am interested that, as far as I can see, there has not been much promotion of the very feasible idea of encouraging Arab League involvement in taking over security and protection. That would be a more acceptable proposal for the Arab world.
  There are many more difficulties. I accept that it is difficult to explain. Ten years on from the Kuwait crisis, the situation in Palestine is extremely difficult. I read again our debate in 1991. I noticed the amendment that was moved by Neil Kinnock. It was designed to add words to the Motion so that it read that the House,
  "expresses its determination that, once the aggression in Kuwait is reversed, the United Nations and the international community must return with renewed vigour to resolving the wider problems of the Middle East".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/91;col. 31.]
  That amendment was accepted by the Conservative Government of the day, and the amended Mot ion was carried by 537 votes. The cynicism that undoubtedly exists in Palestine, to which my noble friend Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar referred, and the appalling situation that now exists there has damaged the process.
  There are worries about the Government's priorities and about whether the situation is distracting attention away from the campaign against terrorism. The issues of Afghanistan are still not fully resolved. The emerging difficulties over North Korea are a continuing worry. The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, referred to the tinder-box of the Middle East and the implications for neighbouring states. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury was concerned about the hatred that might attach to us from the Muslim world. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford spoke of his nightmare that this is the second chapter of Osama bin Laden's plan to provoke America, through the outrage of 9/11, into action that might be an even greater cause of antipathy and hatred between the Muslim world and the United States.
  There are also worries about the aftermath and the lack of planning. There are complications. Restoring order to a new system involving Sunni, Shia and Kurd will be very different from returning Kuwaitis to

  369
  Kuwait. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, put it neatly when he asked whether, even though we might win the war, we would lose the peace.
  Such are the worries, and we understand them. There are other worries on which I do not have time to dwell. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, had worries about the economy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, had worries about the environment. Other noble Lords also referred to the environmental issues, including my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
  There must be military concerns as well. I shall not dwell on it, but I must draw to your Lordships' attention the concern about military overstretch. We are sending out as many troops now as we sent in 1991, but we send them from a regular force of 210,000. When I made the dispositions in 1991, we had regular forces of 310,000. That is an indication of the pressure. I must mention the fears that the invasion of Iraq could be very different from the liberation of Kuwait—easy to get in but difficult to get out, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said.
  These worries are real and it would be quite wrong if we did not face them. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said what I have just written down, that "We are where we are". I have absolutely no doubt that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that those weapons are important to it. We did not vaccinate our forces in 1991, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, said, for fun. We did it because we knew that there were weapons of mass destruction. They presented dangerous challenges that had to be faced and against which our forces had to be protected.
  I am in no doubt that the weapons of mass destruction are important to Saddam Hussein. They saved him in the war against Iran. People talk about Halabja, but the survival of Iraq was much more at risk from attacks by the human waves of Iranians. He was protected then by his chemical weapons and he believes that that is what saved him at the end of the Gulf War. It is not true, but he thought that we did not advance on Baghdad because we believed that he would use his chemical weapons. So they are important to him.
  I said that we are where we are, and there is now a risk. My noble friend Lord Howell referred to the interesting speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. I cannot comment on whether the MKO, Ansar al Islam and other terrorist groups are around, but I do know that if this issue is not resolved and the United Nations loses its resolution, then Saddam Hussein will become a much more dangerous prospect. If he believes that he is impregnable and has a few scores to settle—and there are plenty of groups around in the world who have scores to settle as well—then that cocktail is about as dangerous a combination as you can get. I have always thought that to be much the most powerful and compelling reason why we now have to address these issues.
  I hope that they are addressed—preferably and overwhelmingly—by Saddam Hussein recognising that the game is up, that the weapons of mass
  370
  destruction have got to go and that he must fulfil Resolution 1441. We must not show now irresolution and worry about certain attitudes that have been taken—such as give him more time; let us spend much more time on inspection; the French attitude that we should do it only if inspections have failed, although how on earth we prove that I do not know; and the Russian attitude of only if all other remedies are exhausted. How long will that take? We should recognise that the inspectors are there at the moment only because there is a credible military force backing them up.
  I found among my archive—I do not keep much of an archive—an old copy of Private Eye dated 4th January 1991. It has a picture of George Bush senior on the cover. He is making an announcement. In the balloon coming out of his mouth it states:
  "Unless Saddam withdraws immediately … I'll issue another ultimatum".
  That is what President George Bush did not do because, 13 days later, we started the campaign to free Kuwait.
  If we follow through the jibe on the cover of that Private Eye, the reality will be that Saddam Hussein will believe that the United Nations, in the end, is not man enough for the task and that he is impregnable. The world will then become a much more dangerous place. We do not want war—nobody in their senses wants war—and there is time. An ultimatum has been issued and he now has days in which to co-operate.
  But if anyone suggests, "If you do not co-operate we will give you a hit more time", I guarantee that that co-operation will not be there, that the weapons of mass destruction will stay and that we will at some time face the consequences. I hope that he will finally see sense, or that the people surrounding him will see sense, and that we shall see an alternative leadership in Iraq. But, whichever way we go, the weapons of mass destruction must be removed. If that removes Saddam Hussein as well, then so much the better.
  11.49 p.m.
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. With very few exceptions, the contributions have been remarkable for their balanced approach. Where there has been disagreement, it has been courteously and seriously expressed.
  It is only right that your Lordships should consider these issues in such depth and at such length. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that this is a hugely important moment in our history. No one—no government, no country, no people—takes the step of military action lightly. The reality of war is tough and terrible—real danger and real damage, real lives at stake. So I assure my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that Her Majesty's Government do understand what is involved in a military conflict. But I am also bound to say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the idea that Britain, the United States or any country is rushing towards war is as offensive as it is wrong. There is no rush to war—not in London and not in Washington either.

  371
  But there is no peace either. What is happening now in Iraq, what has been happening in Iraq under Saddam's regime, is not peace. My noble friend Lord Rea said that it was not a failed state. It functions, he said. But he could not claim that it is a state of peace. Brutal murder is not peace. Torture and terror are not peace. Repression and fear are not peace. Saddam's regime is a vile one which puts real lives at stake regularly and often, as my noble friend Lady Ramsay reminded us so eloquently.
  Does my noble friend Lord Rea—who is a good man—really think that those talking to him and urging him to ask the Prime Minister not to proceed would not have been debriefed; and that, had they not said what was required of them, the minimum punishment would not have been the removal of the offender's tongue or, even worse, slow death in an iron cage in one of Iraq's prisons? In developing and using weapons of mass destruction, Saddam wants the ability to extend that approach and to extend that violence and brutality to others.
  There is a point on which I think virtually all your Lordships can agree. Saddam Hussein runs a cruel and terrible regime. He has inflicted untold suffering on his own people and on some of his neighbours. He still has illegal weapons—despite what my noble friend Lord Stoddart said, I really do believe that to be the case; otherwise, Dr Blix would not be ordering the destruction of the al-Samoud missiles in the way that he is. We also think that the correct way to deal with this issue is through the United Nations if humanly possible. We are also in general agreement that the terms of Resolution 1441 should be upheld.
  Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government have taken no decision on military action. I assure my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that there has been no decision for war. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made that clear again yesterday. He said:
  "we will work every last minute that we can to reunite the international community and to disarm Iraq through the United Nations".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/03; col. 126.]
  I thank my noble friend Lord MacKenzie for his powerful words on this issue and value the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
  I believe that the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday may have been overlooked by some of your Lordships. He has worked tirelessly to deal with this grave matter through the United Nations, and to do so peacefully. He said that again yesterday, and his points were reinforced by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary today. Again, his has been a constant effort to keep this issue within the United Nations and his efforts with his colleagues in the United States have been unceasing.
  Some noble Lords have asked: why table a second resolution now; why not set a deadline or support the Franco-German proposal to strengthen the inspections? The problem is not the lack of capacity by the inspectors; it is the lack of will from Saddam Hussein. The inspectors' role is not one of detectives hunting for clues, but one of verifying Iraqi compliance.
  372
  The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was entirely right, as was my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. The Franco-German proposals will not deliver the assurance that the world needs about Iraq's weapons. They are unrealistic and impractical. They shift the burden of proof from Iraq to the inspectors and they send Saddam Hussein the signal that defiance pays. I remind my noble friend Lord Judd that this is not just the judgment of the British Government. As Dr. Blix said, the principal problem is not the number of inspectors but the active co-operation on the Iraqi side, as we have said many times.
  Resolution 1441 said that it was a final opportunity to comply. What does "final" mean if not that this is Saddam Hussein's last chance? Non-compliance with Resolution 1441 is at the heart of the issue. It is the basis of any action, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out in his customary erudite way.
  We all acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, knows the country better than most. I admire hugely her courage in defending the interests of the Marsh Arabs. The noble Baroness is right, as was the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass and the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Iraq is already in breach of UNSCR 687 and 1441. We are asked to wait for Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei to decide, but I remind your Lordships of what Dr. Blix has already said. Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament which was demanded of it. It is his judgment that Iraq has not come to a genuine acceptance about disarmament. Dr. Blix's view is simply not compatible with a view that co-operation has been full, active or immediate, as required by Resolution 1441. It is not a technical issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, so dismissively described it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that it is not, and it never was, the job of the inspectors to find the smoking gun. It is the job of Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons.
  Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is right that there is a peaceful way to resolve the issue. Where I disagree with her, and with my noble friend Lord Brennan, is the implication that this can he clone through a process of inspection. In that respect, I believe the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, is right. Inspectors are not there to find the weapons but to verify the completion of the disarmament process. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that it never was their job to do what he describes, nor is it their job to contain the development of weapons of mass destruction.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is right that not all peaceful options have been exhausted, and I hope that I made that clear when I spoke earlier. Saddam Hussein holds the key to a peaceful solution. not the inspectors—not 150 inspectors, not 1,500 inspectors, not in 15 more weeks or 15 more months. Without the active, full and, crucially, the immediate co-operation demanded in UNSCR, the issue simply cannot be solved.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that it was done in two years in South Africa. What he did not tell your Lordships is that is was done there by only nine

  373
  inspectors. He entirely ignored the fact that this is a comparison between two years in South Africa and 12 years already in Iraq.
  Some of your Lordships were particularly concerned about what some thought to be the double standard of Israel's failure to comply with UN Security Council resolutions and Iraq's position. We want to see all Security Council resolutions implemented. We acknowledge that in this respect Israel has obligations which are as yet unfulfilled. I hope that I made it clear yesterday in answering questions in your Lordships' House on the Middle East that we believe that the Israeli settlements are illegal and that a security fence is an obstruction to peaceful cohabitation. But if the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was really arguing that the difference was only a question of US agreement to Chapter 7 procedures, I disagree with her. There are two crucial differentials in the resolutions about Iraq and those about the Arab-Israeli dispute. It is not simply about Iraqi Security Council resolutions being mandatory, although that is not a minor point, as Resolution 687 was a condition of a ceasefire after a conflict sanctioned by the UN. But the second issue is that the Arab-Israeli resolutions call on all sides of the dispute to take action. The truth is that Israel and its neighbours all have obligations still to fulfil.
  Other noble Lords had worries about other countries with weapons of mass destruction. I cite in particular the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and other noble Lords who questioned the position on North Korea. The proliferation of WM D is a huge concern, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear. However, does any noble Lord believe that if Saddam Hussein is not dealt with after 12 years and all the mandatory Security Council resolutions, North Korea will believe the international community is really serious about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction? Is it not far more likely that it will believe that it too can flout the will of the United Nations and the international community with absolute impunity? The activities of countries such as North Korea cannot be an excuse for tolerating what is happening in Iraq; rather, they should he another reason for tackling the issue with courage and determination now.
  The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, in his thoughtful and well-informed contribution, dwelt on the circumstances in which force might be necessary. In particular, he proposed questions about a second UN resolution, a point raised also by the noble Lord. Lord Chan. We expect there to be intensive diplomatic discussions before a vote is taken. We are ready for the propositions on the full text to be examined. Our ambassador to the United Nations has said that he anticipates two weeks of discussions. So we are negotiating, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, argues we should. The UN Security Council should then send Saddam a clear signal of its determination. But we have to stay united.
  Last year, Saddam allowed UNMOVIC into Iraq because the council stood firm. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, very strongly on this point. A united council now will give us the best chance of avoiding
  374
  force later. The council must be prepared to uphold the authority of the UN that Saddam has ignored for far too long. So I agree with my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath. We have to show our resolve in dealing with this issue. Of course the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, was right clear presentation of the argument is absolutely vital.
  A number of noble Lords—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, the noble Lords. Lord Blaker, Lord Hardy of Wath and Lord Phillips of Sudbury and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford—talked about military action possibly destabilising the whole of the Middle East. I repeat that there has been no decision to launch such action. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that military action should only ever be a last resort. We have to take many aspects into account when taking any decision to launch such action. That is why we are considering all the options so carefully with our allies. However, Saddam should be in no doubt about our determination to remove the threat of his weapons of mass destruction. Nowhere is that threat higher than in his own region. I remind noble Lords that Resolution 1441 was widely welcomed. including in the region.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Sandberg and Lord Phillips, were right to remind us of the risk to stability contingent upon military action. I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, as forcefully as I can that these issues are very much in the forefront of our minds. Actually, I do not find it as easy as he suggested to put the argument for action now. I find it very hard because I fully understand what it means in terms of risk to precious lives—British lives, Iraqi lives, to Americans and others in the region. This is not a case of going to war in a moment, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury said. I agree with the right reverend Prelate. Building peace takes a lifetime. But I am hound to say that talk about building trust in relation to the 12 years of a tyrant's deceit and a man who murdered his own son-in-law is rather misplaced.
  A number of other noble Lords concentrated on what happens as regards what was described as "winning the peace". The points were raised in particular by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Bramall. As military action cannot be ruled out, it is of course sensible to plan on a contingency basis for what the international community should do in Iraq in the event that Saddam Hussein's regime were removed from power as a result of military action. We are in contact with a number of international players about this. We are not making the content of those contingency talks public.
  As regards the question raised by the noble Lord. Lord Wright of Richmond, the UK view is guided by a number of considerations. The territorial integrity of Iraq should be maintained. The Iraqi people themselves, in consultation with the international community, should generate the ideas for the future political arrangements in Iraq. We expect the successor regime to

  375
  be a significant improvement on the existing one. The UN should be at the centre of any transitional administration in Iraq.
  I agree strongly with the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. The government of Iraq is a matter for the people of Iraq. But we believe that the Iraqi people deserve a better government and one based on the rule of law with respect for human rights, economic freedom and for property.
  My noble friend Lady Ramsay talked about the massacre of the Shias in southern Iraq and, perhaps more eloquently than most, about the consequences of not taking any action. It was an excellent and moving contribution of the sort that we have come to expect from her. She reminded us of the Prime Minister's contribution to the moral issues at stake. She reminded us of the issues concerning infant mortality, the tens of thousands of dead in the past live years, of others murdered in prisons and those routinely executed.
  Reversing all that is much to be desired, as my noble friend Lord Gilbert emphasised. He was in excellent form this evening. All these are important humanitarian issues. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, urged us to be tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism particularly the terrorism which has its roots in the Israel/Palestine conflict. I agree strongly. I hope that he will agree with me that the Prime Minister has tackled this issue in a forthright and determined way. That issue was also focused on by many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and the noble Lord. Lord Morgan.
  The Prime Minister emphasised again yesterday what he described as the vital importance of the Middle East peace process. I emphasised that strongly in my opening remarks. Last week the European Council called for the early implementation of the roadmap. Terror and violence must end. The Prime Minister said,
  "I will continue to strive in every way for an even-handed and just approach to the middle east peace process".—[Official Report, Commons, 25,2/03; col. 126.]
  I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that the Prime Minister and the whole Government are committed on that issue.
  The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked me about contributions to UNWRA in Palestine. Twelve million pounds has been dispersed of our annual contribution to the general fund. There is a contribution of £5 million to the 2002 emergency appeal.
  Sadly, I disagree with some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. We certainly did not wait for either the United States or the Israeli Government before going ahead with the January conference on Palestine. We held that conference in the teeth of Israeli opposition given their refusal to allow Palestinian representatives to come to London.
  376
  Our position is well understood, as I found when I was in the region recently. But I agree with the noble Earl and with the right reverend Prelate that the prospect of war is a nightmare which I share and I know that I am not alone in that.
  Perhaps I may turn to some of the humanitarian contingency planning which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Chan, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Howe, Lord Rea, Lord Alton, Lord Vincent, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We are planning for a range of humanitarian contingencies which includes MoD discussions with DIID on how to minimise the harm to Iraqi people if military action is taken. We are in regular contact with a range of UN humanitarian agencies and we are making detailed contingency plans. We are confident that UN preparations are as good as they can be given the risks and the uncertainties. But we support a leading UN role in response to any humanitarian crisis. We remain committed to helping refugees in need of any humanitarian assistance. We have been supporting Iraqi refugees in western Iran for several years. [MD funding to the UN and other humanitarian agencies includes provision for emergency preparedness for a variety of contingencies across the world. The DIID has provided more than £100 million of bilateral humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people since 1991. I have many more details and will write to all noble Lords concerned.
  I agree with the noble Baroness. Lady Miller, that we must be alive to the environmental consequences of war, including environmental terrorism of the sort that occurred in Kuwait and the Gulf after 1991. Saddam Hussein has regularly halted Iraqi oil exports to score political points. It is important for my noble friend Lord Stoddart to remember that. One such stoppage last year sacrificed 1.2 billion dollars of humanitarian aid in just one month. it is Saddam Hussein who is doing so much to add to the suffering of his people.
  The noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, said that this was a war of cynicism and greed. We do disagree with the United States. It is not a matter of what the noble Lord called "followership". We disagree with the United States on Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, the death penalty, many trade issues and anti-personnel landmines.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that of course America must be questioned, but I was saddened by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour—which majored in the most florid terms on America's shortcomings but mentioned Saddam Hussein's appalling regime only briefly. This is emphatically not a war about oil. The unsupported assertion that it is does no service to sensible debate. One need only read Colin Powell's speech on 29th December—copy of which I will send the noble Lord.

  377
  Others of your Lordships spoke about terrorism. Of course Iraq has a long record of supporting terrorism, including radical Islamic groups, but none of us will draw a direct connection in terms of a relationship between Al' Qaeda and Iraq unless we are sure that such a direct relationship exists. There may be contacts, but I assure the noble Lords, Lord Morgan, Lord Wallace and Lord King of Bridgwater, that I have never drawn that conclusion. Until I see some evidence, I shall not do so.
  I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on his points about the territorial integrity of Iraq and Turkish troops.
  I agree with my noble friend Lady Uddin that none of us seeks war, but we have to face the possibility that military action may prove necessary. Noble Lords in all parts of the House hope that it will not prove necessary. We hope even at this late moment that conflict can be averted. The Prime Minister has made
  378
  that clear and I thank all noble Lords who expressed their appreciation of my right honourable friend's role.
  The route to peace is clear. The route to peace lies with Saddam. Saddam Hussein has to co-operate with the inspectors, United Nations and international community. He must comply with the requirements that have been placed upon him. All that is clear.
  It is clear, too, that Saddam has choices. He can disarm voluntarily. He can leave Iraq peacefully. The noble Lord, Lord King, was right that Saddam Hussein can choose how disarmament is done—whether he does it or the international community does it for him. But Saddam cannot choose about disarmament itself—whether he will or will not disarm. He has no choice about his weapons of mass destruction. He has no choice about disarmament.
  I join all your Lordships in hoping that Saddam will choose the path of peace.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at fourteen minutes past midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Health (Wales) Bill
  (First Day)
  Wednesday, 26th February 2003.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should he withdrawn.
  I should explain that in the unlikely event of a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 [Community Health Councils in Wales]:
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1. line 8. at end insert ", following consultation with the Councils affected"
  The noble Lord said: For my part, I shall try to deal as briefly as possible with the majority of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke, with a view to completing the Committee stage today. The Bill has undergone pre-legislative scrutiny in another place and has been discussed extensively not only there but in the National Assembly for Wales. The amendments, or similar ones, have also been discussed in another place. We know the Government's view. Nevertheless, each amendment contains a point worth making.
  Amendment No. 1 relates to a council's name change. I assume that it is the name of an individual council or councils, rather than the whole genre of community health councils, that the Government have in mind. If that is the case, we think that it would be courteous, to say the least, for the Assembly to consult councils affected. It would also be helpful to the Assembly to get a local view of the proposed name
  GC 2
  change. As Members of the Committee who know Wales are aware, a name change can be a very sensitive issue.
  Amendment No. 2 requires consultation with those affected in the event of the abolition of a council, a change of the district covered or the establishment of a new council. It is a sensible requirement for a variety of reasons. As we know, local loyalties are very strong in Wales. Care must be taken that any changes affecting local institutions are fully justified in local terms. I know that only too well from my experience of past changes in local government boundaries and so on. The Minister may argue that it is inconceivable that changes such as those envisaged would be made without consultation. But it can happen and can cause a rumpus when it does. The amendment does not inhibit changes; it simply helps to ensure that such changes are effected as smoothly as possible. I beg to move.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, I hope for the same brevity as he seeks in moving his amendments. He is right to suggest that both the Bill and some of the issues raised in the amendments have been discussed extensively in the National Assembly for Wales and in another place.
  I shall deal first with name changes. Apparently, many CHCs have long advocated a name change to one more easily recognised by the public. As I read it, the clause that the noble Lord seeks to amend would provide both for a change of the name of individual CHCs and the genre. The debate that took place in Wales focused more on whether the term "community health council" was appropriate and recognisable. I do not know the statistics for Wales, but in surveys carried out in England in which the public were asked whether they knew what a community health council was, and what its purpose was, few recognised the name. There is a view in Wales in particular that changing the name to one more easily recognised by the public might end current confusion over the role of community health councils. For instance, the word "council" may have confused some.
  On consultation, the Assembly has already asked CHCs to start thinking about name changes. Some have made suggestions, including the Patients' Voice and Health Council Wales. Sadly, I do not think that anyone has suggested the Patients' Forum yet, but one never knows. So the position on consultation is already clear. The Assembly already has a statutory obligation to consult before legislating in many cases. Section 65 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Assembly's Standing Orders require that a regulatory appraisal be undertaken before any subordinate legislation is made. They further require that, if the appraisal indicates that the costs of complying with the legislation will be significant, the persons or bodies affected must be consulted. Regardless of whether the costs of a name change will be significant, there is no doubt that the Assembly will consult CHCs and the wider community before making any changes.

  GC 3
  The same response applies to Amendment No. 2, which relates to the creation or abolition of CHCs, or changes to them. My understanding is that there is no intention to change the boundaries of CHCs in Wales in the short term, although it might be required at some future date. If it becomes necessary, the Assembly will consult closely with relevant councils and other key stakeholders to seek changes that are acceptable to them. I referred to Section 65 of the Government of Wales Act and the Assembly's Standing Orders. I also refer the noble Lord to the note produced by the National Assembly for Wales, Procedures for Consultation, which sets out guidance to the Assembly on how local organisations and bodies should be consulted. I have read it and think that it is very comprehensive. I have no doubt that consultation would take place on possible changes to the name of individual or all CHCs and on changes to their boundaries.
  I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that the points he made will be fully reflected in how the National Assembly for Wales will discharge its responsibilities relating to community health councils.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I am glad to learn that the Assembly must consult and will consult, certainly in relation to the matter covered by Amendment No. 2. I am also grateful to him for the clarification. On reading the Bill it was not clear to me whether an individual council or the genre would have its name changed. The Minister has made it clear that it could be both. I shall not venture to suggest to the Assembly an alternative to the community health council title, but the Minister's suggestion of a patients' forum takes a lot of beating. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
  "( ) that due regard is paid to the boundaries of health authorities with a view to such authorities and councils being coterminous"
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 seeks to deal with the coterminosity issue. I refer to it as such because it appears always to have been an issue. There is a general desire that health area boundaries should coincide with local authority boundaries and other boundaries because of the close connection between health, social services, housing, education and other aspects of local government.
  As I understand it, at present we have 20 CHCs in Wales and 22 local health boards proposed. Local health boards are coterminous with the 22 local authorities. It seems odd to me that the community health councils are not coterminous either with the local authorities or with the local health boards. If they are not coterminous, clearly some CHCs will deal with more than one board which, I would have thought, would significantly increase their workload. The boards will be coterminous with the local authorities
  GC 4
  and I believe that to operate effectively it is incontrovertible that the CHCs should have similar boundaries.
  I understand the Welsh Executive's reluctance to become involved in adjusting CHC boundaries while they are still establishing the main framework for the NHS in Wales. However, they will have to examine the CHC structure sooner or later and in doing that they must bear in mind the desirability of coterminosity. What is proposed currently and what is about to be imposed does not make sense at all if the 20 CHCs are not—as they cannot be—coterminous with the 22 health boards. I beg to move.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord raises an important point. I accept the general principle suggested by him that, all things being equal, coterminosity is desirable. The scheme that Wales will implement of 22 health boards coterminous with the local authorities is an excellent scheme. In terms of the planning of services across health and local authority boundaries there is much to be gained from coterminosity. With the need for more services to be integrated no doubt that will prove to be a major advantage.
  The noble Lord is right in the sense that currently there are 20 community health councils in Wales. They are largely coterminous with the NHS arrangements but clearly not completely. That is because they have reflected variations across Wales and because decisions that were taken in the past were seen to be sensible at the time in view of the way in which patient flows operated.
  My understanding is that the intention of the Assembly is two-fold: on the one hand, it wishes to achieve closer coterminosity in the future between CHCs and health bodies but, on the other hand, it does not wish to impose further changes at this stage. We must respect that wise decision. Many CHCs are working in what are called "federation structures", which enable a number of CHCs to work together. That is one way to overcome some of the problems raised by the noble Lord about one CHC having to deal with more than one local authority concerned with patients that are served by the CHC. The federation structure has much to commend it in terms of enabling CHCs to pool their resources.
  Essentially, as I said, the Assembly does not want to make further boundary changes in the foreseeable future, but the proposal in the Bill allows it maximum flexibility to make changes should it and CHCs wish to do so. I also believe that the Assembly has a clear intent, demonstrated by the re-organisation of health boards into coterminous boundaries with local authorities and by the clear recognition that ideally in future there will be greater coterminosity between CHCs, local authorities and local health boards. In that respect the flexibility in the Bill is to be welcomed.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I am glad to hear that the Assembly intends to achieve coterminosity in due course. I also

  GC 5
  understand, as I believe that I showed in my opening remarks, why it does not anticipate further changes at present. Once again, I am glad that the Minister, like ourselves, stresses the importance of coterminosity, particularly when there is coterminosity between the local health boards and the local authority. It seems to me inevitable that there will be coterminosity in due course with the CHCs. It is an important goal to achieve. With those assurances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: Clause 1(2) gives a wide-sweeping power to the Assembly to change what after all is primary legislation by order or regulation. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Don Touhig MP, wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, on this matter and he sent me—and am sure others—a copy of that letter. The letter pointed out that similar powers have been conferred on Whitehall departments. It states:
  "This case is no different".
  and,
  "follows a well established precedent".
  But it is different in that it devolves a power to change primary legislation to an Assembly that does not have such power. Furthermore, the Assembly is not directly accountable—as Whitehall departments are through their Ministers—to this Parliament. Therefore, there is a difference.
  Of course, the power is confined to the Bill and specifically to Clause 1 and the schedule referring to CHCs. But it is an extensive power. I question whether it is necessary. It may be useful, but is it necessary? Will the Minister give an incidence, or two, where the power would be necessary and where an order or regulation would change primary legislation in this area to its advantage? I believe that Ministers have argued that it is absolutely necessary in order to implement the Bill.
  I know that the Assembly's presiding officer, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would like this kind of power because he said as much to the commission headed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. However, we should not be in the business of passing primary legislation in order for others to override it at will. That spells trouble for the future and lays us open to blame if wrong changes are made. I shall be interested in the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: There will be trouble in future in the nature of the unsatisfactory position of the devolution settlement. The Committee will not be surprised that I express that point of view. But, the settlement being as it is and dealing with the realities of the moment, I support the provisions in the Bill and oppose the amendment. It is necessary to have a degree
  GC 6
  of flexibility to ensure that in working practice the provisions of the Bill are carried out properly. Until the great dawn of the future, this is a necessary power.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conway, but this is a case where we can support the Henry VIII clause. I am conscious that it, quite rightly, has attracted a great deal of criticism. But in these circumstances, the criticism levelled at the Henry VIII clause is inappropriate. The fact that this power will be exercised by another democratic body, and that the decision will be taken nearer to the people who will be affected by the exercise of the power, mitigates the criticism. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Henry VIII clause to be inserted in the Bill. In this case it can play a positive role in the absence of the Assembly being able to exercise primary legislative power.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it is important that the Assembly is able to expand or alter the role of community health councils as it sees fit and as the health service evolves. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, for his letter explaining some of the aspects of community health councils. He stated that they will be given a right to enter and inspect premises where family health care is provided. That will include doctors' and dentists' surgeries and private nursing homes in which NHS funded care is being provided.
  Given that there is devolution in Wales, it is important to allow as much scope as possible for its health service to evolve. Therefore, I am unable to support the amendment. However, I seek clarification as to how NHS-funded care is provided. There are many places in Wales where there is part-payment by the NHS for care received by patients in institutions not managed directly by the NHS.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is always tempting to have constitutional debates on the settlement. It is also tempting to say that we all await the work of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with a great deal of interest. Taking a proportionate, balanced approach suggests that the Bill, as drafted, gives sufficient flexibility to the Welsh Assembly in what is actually a small area as regards the provisions. It is restricted to incidental, consequential and similar amendments, which it would have been impractical to anticipate within the Bill.
  Both provisions constrain the devolved powers to:
  "Supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provisions".
  It is also worth making the point that exercise of the powers must be in connection with any order or regulations under new Section 20A or new Schedule 7A, the parts which relate to community health councils. Therefore, the Assembly may not use this power other than in consequence of a power that it already has under the CHC provisions.
  The main purpose of such a provision is to avoid the necessity of the Assembly, or a Secretary of State, returning to Parliament to ask for further legislation to

  GC 7
  overcome some minor unforeseen obstacle or in order to achieve some consequential matter that was not specifically catered for in the powers granted.
  The Assembly's legislative procedures mean that the use of a Henry VIII power would be scrutinised carefully by a legislation committee of Assembly Members, possibly a subject committee as well and, in any event, passed by a vote in plenary session. In addition, the Assembly must secure the approval of parliamentary counsel to any change in primary legislation.
  That proposal was considered by your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It considered the delegated powers in the Bill in its seventh report. The report notes that delegated powers are conferred on the National Assembly and that they are subject to the subordinate legislation procedure under the Government of Wales Act 1998.
  It further noted that these powers can be exercised only as an extension of the exercise of some other powers under the Bill. The committee accepted that the powers may be required and considered them sufficiently circumscribed.
  The committee considered the general principle of Henry VIII powers. It reported:
  "We have no doubt, however, that there are occasions when Henry VIII powers to make incidental, consequential and similar provisions are justified".
  The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked me to give some examples of why the powers might be used.
  I shall quote one example used recently in the Assembly's health and wellbeing regulations 2003, made under Section 24 of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. The regulations aim to promote closer working between health and social care providers by installing an overarching partnership strategy. There are already certain strategies in place covering specific areas such as children and young person's plans and health improvement plans. These exist under separate pieces of legislation and would have led to duplication of resources and potentially inconsistent and piecemeal approaches being taken by the bodies concerned.
  The Assembly used its Henry VIII powers in the 2003 regulations not to abolish the existing plans and strategies but to harmonise them with the overarching partnership strategy between health and social care providers. That is a good example of how the Henry VIII powers have been used to avoid duplication and confusion.
  One could speculate that in the future there may be name changes within the structure of the NHS in Wales which would necessitate some consequential changes in various pieces of legislation. I believe that that would be a sensible and proportionate use of the power in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will recognise that the Assembly's powers in this matter are severely constrained but that having them will enable it to tidy up matters which cannot be foreseen while the Bill is progressing
  GC 8
  through Parliament. It is a practical measure to enable sensible improvements and change to be made in the future.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. It was the constitutional point that intrigued me, in particular the comment that I believe was made in Committee in another place; namely, that the granting of the Henry VIII power in the case we are discussing was similar to other cases where it was granted to Whitehall departments. There is a considerable difference between Whitehall departments and the National Assembly for Wales.
  The Minister's comments provided considerable clarification. One realises only too well that the power is limited to supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions. The example that the Minister gave was perfectly clear. I am also impressed by the fact that the Delegated Powers Committee said that the granting of the power was justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 5:
  After Clause I, insert the following new clause
  "MEMBERSHIP OF COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS
  After section 20 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) (Community Health Councils) insert—
  "20B MEMBERSHIP OF COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS
  The membership of Community Health Councils shall be constituted as follows—

  (a) at least one member of the Council shall be appointed by each local authority of which the area or part of it is included in the Council's district. and at least half of the members of the Council shall consist of persons appointed by those local authorities;

  (b) at least one third of the members shall be appointed in a prescribed manner by bodies (other than public or local authorities) whose activities are carried on otherwise than for profit;

  (c) the other members of the Council shall be appointed by such bodies, and in such manner and after such consultations, as may be prescribed: and

  (d) no member of the Council shall also be a member of a Health Authority, a Local Health Board, a Strategic Health Authority, a Primary Care Trust or an NHS trust.""

  The noble Lord said: With all the changes proposed in the Bill to the 1977 Act, I am not at all sure where we stand with regard to the composition and membership of CHCs. Is a change proposed?
  I suggest in the new clause that half the members be drawn from local authorities within the council's district, a third from voluntary organisations with an interest in health matters and the remainder as prescribed.
  I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, had to say at Second Reading about his disappointment with local authority nominations for appointment to CHCs and

  GC 9
  I am bound to say that my experience as a Minister was similar to his. I think that was because the local authorities had not fully appreciated the importance of CHCs. They should certainly do so now.
  As was said earlier, local authorities have an important role to play in health. It is a growing role. We recognise the close relationship between health and housing and other areas of local government responsibility. The new unitary authorities in Wales, established by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, are responsible for social services, housing and education. Local authorities must, therefore, be well represented. Whether it should be half the membership is open to question, but certainly each local authority in the community health council's district should be represented in order to ensure smooth working. The voluntary organisations with an interest in health matters—disability groups and so on—also have a claim to membership although they cannot all be represented as they are too numerous.
  I am equally clear in my own mind that those bodies responsible for the delivery of healthcare should not be represented. I should hope that there is general agreement on that point. The CHCs are guardians of the public interest in the health service and must be independent of the providers and seen to be so. I beg to move.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, was rather attracted by the name "patients' forum". That being the case, I am rather surprised that he wishes to place such an emphasis on local authority representation when both he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, have reservations about the interest that local authority representatives have taken in community health councils in the past. We should leave it to the good sense of the National Assembly to decide how these councils are made up. We in this House should not be prescriptive.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I also have difficulty with the notion of prescription. Although guidance should be given on the way in which people are appointed to CHCs, it is important that no CHC is locked into a set number of members appointed by a set number of people. I hope that community health council appointees will he even further removed from the providers of healthcare than is suggested in the amendment, even if the amendment is considered in terms of guidance rather than as a directive. To he able to represent patients adequately, appointees must be as independent as possible of any conflict of interest.
  There are many voluntary bodies in Wales. I declare an interest, having been employed by Marie Curie in Wales. I am concerned that voluntary bodies also need to be inspected where they are contributing to the provision of healthcare. It may be difficult for them to be inspected by someone with whom they are competing for funds. CHC appointees need to be able to stand back from the whole system. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that high calibre local authority appointees or nominees are to be welcomed in assisting in decision-making in the health service, whether on local health boards, the boards of hospitals or community health councils. Certainly as far as England is concerned, while splendid members have been appointed from a local authority background, that is not uniform. There has been a rather patchy response from local government.
  The substantive point of the debate is whether this Committee should determine the composition of CHCs in Wales or whether it is best left to the National Assembly. I am convinced that it should be left to the National Assembly, the members of which are better placed than noble Lords to determine the kind of community health councils that they wish to see in the future. My problem with the noble Lord's amendment is that it goes too far in seeking to constrain the National Assembly.
  I make it clear that currently CHC membership is made up of one half local authority nominations, one third voluntary organisation nominations and the remainder are appointed by the Assembly. The Assembly recognises the importance of local authority nominees. It wants to retain the experience of local authority nominees. It also wants to create opportunities for people—in particular those from under-represented groups in the community—to serve on community health councils. I understand that the proportions, which it currently has in mind, are that the councils should initially consist of one quarter local authority nominees and one quarter voluntary organisation nominees, with one half left for open competition.
  The National Assembly wants gradually to move to more open methods of member recruitment and to ensure that CHCs have members that are more representative of their communities. CHC members will be recruited in accordance with the Assembly's published code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies. Vacancies are advertised in the media, both locally and nationally. Interviews are held by the Assembly's public appointments branch in accordance with Nolan principles.
  It is clear that the National Assembly has thought considerably about the issues. It has a clear view regarding its direction. It wants to see more open competition for some of the places. It also recognises the importance of local-authority nominees. The Chamber should have confidence in the Assembly's ability to sort this matter out properly.
  On a couple of occasions the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has raised the issue of the right of CHCs to enter premises. I understand that for the first time CHCs will be given the right to enter any premises where NHS-funded services are provided. That will include doctors' and dentists' surgeries and private nursing homes. It is a crucial definition and returns us to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) 13ill, on which we had a similar debate. It depends on the

  GC 11
  provision being NHS funded. Obviously the details will follow, and the National Assembly will need to work the matter through with community health councils. The key is that it is an NHS funded service.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Can he confirm that that situation relates to the situation where there is NHS funding towards the service, but that it is not restricted to a set quota of patients? Therefore, where a service is part funded by voluntary donation and part funded by the NHS, will the patients receiving care within that service and not paying for it he able to make representations to the CHC or whoever represents them if there are matters of concern about the quality of their care and what is happening to them?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We must be very careful. I am prepared to go away and reflect on the matter and write further to the noble Baroness. Essentially, my understanding is that it depends whether the patients are funded by the NHS. That is the key. Whether they are being treated in the independent sector, the charitable sector or the NHS itself does not matter: they must be NHS patients.
  As regards the question of whether a private or a voluntary establishment is properly regulated, of course we have legislation to cover those institutions as institutions. The question of the CHC rights must rest ultimately in the status of the individual being treated. Clearly, they must be NHS patients.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps we can discuss this matter outside the Committee. It would not be helpful to delay us now. I think that there are complexities in funding a service. In Wales we have achieved excellent integration of the voluntary sector with the NHS to the point that it is truly seamless. The patients perceive themselves to be fully NHS funded even when part of their care is paid for by the voluntary sector. It is terribly important that that integration is not undermined because it would be to the detriment of the seamless care that patients receive.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Of course I should be very happy to have further discussions with the noble Baroness. However, I enter a note of caution. We must be cautious about the rights of community health councils to inspect premises of independent organisations where the patients are not NHS patients. Ultimately, it must be a question of whether or not a patient is an NHS patient. Otherwise, there are problems for community health councils and their relationship with bodies that are outwith the NHS when that kind of responsibility ought to lie with regulatory bodies. Perhaps we could leave the matter there. I am happy to discuss it further with the noble Baroness.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I was delighted to hear the trend in the Assembly's thinking about the
  GC 12
  composition of the CHCs. It is quite clear that there must be representatives, preferably of the highest calibre, from local authorities and voluntary organisations. The proposed quarter membership for each is about right. Similarly, I think there is scope for the competitive element. When I had some responsibility for health in Wales, I remember that we advertised. The response was astonishing. Some very good people came as a result of the advertising. I am sure that good people will put themselves forward for the community health councils.
  I do not wish to be unnecessarily prescriptive, but someone has to be at the end of the day. I am quite happy to leave the matter to the Assembly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 [Schedule 7A to he inserted in the National Health Service Act 1977]:
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 6, line 10, at end insert—
  "( ) to publish an annual report on the level and quality of the health services in its area"
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 concerns CHCs publishing an annual report. I think we would all agree that the public have a right to know what is being done by a CHC responsible for their area. It can be argued that its meetings are normally open to the public and the media and that that is sufficient to discharge its corresponding duty to inform the public of its proceedings. I do not think that that is adequate.
  Paragraph 1 of the schedule spells out the CHC's dual duty. First, to represent the interests of the local public in the NHS; and, Secondly, to perform such functions as may be conferred from among those listed in paragraph 2. Paragraphs 2(h) and 2(i) include:
  "(h) the preparation and publication of reports by Councils",
  under regulations by the Assembly as to,
  "(i) the matters to be included in any such report".
  The succeeding paragraphs appear to be more inhibitive than permissive and I question whether under the provisions of the Bill we, the public, will ever get a true account of the state of the NHS in a council's area and as its members perceive it. CHCs will be creatures of regulation, centrally controlled and with very little freedom. I may be mistaken. I hope that I am. One can understand why such bodies must be regulated to an extent, but CHCs which will have a role representing the interest of the public must surely have a corresponding duty to give an account of themselves to their public—and where better than in an annual report? The amendment prescribes the duty to report alongside the duty to represent the public interest, with the same self-standing independence.
  I regard this as an important amendment, as I hope do other Members of the Committee. I hope that the Committee will support it. I beg to move.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I fully understand the concerns voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. It seems to me that an annual report is almost a standard informational output of any statutory body. No doubt

  GC 13
  my noble friend Lord Hunt will correct me on that, but that is my impression. Such a report should be publicly available. That is one way in which a citizen can mark the progress that has been achieved during the preceding year and the obstacles that must be surmounted.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment and can understand the reasons for it. Nevertheless, I do not support the amendment because, as a devolutionist, I believe that, ordinarily, it is not for us to encroach on the provisions of a Bill that has been agreed by the two Administrations. I shall be content if the Health Minister and the committee at the Assembly pay due regard to the worries voiced on behalf of the official Opposition.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I have great sympathy with the spirit of the amendment, as it seems obvious that a public body must report, at least annually, on what it is doing. However, I have some concern about the wording of the amendment, because other agencies exist that will be examining,
  "the level and quality of the health services in its area".
  I am worried that, as the amendment is currently worded, it might create a conflict with the roles of other inspectorate bodies.
  The Commission for Health Improvement has been active in Wales in considering the quality of health services, and such inspections will continue. It is important that the CHCs work with, not in competition with, those bodies responsible for determining the level and quality of health services in the area. That includes the local health board, which will commission services. For that reason, I must express concern over the wording of the amendment.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for raising this question. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. No one would argue with the idea that a public body should regularly report on the discharge of its responsibilities. It should be in the minds of the members of those bodies that they have a public responsibility and that they need to be transparent about what they do and what their successes and concerns are. However, my noble friend is right to suggest that the National Assembly should deal with this matter.
  I have looked again at the part of the schedule to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred. I read it in a very different way from him: he regards it as constraining, whereas I believe that it provides CHCs with a great deal of discretion and responsibility in their future functions. For example, sub-paragraph (f) refers to the,
  "consultation of Councils by Health Authorities, Local Health Boards",
  and so on. Sub-paragraph (g) refers to the,
  "consideration by Councils of matters relating to the operation of the health service within their districts".
  GC 14
  Sub-paragraph (h), meanwhile, refers to,
  "the preparation and publication of reports by Councils'",
  and sub-paragraph (j) to,
  "the furnishing and publication by"—
  NHS bodies—
  "of comments on reports of Councils".
  Sub-paragraph (k) refers to,
  "the provision of information … to Councils by",
  NHS bodies. Sub-paragraph (1) refers to,
  "the provision of information … by Councils to other persons".
  The schedule provides a satisfactory structure for the National Assembly to make provisions about the job that CHCs are to do in the future in Wales. I have no doubt that the ability is there for CHCs to report on the stewardship of their work and responsibilities.
  I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the wording of the amendment presents a problem. Other bodies are charged with reporting on the quality and standard of services that are being provided. One such inspection body is the Commission for Health Improvement. We must not duplicate functions. The role of a CHC is clear; it is its duty,
  "to represent the interests in the health service of thy public in its district".
  On the general point, I have no doubt that the National Assembly will charge CHCs to ensure that their activities are properly reported. At the end of the day, however, it is best left to the Assembly to make its own decisions in that regard.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I detect a slight note of discord between us, because I believe that the amendment is important.
  CHCs have a dual duty:
  "(a) to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district: and
  (b) to perform such other functions as may be conferred on it by regulations under paragraph 2".
  I want to add, as a third requirement, the duty to present an annual report.
  There seems a general agreement that bodies of this kind should report, especially when they represent a public interest, as these bodies clearly do. I should have thought that they would wish to report, in any case. If we look at the schedule, we see that the,
  "National Assembly for Wales may by regulations make provision about"—
  and there follow sub-paragraphs all the way from (a to (n), containing a long list of activities of CHCs that will be subject to regulation.
  The Minister's performance is normally impeccable, but I could not fail to notice that he leapt over sub-paragraph (i). He referred to sub-paragraph (h), which mentions,
  "the preparation and publication of reports by Councils",
  but he skipped sub-paragraph (i), which states that there can be regulations regarding,
  "matters to be included in any such report".

  GC 15
  The CHCs may produce reports, but they are regulated reports. They will be told by regulation by the Assembly—very clearly, I should imagine—exactly what can be put into such reports and what shape those reports can have.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that other bodies would have an interest in providing health services. However, the CHCs are particularly responsible for representing,
  "the interests in the health service of the public",
  and that is what they will report on. They will not necessarily report on the level of the service, but the public interest in the service. I do not necessarily see a clash of interests between the providers of health services and the CHCs. Of course there can be a clash if the CHCs think that the providers are defective or lacking, but it is just as well that the public should know. I fear that the CHCs will be too constrained by regulation and the public's knowledge of how they are discharging their duties will be limited.
  I shall withdraw the amendment in a moment, although we may wish to come back to the issue on Report.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord should not attribute too much significance to the fact that I did not mention sub-paragraph (i). It could be argued that his amendment would constrain the ability of a CHC to report, because it would set out in primary legislation what CHCs should report on. However, leaving that aside, his question goes wider. He is talking about the independence of community health councils. I agree that that is important. My understanding is that the Assembly has no desire to compromise the independence of CHCs and fully intends to safeguard that independence. That will be reflected in the way the Assembly responds to its power in the schedule to make regulations. The Assembly will seek to strike a balance between setting out in detail the requirements and duties to be placed on CHCs and the need to ensure that CHCs represent patients consistently across Wales. That is important. The experience so far is that the performance of CHCs has been patchy. Good CHCs can be marvellous, but the interests of those who live in an area where the CHC is poor are not properly served. I suspect that the point of sub-paragraph (i) is to try to encourage greater consistency across community health councils. I am assured that in striking a balance between setting out—potentially in too much detail—the requirements and duties on CHCs and the need to ensure that they represent patients consistently, the National Assembly for Wales clearly feels that it is very important to preserve the independence of CHCs.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for those reassurances, particularly about the independence of CHCs. However, CHCs must demonstrate that independence. Laying a duty on them to produce an annual report on how they have
  GC 16
  discharged their duties would make that independence abundantly clear, not only to them but to the public whom they serve. I hope that the Minister's assurances about the views of the Assembly are correct and will be implemented in practice. I shall give the issue further consideration and may return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 7, line 45, at end insert ", which shall present an annual report on its activities to the Assembly"
  The noble Lord said: This amendment also relates to the production of an annual report. The background is that, under paragraph 4, the Assembly will establish a national body to advise and assist CHCs in the performance of their functions. It will probably be akin to the association of CHCs, but it will be established by the Assembly. There is some ground for concern about its independence. From the Assembly government's point of view, there is everything to be said for having all these bodies well and truly buttoned up, if not straitjacketed, so that they cannot cause embarrassment, such as the revelation a fortnight ago that some health authority chief executives in Wales were drawing scandalously high salaries, well in excess of £100,000 a year. In a democracy such as ours, the truth usually emerges one way or another.
  One way of safeguarding the integrity of an institution or body, such as the one proposed to advise and assist CHCs, is to impose a duty on it to produce an annual report on its activities so that the public can read about them. I would have thought that the Assembly, as well as the public, would welcome that, because such an account would help in the constant process of assessment of the value of the body.
  Most bodies established by statute are obliged to produce an annual report, which is laid before Parliament. There should be a similar obligation on the body proposed here to report annually to the Assembly and, in so doing, to report to the public. I beg to move.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In some ways, this is a rerun of our previous debate. My main response is that the Bill gives the Assembly sufficient discretion to ensure that if it so wishes the new body can make an annual report to the Assembly on its activities. Of course I accept the principle that such bodies ought to report on their activities. I am sure that we all agree with that, but it is for the Assembly to decide. My understanding is that the intended establishment of a statutory all-Wales body for CHCs is seen as a way of increasing the standard and quality of work of community health councils and ensuring consistency of service provision. The Assembly sees the body as a powerful strategic influence for patient representation at an all-Wales level.
  The role and responsibilities of the body are currently the subject of consultation with CHCs, but it is likely that its duties will include supporting and advising individual CHCs, providing support for personnel and training, payroll and financial support,

  GC 17
  budget allocation and distribution, the maintenance and review of CHC standards and, importantly, performance monitoring, advice and support.
  I mention performance monitoring because one of the great weaknesses of CHCs over the past 25 years is that there has been very little external monitoring of how well they work. That is why we have seen such a variation in performance between excellent CHCs and very poor ones. The new body will have a key role in helping each CHC to improve its work.
  The noble Lord also raised the issue of independence. The other major function envisaged for the new body is to provide an all-Wales voice for patient and public representation. I understand that the current association of Welsh CHCs undertakes that role, but it is not considered to be adequately resourced. In placing the association's successor body on a statutory footing, the Assembly is turning it from an informal support organisation into one that will have a much greater ability to monitor performance, set standards, develop best practice and provide an all-Wales voice for patient and public representation. That is to be commended. The Bill gives the Assembly plenty of discretion to require such a body, when it is established, to report as it thinks fit. We should have confidence in the Assembly on that.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am very grateful to the Minister again. I am delighted to hear what he has said. The Assembly is right to establish the body on a statutory basis. I am glad to hear that it will have a performance monitoring role. The old CHC association was an informal support organisation and had defects. There is no doubt that the proposal is a considerable improvement, which I hope will raise standards and ensure consistency of performance among CHCs.
  However, it will be a statutory body. In common with other statutory bodies, it should be incumbent on this body to produce an annual report so that the public can see how it is discharging its duties.
  I do not want to sound suspicious, but there is a clear danger that if such a body does not report to the public on the performance of its functions, there will be a considerable danger that it will become introspective and may not perform its functions as well as we all wish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule I agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Wales Centre for Health]:
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 2, line 12, at end insert "; but must not exceed 15"
  The noble Lord said: We all have high hopes of the Wales Centre for Health—the new independent training, advisory and research body. It will be a body corporate with statutory functions, as set out in the Bill. As the Bill stands, the Assembly may appoint any number of members. I suspect that there is a danger of too many rather than too few members being appointed. I f there are too many, the Wales Centre for Health may not be as effective as we all hope it will be.
  GC 18
  It would therefore be wise to set an upper limit, as is customary in statutes establishing such bodies. The amendment would set such a limit.
  We shall probably be urged to leave all such issues to the Assembly, as has so often been the case with other legislation. However, as we pass these issues back to the Assembly, I wonder whether we are deliberately creating additional work for Assembly Members. They might be grateful if we at least gave an indication of where we think the boundaries should he drawn. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: This is a classic issue for the Assembly. As matters proceed, it will decide the suitable number of members for the Wales Centre for Health. It may start with a few and need more or it may start with more and need fewer, but that is a matter for the Assembly.
  Baroness Andrews: The amendment would reduce the power of the Assembly to determine the number of members of the Wales Centre for Health. I entirely agree that we have high hopes for the centre. It is nice to see the first bit of Welsh in the Bill—Canolfan Iechyd Cymru. I think that acronym will be easier to say than WCH. We very much look forward to it becoming more than an acronym in due course.
  The Assembly will be responsible for funding the WCH and monitoring its effectiveness. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right that the Assembly is best placed to take these decisions, although we take the point about having an upper limit and the tendency of public bodies to add ever more people.
  The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has the gift of foresight. I understand that the Assembly intends that the centre should consist of a chair arid no more than 14 members. The noble Lord has happily come up with the right number. All his years in Parliament and public life have made his judgment very sound.
  With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am delighted to have had the chance to anticipate the best thoughts of the Assembly. I am glad that it has a limit of 15 in mind. That is an adequate number. In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Wales Centre for Health: further provision]:
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 8, line 13, after "authorised" insert "in writing"
  The noble Lord said: I should have spoken to this with Amendment No. 8. I apologise. Paragraph 8 of the schedule specifies that the Assembly has to give its direction to the Wales Centre for Health in writing. The centre would be well advised to give authorisation to those acting in its name in writing as well. That is the

  GC 19
  point of the amendment. Members and staff will be so authorised by the terms of their appointment, but others are to be authorised too. Paragraph 3 mentions committees and sub-committees. For the avoidance of doubt and with the interests of good management at heart, authorisation should be in writing so that all who act for the centre should know the extent of their powers. I beg to move.
  Baroness Andrews: We appreciate the intention behind the amendment. The noble Lord has spoken of good management. He clearly has in mind accountability and the importance of keeping good written records. We can hardly disagree with that.
  However, the amendment would oblige the centre to provide a written authorisation for any member of staff or any committee or sub-committee of the centre. There are some merits in that, but we believe that the virtue of a small research-based centre that we envisage will lie in its capacity to act quickly and be responsive. It will have to identify and reflect on some of the key issues of medical need of the day. It will be very important not to overload the centre with bureaucracy and paperwork that is not strictly necessary. It would be easy to inhibit the centre's capacity to be effective if it had to respond in writing to every conceivable function placed on every member of staff.
  Paragraph 2 places a duty on the centre to,
  "carry out its functions effectively, economically and efficiently".
  In fulfilling that requirement, the centre will be expected to ensure that its members and the staff of committees and sub-committees know and understand how they contribute to carrying out the functions of the centre. That will be a matter of good practice and much of it will be in writing. That is a simple and important tool of good management.
  Paragraph 3 simply ensures that anything authorised or required by the centre can be done by the member of staff or committees of sub-committees, thereby putting beyond doubt the capacity of the centre to act. No doubt a lot of that will have to be in writing, but we are reluctant to inhibit the centre's ability to move fast and effectively. There will he necessary safeguards and the amendment is unnecessary.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She will appreciate that I was prompted to table the amendment by the contrast between the powers of the centre and the Assembly's directions to it, which have to be in writing. However, I am content to highlight that point. I trust that what the noble Baroness has said about the conduct of the centre will materialise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Functions of the centre]:
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2. line 23, at beginning insert "facilitate and"
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11, because the two are linked. I shall be brief, because I received a very helpful letter in which the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, clarified the issue. I have also had a very helpful conversation this morning with the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Dr Ruth Hall, which further clarified the issues. I do not intend to press the amendments.
  The amendments were tabled because the Wales Centre for Health is an exciting and important body. It should be able to act and influence health in Wales on as broad a platform as possible. My concern was that if education was not specified, the centre may have little influence at undergraduate level, limiting its input to postgraduate level where training is occurring. Undergraduates need to be aware of the deficit in health in Wales and the enormous problems that exist, as well as the importance of public health in altering the mortality and morbidity of the population.
  I have had reassurances that the centre will work with education providers on the education, training and supply of public health practitioners and specialists and that it will assist in public health education on the broader platform. I understand that input at undergraduate level was not specified in the Bill to avoid any possible conflict over who was responsible for providing undergraduate education. That responsibility rests firmly with the universities in Wales to train the healthcare staff to meet the needs of the health service in Wales and to welcome healthcare professionals from outside Wales to supplement the workforce when required.
  Having received the reassurances that I have sought, I do not wish to move the amendments.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): As the noble Baroness has spoken at length, I wonder if it might be in order for me to offer others the opportunity to comment on what she has said. She can then wind up afterwards.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: In that case, I beg to move.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Deputy Chairman of Committees for allowing us to say a few words. I am particularly interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendments.
  Subsection ( 1) relates entirely to,
  "matters related to the protection and improvement of health in Wales".
  Those are the matters on which the Wales Centre for Health must make information available to the public. It must also research those issues and provide training in them. I am not sure how wide a scope the clause provides for the WCH. I should like to hear the Minister's views.

  GC 21
  The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would like to include education as well as training and would like the WCH to be able to facilitate as well as contribute to the provision of education and training. Again, I should like to hear how the WCH intends to fulfil that function.
  I support the amendment, because training alone spells something less than education—covering short courses and the like that may be run by anyone, anywhere. Education is a more respectable description for these serious and important matters.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Andrews: I am sure that the Committee appreciates that it is always a relief to me when the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, decides not to press her amendments. We know from long experience that she has challenged the Government on medical matters to great effect.
  The function of the Wales Centre for Health is to help to tackle the legacy of ill health that has been specific to Wales and has set it apart from the rest of the United Kingdom. It will do so by providing independent health advice and supporting and initiating research, by providing and developing training programmes and identifying gaps in information and by focusing on the strategic development of public health skills. That covers a range of issues for which we have not had the capacity to date. Even though the centre will focus on research and development, it is bound to have training and education implications. I shall explain. However, we would have had difficulty in accepting that it was necessary to include the term "facilitate" in the Bill because we believe that the WCH's public health training functions are clear.
  In response to the noble Lord's question, I shall enumerate some of those functions. The current wording of the Bill is intended to enable the centre to carry out a wide range of training activity. It includes: working with other parts of the UK to develop new national standards for public health; specifying competencies for public health practitioners; scoping the current training and development programmes among senior professionals in the NHS, local authorities and the voluntary sector; developing and implementing a national programme of training for public health practitioners in Wales; providing fellowships for non-medical people to become accredited public health specialists; developing inter-professional and multi-professional training in health protection for the NHS and local government; developing training for local authority members; and providing awareness training for health professionals about immunisation and vaccination programmes or potential biological or chemical threats.
  The shadow body has already begun to scope some of those functions and has been working with the Velindre Trust. We are already beginning to see developments. Clause 3 encompasses all those
  GC 22
  activities, and we believe that they imply the term "facilitate". So it is an unnecessary addition to the Bill. Schedule 2(20) gives the centre general powers to,
  "do anything which it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions".
  So the centre has the scope to develop those areas of its work as it sees appropriate.
  The intention behind Clause 3 is to give the centre a role in developing education and training in public health skills for public health practitioners and specialists, in particular by encouraging joint training between different professional groups. The Bill was framed deliberately with the intention of not giving the centre a duty to contribute to basic professional training. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that she spoke to professionals in the field who explained that the inclusion of the term in the Bill would have created a problem. Responsibility for the level of competence demanded by basic education is a matter for professional and regulatory bodies. If we gave the centre a duty to contribute, it would cut across those responsibilities. Obviously the amendment would have resulted in a conflict of interests with, for example, the medical committee of the GMC, which has a statutory responsibility for medical education, and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which has a similar responsibility under the Medical Act 1983.
  In any case, consultation with education providers would be essential before imposing a duty. If the Assembly had contemplated placing that duty on the centre, it would have had to consult the bodies first. We are sensitive to the important issues raised.
  I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that their concerns can be met in other effective ways. There is no reason why the centre should not advise education providers on the public health element of basic professional education. I hope that the outcomes of research and development will be fed into the postgraduate and undergraduate syllabuses in due course as we learn more about the epidemiology of Wales and the proper way to respond through public health. If we are serious about making a link between research and policy, that is exactly what we would want to see happen. We would want it to feed into not just the policy-making process but also into the intellectual capital of medical education.
  It is hoped that we shall see a broader platform as the centre works with education providers on public health training. The centre's existence will raise the profile of public health in Wales, which is an extremely important function. It will encourage the identification of issues; it will be a source of information on public health issues, and it will also be a source of evidence, whether working alone or in partnership with other bodies—academic, voluntary and so on.
  The current provision in the Bill is sufficient to cover advising on public health education to any education provider that may need or want such advice. If the Assembly wished to make that more explicit, it could also do so through its powers under Clause 3(3) to

  GC 23
  confer additional functions on the WCH. But, in view of the implications that that could have for other bodies in Wales, it would not be advisable to impose on the WCH the duty proposed in the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for agreeing to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining to the Committee what was explained to me privately outside. I apologise for having been so keen to accept the reassurances that I nearly denied the Committee the benefit of hearing the information. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for his support for the spirit in which the amendments were tabled. With the reassurances that have been shared with the whole Committee, and which I received privately, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
  "( ) liaise with other bodies in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom having similar functions"
  The noble Lord said: The amendment would ensure that there is liaison between the Wales Centre for Health and other bodies with similar functions, especially in the United Kingdom, to avoid costly duplication of effort and to secure a high quality of service. Although Wales certainly has distinctive health problems, as we all know, it also shares many such problems with other countries and the rest of the UK. Liaison and knowing what is going on world-wide is all-important in the medical field, as most experts would agree. I know from my presidency of the University of Wales College of Medicine and other sources how important international medical knowledge and research are, and how important it is for teachers and practitioners to be familiar with the latest developments in their particular area of expertise.
  With the new centre coming on-stream, it is important that its members should be aware of what is going on in Wales, its two universities and colleges. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, for leaving out at Second Reading Aberystwyth from my catalogue of colleges active in the health field. It simply proves the point that there is a need for constant awareness of what is going on—that applies to the private sector also.
  So I make no apology for seeking to include this amendment, which would impose a duty on the new centre to liaise with other bodies engaged in similar areas of public health research and training. Incidentally, the centre seems to be still in the developmental stage. That is an additional reason why it should have a constant reminder of the need to look outside itself. I beg to move.
  Baroness Andrews: Now that I know that Aberystwyth was left out, my feelings on this
  GC 24
  amendment have hardened considerably. It would place a statutory duty on the centre to liaise with other unspecified bodies in Wales. I accept entirely the motivation behind the amendment: that is, to encourage and enable the centre to liaise with the international research community. But the problem is that the term "liaise" is indefinite. The dictionary definition is,
  "to work closely with more than one group in order to communicate information between them".
  Problems would arise because we do not entirely know the purpose of such communication or the work that could be involved. It is not entirely clear what additional benefit such a duty to liaise would bring in those terms.
  But the more significant difficulty is that in Wales we seem to have created something unique yet again. There are no equivalent or similar bodies to the Wales Centre for Health in Wales or elsewhere in the UK. Many bodies carry out some of the functions of the centre but there is no equivalent duty on them to liaise with it. Whereas a responsibility to liaise would lie with the centre, there would be no equivalent responsibility or reciprocal requirement on other bodies to liaise back. So we feel that to enforce such a duty would impose an unreasonable burden on the centre. It might affect its efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its work. It would add to its responsibilities in a way that might not add to its value. It would be serious if the amendment constrained the centre's freedom of action, its ability to act on its own initiative, or its scope.
  I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that Schedule 2(20) gives the centre the power to co-operate with other public authorities. That means that it will have the power to co-operate with local authorities, health authorities, the research community and voluntary organisations. If it determines that in its work co-operation and communication are important and necessary, we fully expect it to do so.
  In its very short life, the shadow body has already collaborated with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the USA in its public event on the health effects of the Nant y Gwyddon landfill in south Wales. So it has already sprung into action. By definition, it is to have a close working relationship with the new national public health service. It will establish links with the two nearest equivalent bodies in England—the Health Development Agency and the public health laboratories. It will also establish contact with the public health institutes in Scotland and Ireland. So, as part of its public health agenda, it will be properly joined up with other bodies.
  Concern was raised that the centre should be able to access information and contribute to the academic community's growing body of knowledge in general. It would be a poor centre if it did not do that of its own volition. As regards the quality of its own work, we fully expect centre staff as good academics and medical researchers to be in tune with, and in contact with, their peer groups wherever work relevant to their understanding of a project is being done. We must

  GC 25
  leave it to the centre to make those links. A duty to liaise with everyone with similar functions would probably be unachievable. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord in that respect.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her words. In particular, I was delighted to learn that the body set up in shadow form was already liaising—although that may he an adequate word—with other bodies in which it was interested, and whose interests it shared. My sole point in moving the amendment is to seek to avoid costly duplication of efforts. Although we have very specific health problems in Wales, we share other health problems with other parts of the United Kingdom and the world. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13:
  Page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Lord said: I have no intention of moving the amendment, except by the Committee's request. No such request is made, and I am not depriving anyone of an opportunity to speak on this group. Their substance was discussed in another place, and we understand their purpose. Therefore, I shall not move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
  [[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.
  Clause 4 [Health Professions Wales]:
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Lord said: These are probing amendments to find out what functions the Government have in mind to he carried out by Health Professions Wales on behalf of the Assembly other than those specified in subsection (4). Perhaps the Minister can help us on this matter.
  Amendment No. 17 would make the nature of the functions specific to healthcare professions and workers. Without that, it would seem that the Assembly could burden HPW with almost any function within the scope of health legislation. Amendment No. 18 has a serious intent in that it seeks to protect standards and to ensure that any training arrangements entered into are not below the standards required by the UK councils for which HPW will be acting in Wales. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to advise the Committee that if this amendment were to be accepted I would not he able to call Amendment No. 17.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for raising these interesting points. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 would prevent the Assembly from directing HPW to carry
  GC 26
  out functions that are not specifically mentioned on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 18 would prevent HPW from entering into any arrangement with any other body that would lead to the creation of professional and educational standards that differ from those set by the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health Professions Council.
  Amendment No. 16 would remove the power for the Assembly to request HPW to carry out any function not included in the Bill, while Amendment No. 17 would prevent the Assembly from directing FIPW to carry out functions on its behalf unless they were directly related to healthcare professions and healthcare support workers. Both would constrain HPW in its aim of ensuring a fully competent and flexible workforce for the NHS in Wales by restricting the type of services that it could be asked to provide.
  The Assembly has wide powers and duties in relation to the provision of a comprehensive health service. Those functions do not relate solely to the healthcare professions and support workers, but will have implications for them. The intent of subsection (3) as it stands is to allow the Assembly the necessary flexibility to devolve such of its functions as it deems appropriate to be exercised by HPW in relation to health professions and support workers as provided by subsection (2).
  Amendment No. 18 would restrict HPW from entering into any arrangement with other bodies that could lead to the creation of professional and educational standards that differ from those set by the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health Professions Council. While it seeks to ensure that training standards for healthcare professionals arc uniform across the UK, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me saying that it is an unnecessary amendment. It misunderstands the nature of the arrangements that HPW may enter into. Such arrangements will be entered into by agreement with the standard-setting bodies. HPW will not be empowered under such arrangements—I hope this reassures the noble Lord—to act in any way that is not acceptable to those bodies. HPW may undertake functions on behalf of the standard-setting bodies and in doing so will apply their standards. HPW will not be involved directly in setting standards; its role will be to ensure that UK-wide standards are applied in Wales.
  The regulatory bodies are responsible for the monitoring of educational standards in the UK. Currently, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has a service level agreement with HPW to carry out quality assurance activities in Wales on its behalf. There is also a similar provision in the Health Professions Council order. HPW should be able to assess the need and to support the development of post-registration education and training of professions according to the workforce planning initiatives and the health policy development in Wales.
  It will be important that there are effective communication channels between HPW and the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health Professions Council to ensure that rules and processes

  GC 27
  required by the regulatory bodies are understood and implemented in Wales, and that the policies and priorities in Wales health provision are known to the regulatory bodies. It is not the intention of the Assembly to direct HPW to direct any educational standards that differ from those set by the statutory regulatory bodies.
  The amendments would frustrate one of the main policy intentions behind setting up HPW and would seriously limit the work that HPW can undertake in the development and improvement of learning opportunities and the continuing professional development activities available to health professionals working in Wales.
  I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord that the Assembly needs such flexibility to use the knowledge and expertise that HPW will have in order to support and to develop the workforce of the NHS in Wales and that the amendments would serve only to restrict such flexibility.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister. As I said, these are probing amendments. He has risen to the probe—if that is the correct phrase—extremely well. We are much enlightened by what he has said and we are greatly reassured that the operating standards in Wales will not be below United
  GC 28
  Kingdom standards. That depends on the statutory regulatory bodies. Having received those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Further provision about HPW]:
  Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
  Page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (8).
  The noble Lord said: This group of amendments deals with the power of the Assembly to abolish Health Professions Wales if the need arises and to make consequential provisions. I believe that the matter has been dealt with fully in Committee in another place. Unless I am encouraged otherwise by Members of the Committee, I shall not move the amendments. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank you, Lord Chairman, and all Ministers who have participated in this Committee stage.
  [Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.

  General Commissioners of Income Tax: Buckinghamshire, Dorset and West Sussex Divisions
  General Commissioners of Income Tax: Buckinghamshire, Dorset and West Sussex Divisions
  Intelligence and Security Committee Report: Government's Response
  Intelligence and Security Committee Report: Government's Response
  NHS: Use of International Healthcare Providers
  NHS: Use of International Healthcare Providers
  NHS Trusts: Retained Deficits
  NHS Trusts: Retained Deficits
  Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centres: Funding
  Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centres: Funding
  Smoking in Pregnancy
  Smoking in Pregnancy
  Healthy Eating among Young Adults
  Healthy Eating among Young Adults
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Nursing and Midwifery Council
  Nursing and Midwifery Council
  Paediatric Continence
  Paediatric Continence
  Food Standards Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02
  Food Standards Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Equidae: EC Decision
  Equidae: EC Decision
  British Cattle Movement Service
  British Cattle Movement Service
  Animal Movements Regime
  Animal Movements Regime
  UK Market Capitalisation
  UK Market Capitalisation
  Tourism: Planning Policy Evidence
  Tourism: Planning Policy Evidence
  European Parliament: Representation and 2004 Election
  European Parliament: Representation and 2004 Election
  Ministers and Members of Parliament: Correspondence
  Ministers and Members of Parliament: Correspondence
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  Road Surfaces
  Road Surfaces
  Integrated Transport: 10-Year Plan
  Integrated Transport: 10-Year Plan
  London Underground: Public/Private Partnership Contracts
  London Underground: Public/Private Partnership Contracts
  Blue Badge Scheme
  Blue Badge Scheme