Sitting of 18 March 2003

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

    Mental Health (Barnet)
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on mental health services in Barnet. [103193]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Local mental health services in Barnet are making good progress against the national service framework targets, but they face considerable challenges in meeting additional demands and improving further services for patients. Public and staff are being involved in the plans for future developments.
    Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response, but I am sure that she is aware of the long waiting times for intensive out-patient care. I wish to raise in particular the matter of the Barnet psychiatric unit, which closed temporarily more than five years ago, with a view to being reopened. Nothing has happened yet and the result is that the temporary ward at Edgware hospital is under considerable strain. What will happen in terms of reproviding the Barnet psychiatric unit, and when may we expect to see some progress on the issue? The present situation is unsustainable, and perhaps the money could be found from the modernisation fund.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend will be aware that the outline business case to reprovide the acute in-patient service at Barnet was considered by the primary care trust in December. The acute unit will now provide 54 beds and will bring acute mental health services on to the same site as the rest of the acute services. That will be a real improvement for patients. The extra revenue costs are likely to be some £350,000 and the PCT has confirmed that it will be able to afford that. We need now to make swift progress in relocating those services to Barnet to serve people in that community.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: In supporting the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the need for that acute service, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the social service inspectorate's report of May 2002 was selectively damning? It said that mental health services in Barnet
    740
    had been allowed to drift, service users were losing out and carers were not being supported. May we have her assurance that the Government are addressing the matter and taking the necessary actions to put things right quickly?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman is too harsh on those local services. The area has lower than average suicide rates, admission rates and readmission rates, as well as good user involvement, a good relationship with Barnet Voice for Mental Health and good carer involvement. Local people are working hard to ensure that mental health services in the area serve the needs of patients. They are setting up new assertive out-reach and crisis intervention teams, and much good work is being done. Further improvements do need to be made, but significant progress has already been achieved.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: May I first pay tribute to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who left the Government today? He was effective, well respected and well known to those who work in, and care about, the NHS. The child and adolescent mental health services report zero weeks waiting time—in other words, no waiting time—for first out-patient appointments—[HON. MEMBERS: "In Barnet?"] Yes, in Barnet. What does Barnet have that other areas, such as my own of Stockport, do not; or is that another case of inaccurately reported waiting times?
    Ms Blears: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about Lord Hunt. He was an able Minister and a close colleague who will be severely missed in our Department. The hon. Lady should know that we will commit £300 million to the national service framework, including £93.5 million this year. The children's national service framework will also address the issue of waiting times, which is a major priority in the planning and priorities framework for this year. Out-patient waiting times are too long, but clear action will be taken and the necessary investment made in the service to ensure that we reduce them.

    Hospital Private Finance Initiative
    James Purnell: If he will make a statement on the private finance initiative in hospitals. [103194]
    The Secretary of:State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The private finance initiative is helping to deliver the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the national health service. Of the 104 PFI hospital schemes announced since 1997, 25 are already operational and a further 23 are under construction.
    James Purnell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Over the past few years the doctors, nurses and administrators at Tameside general have done fantastic work, despite the fact that the hospital site is spread across many buildings, many of them old Victorian workhouses, and that patients still have to be ferried between buildings by ambulance. Without PFI we would have to wait decades for another hospital. Can

    741
    my right hon. Friend tell me when we can expect completion of a new hospital if Tameside is successful in the current application process?
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the problems in Tameside because my hon. Friend has been to see me to talk about them and to present me with a petition that he and other members of the local community organised. We will make progress as soon as possible, but the process takes some time. Once building begins, we may be confident that the new development will be built on time and to cost. It is worth saying that, as a consequence of PFI, major capital investment is now going into the national health service. Since 1997, capital spending in the NHS has risen by 63 per cent., partly as a result of PFI. To give hon. Members a point of reference, investment fell by more than 20 per cent. under the Conservative Government between 1992 and 1997.
    As a result of the extra investment that will come on line from April, over the course of the next four years capital spending in the NHS will rise by a further 144 per cent., to give the NHS, its staff and its patients precisely the sort of modern working environment and modern facilities that they need. People will draw a clear contrast between a Labour party that is committed to investment and the Conservative party.
    Mr. John Randall: The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware of the bureaucratic blunders in the Paddington basin project, which resulted in a 17.5 per cent. shortfall in space. People forgot to take note of the new regulations on elderly patients in hospital. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to reconsider the relocation of Harefield hospital to the Paddington basin? It is time to reinvest in Harefield and so save everybody money.
    Mr. Milburn: I can always rely on the hon. Gentleman to accentuate the positive. On the subject of the Paddington basin, we have been through the process and, indeed, I have been to Harefield. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I met local people and members of staff, including Sir Magdi Yacoub. The decisions were difficult but I believe that they are right, not just for Harefield but for health services in the area. As a consequence of the extra investment that is now going into the NHS in the area, we will get modern hospital facilities that are long overdue.

    Foster Carers
    Jonathan Shaw: How many children are looked after by private foster carers. [103195]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Data on the number of children looked after by private foster carers are not collected centrally. The Children Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to
    "satisfy themselves that the welfare of children who are privately fostered within their area is being satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted".
    Jonathan Shaw: The Minister will know that the social services inspectorate wrote to Departments and estimated that as many as 40,000 or 50,000 children are
    742
    privately fostered. Those children are afforded less protection than children who are child-minded. She will also know that Lord Laming had little to add on safeguards for children who are privately fostered, other than the recommendations that came from the Utting inquiry on children living away from home. Will she tell us when a Green Paper will arise from the Laming inquiry into the Victoria Climbié case? Why are the Government so reluctant to introduce a registration scheme for privately fostered children, as recommended by Utting?
    Jacqui Smith: I pay to tribute to my hon. Friend for his continued concern about the protection of privately fostered children. Although I share his objective, I have not always shared his view on the most effective way of ensuring that protection. As he has suggested, we have taken action to ensure that the legal responsibilities that already exist for private fosterers and local authorities are taken forward. A letter from the chief inspector has outlined that, and there have been an SSI inspection and a leaflet campaign to raise awareness. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear when we published the report of the Climbié inquiry, we will give a full response to Lord Laming's recommendation that we should review legislation in this area at the time of the children's Green Paper. I believe that that Green Paper will be published later in the spring.
    Mr. David Cameron: Does the Minister agree that many children in foster care will go on to be adults in adult placement care? Is she aware that the number of adult placement carers is falling because of the Government's decision to have them regulated by the National Care Standards Commission? When will the Government announce the decision of their review of that matter? Does the Minister accept that adult placement carers are looking after vulnerable adults in their own homes? Those homes are not care homes and they should not be regulated by the NCSC and made subject to all manner of rules and bureaucracy that are completely unnecessary.
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of adult placements, which has also been raised by several of my hon. Friends, and by at least one of his hon. Friends, who visited me, along with representatives of the National Association of Adult Placement Services. As a result of that meeting, we are undertaking a consultation on how to ensure that, in putting in place the necessary regulation to ensure that vulnerable people who are cared for in adult placements get the protection that they deserve, we also continue to recognise the specific circumstances of those who care for vulnerable people in their own homes. It is not true that the conditions for adult placement schemes are the same as for care homes; indeed, they never have been. What we have done is to listen to the genuine concerns of those who undertake this very important role, to undertake a consultation, and to make changes that will help to promote the work of those who care for vulnerable people in their own homes.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: To return to the subject of private fostering, I well understand that my hon. Friend often has to wrestle with huge problems

    743
    that require major investment, organisational change and cultural reorganisation within complex health and social care systems. Does she agree that, by contrast, private fostering would be simple to crack, would require almost no investment, and would provide great protection for children? Indeed, it is the sort of job that she could knock off before breakfast one morning. Will she therefore join me in looking forward to the blithe new morning when she will have the opportunity to do that?
    Jacqui Smith: Perhaps I should point out to my hon. Friend that one of the things that I am wrestling with, as he puts it, is what we need to do to ensure that the changes that we make really do make a practical difference to vulnerable children. As my right hon. Friend made clear in responding to the Climbié inquiry, our consideration of the issues arising from private foster care will be based on what will make a practical difference to the protection of those children, on how we can ensure that the considerable protection already provided in legislation is carried through properly, and—perhaps most importantly—on how we can ensure that local authorities fulfil their responsibilities to those children. We discovered that, even under the current legislative framework, Gloucestershire local authority, for example, has taken action and increased the number of notifications of private foster carers from 11 to 224 in the past three years. That is—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The answers are a bit on the long side today.

    NHS Dentists
    Mr. Peter Pike: What estimate he has made of the number of people in the north-west who are no longer able to get on the list of an NHS dentist. [103196]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): National health service dental registrations in the north-west have been stable for several years. The region has the second highest registration rate for adults in England, at 49 per cent., which is significantly above the England average. More than 60 per cent. of children in the region are registered with a dentist. This is broadly in line with the national average.
    Mr. Pike: Will my hon. Friend recognise that I get letters every week from people in Burnley who cannot get on an NHS dentist's list, and that advising them to phone NHS Direct is not the way forward? The primary care trust informs me that another dentist is transferring his patients to Denplan, and that a further one will follow shortly. An NHS dental service is no longer available to the majority of people in my constituency, and that is not acceptable.
    Mr. Lammy: I sympathise with the problems that some of my hon. Friend's constituents are experiencing, and I understand that there are particular recruitment problems in Burnley. However, that is why there are a number of primary dental service pilots and a new dental unit in Burnley. I am also advised that my hon.
    744
    Friend's NHS managers are talking to Manchester dental school, to ensure that students want to come to Burnley to work. At the same time, my officials and I are holding discussions with the British Dental Association to ensure that we have support teams in our access problem areas. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's constituency is considered as part of that programme.

    Primary Health Care
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: If he will make a statement on budget deficits in primary health care services. [103197]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): In both of the last two financial years, the national health service has reported a break-even position, an improvement on the deficit of £459 million in 1996–97. For this financial year, discussions are currently taking place between primary care trusts and strategic health authorities on managing their end-of-year financial positions.
    Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for that reply. When the Department wrote to me recently boasting about the additional money for Stockport primary care trust, was the right hon. Gentleman aware that £5 million of that was needed for deficit reduction and that, as a result, the trust's board tells me that it is now required to make real-terms reductions of £1.3 million in the next financial year? As audiology, child psychiatry and mental health services are under real pressure in Stockport, may I encourage the right hon. Gentleman, when he writes to hon. Members boasting about increases in money, to avoid the spin and state the facts?
    Mr. Hutton: We always state the facts and we have done that on this occasion. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the difficulties that his PCT is experiencing, and I shall certainly look into those issues on his behalf, but a certain reciprocity would be welcome. I am happy to go in for that, if the hon. Gentleman would like to welcome the 26 per cent. cash increase that Stockport PCT received over the past three years and the 29 per cent. increase to which it can look forward over the next three years.
    Mr. Simon Burns: I am not sure whether the Minister fully understands what a fact is. If he cut out the spin and actually answered the question put by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), he would be aware that a number of PCTs will have deficits at the end of the current financial year. For example, my PCT in Chelmsford will have a deficit of £1 million. I wrote to 50 per cent. of PCTs, and a significant number wrote back to say that they will not break even at the end of this year and will have deficits. Instead of spinning and citing figures, why does the Minister not face up to reality, answer the question straightforwardly and explain how PCTs with deficits at the beginning of the next financial year will deal with them?
    Mr. Hutton: I did answer the question put by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove fairly and fully, but there is a wider issue. Of course, we shall look into the end-of-year position; it is the job of SHAs and PCTs to do that.

    745
    There is, however, a certain credibility gap when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) comes to this place demanding, in effect, more resources for the NHS when his policy is to take money away from the NHS.

    Community Hospitals
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on smaller community hospitals. [103198]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We want to see a new lease of life for community hospitals. Our new guidance, "Keeping the NHS Local", issued last month, emphasises the important role that community hospitals can play in providing locally based health services.
    Mr. Grogan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply. In the light of it, will he join me in urging the North and East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire strategic health authority to give urgent and careful consideration to the outline business case that it will receive later this month from the Selby and York primary care trust for the complete rebuilding of Selby War Memorial hospital, not only because of the role played by the hospital in the community but also because that exciting project is one of the first to come from a PCT?
    Mr. Milburn: I very much enjoyed meeting my hon. Friend and representatives of his local PCT about a month ago to talk about the proposed development. As he remembers, I visited the hospital two or three years ago and was most impressed by what I saw. There is a strong case for redevelopment. Obviously that will take investment and it will need a good case, but I know that the PCT will make a good case to the SHA. Equally, I am sure that my hon. Friend will remind his constituents that such developments are possible only because of the investment that the Labour Government are making.
    Mr. Roger Gale: On the assumption that the Secretary of State will give the go-ahead to the reorganisation of health care in east Kent, and given the excellent coastal and cottage hospitals in that area, will he tell us what financial assistance he will give the PCT so that hospitals such as the Queen Victoria Memorial hospital in Herne Bay can have the minor injuries and accident and illness units and telemedicine that they need, which would help patients to be treated closer to home without having to travel at all?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, not least because he has been one of the protagonists in the whole sorry affair vis-á-vis east Kent, decisions have to made, and most members of the community now want a final decision so that we can make progress. What is absolutely clear across the country, not just in east Kent, however, is that community hospitals have a very important part to play. Indeed, technological change and medical advance are driving many of the treatments that were previously available only in the big tertiary centres and making them available much more locally, provided, of course, that we invest in the
    746
    necessary information technology and make the necessary capital investment and resources available for staff and training. That is precisely what the Government want to do—but whether the Conservative party agrees with those proposals is a moot point.
    Phil Sawford: On 10 February, I attended the official opening of the new £1 million skin care unit at Kettering general hospital, which will deal with the increasing number of problems with eczema, skin cancer and other dermatological conditions. I welcome that investment in our local health service. Does my right hon. Friend believe that smaller hospitals would benefit from that kind of investment if we adopted a policy of cutting public spending by 20 per cent., like the Conservative party has?
    Mr. Milburn: I take the very simple view—I think that my hon. Friend shares it—that if we want more out of the national health service, we simply have to put more in. That is what the Government are committed to; it is what the Conservative party opposes.
    Chris Grayling: According to the logic of the document published by the Secretary of State's Department on 14 February and, indeed, the strategies of many local NHS trusts, services would move from district general hospitals to community hospitals; but does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, if that happens, many parts of the country are likely to have fewer district general hospitals?
    Mr. Milburn: No, I do not think that that is the case. Although change will always be necessary in the NHS—change is often a very positive thing because it is driven by medical advance and technological improvement and it makes more treatments available to more patients—we have to move away from the idea that the "biggest is best" philosophy will always work for NHS patients, especially in local communities.
    Rather than presuming that biggest is always best and that the only way to solve a problem with local health services is to centralise those services, the new guidance rightly says that the starting point for examining what is needed in the local community should be the presumption of keeping as many services as locally based and locally accessible as possible. That is what we want to do, but it can only be done—I repeat this point—provided that we make the necessary investment in IT, technology, training, staff, buildings and equipment. We are prepared to make that investment. Of course, the hon. Gentleman's party voted against it.

    Foundation Hospitals
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: If he will make a statement on foundation hospitals. [103199]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill published on 13 March sets out our legislative proposals for NHS foundation trusts. Subject

    747
    to Parliament, I expect that, in four to five years, every NHS hospital will have the opportunity of becoming an NHS foundation hospital.
    Mr. Mackay: As the Secretary of State will be aware, Conservative Members strongly support foundation hospitals, so we were concerned to note that at least 115 of his Back-Bench colleagues have signed an early-day motion criticising them. Will he explain to the House why he has so singularly failed to sell his policy to them?
    Mr. Milburn: I suppose that I should say that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. However, there is a small matter of difference between him and me on foundation hospitals, as he calls them: I believe that those hospitals should be part of the NHS. They should have greater freedom, greater local control and greater local accountability, but none the less they should be subject to national inspection systems and, most importantly, to national standards. Indeed, what is very obvious every time Conservative Members talk about foundation hospitals is that they use those two words, but they fail to mention the three words that are important: national health service.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, as a person who has been treated by an NHS hospital—I received remarkable treatment at St. Thomas's—I can only congratulate the NHS on the service that it provides, and that is without foundation hospital status. If my right hon. Friend pursues the foundation hospitals policy, will he ensure that all hospitals can apply for that status and that real consultation will take place with the staff, patients and trade unions before we venture down that road?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Incidentally, I wish him well and I hope that the other knee survives. When he reads the Bill he will see that we set out the process of consultation in it. If proposals are to come forward from NHS trusts that want to become NHS foundation trusts, they must have the local community on board. Clearly, it will be important to consult local Members of Parliament and elected local councillors, but equally, it will be important to consult local staff and other parts of the local health community: most notably, primary care trusts.
    I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks: our ambition has always been to try to raise standards of care in every single NHS hospital. We do not want a two-tier service, and we certainly do not want to pursue a sink-or-swim policy. That is why I believe that it is necessary to provide extra help and support so that every hospital, over a four-to-five-year period, has the opportunity to become an NHS foundation hospital.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Will foundation hospitals be subject to the remorseless process of centralisation, mergers and closures being carried out by strategic health authorities across the country?
    Mr. Milburn: Strategic health authorities, under the proposals contained in the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman will see when he reads it, lose their powers of
    748
    direction—effectively, my powers of direction—over NHS hospitals. I believe that that is right. Although it is absolutely necessary, for equity purposes, to ensure that appropriate standards in the system apply in all parts of the country, ultimately, health care is delivered locally, not nationally. If we are to have better local health services capable of dealing with specific local problems in local communities and tackling some of the appalling local health inequalties that exist in our country, and which have been widening for decades, it is necessary to put local staff and local communities in charge of the hospitals that serve them.
    Mr. David Hincbliffe: In evaluating the expressions of interest in foundation status that have been received so far, what steps have been taken by the Government to establish whether there is genuine local community support at this stage for foundation trust status beyond a handful of very ambitious NHS managers?
    Mr. Milburn: We will do precisely that. To continue the conversation that my hon. Friend and I had in the Health Committee a week or so ago, it will be extremely important, when I assess the proposals that come forward from NHS trusts that want to become NHS foundation trusts, that they genuinely demonstrate that they have support, not just in the local hospital but in the local community, too. That will be important because, ultimately, those hospitals will become owned and controlled by the local community. I want to ensure that as wide a range of stakeholders, and as many people in the local community and among local staff as possible, are involved in this process from the outset.
    Dr. Liam Fox: In the Prime Minister's speech and subsequent article, "Where the Third Way Goes from Here", he says that we must
    "set the parameters for the future partnerships we will need between tax-funding and personal contributions".
    Does that mean that in foundation hospitals and elsewhere in the NHS, the Government are considering co-payment?
    Mr. Milburn: No, that is the hon. Gentleman's policy, not mine.
    Dr. Fox: How very interesting, because in the next paragraph of the article, the Prime Minister says:
    "We should be opening up healthcare for example to a mixed economy … and be willing to experiment with new forms of co-payment in the public sector."
    Does that not entirely torpedo what the Secretary of State has just said?
    Mr. Milburn: No, because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have read the whole article, not one section of it, and what the Prime Minister was clearly talking about was our proposals in relation to tuition fees. It is the hon. Gentleman who is making proposals for co-payment. Just this weekend, he went out of his way to suggest that the future of Conservative party policy on health care is clear. He wants
    "a pay-as-you-go market where patients pay for a single procedure or item of care".

    749
    That may be the Conservative policy for the future of health care. It is not Labour's policy.

    School Pupils
    Bob Russell: When he last met the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discuss the health of school pupils. [103200]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): My right hon. Friends the Secretary for State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills last met on 12 March 2003 and discussed a range of issues about the health, social care and education of children. They propose to meet regularly to continue their discussions on these issues.
    Bob Russell: Will the Minister accept that obesity among school pupils is now running at record levels and increasing year by year? Does she accept that a major reason for that is 20 years of attacks by the educational establishment on physical education and sport in schools, with the result that today's young people are less fit than their parents and grandparents were at their age? Unless urgent action is taken to make young people fitter and healthier, they will have serious mobility, breathing and heart problems at a much earlier age, which will put an extra major pressure on the national health service.
    Ms Blears: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which is why physical activity is a crucial factor in the NHS plan, the cancer plan and the coronary heart disease and diabetes national service frameworks. It is also why we are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on its £459 million programme to enhance school sport and club links. The New Opportunities Fund programme is providing £581 million to enhance school sports facilities. The issue is extremely important for the Department of Health because obesity leads to perhaps 9,000 premature deaths in this country every year.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend take more action with the Department for Education and Skills? Does she remember that my Committee, the Select Committee on Education and Skills, examined school meals only two years ago? We made some strong recommendations because it is a catastrophic situation when our children's diet and lack of exercise causes such concern. The re are action points and we have done a lot of the work, but instead of merely discussing the problem, will the Minister meet her opposite number in the DFES to produce an action programme?
    Ms Blears: I assure my hon. Friend that regular meetings are held between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health—that really is joined-up government. He will be aware of the food-in-schools programme. We are rolling out the national school fruit scheme so that by the end of the year, about 1 million children will receive a free piece of fruit in school every day. It is a high priority to extend the
    750
    healthy schools programme to school meals, tuck shops and vending machines, and to ensure that fresh water is available in schools.
    Ann Winterton: It could be said that many school children are the equivalent of couch potatoes, which hints at a lack of exercise and obesity. However, there is activity on the equivalent of the couch because the level of sexually transmitted diseases is rising at almost epidemic proportions among under-age children in certain areas of the country. It is said that there are not adequate resources to deal with the problem. Will the Minister comment on that?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Lady will know that this country has a sexual health strategy for the first time. That is backed up by £47 million of extra investment and £5 million has been invested this year in genito-urinary services to try to halt the rise of disease and to ensure that people with sexually transmitted infections receive swift treatment. She will also know about the major media campaign that was launched to try to persuade young people to change their behaviour and adopt safe-sex practices in future. That is an attempt to halt the rise of infections such as chlamydia, which are of great concern to many people in this country.
    Mr. Andy Reed: My hon. Friend is right to point out the extra investment in schools, and especially the money for school sports co-ordinators. Is she aware that, in reality, many people who did sport at school drop it after they reach 16 or 17? Obesity costs the country, and especially the health service, £2 billion. Will she ensure that her Department plays its part with Sport England, lottery money and the Department for Education and Skills to invest in the long-term future of our people by ensuring that we reduce people's obesity not only when they are at school, but throughout their lives?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I am delighted to tell him that the Department of Health will fund nine local exercise action pilots—LEAP projects—to encourage more forms of exercise among groups ranging from older people to young parents to schoolchildren. We realise that enabling people to access sport and physical activity throughout their whole lives is key to ensuring that we reduce levels of coronary heart disease, cancer, strokes and diabetes.

    Endometriosis
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: What progress has been made with the establishment of centres of excellence for the treatment of endometriosis. [103201]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): The Government recognise that endometriosis affects the lives of many women and their families. Some specialist clinics treating advanced endometriosis have developed locally in response to need. Officials in my Department have discussed centres of excellence with

    751
    the National Endometriosis Society and other organisations, and will continue working with them to see whether further work is appropriate.
    Mrs. Brooke: Does the Minister accept that much more is needed? What encouragement can she give to women and their families who experience long delays in diagnosis and in appropriate treatment once the diagnosis has been made?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady plays an important part in the all-party group on endometriosis. As she points out, it is important that endometriosis should be diagnosed early, allowing treatment with some of the less radical approaches. That is why the pilot scheme for the national electronic library for health and a virtual branch library under that will include a section on women's reproductive health. We shall ensure that endometriosis is covered in that so that general practitioners, the first and very important point at which women can be diagnosed and then referred if necessary, have the necessary information in order to be able to carry out their work.

    Junior Doctors
    Mr. Archie Norman: What assessment he has made of the impact on medical staffing in acute hospitals of extending the working time directive to junior doctors. [103202]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Department of Health has issued guidance, with the support of the medical royal colleges, that sets out a range of solutions that will enable NHS trusts to meet their statutory obligations under the working time directive. That is being supported through a programme of pilots, a strategic support fund and the increases in staff and resources announced in the NHS plan.
    Mr. Norman: Does the Minister recall that the Royal College of Physicians has warned that implementation of the working time directive in August next year will lead to
    "a substantial risk to the safety of many hospital in-patients"?
    Can he comment in particular on the fact that his Department's own pilot study suggests that smaller hospitals, those with six specialist registrars or fewer, will really struggle? Can he now give the House a pledge that if there turns out to be a conflict between the working time directive and acute care in acute hospitals, it will be the patients who are put first?
    Mr. Hutton: Of course that must be right, and I can certainly confirm that, and of course I am aware of the views of the Royal College of Physicians, which we take seriously. It welcomed the guidance that we issued earlier in the year and we continue to discuss its concerns with it and how we can construct the right solutions. But it is possible, working with the pilots that we have announced for the 19 trusts that are devising the cost-effective solutions to the problems that the working time directive undoubtedly poses, that we can construct
    752
    effective solutions that put the patient first. It is in everyone's interests to do that, and I think that we shall be able to do precisely that. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. There is too much conversation going on. These questions are important and we should be able to hear the answers.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: Is the Minister aware that while we all welcome the reduction in junior doctor's hours, some junior doctors fear that the quality and length of their training and experience may be compromised, along with continuity of care?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I am aware of that concern. The hon. Gentleman takes a close interests in these matters and I hope that he will have seen my recent announcement about how we intend to reform medical postgraduate training in order to avoid precisely that issue. We need a more structured senior house officer training programme and that is what will come through from the foundation programme that we shall be introducing. That work is being led by the chief medical officer, who I know takes such concerns seriously, and has made it clear, as we have, that the most important thing that we must do in the circumstances is to ensure that we preserve the quality of medical training in Britain, which most people, fairly, reasonably and rightly, regard as among the best in the world.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: When will that programme start and how long will it take before it is working? As additional consultants were appointed to try to relieve the pressures on junior doctors in the past, have we not succeeded?
    Mr. Hutton: The reforms I mentioned to postgraduate medical education will start later this year, and I hope that we will be in a position to introduce them more widely from 2004. We are doing that in full consultation with all the devolved Administrations and with the support of the chief medical officers in all four nations of the United Kingdom.
    Tim Loughton: The Minister has singularly failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). Does he agree with the Royal College of Physicians that implementation of the European directive by August 2004 will be difficult or even impossible and that the level of out-of-hours medical cover in many hospitals is already worryingly thin, posing a direct and alarming threat to safe levels of patient care? Given that the number of doctors enrolling in the past five years has been worryingly low—about 350, when the Minister estimates that 7,000 to 10,000 are needed to comply with the directive—is he now prepared to put British patients' interests first by delaying implementation, or does he expect doctors to

    753
    deal with even more patients in fewer hours and risk many of our hospitals collapsing, or will patients simply have to wait even longer?
    Mr. Hutton: We have heard it all now from the hon. Gentleman.
    Tim Loughton: Answer the question.
    Mr. Hutton: I did answer his hon. Friend; the problem is that usually he does not like the answers that I give.
    We ought to be clear. The idea that we should delay implementation of the working time directive is ridiculous—that is not going to happen. No, I do not agree with the Royal College of Physicians' assessment. We have published guidance setting out how the NHS can reach compliance and how we will do that, and we are backing that with significant additional investment, which will be important. The hon. Gentleman, like the rest of his rag-tag army of clapped-out, failed Front-Bench spokesmen, has absolutely no strategy other than the usual parade of doom and gloom and cutbacks in NHS spending, which will make it impossible to do what he says we should be doing.

    NHS Dentists
    Mr. David Kidney: What progress he has made in establishing the commissioning of NHS dentistry by primary care trusts. [103204]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill was introduced on Wednesday 12 March. It proposes that each primary care trust be given a duty to secure or provide primary dental services to the extent that it considers it reasonable to do so.
    Mr. Kidney: Does my hon. Friend accept that previous initiatives, such as investing in dentistry and locating an NHS dentist through NHS Direct, have run their course and still many adults cannot find a dentist who will accept them as an NHS patient? Does he agree that the day cannot come too quickly when PCTs commission services so that there is a full range of NHS dentistry services available? Will he consider taking interim action to ensure that NHS dental services are boosted now?
    Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We were right to take short-term and medium-term steps to ensure that people had access to NHS dentistry through dental access centres and the NHS commitment scheme. It is now right to ensure that PCTs can commission for dentistry in their locality to meet local needs, and we have put the Bill before Parliament to do that. My hon. Friend campaigns for his constituents in Stafford, and his local PCT is keen to act in that respect.
    Bob Spink: Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister's promise that everyone would have access to an NHS dentist by September 2001? That
    754
    promise was broken: fewer than half the people in this country have such access. Why was the Prime Minister's promise broken?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman asked me precisely the same question in January and today I will give him the same reply. The promise was not broken. People have access to a dentist through NHS Direct. Dentist registration numbers are up, as is the number of dentists. He will know that the number of people registered fell to 16 million under the Conservative Government, whereas it is now 23.5 million.
    David Taylor: Is not access to NHS dentistry a particular problem in areas where the population is growing at a more rapid rate than the national average, as is true in some parts of the east midlands? Cannot some of the gaps in provision be filled by a more effective amalgam of action by the Department of Health, the British Dental Association and primary care trusts? Will my hon. Friend look into the particular problem in areas like mine?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend will be pleased that I am in dialogue with the British Dental Association, and we propose dental support teams to target access problems in specific areas. I will ensure that his area is considered, along with many others, to make sure that constituents get access to a dentist.

    Child Mortality (Luton)
    Margaret Moran: What further measures he intends to take to tackle child mortality in Luton. [103205]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): A range of health initiatives are already being undertaken in Luton to contribute towards reducing child mortality. I was pleased to be able to visit the Our House project in my hon. Friend's constituency, where health visitors, other health professionals and parents are working together to safeguard their children's health and futures. In addition, we are increasing funding to Luton teaching primary care trust significantly to help tackle inequalities, of which child mortality is a particularly important one.
    Margaret Moran: As my hon. Friend is aware, Luton suffers from a high level of infant mortality: 6.5 per 1,000 births, as opposed to the UK-wide average of 5.5—a tragic indicator of health deprivation. Is she aware that in terms of funding, Luton primary care trust is one of the furthest from capitation? At the end of a three-year period, it will be one of the eight PCTs furthest away from capitation. Although we are extremely grateful for the additional funding that we have received for many health projects in our area, for our Government have committed themselves to improve health care—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has said quite enough.
    Jacqui Smith: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that she is keen to tackle health inequalities, so

    755
    I am sure she welcomes the fact that Luton PCT will receive an increase of more than 32 per cent. over the next three years, of which a significant part is a rolling-over of the health inequalities adjustment. Although I recognise her point, the allocations policy will reduce the discrepancy between Luton's financial position and its distance from target. We believe that we have struck the right balance for the present allocation round, but we will consider the policy in the light of all the circumstances when we outline the next set of allocations.

    Budget Deficits
    Dr. Evan Harris: What recent advice he has given to (a) strategic health authorities and (b) local health economies on dealing with projected budget deficits. [103206]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): All NHS organisations have been asked to plan for financial balance. We have asked strategic health authorities and their local health economies to work together to ensure that this is achieved. Primary care trusts have an important role to play in commissioning quality and affordable services from local trusts within the resources available.
    Dr. Harris: Is part of the Minister's advice that the NHS locally should sack good chief executives or encourage them to resign when there is a deficit, like the £18 million deficit at the Oxford Radcliffe hospital, where David Highton, recognised as one of the best chief executives in the country, has resigned because he has been unable to achieve financial balance and meet the Government's targets because of the millions of pounds that he has had to spend on agency nurses to create the capacity that the hon. Lady's Government have failed to achieve in the Oxford area?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman knows that management issues are a matter for the local trust, not for Ministers. He also knows that because of our ambitions for the service, there are indeed pressures on many health economies throughout the country because of our need to increase capacity and give patients more access to the service. He knows that we have the biggest increase in investment that the NHS has ever known—a 7.5 per cent. real terms increase for the next five years. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the massive investment that there has been in his community in the form of the new trauma centre, an increase in prescribing budgets, an increase in money for coronary heart disease and a range of other services in his local area. [Interruption.] There are challenges for the PCTs to face, but the investment is without question the largest that the NHS has ever known.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I once again appeal to the House to be much quieter? I can hardly hear the questions and answers and it is unfair if hon. Members cannot hear what the Minister is saying or if the Minister cannot hear the questioner.
    Mr. James Gray: When we visited the Minister recently to talk to her about the deficit of
    756
    the Kennet and North Wiltshire primary care trust, she expressed what can best be described as indifference to its indebtedness. That means that there is now a threat to the local hospitals in Malmesbury and Devizes, just outside my constituency. Does she regret that indifference and does she believe that there is anything that can she do about the issue? What will she do to save Malmesbury hospital?
    Ms Blears: I had an extremely constructive meeting, not with the hon. Gentleman, but with his colleague, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), and the chairman and chief executive of the local primary care trust, who showed me that they were determined to ensure that they could improve services for that local community. They are under financial pressure, but they have had an extra £45 million of investment in their local health services. I say to him that the comments that he has made in his local press about my alleged remarks are entirely untrue and a travesty of the meeting that I held with him. I am always willing to help local Members of Parliament, but in this case, he has not shown the necessary support to his local health community.

    Community Pharmacies
    Andy Burnham: If he will make a statement on the implications for his Department of the Office of Fair Trading report on community pharmacies. [103207]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): We have so far received about 1,000 responses to the OFT report on community pharmacies. It is the Government's intention to respond to the report within the next few weeks. We are working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that our response properly reflects the interests of NHS patients in providing access and choice for improved local pharmacy services.
    Andy Burnham: I fully support the viion of my hon. Friend's Department for the future role and development of community pharmacies, but can I tell him that the OFT's recommendations on scrapping control of entry regulations threaten to drive a coach and horses through his Department's policy? I represent an area of small towns with high chronic illness and low car ownership. Those towns have already lost banks and post offices. May I urge him to ask his DTI colleagues to reject the OFT's recommendations?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend will appreciate that one cannot go through the Lobby as Minister with responsibility for pharmacy services at the moment without being lobbied by almost every MP about this important issue. That is a testimony to the work that community pharmacies do in all our areas. They provide valuable services in deprived communities and rural and suburban communities alike. It is right that we consider the proposals against our wider policy objectives in the Department of Health for community pharmacies.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Is the Minister not aware that, as things stand, he will be known as the man who shut down the rural pharmacies? Something should

    757
    be done about that. Would he not be much better off ensuring that pharmacies in the countryside provide a range of complementary therapies?
    Mr. Lammy: What would shut down the pharmacies is a 20 per cent. cut across the board. We have 90 days to consider the report and we are doing so very carefully.

    Free Fruit Scheme
    Joyce Quin: If he will make a statement on the operation of he free fruit scheme in schools. [103208]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): We are committed to introducing a national school fruit scheme that will entitle four to six-year-olds to free fruit daily from 2004. The scheme is currently being rolled out region by region with funding from the New Opportunities Fund. By July, the scheme will be reaching about 1 million children.
    Joyce Quin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. When I was an Agriculture Minister, I helped to launch the scheme and was delighted by the enthusiasm for it in some inner-city schools. Given that the House is so full, I am glad that so many people are present to hear me express my hope that the scheme will be extended to Gateshead, Sunderland and the north-east as soon as possible.
    Ms Blears: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the scheme is hugely popular. About 88 per cent. of eligible schools have already taken it up and we are looking to roll it out to other regions over the next few school terms. I have visited school fruit projects in Newham and Runcorn, where children have hugely
    758
    welcomed the apples, pears, bananas and oranges that they are getting every day. The scheme is making a real impact not only on their health, but on the curriculum. We are using it as a way of engaging children in improving their health and nutrition, and extending to their families ideas about getting school fruit, a healthy diet and the best possible start in life—something that should be available to all our children.

    NHS Dentists
    Mr A.J. Beith: If he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dentistry in the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. [103209]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): The Government are aware that the Northumberland care trust has been concerned about access to NHS dentistry in Berwick-upon-Tweed. As a result, we have recently approved funding for the trust to appoint a part-time salaried dental practitioner to work in Berwick royal infirmary. That will address the issues in the short term while longer-term solutions are considered.
    Mr. Beith: While that appointment has yet to be filled and there are no vacancies in NHS dental practices in the area, what can the Under-Secretary say to my constituents who have been told that the only way in which to get NHS dental treatment is to travel 65 miles to the Newcastle dental hospital?
    Mr. Lammy: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage his constituents to support the Bill, which is currently being considered, and will give primary care trusts the leverage to ensure local commissioning. I am in discussion with the British Dental Association to ensure that we have dental support teams in areas where access is a specific problem.

Pensioner Trustees and Final Payments
12.31 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give pensioner members of occupational pension schemes the statutory right to be member-nominated trustees of such schemes, and to guarantee the final payments of such schemes; and for connected purposes.
Given the seriousness of the occasion, I shall try to be as brief as possible.
It is the second time that I have introduced a pensioner trustees Bill. Many hon. Members will remember the mis-selling of occupational pensions in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Many people lost out and did not get the pension that they expected. The previous Government encouraged people to join such schemes.
Many occupational pension benefits are reduced for retired members who have no say. Recently, the Rolls-Royce retired members' committee organised a meeting in Coventry at which 400 retired members turned up. That shows the seriousness of the issue; it is always difficult to get more than 10 people to attend a public meeting.
Major companies now end final payment schemes without consultation, and there is a problem with pension scheme deficits. Companies such as Rolls-Royce have schemes that are more than £1 billion in the red. GlaxoSmithKline has a potential deficit of £1.3 billion.
A company can wind up its pension scheme even if it has no financial difficulties. Occupational pensions formed part of the wage settlement in the past, especially in the 1970s, as I am sure that many hon. Members remember. A clawback clause provided for offsetting an occupational pension to take account of a state pension.
My Bill would provide for the presence of one retired members' representative on any pensions board to represent the interests of retired members. The retired member trustee, representing those with occupational pensions, would have the same rights as other trustees. He or she will be required to act in the interests of all members of the scheme.
Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jim Cunningham, Ms Debra Shipley, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Mr. Bill Olner, Andy King and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle.

PENSIONER TRUSTEES AND FINAL PAYMENTS
Mr. Jim Cunningham accordingly presented a Bill to give pensioner members of occupational pension schemes the statutory right to be member-nominated trustees of such schemes, and to guarantee the final payments of such schemes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 13 June 2003, and to be printed [Bill 77].

Iraq
[Relevant document: The Fourth Report from the International Development Committee, on Preparing for the humanitarian consequences of possible military action against Iraq (HC444-I).]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
12.35 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I beg to move,
That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.
At the outset, I say that it is right that the House debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right, but that others struggle for in vain. Again, I say that I do not disrespect the views in opposition to mine. This is a tough choice indeed, but it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down now and turn back, or to hold firm to the course that we have set. I believe passionately that we must hold firm to that course. The question most often posed is not "Why does it matter?" but "Why does it matter so much?" Here we are, the Government, with their most serious test, their majority at risk, the first Cabinet resignation over an issue of policy, the main parties internally divided,

761
people who agree on everything else—[Hon. Members: "The main parties?"] Ah, yes, of course. The Liberal Democrats—unified, as ever, in opportunism and error. [Interruption.]
The country and the Parliament reflect each other. This is a debate that, as time has gone on, has become less bitter but no less grave. So why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people who have been brutalised by Saddam for so long, important though those issues are. It will determine the way in which Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century, the development of the United Nations, the relationship between Europe and the United States, the relations within the European Union and the way in which the United States engages with the rest of the world. So it could hardly be more important. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.
First, let us recap the history of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had used the weapons against Iran and against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear, after the Gulf war, that Iraq's WMD ambition; were far more extensive than had hitherto been thought. So the issue was identified by the United Nations at that time as one for urgent remedy. UNSCOM, the weapons inspection team, was set up. It was expected to complete its task, following the declaration, at the end of April 1991. The declaration, when it came, was false: a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. And so the 12-year game began.
The inspectors probed. Finally, in March 1992, Iraq admitted that it had previously undeclared weapons of mass destruction, but it said that it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed. In October 1994. Iraq stopped co-operating with the weapons inspectors altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1996, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1996, however, Iraq was forced to admit that declaration, too, was false.
In August, it provided yet another full and final declaration. Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive biological weapons programme and, for the first time, said that Iraq had, weaponised the programme—something that Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening while the inspectors were in Iraq.
Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in the 1990s. Iraq was then forced to release documents that showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1996, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles
762
that could be used for weapons of mass destruction. Then a further "full and final declaration" was made. That, too, turned out to be false.
In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites. In September 1997, lo and behold, yet another "full and final declaration" was made—also false. Meanwhile, the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, the existence of which had always been denied by the Iraqis.
In October 1997, the United States and the United Kingdom threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. Finally, under threat of action in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did continue, for a few months. In August, co-operation was suspended.
In December, the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of weapons of mass destruction unaccounted for. Then, in December 1998, the US and the UK undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facility as we could.
In 1999, a new inspection team, UNMOVIC, was set up. Saddam refused to allow those inspectors even to enter Iraq. So there they stayed, in limbo, until, after resolution 1441 last November, they were allowed to return.
That is the history—and what is the claim of Saddam today? Why, exactly the same as before: that he has no weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance, finally resulting in the inspectors' leaving in 1998—seven years in which he hid his programme and built it up, even when the inspectors were there in Iraq—when they had left, he voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far-reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, and possibly more than 10 times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; and an entire Scud missile programme. We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years—contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence—Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
Resolution 1441 is very clear. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has for years been in material breach of 17 UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate, the first step being a full and final declaration of all weapons of mass destruction to be given on 8 December last year.
I will not go through all the events since then, as the House is familiar with them, but this much is accepted by all members of the UN Security Council: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself, incidentally, is a material breach. Iraq has taken some steps in co-operation, but no one disputes that it is not

763
fully co-operating. Iraq continues to deny that it has any weapons of mass destruction, although no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes it.
On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, and details all the unanswered questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It lists 29 different areas in which the inspectors have been unable to obtain information. On VX, for example, it says:
"Documentation available to UNMOVIC suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX".
On mustard gas, it says:
"Mustard constituted an important part … of Iraq's CW arsenal … 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for … additional uncertainty"
with respect to over 6,500 aerial bombs,
"corresponding to approximately 1,000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard."
On biological weapons, the inspectors' report states:
"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres … Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."
On that basis, I simply say to the House that, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the Security Council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach. What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes, there are minor concessions, but there has been no fundamental change of heart or mind.
However, after 7 March, the inspectors said that there was at least some co-operation, and the world rightly hesitated over war. Let me now describe to the House what then took place.
We therefore approached a second resolution in this way. As I said, we could have asked for the second resolution then and there, because it was justified. Instead, we laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441, or be in material breach. That is not an unreasonable proposition, given the history, but still countries hesitated. They asked, "How do we judge what is full co-operation?"
So we then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests, based on the document that they published on 7 March. Those tests included allowing interviews with 30 scientists to be held outside Iraq, and releasing details of the production of the anthrax, or at least of the documentation showing what had happened to it. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to co-operate with them.
So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full co-operation; and that, if he did so, the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme that would extend over a period of time to make sure that disarmament happened. However, if Saddam failed to meet those tests to judge compliance, action would follow.
So there were clear benchmarks, plus a clear ultimatum. Again, I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable proposition.
764
Last Monday, we were getting very close with it. We very nearly had the majority agreement. If I might, I should particularly like to thank the President of Chile for the constructive way in which he approached this issue.
Yes, there were debates about the length of the ultimatum, but the basic construct was gathering support. Then, on Monday night, France said that it would veto a second resolution, whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate, even at that point.
Last Friday, France said that it could not accept any resolution with an ultimatum in it. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. However, the fact is that France remains utterly opposed to anything that lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.
Hugh Bayley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
The Prime Minister: Very well.
Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I took the view that Britain should not engage in military action without a second resolution, but the decision of some members of the Security Council to back away from the commitment that they gave in November to enforce resolution 1441 has made me change my mind. Does my right hon. Friend agree that France's decision to use the veto against any further Security Council resolution has, in effect, disarmed the UN instead of disarming Iraq?
The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. The House should just consider the position that we were asked to adopt. Those on the Security Council opposed to us say that they want Saddam to disarm, but they will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance. That is their position—no to any ultimatum and no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action. So we must demand that Saddam disarms, but relinquish any concept of a threat if he does not.
From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, no inspection took place. What changed Saddam's mind was the threat of force. From December to January, and then from January through to February, some concessions were made. What changed his mind? It was the threat of force. What makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents that he said he never had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent, and destroy missiles he said he would keep? It is the imminence of force. The only persuasive power to which he responds is 250,000 allied troops on his doorstep. However, when that fact is so obvious, we are told that any resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance will be vetoed—not just opposed, but vetoed and blocked.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: If it is the case, as the Government continually say, that the

765
French position was so uniquely influential, why did not the Government and the United States pursue the second resolution, which—if the Government have given us a true reflection of the Security Council's position—would show that the French were isolated?
The Prime Minister: For the very reason that I have just given. If a member of the permanent five indicates to members of the Security Council who are not permanent members that whatever the circumstances it will veto, that is the way to block any progress on the Security Council. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect to whoever shouted out that the presence of the troops is working, I agree, but it is British and American troops who are there, not French troops.
The tragedy is that had such a resolution ensued and had the UN come together and united—and if other troops had gone there, not just British and American troops—Saddam Hussein might have complied. But the moment we proposed the benchmarks and canvassed support for an ultimatum, there was an immediate recourse to the language of the veto. The choice was not action now or postponement of action; the choice was action or no action at all.
Llew Smith: What does the Prime Minister mean by an "unreasonable veto"? Were the 30 occasions on which the UK has used the veto and the 75 occasions on which the US has used the veto reasonable or unreasonable?
The Prime Minister: We can argue about each one of those vetoes in the past and whether they were reasonable, but I define an unreasonable veto as follows. In resolution 1441, we said that it was Saddam's final opportunity and that he had to comply. That was agreed by all members of the Security Council. What is surely unreasonable is for a country to come forward now, at the very point when we might reach agreement and when we are—not unreasonably—saying that he must comply with the UN, after all these months without full compliance, on the basis of the six tests or action will follow. For that country to say that it will veto such a resolution in all circumstances is what I would call unreasonable.
The tragedy is that the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant is the surest way not to peace, but—unfortunately—to conflict. Looking back over those 12 years, the truth is that we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, and to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil.
Now the very length of time counts against us. People say, "You've waited 12 years, so why not wait a little longer?" Of course we have done so, because resolution 1441 gave a final opportunity. As I have just pointed out, the first test was on 8 December. But still we waited. We waited for the inspectors' reports. We waited as each concession was tossed to us to whet our appetite for
766
hope and further waiting. But still no one, not even today at the Security Council, says that Saddam is co-operating fully, unconditionally or immediately.
Simon Hughes: The Prime Minister will carry the House with him in describing the evil of Saddam Hussein and the effectiveness of the threat of force. Can he therefore explain why the diplomacy that has not so far succeeded—not through lack of his effort—should not be continued for a little longer, so that agreement could be reached between all permanent members of the Security Council? Then if force had to be used, it could be backed with the authority of the UN, instead of undermining the UN.
The Prime Minister: We could have had more time if the compromise proposal that we put forward had been accepted. I take it from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that he would accept that the compromise proposal we put forward was indeed reasonable. We set out the tests. If Saddam meets those tests, we extend the work programme of the inspectors. If he does not meet those tests, we take action. I think that the hon. Gentleman would also agree that unless the threat of action was made, it was unlikely that Saddam would meet the tests.
Simon Hughes indicated assent
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman nods his head, but the problem with the diplomacy was that it came to an end after the position of France was made public—and repeated in a private conversation—and it said that it would block, by veto, any resolution that contained an ultimatum. We could carry on discussing it for a long time, but the French were not prepared to change their position. I am not prepared to carry on waiting and delaying, with our troops in place in difficult circumstances, when that country has made it clear that it has a fixed position and will not change. I would have hoped that, rather than condemn us for not waiting even longer, the hon. Gentleman would condemn those who laid down the veto.
David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a criticism can be made of all the countries that make up the Security Council because it has taken 12 years to reach this point? Why was action not taken earlier? The delay and frustration has only encouraged the Iraqi dictator to act as he has, and there is no justification for further delay.
The Prime Minister: I truly believe that our fault has not been impatience. The truth is that our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and even years ago.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister says that the French have changed position, but surely the French, Russians and Chinese always made it clear that they would oppose a second resolution that led automatically to war. [Interruption.] Well they publicised that view at the time of resolution 1441. Is it not the Prime Minister who has changed his position? A month ago, he said that the only circumstances in which

767
he would go to war without a second resolution was if the inspectors concluded that there had been no more progress, which they have not; if there were a majority on the Security Council, which there is not; and if there were an unreasonable veto from one country, but there are three permanent members opposed to the Prime Minister's policy. When did he change his position, and why?
The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong about the position on resolution 1441. It is correct that resolution 1441 did not say that there would be another resolution authorising the use of force, but the implication of resolution 1441—it was stated in terms—was that if Iraq continued in material breach, defined as not co-operating fully, immediately and unconditionally, serious consequences should follow. All we are asking for in the second resolution is the clear ultimatum that if Saddam continues to fail to co-operate, force should be used. The French position is that France will vote no, whatever the circumstances. Those are not my words, but those of the French President. I find it sad that at this point in time he cannot support us in the position we have set out, which is the only sure way to disarm Saddam. And what, indeed, would any tyrannical regime possessing weapons of mass destruction think when viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam over these 12 years? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions has only been matched by our feebleness in implementing them. That is why this indulgence has to stop—because it is dangerous: dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us; dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, and even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace against us; and dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity, when, in fact, if pushed to the limit, we will act. But when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. It is true that Iraq is not the only country with weapons of mass destruction, but I say this to the House: back away from this confrontation now, and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating in their effects.
Of course, in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach of resolution 1441 or that it implies action in such circumstances. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat, dispute the link between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and dispute, in other words, the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life.
There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s. I am not suggesting for a moment that anyone here is an appeaser or does not share our revulsion at the regime of Saddam. However, there is one relevant point of analogy. It is that, with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say, "There's the time; that was the moment; that's when we should have acted." However, the point is that it was not clear at the time—not at that moment. In fact, at that time, many people thought such a fear fanciful or, worse, that it was put forward in bad faith by warmongers. Let me read one thing from an editorial from a paper that I am pleased to say takes a different
768
position today. It was written in late 1938 after Munich. One would have thought from the history books that people thought the world was tumultuous in its desire to act. This is what the editorial said:
"Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind … And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up … to confuse us."
Now, of course, should Hitler again appear in the same form, we would know what to do. But the point is that history does not declare the future to us plainly. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight. So let me explain to the House why I believe that the threat that we face today is so serious and why we must tackle it. The threat today is not that of the 1930s. It is not big powers going to war with each other. The ravages that fundamentalist ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories. The cold war is over. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically. But the world is ever more interdependent. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together, confidence is the key to prosperity, and insecurity spreads like contagion. The key today is stability and order. The threat is chaos and disorder—and there are two begetters of chaos: tyrannical regimes with weapons of mass destruction and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam.
Let me tell the House what I know. I know that there are some countries, or groups within countries, that are proliferating and trading in weapons of mass destruction—especially nuclear weapons technology. I know that there are companies, individuals, and some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, who are selling their equipment or expertise. I know that there are several countries—mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes—that are desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of those countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing.
We all know that there are terrorist groups now operating in most major countries. Just in the past two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands of people—quite apart from 11 September—have died in them. The purpose of that terrorism is not just in the violent act; it is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, and to produce consequences of a calamitous nature. Round the world, it now poisons the chances of political progress—in the middle east, in Kashmir, in Chechnya and in Africa. The removal of the Taliban—yes—dealt it a blow. But it has not gone away.
Those two threats have, of course, different motives and different origins, but they share one basic common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life. At the moment, I accept fully that the association between the two is loose—but it is hardening. The possibility of the two coming together—of terrorist groups in possession of weapons of mass destruction or even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb—-is now, in my judgment, a real and present danger to Britain and its national security.
Mr. Robert Key: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that thousands of scientists and civil

769
servants in this country—hundreds of them my constituents at Porton Down—have been warning of those threats for some years and are hugely relieved that he and his Government are taking this seriously? They will support him, as will I.
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What could be more calculated to act as a recruiting sergeant for a young generation throughout the Islamic and Arab world than putting 600 cruise missiles—or whatever it is—on to Baghdad and Iraq?
The Prime Minister: Let me come to that very point.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: Let me deal with this point first. Let us recall: what was shocking about 11 September was not just the slaughter of innocent people but the knowledge that, had the terrorists been able, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000—and the more the suffering, the greater their rejoicing. I say to my hon. Friend that America did not attack the al-Qaeda terrorist group; the al-Qaeda terrorist group attacked America. They did not need to be recruited; they were there already. Unless we take action against them, they will grow. That is why we should act.
Lynne Jones: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: In a moment
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: Just give me a moment and then I will give way.
Let me explain the dangers. Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate 0.25 sq km of a city. Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of anthrax, and 10,000 litres are unaccounted for. What happened on 11 September has changed the psychology of America—that is clear—but it should have changed the psychology of the world.
Of course, Iraq is not the only part of this threat. I have never said that it was. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously. Faced with it, the world should unite. The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I simply say to the House that to break it now, and to will the ends but not the means, would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue. To fall back into the lassitude of the past 12 years; to talk, to discuss, to debate but never to act; to declare our will but not to enforce it; and to continue with strong language but with weak intentions—that is the worst course imaginable. If we pursue that course, when the threat
770
returns, from Iraq or elsewhere, who will then believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? It was interesting today that some of the strongest statements of support for allied forces came from near to North Korea—from Japan and South Korea.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The Prime Minister is making a powerful and compelling speech. Will he tell the House whether there has been any identification of the countries that have supplied these terrible biological materials—such as anthrax and toxins—to Iraq? Should those countries not be identified—named by the Prime Minister and condemned?
The Prime Minister: Much of the production is in Iraq itself.
Lynne Jones: A moment ago my right hon. Friend said that the association between Iraq and terrorists is loose, yet last night President Bush told the American people that Iraq has aided, trained and harboured terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaeda. Was President Bush accurate in what he told the American people?
The Prime Minister: First, let me apologise to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor). He was making a point in my favour and I failed to spot it.
Secondly, to my hon. Friend, yes, I do support what the President said. Do not be in any doubt at all—Iraq has been supporting terrorist groups. For example, Iraq is offering money to the families of suicide bombers whose purpose is to wreck any chance of progress in the middle east. Although I said that the associations were loose, they are hardening. I do believe that, and I believe that the two threats coming together are the dangers that we face in our world.
I also say this: there will be in any event no sound future for the United Nations—no guarantee against the repetition of these events—unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda that we can unite upon. What we have witnessed is indeed the consequence of Europe and the United States dividing from each other. Not all of Europe—Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark and Portugal have strongly supported us—and not a majority of Europe if we include, as we should, Europe's new members who will accede next year, all 10 of whom have been in strong support of the position of this Government. But the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division that there is.
I want to deal with that in this way. At the heart of that division is the concept of a world in which there are rival poles of power, with the US and its allies in one corner and France, Germany, Russia and their allies in the other. I do not believe that all those nations intend such an outcome, but that is what now faces us. I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous for our world. I know why it arises. There is resentment of US predominance. There is fear of US unilateralism. People ask, "Do the US listen to us and our preoccupations?" And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11 September. I know all this. But the way to deal with it is

771
not rivalry, but partnership. Partners are not servants, but neither are they rivals. What Europe should have said last September to the United States is this: with one voice it should have said, "We understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and we will help you meet it. We will mean what we say in any UN resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarm voluntarily. However, in return"—Europe should have said—"we ask two things of you: that the US should indeed choose the UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance of restarting the middle east peace process, which we will hold you to."

That would have been the right and responsible way for Europe and America to treat each other as partners, and it is a tragedy that it has not happened. I do not believe that there is any other issue with the same power to reunite the world community than progress on the issues of Israel and Palestine. Of course, there is cynicism about recent announcements, but the United States is now committed—and, I believe genuinely—to the road map for peace designed in consultation with the UN. It will now be presented to the parties as Abu Mazen is confirmed in office, hopefully today, as Palestinian Prime Minister. All of us are now signed up to this vision: a state of Israel, recognised and accepted by all the world, and a viable Palestinian state. That is what this country should strive for, and we will.
And that should be part of a larger global agenda: on poverty and sustainable development; on democracy and human rights; and on the good governance of nations.
Mike Gapes: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: In a moment.
That is why what happens after any conflict in Iraq is of such critical significance. Here again there is a chance to unify around the United Nations. There should be a new United Nations resolution following any conflict providing not only for humanitarian help, but for the administration and governance of Iraq. That must be done under proper UN authorisation.
Mike Gapes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I endorse very strongly what he said about the need for the road map of progress in the middle east. However, the problem is that there is a perception that we are engaged in a bilateral action with just the United States. Could he respond to my constituents and others who believe that, and point out how strong is the support for action at this moment to rid the Iraqi people of the oppressive Saddam regime?
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly do so. The UN resolution that should provide for the proper governance of Iraq should also protect totally the territorial integrity of Iraq. And this point is also important: that the oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: In a moment.
772
Let the future Government of Iraq be given the chance to begin the process of uniting the nation's disparate groups, on a democratic basis—
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue for a moment, I shall come back to him.
The process must begin on a democratic basis, respecting human rights, as, indeed, the fledgling democracy in northern Iraq—protected from Saddam for 12 years by British and American pilots in the no-fly zone—has done remarkably. The moment that a new Government are in place, committed to disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, is the point in time when sanctions should be lifted, and can be lifted, in their entirety for the people of Iraq.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. Can he tell the House what guarantees he has had from the Turkish Government and the Turkish military that they will not use the opportunity of a war in the south to invade the northern part of Iraq and destroy the Kurdish autonomous region and the demands of Kurdish people for their own self-determination? There is a very serious fear that the Turkish army has always wanted to destroy any vestige of Kurdish autonomy.
The Prime Minister: Turkey has given that commitment. I have spoken to the Turkish Government, as have the President of the United States and many others. I have to say to my hon. Friend that it is clear from the conversations that I have had with people in that Kurdish autonomous zone that what they really fear above all else is the prospect of Saddam remaining in power, emboldened because we have failed to remove him.
I have never put the justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441—that is our legal base. But it is the reason why I say frankly that if we do act, we should do so with a clear conscience and a strong heart. I accept fully that those who are opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a potentially wealthy country which in 1979, the year before Saddam came to power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia. Today it is impoverished, with 60 per cent. of its population dependent on food aid. Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine. Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are living in exile.
The brutality of the repression—the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty—is well documented. Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, their tongue was cut out, and they were mutilated and left to bleed to death as a warning to others. I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam. "But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear." And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine what it must be like not to be

773
able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place, and the blunt truth is that that is how they will continue to be forced to live.
We must face the consequences of the actions that we advocate. For those of us who support the course that I am advocating, that means all the dangers of war. But for others who are opposed to this course, it means—let us be clear—that for the Iraqi people, whose only true hope lies in the removal of Saddam, the darkness will simply close back over. They will be left under his rule, without any possibility of liberation—not from us, not from anyone.
Glenda Jackson: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: In a moment. This is the choice before us. If this House now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning—this is what it means—what then? What will Saddam feel? He will feel strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states that tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, take from that? They will take it that the will confronting them is decaying and feeble. Who will celebrate and who will weep if we take our troops back from the Gulf now?
Glenda Jackson: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry. If our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our retreat make it multilateralist, or will it not rather be the biggest impulse to unilateralism that we could possibly imagine? What then of the United Nations, and of the future of Iraq and the middle east peace process, devoid of our influence and stripped of our insistence?
The House wanted this discussion before conflict. That was a legitimate demand. It has it, and these are the choices. In this dilemma, no choice is perfect, no choice is ideal, but on this decision hangs the fate of many things: of whether we summon the strength to recognise the global challenge of the 21st century, and meet it; of the Iraqi people, groaning under years of dictatorship; of our armed forces, brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, and whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear; of the institutions and alliances that will shape our world for years to come. To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard all that we hold dearest. To turn the United Nations back into a talking shop; to stifle the first steps of progress in the middle east; to leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events over which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better; to tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination, Britain faltered: I will not be party to such a course.
This is not the time to falter. This is the time not just for this Government—or, indeed, for this Prime Minister—but for this House to give a lead: to show that
774
we will stand up for what we know to be right; to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk; to show, at the moment of decision, that we have the courage to do the right thing.
1.23 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The House and the whole country rightly recognise that we are soon likely to be at war. It is a solemn moment in the life of our nation, and our first thoughts and prayers today must be with our troops and their families as they prepare for action. The Opposition recognise the heavy responsibility that the Prime Minister and the Government have to bear. I remind the House that the Prime Minister's decision comes at the end of 12 years of what was too often indecision by the international community.
I make it clear from the outset that the official Opposition will vote tonight in the same Lobby as the Government. In saying that, I recognise that there are honestly felt and genuinely carried differences of view on both sides of the House about further military action in Iraq. I respect those unreservedly, wherever they are held, and I recognise that they reflect strong differences of view that are felt throughout the country. However, given the differences and the difficulties that they have posed for the Government in general and for the Prime Minister in particular, I say frankly to the House that the official Opposition could somehow have sought to manoeuvre themselves into the No Lobby tonight. After all, we have argued consistently that Ministers have failed to convince the public of their case, and we have sought to hold the Government to account in the House for their mistakes. In particular, we have also pointed out the failures with regard to the humanitarian consequences of war. However, I believe that when the Government do the right thing by the British people, they deserve the support of the House, and particularly of the main Opposition.
Certain issues need to be taken head-on today. The idea that this action would become a recruiting sergeant for others to come to the colours of those who are "anti" any nation in the west is, I am afraid, nonsense. The biggest recruiting sergeant of all has been indecision, and the failure to take action to show that such resolve matters.
There are well-held views that I have respect for, but as I said, we could have sought a way to do something that would have damaged the Government. I understand that the Liberal Democrats will do just that tonight. They are, of course, entitled to their view, but I simply say this to them. One can argue that further military action by our armed forces would be illegal, or that it should be supported. But a political party surely cannot simultaneously argue that military action is illegal but should none the less be supported somehow. Yet that, we gather, is what the Liberal Democrats plan to put as their main case tonight. What is clear is that one cannot have it both ways; one has to make a decision and lead.
We are voting tonight in support of the motion not because we endorse every detail of the Prime Minister's handling of the matter, certainly not because we are eager for conflict—as the House knows, I served in the

775
armed forces, and I have some knowledge of the horror of the aftermath of conflict—and not just because we want to show our support for our troops. That said, I believe firmly that, as the Prime Minister says, they are entitled to our full support today.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who tortures and murders his own people. He poses a threat to the safety and stability of the middle east, and he is in complete breach of his obligations to the United Nations and to the international community. However, the main reason why we will be voting for the motion is that it is in the British national interest. Saddam Hussein has the means, the mentality and the motive to pose a direct threat to our national security. That is why we will be voting tonight to do the right thing by our troops and the British people.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, just as I was in the Prime Minister's speech. However, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, between 1986 and 1991, 12 early-day motions were tabled in this House calling for the abandonment of the supply of arms to Iraq and condemning what happened at Halabja, and that all the 60 Members who signed at least one of those motions—they included me—were Labour Members? Not a single Tory name was included. However, not even the Prime Minister signed any of them; indeed, only two members of the current Cabinet did so. Yet now they are most strident. I think that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for supporting the Government's motion tonight, and I expect that he will be in the Lobby in support.
The Prime Minister rightly pointed out that Saddam Hussein has lied to the UN for 12 years. Even now, we do not know the full extent of his arsenal, or of his facilities to develop weapons. He has the means, and as has already been said, it should be evident to everyone that he remains in breach of the obligations under 1441. He has absolutely no intention whatsoever of relinquishing the weapons that he has developed: the remaining al-Samoud 2 missiles; the Scud-B warheads; the R-400 bombs; and the tonnes of VX, anthrax, Sarin, soman, botulinum toxin, mustard gas and other deadly weapons, viruses and agents identified by Hans Blix in his report, which I recommend that every Member of this House read before passing judgment.
Saddam Hussein has not only the means but the mentality. To date, his main victims have been his own people. The tale of his rule of lawlessness is a litany of horror. Dissident women are raped, children are tortured and prisoners are trapped in steel boxes until they confess or die. As we have heard, chemical weapons have been used against the Kurds, and Shi'a villages razed to the ground. As the Prime Minister said, when Saddam Hussein came to power, Iraq was a wealthy country: today, it is impoverished.
If that was not enough, Saddam Hussein is also the man who has waged war against Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Here in Britain, where we are at
776
liberty to protest against any military action, we should recall—as the Prime Minister said—that such liberty does not exist for those who live in Iraq and whose tongues are ripped out if they dare to question Saddam Hussein.
When I had the privilege of visiting our troops in Kuwait, I also had the opportunity of talking to the families of 600 Kuwaiti prisoners of war, taken by Saddam Hussein at the time of the last Gulf war and still missing. I recall talking to one old man whose last sight of his son was when he was being taken away by Iraqi soldiers. He has never been returned. There is no documentary evidence of the existence of those 600 people. Inspection of the prisons is not allowed. At no time has Saddam Hussein agreed to independent inspectors telling their families what happened to them.
Some may say that 600 people do not matter in the great scheme of things, but the equivalent percentage in our population would mean that 60,000 British people were missing. How many Members would not consider that a matter of massive importance and a sign of the distinct distastefulness of that regime?
There is a huge and powerful argument to act. Saddam Hussein is in breach not only on weapons but also in personal terms for those who live and have to suffer under his regime. It is well worth meeting the dissidents and I advise all Members to do so. Their tales about what has happened to their families are harrowing. One man told me that he last saw his brother 18 years ago as he was being taken away for a minor traffic offence. His brother has never been seen again. I promise that no one will shed a tear over the departure of Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein has the means and the mentality. He also has the motive. We in Britain helped to expel him from Kuwait. For more than 10 years, British forces have been enforcing the no-fly zones. We are a crucial part of the coalition that seeks to force UN resolutions upon his regime. The threat that his arsenal poses to British citizens at home and abroad cannot simply be contained. Whether in the hands of his regime or in the hands of the terrorists to whom he would give his weapons, they pose a clear danger to British citizens. To those who doubt that, I point out that only the other day Saddam said that he would strike anywhere,
"by land, sea or sky".
Those who believe otherwise are living in cloud cuckoo land. The reality for them, as for others, is that Britain and its citizens are as much prime targets as anybody in the world.
As the Prime Minister said, Saddam's last hope lies in his ability to string along the international community for as long as possible. People who say that another month and a half would be all right and that it is only a small delay should realise that, in another month and a half, any military action will become nigh on impossible. The delay would not be for a month and a half but would have to last until the autumn, and in the meantime, Saddam's prevarications and games will split the international community and wreck the UN. The blame for further military action lies squarely in the hands of Saddam Hussein. It is his regime only that has made further military action necessary, yet, even now, he has the power to ensure that such action does not take place.

777
It would be wrong for us not to acknowledge the consequences of that military action. I am sad to say that the Iraqi people may have to suffer yet again, but I hope and believe that, in the decision that the Prime Minister has to take, the suffering of the Iraqi people will be short-lived and that the ultimate end will be peace and security in their country.
That is why the Opposition have constantly urged the Government to set out their plans for humanitarian assistance. Our view of the lack of preparedness was endorsed by the Select Committee on International Development, which warned last week of concern about the "lack of leadership" in co-ordinating the planning and preparation of the humanitarian response to possible military action. The Committee also recommended that the Department for International Development
"immediately issues a statement outlining its basic humanitarian contingency plans".
We welcome the written statement made last week by the Secretary of State for International Development, but it did not explain what is being done to improve co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence and DFID. It did not establish whether DFID would set up a mechanism to co-ordinate the UK humanitarian response. It did not set out what will replace the oil-for-food programme, which feeds up to 60 per cent. of the Iraqi population. It did not spell out DFID's plans in the event of Saddam Hussein unleashing any of his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons on his own people. Nor did it give details of how to cope with the flight of refugees. Those are pressing questions, as it is estimated that up to a million people may seek refuge on the borders. The questions need to be answered.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: If those preparations are so ill advanced, why is the right hon. Gentleman so keen on going to war?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman betrays a certain ignorance. The reality is that we need to deal with Saddam Hussein regardless of those arrangements. We have rightly urged the Government that arrangements must be made and that there must be a way of dealing with the emergency requirements. I believe that that can take place and I hope that, in their response to the debate, the Government will explain how those matters will be dealt with in the course of events.
David Burnside: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I will give way in a second.
We note the renewed commitment of the Secretary of State for International Development to her position, but we remind her of its current significance to the Iraqi people and that her recent detachment and indecision have done them and the House a disservice.
We also accept that the prospect of further military action against Iraq causes widespread anxiety among Muslims throughout the Islamic world and in Britain. It is vital to recall that the majority of Saddam Hussein's
778
victims have been Muslims; their number stretches to the appalling figure of more than 1 million. Two Muslim countries—Iran and Kuwait—were invaded by Saddam and Muslim countries bordering Iraq would not mourn his passing.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about sentiments in the Muslim world, is he in favour of enforcing the outstanding resolutions on Kashmir?
Mr. Duncan Smith: Decisions on Kashmir have little to do with what is happening in this case. We want all UN resolutions to be enforced, but these circumstances are particular and peculiar. They relate to the UN resolution under chapter VII, which shows that Iraq is a direct threat to the United Nations and all who inhabit the countries around it. That is the point. It is intriguing that the hon. Gentleman and others hang on to those other resolutions as though that justifies taking no action in this case. It is right to act and we should deal with this matter right now.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to apologise to the Muslim world for supporting Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons against his people and killed 1 million Muslims?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I have never supported Saddam Hussein at any time when he has used any weapon, particularly not chemical weapons. What happened in Halabja was an outrage and should be condemned by everyone regardless of their views.
We remain committed to the right of Israel to exist behind secure and legally accepted borders, as the Prime Minister said, with binding guarantees of peace from its Arab neighbours, but hon. Members on both sides of the House are equally committed to the cessation of settlement activity and the establishment of a Palestinian state on the west bank. We are firmly of the view that Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories and believe that now is the time for the Government fully to embrace the process, as the Prime Minister laid it out.
There are welcome indications that the road map will be published soon, paving the way for a full and comprehensive settlement, and we realise that the Muslim world is looking to the implementation of that road map as a way forward that is coherent and consistent. It is imperative to all those committed to that road map now to prove their commitment to it during the months ahead, and I am assured that the Prime Minister will do just that.
The House knows that I have long held the view that Saddam Hussein is a threat to our national interest and that, if decisive action had been taken earlier, we would not now stand on the verge of war, but all that lies in the past, for we are entering the final phase of a 12-year history in relation to Iraq. The 17 resolutions passed since then have put Saddam Hussein under 27 separate obligations, and resolution 1441 gave him a final opportunity to meet those obligations or face the serious consequences named. More than 18 weeks have passed since he was given that final choice. More than 600 weeks have passed since he was given the first chance when the UN first entered Baghdad.

779
I acknowledge that other hon. Members oppose further military action and some have general doubts and concerns, but I genuinely urge them all to consider the consequences of turning back now. In turning back, we would widen splits in NATO, stir up isolationism in the United States and abandon our allies in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Australia and many countries in eastern Europe, where people know what it is like to live under tyranny and have supported the actions of the Prime Minister and others.
Above all, we would strip the UN of its authority, betray our own national interest and send an unmistakable signal to Saddam Hussein and every rogue state and terrorist group in the world that we lack the will to enforce just demands against those tyrannical regimes. That is the road that France would have us go down, and we must not take that road.
There are matters at stake that rise above party politics. It is the duty of the Government to act in the national interest, and it is the duty of the Opposition to support them when they do so. The Prime Minister is acting in the national interest today. That is why he is entitled to our support in doing the right thing. This is a critical moment for the House. If we vote to give Saddam yet another chance, the moment will pass, our concentration will falter, our energy and our focus will disperse and our nerve will fail, with disastrous consequences for us all.
We cannot funk this challenge and leave it for future generations. We cannot heap up the problems at their door and leave them to face the consequences. We must not deprive our troops of the support that they fully deserve from all quarters of the House. We must shoulder our responsibilities and seize that moment. If we give way now, our failure will be used as a club against us in years to come. We should stand firm, act and show that we have learned from past failures. For the sake of our security and that of the wider world, I urge the House to vote for the motion tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call a Back Bencher to move the amendment. I point out to the House that there is an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches and that, on a day like this, it will not be appreciated if hon. Members approach the Chair—whether I or one of my Deputies is in the Chair—regarding when or whether they will speak. I call Peter Kilfoyle to move the amendment.
1.44 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I beg to move, To leave out from "1441" in line 2, to "in" in line 21 and insert—
"believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but, in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides."
I hope to move the amendment without the rancour and personalisation that has sometimes characterised the debate on the fringes surrounding this issue because I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that this is
780
one of those issues that come along once in a generation. Indeed, it is an issue that transcends many normal ties of party, friendship and even family because the outcomes of the decisions that will be taken here and elsewhere will be so tremendous. As the Prime Minister says, those decisions will set the tone for a very long time to come.
It would be remiss of me if I did not pick up a number of the points that the Prime Minister made in his speech if only to point out that he is rightly credited with being a man of conviction, but so are other right hon. and hon. Members, and with their convictions and their examination of the facts as opposed to the collection of assertions, value judgments and interpretations that seem to make up the Government's case, they seem to draw very different conclusions.
For example, the Prime Minister made much of events back in 1938. Of course, he said that he was not suggesting that anyone was an appeaser. The only person whom I have ever appeased in my life is Mrs. Kilfoyle—not very successfully, I hasten to add. The thing that struck me, of course, was that I do not recall that the League of Nations had inspectors in Germany dismantling the panzers in 1938, as we have inspectors dismantling the weapons in Iraq today.
The Prime Minister rightly made much of the dangers of terrorism, but does that not illustrate the idiocy of fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time against the wrong enemy? We are having a 19th-century gunboat war in the Gulf when the real dangers of terrorism should be isolated and dealt with as the first priority. I accept the argument that those things run concurrently, but I do not accept the linkage that is often made. The Prime Minister said that the linkage is loose, but that it is hardening. He will have privileged information that we are not privy to, but nevertheless the one thing that I can guarantee will harden that linkage is the manifest failure to deal with the underlying causes that have given us the terrorism and the situation in Iraq in the first place.
I note the fact that the Government motion refers to the road map—a road map that was torpedoed within 24 hours by Prime Minister Sharon's insistence that he would not accept a Palestinian state.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kilfoyle: No. I am sorry, but I have only eight minutes.
The fourth issue that struck me was the Prime Minister's comment that the US had a preoccupation after 9/11, which changed its world view. The US may have that preoccupation, but the Administration had set out their view long in advance of being an Administration. I refer the Prime Minister to the parliamentary record, which will show references to the letter written to President Clinton in 1998 by the Project for a New American Century in which it set out very clearly what its intentions were and urged President Clinton to mount an attack on Iraq.
Those of us who have put our names to the amendment have done so not with any sense of mischief making or because we do not recognise that those on the other side of the argument hold very sincere views, but because we are conscious of our interpretation of what

781
is said. My own interpretation is that this act would be illegal, immoral and illogical. The Government will tell us that the selected evidence from the Attorney-General that has been published has satisfied the Government and ought to satisfy the House, but I prefer to take the views of the many eminent jurists who have reached very different conclusions. And yes, I also accept the view set out by Kofi Annan that the international community needed a second resolution. I am satisfied that, without that second resolution, we are getting into extremely dangerous ground and setting extremely dangerous precedents.
It is immoral because in waging this war—we should think about what the term awe and shock implies—the United States is aiming to put in 10 times as many missiles and precision bombs in the first 48 hours as it committed in the whole of the last Gulf war. That is against a country that has been decimated year after year. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the fact is that an already destroyed, effectively third-world country will be further damaged. It seems to me grossly immoral to talk about the reconstruction of damage that one has wilfully caused.
It is illogical because, as I intimated a moment ago, we are going after the wrong enemy at the wrong time and in the wrong way. I do not believe that Saddam Hussein has been anything other than contained. I do not believe any assertion that is made without the evidence being provided that there are linkages between him and al-Qaeda. I do not believe that he has had the wherewithal, or would have it, to be able to attack the United Kingdom directly. There has been an awful lot of scaremongering that does not add to the Government's case.
I am conscious that I am running out of time. I have mentioned once before in the House the advice that was given by Archidamus to his Spartan allies. He said that slow and cautious may be seen as wise and sensible. Many years later, the Athenian superpower, in its impatience, found out that he was absolutely right: impatience had imperilled it and led to its destruction. I say earnestly and honestly to the Government: their impatience will reap a whirlwind, which will affect us and ours for generations to come. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
1.51 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Following the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), I acknowledge with thanks, through him, to the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and to all those concerned in all parties in this House, that an honest option has been discussed and agreed in a cross-party way. In the previous debate, the right hon. Gentleman made a powerful contribution to that cross-party basis, which needs to be heard and discussed rationally today.
Although it is sad that we have lost a very good Leader of the House, there is no doubt, having listened to his brilliant resignation statement in the House yesterday evening, that those of us who are supporting the cross-party amendment in the Lobby tonight, as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will do, have gained
782
a powerful additional advocate for the case that we are sincerely making. Given the events of the past few days and the last few hours, there has been much understandable comment about the drama of the situation. In the next few hours and days, however, we are liable to see even more drama and trauma when what appears to be the inevitable military conflict against Iraq begins. Let us hope, as we all agree, that the conflict can be conducted as swiftly as possible, with the minimum of casualties: first and foremost, clearly, among our forces, but equally among innocent Iraqi civilians, with whom none of us has ever had any quarrel and who have suffered terribly under the despicable regime of Saddam Hussein.
As for those of us who remain unpersuaded as to the case at this time for war, and who have questioned whether British forces should be sent into a war without a further UN mandate having been achieved, there stands no contradiction—as the former Leader of the House and former Foreign Secretary put succinctly last night-between giving voice to that legitimate anxiety and, at the same time, as and when exchange of fire commences, looking to the rest of the country, and to all of us in the House, to give full moral support to our forces. They do not take the civilian political decision in relation to what they are being asked to do, but they must carry out that task in all our names. The shadow Leader of the House expressed that well last night, but, equally, Church leaders, who earlier expressed profound opposition to war in this way at this time, are making the same point. If, later tonight, at the conclusion of this debate, under the democratic procedures that we enjoy in this House, that is to be the decision, it is important that the whole House unites in that genuine support.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Can I therefore take it that if the amendment is lost the right hon. Gentleman will vote for the substantive motion?
Mr. Kennedy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but the answer is no. I will not do so because our consistent line is that we do not believe that a case for war has been established under these procedures in the absence of a second UN Security Council resolution. That is our position—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) should not make such a remark. She will withdraw it.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I withdraw that remark.
Hon. Members: Let's hear it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. All the House has to know is that I heard the remark.
Mr. Kennedy: I will see you afterwards, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] I assure the House that a Glaswegian Speaker knows whether that is said as a threat or affectionately.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman failed to answer my hon. Friend the Member for South

783
Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). Will he clear up an inconsistency? On the one hand, he said that he wanted to support the troops, while, on the other, he said that he would not support the main motion. He has a split in his party. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has said that
"legally, no new resolution is required for the use of force to implement resolution 687."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 43.]
Lord Goodhart, however, has said that the existing resolutions on the Iraqi situation, particularly 1441, do not authorise armed intervention without a second resolution. Which position is that of the Liberal Democrats, and why do they travel across two separate positions?
Mr. Kennedy: First, my noble Friend Lord Goodhart spoke with great authority as an international lawyer in the House of Lords debate last night. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) spoke on that issue in September, before resolution 1441 was passed, and 1441 has moved the position on. I want to return to the issue of legality in a moment.
The Leader of the Conservative party chose to open his contribution with one or two remarks about me and my hon. Friends, which is perfectly fair in this debate. In relation to consistency, however, let us remind ourselves about the position of the Conservative party, for instance, on weapons of mass destruction. After Saddam Hussein used such weapons in 1988, the Conservative Government continued to sell arms to Iraq. They provided him with anthrax and other chemical weapons, and they approved the construction of dual-use factories in Iraq. When it comes to humanitarian reasons—
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Gentleman is in the act of misleading the House, given that the Scott inquiry made it clear that the Conservative Government did not sell any chemical weapons to the Iraqi regime during the 1980s, how can one make him withdraw his remark?
Mr. Speaker: I can help the hon. Gentleman. These are matters for debate, and it may be that some hon. Member may be able to rebut the right hon. Gentleman's case.
Mr. Kennedy: Continuing—
Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: No—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to give way.
Mr. Kennedy: To be fair, I am in the process of replying to the right hon. Gentleman's party leader.
If Conservatives speak about the need for consistency on the international stage with respect to humanitarianism, as several have over many months,
784
why did they not support the humanitarian intervention in Sierra Leone or the use of ground troops in Kosovo? Why did they veto 11 United Nations resolutions relating to apartheid South Africa when they were in government?
Mr. Lilley rose—
Hon. Members: Give way!
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Kennedy: We do not need moral lectures from the Conservative party—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard. Every other party leader has been listened to properly and he should get that courtesy too.
Mr. Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My concluding remark to the leader of the Conservative party is that if I saw the names of three former Cabinet Ministers who served in the last Conservative Government listed in support of the amendment on the Order Paper, I might try to sort out my own party before I started lecturing other party leaders.
Mr. Lilley rose—
Hon. Members: Give way!
Mr. Kennedy: There are legitimate questions that need to be raised—
Mr. Andrew Mackay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the leader of the Liberal Democrats not to give way to a right hon. Member who was Minister when the accusations were made?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman should know better.
Mr. Kennedy: I do not think that the Conservatives like the more extensive answer that their leader just received.
As the activity of our armed forces progresses, legitimate questions—
Mr. Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: No, I am not giving way—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is disrupting the speech. Take my word for it: the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) is not going to give way.
Mr. Kennedy: When it comes to the further engagement of our armed forces, it would be proper for hon. Members to raise legitimate questions, as many have in all parties, on the supply and suitability of

785
equipment, the eventual war aims, the participation of British forces and the bombs that might be used. It would be right to ask whether we would desist from resorting to cluster bombs or depleted uranium. It would also be right to ask about the longer term role that we hope British forces will play, if the war ensues, in the humanitarian and reconstruction roles on which they have such a distinguished track record. That is why we have supported the UN route, and it will be a source of great regret if the motion is passed because British troops will be put into action.
There are, however, two specific things on which the Government are right to expect and deserve significant credit over the course of the past six months. The first is that they were instrumental in persuading a reluctant United States to go down the UN route. Everything that I have been party to and privy to over the past six months persuades me that that is the case. The second is that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other senior colleagues have been consistent in emphasising to the Americans and others the primary need to re-establish a meaningful middle east peace process.
Jim Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: I shall just finish this point and then of course I shall give way.
Michael Fabricant: Oh! You will not give way to the person you accused. What a disgrace!
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must calm himself.
Mr. Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What makes this week so sadly ironic is that the very moment when the Bush Administration at last embraced the fresh urgency over the middle east peace process was the very time when they chose to abandon the UN route. Let us face it, having taken the decision to abandon the UN route, the sudden embrace of the middle east peace process with refreshed urgency arouses the suspicion among many that the two are not unconnected and, perhaps, that if they are willing to do one, they may be willing to abandon the other or to go lukewarm at a later stage.
Jim Knight rose—
Mr. Robert Jackson rose—
Mr. Kennedy: I shall give way to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) first.
Jim Knight: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, although it is tempting to ask why he gives way to some hon. Members and not to others. He pays tribute—rightly, in my view—to the Prime Minister for engaging with the United States, but he also believes that it is right to release them into isolationism, which makes progress on the middle east settlement less likely. Why is that?
Mr. Kennedy: I do not accept that thesis, and I shall explain exactly why. It is best summed up by the words
786
used by Kofi Annan over the past few days. In the absence of a further explicit United Nations resolution, which is obviously the position in which we find ourselves, he remarked last week:
"The legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired. If the USA and others go outside the Council and take military action it will be not be in conformity with the Charter."
That raises very serious questions on which we should reflect. Only yesterday afternoon, the Secretary-General said:
"If the action is to take place without the support of the Council, its legitimacy will be questioned"
and the international support will be diminished. We are right to reflect on those considerations.
Mr. Robert Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question asked by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). Having quite correctly praised the Prime Minister and the Government for the influence that they have exerted on the middle east peace process, will he please explain how his vote tonight will contribute to maximising British influence on that process?
Mr. Kennedy: I think that I have responded to that. It is best for the process to proceed through the auspices of the United Nations itself. If we undermine the legitimacy and authority of the United Nations, that cannot assist us in re-establishing the middle east peace process.
Although I have never been persuaded of a causal link between the Iraqi regime, al-Qaeda and 11 September, I believe that the impact of war in these circumstances is bound to weaken the international coalition against terrorism itself, and not least in the Muslim world. The big fear that many of us have is that the action will simply breed further generations of suicide bombers.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the reason for the failure of the United Nations and diplomacy is not the threat posed by the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese and the international community, but the American Administration of hawks and oil merchants who have no intention of finding—and no reason to find—a peaceful resolution to the crisis?
Mr. Kennedy: There is great anxiety in the country, especially about the more hawkish elements of the Bush Administration. If the people of this country were given the choice of whom they would prefer to vest their trust in, they would undoubtedly go for the present Secretary-General of the United Nations rather than the President of the United States.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: No. I shall not give way now; I want to make progress.
Last night, the Foreign Secretary told the House that everyone knew what they were signing up to on

787
resolution 1441. However, we should consider what the British and American ambassadors said when they secured that unanimity. The British ambassador said:
"Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the USA of the text we have just adopted, there is no 'automaticity' in this resolution."
The American ambassador—his counterpart—said:
"If there is a further Iraqi breach…the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required".
With China, France and Russia, as permanent members, not acknowledging that an automatic trigger has taken place, it is clear that people agreed to resolution 1441 on different bases. The historians will have to judge why that came about, but that is the position in which we find ourselves. To circumvent the continuing legitimate task of the weapons inspectors, who say, and who have been instructed unanimously in the name of the international community, our own countries included, that they should be given extra space, to cut that process short, will cause all the international disorder, tension and potential chaos that we are warning against and have been for quite some time.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: No, I am about to conclude.
Before launching an almighty assault upon Iraq, is it not better to pursue the course of disarmament on the ground in the presence of weapons inspectors? No matter how sophisticated modern technology, even compared with at the time of the last Gulf war, is it not more precise to have weapons dismantled in the presence of inspectors rather than so-called precision bombing trying to take them out?
There is huge public anxiety in Britain. That is the mark of a fundamentally decent society. All of us, whatever our views, whatever our parties, know that the kind of people contacting us are very different from many of those with whom we deal regularly. They are the kind of people who say, "I have never contacted a Member of Parliament before," or "I've never been politically active before." They are the kind of people who have never gone on a march or attended a vigil before. Another significant point is that, whether or not they agree with the Prime Minister, only a tiny fraction ever call into question his sincerity in this matter. I have never done so and I do not do so today. But much as they detest Saddam's brutality, they are not persuaded that the case for war has been adequately made at this point, they are worried about the new doctrine of regime change, they are wary of the Bush Administration's motives, and they do not like to see Britain separated from its natural international allies.
The cross-party amendment is the correct amendment. It is tabled at the correct time, and, if passed, would send the correct signal. It is on those grounds that the Liberal Democrats will vote for it tonight.
2.12 pm
Alan Howarth: Anyone who has studied the document "Unresolved Disarmament Issues" provided by Hans Blix and the inspectors to the
788
United Nations on 6 March cannot be in any doubt that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. It sets out the history of his deception and of his continuous and unrelenting attempts to build his arsenal. The requirement that must be placed upon him if he is to come into compliance is set out, as, glaringly, is the huge gulf between his compliance so far and what should be required. The document is scrupulous, sober and chilling. We cannot doubt that Saddam needs to disarm, but that he is failing to comply immediately, unconditionally and actively.
There is, of course, much disagreement about the tactics to bring him into compliance. The French, the Germans and the Russians have taken the view that a further series of inspections extending into the months ahead would be a satisfactory and plausible means to make the progress that is needed.
Lynne Jones: In that document, does not Hans Blix say:
"While a precise description of the disarmament issue to be resolved is generally not too difficult, an exhaustive definition of the ways in which it may be solved is often hard."
He was asking for more time—months, not years, not days. Surely he understands his own document.
Alan Howarth: Hans Blix spells out the extraordinary complexity and difficulty of his task in 173 pages, and anyone who wants to make a judgment with any confidence needs to study that document. My hon. Friend has done so, as have I, and we disagree in our view of it.
Saddam has strung us along over many years and it is a sentimental view that says that a tyrant who has maintained his regime on the basis of violence is likely to capitulate to non-violent means. The position taken by France is unrealistic because we know for sure that Saddam Hussein is adept at spinning out the whole process, and he will never create a situation in which it will be possible for Hans Blix to come to the United Nations and say, "The process has failed; it has run into the sands." It was only on that basis that France said that it would be willing to contemplate war. It is also evasive because it is not fair or proper to require the inspectors—the officials, the technicians—to take the decision between peace and war. That decision has to be taken by politicians and in the Security Council.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: In that context, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the suggestion made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats that the inspectors had already achieved much in the past six months, not some prospective achievement, is, on the basis of Mr. Blix's report, frankly laughable?
Alan Howarth: The progress is clearly demonstrated to have been minimal and Hans Blix signifies how much more progress would be needed. There is no reason to suppose that a perpetuation of the process that we have observed over the past six months will lead to the conclusion that is needed.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any offer from France, Russia or China to

789
rotate its forces in the Gulf with the American and British forces in order to continue pressure on Saddam over the months and years ahead of further inspections?
Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted earlier in the debate, it is American and British forces that are there, not French forces or forces of other nationalities from the Security Council.
Those who raise doubts about the course of action that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has concluded is appropriate for us ask whether Saddam is truly a threat to us. I remind the House what was in the dossier published by the Government last October. It is not the dossier that was submitted for a PhD; it is the dossier based on the findings of the intelligence community. Among many other important findings, on page 27 we are advised that if Saddam were to be unchecked he would achieve nuclear capability in a period of not more than five years, and that were he to be supplied from the international black market with fissile material and other components that he would need for the programme it might be in as little time as one or two years.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Alan Howarth: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall continue.
That is an extraordinarily dangerous situation and one upon which we need to act, and with urgency. I agree with the Government that the time that has elapsed since then has been ample to enable Saddam to demonstrate his compliance and it is simply too great a risk—
Mr. Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Alan Howarth: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall continue.
It is said that we are not seriously at threat from global terrorism; that there is not a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Certainly the Spanish and Czech authorities, as was significantly reported in The Observer at the weekend, believe that there have been operational links. The risk is too great to run, because Saddam must be tempted to recruit and equip terrorists from wherever he can find them. There may indeed be a coincidence of interests between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime, notwithstanding the fact that they start from profoundly different ideological positions.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary noted to the House some time ago that Saddam was operating what he described as a permissive regime in Iraq in relation to al-Qaeda. Whatever the case may be about that, it will be compellingly tempting for him to equip home-grown terrorists—terrorists whom he can recruit. Saddam harboured Abu Nidal and offered rewards to suicide bombers in the middle east. He is a sponsor of terrorism and will see the opportunity that is available to him.
790
Objections to the Government's policy include assertions that in the past appalling mistakes were made—that the UK played some part in arming Saddam, that we failed to dispose of him in 1991, and that during the 1990s he was allowed to continue to build weapons of mass destruction. We may note that those errors were made, but they provide no justification for making further errors.
People cast doubt on the motives and character of those who urge that decisive action be taken now by asking who is on whose payroll, what old scores are being settled and what vanities are in play. I remind the House that the freedom of Europe has depended on the generosity of American intervention. It is arguable that if it were not for the Americans coming to our rescue, we would have fallen under Nazi or Stalinist rule. We should pay tribute to and be grateful for the courage of American military personnel then and now.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Alan Howarth: No, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
North Korea might present a threat that is at least as urgent and serious as the threat presented by Iraq. Al-Qaeda and international terrorism are immensely serious threats. But that in no way invalidates the analysis that Iraq is a major threat to us.
People ask how it can be right to go to war to uphold a UN resolution by taking a course of action that risks destroying the UN. Equally, they say, NATO and the EU are damagingly split as a consequence of these events. However, it is arguable that the UN has not been the failure in every respect that some maintain it has been. In recent weeks and months, it has been the cockpit of international diplomacy, and, although it has failed to generate the international consensus that we all wanted so much, its existence provides the legal basis for the action that we need. I support the view of the legality of that action on which the Government base their claim.
Geopolitics has changed since 1945. We moved beyond the cold war, and we moved into a new period especially after 11 September. Now, we have to act with courage and realism in a world of nuclear powers, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, failed states, genocide—[Interruption.]—and all the other dangers that now face us—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. There is far too much conversation in the Chamber.
Alan Howarth: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In a world in which the only global superpower feels vulnerable, the development and advancement of a doctrine of pre-emption are inevitable. This action is self-defence, albeit not as traditionally defined in UN terms. We cannot wait until we are attacked.
2.23 pm
Mr. William Hague: I rise on this occasion to support the speech of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but in opening let me comment on the speech of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

791
If the Iraqi army collapse under fire with the same speed, this will be a very short war—[Laughter.]—and I very much hope that it will be. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) asserted that if his view was defeated, the whole House must rally in unity, but he then informed my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that if the amendment was defeated he would refuse to vote for the Government's substantive motion. On the grounds that he was poleaxed by that intervention, he refused to take an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), despite the normal convention of the House that one gives way to a Member to whom one has directly or indirectly referred. My right hon. Friend would have pointed out that he published all 90,000 export licences to Iraq during the period in question and that the only lethal weapons involved were two hunting rifles. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had given my right hon. Friend the opportunity to do so.
There is a powerful moral case against war—there probably always is—but that was not the case put by the Liberal Democrats today. A more powerful case was put by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in what I thought was a powerful and impressive speech made in the House last night. It was an impressive resignation, for those of us who are students of resignations. On that subject, I am sorry to see that the Secretary of State for International Development is not here—I have never seen a more spectacular failure to resign than hers over the past 24 hours. Last week, after the right hon. Lady said that the Prime Minister was reckless, it was whispered in the corridors that he would take his revenge in due course. I believe that by persuading her to stay in the Cabinet even for this last 24 hours—[Laughter.]—he has now taken his revenge. Even setting aside any issue of honour and consistency, we should at this time have a Cabinet whose members are absolutely, 100 per cent. agreed on the course of action, especially all the Ministers involved in the course of action, which must surely involve the Department for International Development. We look forward to the Prime Minister continuing to take his revenge over the next few days.
The Prime Minister said that analogies with the 30s can be taken too far, and of course they can, yet in some of the opposition to the Government's stance there is a hint of appeasement. Last night, one hon. Member—I think it was a Liberal Democrat—said that we should not take this action because of the danger of terrorist or other retaliatory action against this country. There is a similarity to the phoney war in 1940, when the commanders in charge of the great guns of the Maginot line—we all know who was in charge—refused to fire those guns in case the Germans fired back. But of course the Germans were always going to fire back, and terrorist organisations that have the capability to hit this country will try in any event to hit this country. Our job is to deter them from doing so and remove their means of doing so.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition stood on the right ground when advancing their policy today. Although there are moral arguments on either side, there are powerful moral arguments on the side of military action, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has so graphically demonstrated in recent
792
days—perhaps she will have the chance to do so again in this debate, if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Furthermore, although there are legal arguments on either side, we are not morally obliged to take action—if we were, we would have to take action against many other countries—nor legally obliged to do so, nor legally prevented from doing so. We should take action because it is in the national interest. The Prime Minister was right to make that argument.
Our national interest is wide ranging, given that ours is the fourth largest economy in the world, our trade extends across the world and our citizens may be found throughout the world. However, it is also part of our national interest to act in concert with the United States of America in matters of world peace and stability, and that is what the Government are seeking to do. Every serious attempt to advance peace in the middle east has been advanced under the auspices of the United States of America. Every successful attempt to clean up the Balkans has been undertaken only with the support of the United States of America. Those who will not venture out when a criminal is coming down the street should not complain when someone acts as the policeman. The reason why the USA takes on so many responsibilities in the world is that others shirk those responsibilities, as they have done in the Security Council in the past few weeks.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman's point that the United States is inevitably correct in every action it takes? Does he think that the then UK Government should have supported America in its invasion of Grenada, and that the then Labour Government should have supported the American action in Vietnam?
Mr. Hague: No, I do not think that we should have supported the invasion of Grenada. The hon. Gentleman will remember the sharp differences between the Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, and the US Administration. That shows that it is possible to have a firm alliance with the United States while differing with it from time to time. That is exactly the policy of the Government. Of course, there will be differences from time to time, but when major issues of the stability of the world and the future conduct of world diplomacy are at issue, it will generally be in the interests of the United Kingdom to act in concert with the United States of America.
we should remember that whenever we really need help, we turn to the United States of America, and Europe turns to the United States. Without America, France would have lived under dictatorship for decades. Without America, the Germans would not have rescued themselves from a racist ideology. Without America, Europe would have exchanged Nazi tyranny for communist tyranny in the 1940s. We turned to America, and our alliance with the United States is a fundamental attribute of the foreign policy of this nation when it is correctly conducted. For all our many differences with the Prime Minister, I believe that he has understood that from the beginning.
Lembit Öpik: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who now differ with American policy do so because terrorism is fuelled not

793
by resources and equipment, but by motivation? We feel that the motivation for terrorism has been provided by the very act of attack.
Mr. Hague: Relieved of my responsibilities of a while ago, I have been lucky enough to travel a great deal in the past year. I have travelled to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, and I have spoken to many people. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they do not care what happens to Saddam Hussein. They have no time for Saddam Hussein. They care passionately about Palestine and Israel, which is why it is so important that the so-called road map is put forward. They will not shed a single tear for Saddam Hussein, because they know many of the things that have been done to the people of Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein. So if the hon. Gentleman believes that it is a recruiting sergeant for terrorism to rid the world of that despotic dictatorship, he is making a serious mistake. We would be setting a new standard of deterrence—a new type of deterrence, which is necessary in a changed world.
We all grew up in the cold war. We are familiar with the cold war and the balance of terror, when it was always necessary to be ready for action, but always necessary to take minimal action so as not to disturb the balance of power in the world. But now the world has changed. Now there is no balance of power and the dangers to world peace are not from all-out nuclear confrontation between superpowers, but from the development of new weapons by rogue states and terrorist organisations.
Deterrence therefore takes on a new character. It is not a matter of being ready for action. It is occasionally and it will occasionally be necessary to take action to make sure that those who aspire to be rogue states or sponsors of terrorism know what happens and know how the western alliance responds to such a threat. That is why it is so important in this case to take action and to set the standard for the future. Those who say that action is not necessary now must remember that we have passed so many deadlines, so many ultimatums, that not to take action now is to reduce the credibility of any action being taken. The time has come for a decision. The Prime Minister has put before the House the right decision. He deserves the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
2.33 pm
David Winnick: I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has resigned. I considered him a very good Foreign Secretary and an excellent Leader of the House, and it is regrettable that he has resigned. Although I understand the reasons, I disagree with them. We shall miss him in government.
While I am on the subject of resignations, I regret the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has also decided to resign, but I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will be staying on.
The present situation reminds me of the time after Kuwait was invaded in August 1990. The United Nations Security Council gave the regime four months
794
to leave Kuwait. Saddam Hussein refused to do so. There are those present today who opposed the liberation of Kuwait, as they had every right to do, and who oppose the motion today. That does not include all the critics, by any means. Quite a number took a different line, if they were in the House, but some, including the Father of the House, argued strongly that we should not take military action to liberate Kuwait. What would have been the position had we not done so? Saddam Hussein would have been strengthened and would have realised that he could commit aggression with no response whatever.
Some of today's critics were no less opposed to action that was taken over Kosovo and Afghanistan. They argued—as I said, they had every right to do so—that we should not take such action. When we are accused of being anti-Muslim, when that vile accusation is directed at us, I would ask the House: why did we go into Kosovo? Was it to help the Christians, the Jews, the Sikhs, or the Hindus? The only reason that we intervened in Kosovo was to help the ethnic Albanians, who happen, as we all know, to be Muslims. That was the only reason and the only justification.
The way to demonstrate again our commitment in respect of the position of Muslims is for the international community, and not least the United States, to bring about a settlement in the middle east. I make no apology for the fact that I have supported the state of Israel from the very beginning, and for all the obvious reasons—what happened to Jews, not only in the holocaust but over 2,000 years—but I support an Israel within the 1967 borders. If the Jews are justified in having a state for all the reasons that I have just explained, the Palestinians are also justified in having a state of their own—not a sort of statelet, but a sovereign state, no less sovereign than Israel itself. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make sure that the United States pursues that policy in practice, and does not just say certain words at this particular time.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend rebukes me for Afghanistan. Were we so wrong to have doubts? Was not the object to apprehend Osama bin Laden? That has not happened. The production of opium, which three years ago was 185 tonnes, is now 2,700 tonnes. When my hon. Friends visit Kabul, apparently they are not allowed out of the city because of the dangers of the warlords. Is that success?
David Winnick: My hon. Friend has demonstrated again that he was wrong, as he has been on virtually every military intervention, from the Falklands to Afghanistan. The Taliban, who gave room to the terrorists, were defeated, and in my view the action taken was right. I am sorry that my hon. Friend disagrees.
As I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Security Council has been at fault. It should have been far tougher over the past 12 years. We have reached the present position because some Security Council members took the view that after Kuwait there should be a less tough response to Saddam Hussein, and he has played around. Such a tyrant has exploited every disunity, as he is doing now, on the eve of military action, for his own advantage. It is unfortunate that no tougher action was taken.

795
In previous debates, I listened to some of my hon. Friends criticising the United States. As I want my own Government to be more radical, I am hardly likely to be a fan of the United States President, but when I listened to some of that criticism made by hon. Members who said not a single word of criticism about the murderous tyrant in Baghdad, I thought that there was a lack of logic somewhere along the line. Surely our criticism should first and foremost be directed at the dictator.
I have always taken the view that if war can be avoided, it should be avoided, because of the casualties. It is no use those of us who support the Government line kidding ourselves. Innocent people will be killed. In the next few weeks, men, women and children—people who should never be killed—will be put to death, but we know that that is the result of war and military intervention. Unlike the critics, I believe that if Saddam is destroyed, it will be a significant victory not only for the international community, but first and foremost for the people of Iraq.
We have been told that there are many dictators in this world. Unfortunately, that is so and I wish it were otherwise, but I do not understand the logic of those who say, "There are many dictators, so why pick on this one?" If, as a result of the regime's refusal to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, one of the most murderous tyrannies is destroyed, surely that is a positive gain. Surely the fact that we cannot take on every dictator or many other dictators is not a reason or justification for not seeing the end of the regime in Iraq. Of course, not a single critic has, on other occasions or today, given any indication of how Saddam Hussein could be got rid of except by military action. No one here today will argue that it is up to the people of Iraq. How can it be? It is only by military action that this tyranny can be destroyed.
I make no apology for saying that the international community as such has on many occasions turned a blind eye to tyrannies. However, I was very pleased in 1979, for example, when Tanzania liberated Uganda from the Amin regime. Was that wrong? When Pol Pot was destroyed by Vietnam, also in 1979, was that wrong? Would anyone here argue along different lines?
In conclusion, I want simply to say that this crisis has been brought about not by the British or American Governments, but by the murderous dictator in Baghdad. If military action is taken, as we all know it will be, I wish the British and allied troops every possible success. I do not believe that we can be neutral in judging between a murderous tyranny and the democracies that will be engaged in fighting it. I believe that right is on our side and that the overwhelming majority of people in Iraq will take the view that the allied armies are liberators, as they will be getting rid of a tyrant that those people themselves cannot get rid of.
For all those reasons, I shall take much pride tonight in voting for the Government motion.
2.42 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Last night, this House heard a speech of very great distinction from the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). What he said was dignified and of great quality, and the fact and manner of his resignation did honour to him and, in a small way, did credit to this
796
beleaguered profession of politics. May I also say to the right hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), who I believe has resigned, that his decision, too, is an extremely honourable one?
The Speaker has been extremely generous to me in previous debates and I know that I have had the opportunity to express my views in some detail on a number of occasions. I shall therefore confine myself today to making but three points. First, so far as the British forces are concerned, war is not inevitable. That may not be true of the United States forces, but it is true of the British ones., for this reason: the Government, very much to their credit, have tabled a motion before the deployment of forces into conflict. The House therefore has a choice. If we accept the amendment and reject the Government motion, British forces will not be deployed into action. That is a choice for each and every one of us to make. So as far as British forces are concerned, war is not inevitable. We have to decide that.
Secondly, in the course of this debate and on previous occasions, a great deal of criticism has been made of the Governments of France and Germany, and of Russia and China to a lesser degree. Of course it is true that when nations vote on policy, they bring into account their own national interests—I have no doubt that national interests were involved—but it should have surprised nobody that we did not secure a consensus in the Security Council. If we are honest with ourselves, we do not have a consensus in the House or in this country. In all probability, there is not support for war. Why? Because the case for war is not overwhelming.
I do not speak of the legalities. I have read what the Attorney-General said about that matter and I do not feel competent to express a view as to whether he is right or wrong, but I am competent to say this: many distinguished lawyers—as distinguished as the Attorney-General—will take a contrary view. In any event, if I am honest, I do not think that the legalities go to the root of the matter. The real question is whether it is right—right expressed in moral terms. Here I have to say that I think that the answer is no, because I do not think that any of the usual characteristics of a just war have been satisfied. If we were dealing with a situation in which Iraq had attacked another country or had mustered troops on the frontiers of another country, or if there were compelling evidence that Iraq was delivering to terrorists weapons of mass destruction with which they could attack another country, I would vote for war, but none of those circumstances exists.
Mike Gapes: What would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to the Iraqi Kurds who are suffering under the repression of Saddam and being expelled from Kirkuk at this moment? Would he merely say, "Tough—you are going to have to suffer another 12 or 35 years of it"?
Mr. Hogg: No; I would not express myself in that way. We are talking about the morality of war, and I do not believe that what is going on in Iraq is a sufficient moral basis for war.
Mr. Stuart Bell: As a fellow lawyer, I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Can he really suggest that Saddam is not attacking his own people when 2 million have died in

797
tyranny, 7,000 have been gassed, 180,000 men, women and children in Kurdistan have been forcibly removed and the whereabouts of 650 Kuwaiti civilians is still unknown? Is that not an attack on a people?
Mr. Hogg: I was talking about the international risk that Saddam Hussein poses and saying that the normal tests for war have not been satisfied in this case.
That brings me to my last point. I accept that there is a terrible dilemma. Incidentally, it has not come about as the result of policy decisions in the past two or three weeks, but stems from the policy decision made in the latter part of last year, when the United States and United Kingdom Governments decided further to disarm Iraq using force if necessary. I regard that as a critical mistake, because the policies of containment and deterrence had worked from 1991 to 2002 and would have continued to do so. That was the critical mistake.
Now we stand in the dilemma. The Prime Minister has identified it and so has my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith): if we go to war, we affront the principles of morality to which I referred and the principles of legality, which I think are in doubt; if we do not go to war, it is true that the authority of the United Nations will have been defied and the credibility of the United States and, to a lesser extent, ourselves will be at risk.
So what is the way forward? How do hon. Members and reasonably minded people decide that dilemma? I can only offer my explanation. The right hon. Member for Livingston spoke yesterday of the consequences. If we go to war, the probability is that thousands and maybe tens of thousands of people will be killed or injured on all sides. That seems to me the principal question with which we should concern ourselves. I cannot find a sufficient moral case for condemning thousands or tens and thousands of people to death and injury. For that reason, because I think that war lacks a moral basis, I shall vote for the amendment and against the Government's motion.
2.49 pm
Mr. John Denham: With regret, I resigned from the Government this morning. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve the Government and the Prime Minister since 1997. Although some have at times questioned the Government's direction, I say with all honesty that not a day has passed when I have felt that I could not make some difference on the very issues that brought me into the Labour party 27 years ago. I shall certainly miss being part of the Government.
The events of 9/11 must have brought home to us all the fact that we have created a world of great danger and great insecurity. That action must be taken, that we must tackle the sources and causes of insecurity, is not in doubt. But it is not simply a question of whether we take action; how we take action is al so important. The reason for that is simple. If we act in the wrong way, we will create more of the problems that we aim to tackle. For every cause of insecurity with which we try to deal, we shall create a new one.
798
I am not a pacifist. I am not against armed intervention. In 1992, I was one of the Labour Members of Parliament who called for much earlier intervention in Bosnia. I shall never forget the surprised and bemused expression on John Smith's face when some 20 newly elected Labour Members of Parliament went to see him to demand Labour support for a foreign war. I believe that we should have supported it, and that, had we done so, Balkan history might be different. I supported our action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan.
After 9/11, however, it should have been clear that the scale and nature of the threats to global security required the world community to come together on an unprecedented scale, not only to defeat terrorism, but to tackle the conflicts that give rise to it and other threats. For a time, not least thanks to our Prime Minister, such coming together seemed possible. Today, the prospect is severely damaged, if not in disarray. That has happened not simply or primarily because of one country across the channel, unprincipled and disastrously unilateral in its way though France has been. It has happened because those who wish to take action now, and in the way in which we are considering, have failed to persuade others and thus create international consensus on the need to do so.
The question for me has never been one of narrow legality. I was in the Home Office long enough to know that lawyers are the last thing one needs when things are difficult. It is a question not of one or two votes either way in the Security Council, but of whether we can put our hands on our hearts and say that the majority of those who should support us do so. I do not believe that they do.
I do not blame the Prime Minister for that. No one could have worked harder to forge consensus. His achievements are real, not least in persuading the US Administration to take the United Nations route. However, our Prime Minister has been ill served by those whom he sought to influence. The US Administration appear at times to delight in stressing their disdain for international opinion and in asserting their right to determine not only the target but the means and the timetable, their gratuitous actions apparently designed to make a common voice impossible, not least here in Europe. That has made the international coming together that we need impossible to achieve.
In future, people will ask how one nation could have thrown away the world's sympathy in such a way. Does anyone doubt that a nation of such power, influence and, in many ways, such genuine authority could have built the support that we needed if it believed that necessary? I am not indulging in anti-Americanism, but simply recognising that unilateralism on such a scale, no matter how legitimate the target, brings danger.
The action against Iraq is, I believe, pre-emptive, and therefore demands even greater international support and consensus than other sorts of intervention. We do not have it. Such isolation entails a genuine cost and danger. It undermines the legitimacy that we must maintain to tackle the many threats to global security. It fuels the movements that are antipathetic to our values and way of life, and the view, which is probably the reality, that in an interdependent world, one nation

799
reserves the right to determine which of the world's problems should be tackled, when, where and in what way.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Denham: I shall not give way. I have never made a resignation speech before, and I should like to get to the end of it.
The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) set out a powerful case for support for a United States that acts in the manner I described. If I believed that that would work, I could swallow my qualms and sign up for that with the right hon. Gentleman. But I do not. I believe that the reaction to such a method of working will be as dangerous as the problems that we are trying to solve. It will turn many parts of the world against us, undermine friendly Governments, fuel terrorism and those who will join it in the future, and make it more difficult to sustain international action against common problems.
If the motion were on the honesty, integrity, commitment and sheer courage of our Prime Minister, I would not hesitate to support it. However, we are voting not for that but for the words on the Order Paper and the consequences that will follow in the weeks, months and years ahead. I cannot support it.
My final point is a difficult one. I, too, have constituents who are in our armed forces in the Gulf, and their families at home. The failures of Governments and of the international community are not their failings. Although I clearly do not believe that we should commit our troops to action now, they should not feel that they are on the wrong side, that the enemy they face is not evil or that the world would not be a better place without Saddam Hussein.
If the vote of the House commits our troops to fight, we must stand with them. We may have failed them; I doubt whether they will fail us.
2.57 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I congratulate him on the quiet and dignified way in which he made his resignation speech and personal statement. He will be remembered for the principle that he has established and I honour him for that.
At a time of crisis, the House often rises to the occasion. That happened last night when the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was Leader of the House, made his personal statement and resignation speech. He made a powerful case for his decision. He was a distinguished Minister, not only as Foreign Secretary but as Leader of the House. I admired his commitment in both high offices. I tried to work with him in a small way in his capacity as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. He has made changes that have benefited the House. He is one of the most entertaining and articulate speakers in the House, and we shall miss him.
Today, the Prime Minister made a brilliant, articulate and powerful case for the motion. I hope that his speech will receive wide publicity. The overwhelming majority
800
of people in this country, many of whom are worried about the Government's intentions, will be persuaded by the transparent and powerful way in which he presented the argument on behalf of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition fully supported the position in a speech that took up many of the Prime Minister's points.
I will be supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight. I have no disagreement with any part of the lengthy but substantive motion that they have tabled. I am not in favour of war. In fact, I am positively opposed to it. War is brutal, cruel and indiscriminate. Innocent people will undoubtedly die in any conflict that takes place, but there are occasions on which war is inevitable if the civilised world is to defend its civilisation against a despotic tyrant such as Saddam Hussein.
Like a number of other hon. Members, I have served in Her Majesty's forces—not as a regular officer but as a national service officer—and I understand the way in which our armed services live, and their loyalty and team spirit. Like everyone else who has spoken, I express the hope that this will be a short war and that the minimum casualties will be incurred, not only in our armed services but among civilians as well. Members of my own family have served in wars, in north Africa and Burma, at Dunkirk, in Normandy and, more recently, in the Korean war. So, to those who say that people like me who agree with the Government do not know what we are doing, I would say that we do know. Likewise, I honour and respect the position that has been expressed by the right hon. Members for Livingston and for Southampton, Itchen.
David Burnside: My hon. Friend mentioned the great service provided by the members of our armed forces who are ready to serve and to fight. Does he share the concern of my constituents who are related to servicemen and servicewomen in the middle east, who are not at all happy with the standard of equipment and supplies being provided to them? We have a Defence Minister on the Front Bench today, and we need more assurances and more support for our servicemen and servicewomen.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: May I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the very highest regard, as well as respect for the stand that he takes on matters relating to Northern Ireland, that this is not a matter that I would wish to comment on at this time? We want to ensure that the men and women among the troops of Her Majesty's forces have the best possible equipment available. I know, from my own contact with members of the armed services who are currently in Kuwait, that they are ready to go and that they believe that they have the equipment and the support to enable them to do an excellent job.
The history that was so accurately sketched by the Prime Minister is right. We have had 17 resolutions since April 1991. The first, resolution 687, required Iraq to
"make a declaration within 15 days of the location and amounts"
of its weapons of mass destruction. It is now 4,380-plus days since that resolution, and we are a further 16 resolutions on. Saddam Hussein has made a mockery of the United Nations. If we are to take the United Nations

801
seriously, and if it is to be an instrument for peace and stability in the world, its resolutions must be implemented and enforced. I congratulate the Government, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence on what they are doing, not only in the national interest but in the international interest.
I would like to raise one issue that might be controversial. I am saddened by what I perceive to be the anti-American views that are being expressed. As someone who will shortly reach his 65th birthday, I believe that the world as a whole owes an immense debt to the United States for what it has done over more than 50 years for peace and stability in the world, and for the humanitarian aid that it has advanced. It has been wrong on occasions, but, my goodness, haven't we all? Overall, I believe that the benefit that the United States and its successive Administrations have brought to the world have been immense, and they should be very proud of that.
I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have highlighted the importance of achieving peace in the middle east, if at all possible. The road map is absolutely right. It is important that the state of Israel, within its 1967 boundaries, should be guaranteed by the international community, but it is also essential that the Palestinian people, who have suffered so greatly, should be given a meaningful, consolidated state. That would lead to stability in the middle east. If we remove Saddam Hussein in the next few days, as I hope will be the case, the chance of bringing peace to the region will be that much greater.
I have sent a petition to the Prime Minister carrying about 700 signatures from my Macclesfield constituents expressing their concern and their opposition to the war. I say to them, "On this issue, put your trust in the Prime Minister. I fervently believe, as your Member of Parliament, that he is right." We will get it right; we will bring peace to the middle east, and we will restore the credibility of the United Nations.
3.6 pm
Mr. Bruce George: This is the moment that we have all been dreading—the moment at which we have, individually and collectively, to decide on which side of the line in the sand we choose to stand. War is hell, as an American civil war general once said, but, for the Iraqis, the Iraqi Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the Kuwaitis or the Iranians who have been the victims of Saddam Hussein, the so-called peace can be hellish, too. Any agonies of conscience that I had have been resolved, and I shall vote with the Prime Minister and the official Opposition this evening on many grounds. That is not to say that I do not have uncertainties and difficulties with the problems facing our armed forces, or with the consequences of our action. Of course I do. I shall certainly not argue that no mistakes have been made by the Americans or the British—little mistakes or bigger mistakes. Perhaps the biggest mistake was to misjudge France, Russia and, possibly, the Turkish Parliament. The biggest misjudgment of all, however, was surely Saddam's, when he desperately hoped that the cavalry—or should I say the French cuirassiers, the German uhlans, hussars, lancers and dragoons, and the
802
Russian imperial Cossacks—would ride to his assistance. It remains to be seen whether 'Smith's Fencibles'—or indefensibles—will succeed where they have failed, later this evening.
I believe that the strategy of the United States and the United Kingdom of combining military and diplomatic pressure could have worked, had it been backed up by the support of the United Nations. The combination would surely have been irresistible for Saddam Hussein, and he and his sons would have jumped on their camels and ridden off into the great unknown—probably somewhere in central Asia or even an expensive flat on the Champs Elysées. That never happened, however. It could have happened, and those who made it not happen must surely have a great deal on their conscience.
President Bush—incidentally, I am not standing for election as chair of the Walsall chapter of his fan club—has gone down the diplomatic route for a long time, and his speech last night showed that he is still prepared to do that, by giving Saddam Hussein one final chance. I support the Government because the Attorney-General said yesterday that there was a legal basis for the war. To those who have argued that UNMOVIC needed more time I say this: the inspectors' work restarted in the spring of last year; the inspections recommenced on 27 November, and Dr. Blix told the Defence Committee three weeks ago—I refer to the notes that I and the Committee Clerk took at the meeting—that:
"The provisions of resolution 1284 could be fulfilled within a year if Iraq chose to co-operate".
A year! I do not think that that time is available. He went on to say
"Without co-operation, the inspectors' task is endless."
Surely what the Prime Minister said today was that the task of the inspectors and also the waiting period would be endless, and that that time had run out.
I doubt that the United States and the United Kingdom would wish their troops to endure the wait for any longer than necessary for the purpose of expecting Saddam Hussein to co-operate. He will duck and dive, and use anything to thwart the United Nations. Any enthusiasm that remained after 12 months of waiting would surely be dissipated.
We keep being told that the United States and the United Kingdom stand alone. In a letter in today's Guardian, a lady wrote that perhaps only Spain and Portugal remained holiday venues for the Blairs. It should be said that Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark and almost all of eastern and central Europe support the Prime Minister, and provide wonderful holiday destinations. We could add North Korea, Japan, most of the Gulf—[Interruption.]
Mr. Paul Keetch: North Korea?
Mr. George: South Korea. That is the first thing on which I have agreed with the Liberal Democrats today. South Korea is a possible destination, because of the fear of North Korea, as is Japan, north and south. The

803
cities of Bokhara and Samarkand in Uzbekistan are also available. Many countries are prepared to support the United States and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In which of the countries whose Governments support the action do the majority of the population support it, according to opinion polls?
Mr. George: Those who want to judge the results of opinion polls—which, up to now, have clearly shown opposition to the Prime Minister—should wait for the results of polls the day after war starts. The hon. Gentleman may have a rather different perspective then; indeed, I am sure that he will.
On Sunday, at a shop just down the road in my constituency, I met a close neighbour who told me that her son—whom I have known since he was seven—was in the Gulf. Afterwards, I wondered how I could have looked her in the eye and said, "It is true that your son is risking his life, but I want him to know that his cause is unjust, illegal and immoral, and that he may well be dragged before an international court". I could certainly not have done that.
Those who cannot commit themselves to supporting the Prime Minister's case may be persuaded by the argument used before that a military personnel in peril would need our support. A politically incorrect poet wrote this of the British Tommy:
"But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot."
I suspect that when the guns begin to shoot, not just the Liberal Democrats but most people will be prepared to give their support. Similarly, I was opposed to any British involvement in the Falklands, but when all diplomatic initiatives failed I was prepared to support the Government of this country.
Bob Russell: What, then, is the right hon. Gentleman's problem?
Mr. George: Listening to inane interventions by people like the hon. Gentleman.
I endured the 1970s and the 1980s, when disunity in my party was the norm. I supported Wilson, Callaghan, even Michael Foot, Kinnock and Smith in the Lobbies. I do not think I am prepared to dump the Prime Minister at this moment of crisis.
3.15 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I agree with the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) to the extent that this is, indeed, a momentous debate. I entered Parliament 26 years ago this month, and I cannot remember a more serious debate or a time when the vote was more important.
This is also a very close call for many Members. Those of us who remember the Gulf war—I do, vividly, because I was Tom King's Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Defence—and those of us who were out of the House, "resting", during the Falklands war but watching very closely found the necessary decision very easy: a sovereign state had been invaded, and it was essential that we go to its rescue.
804
More recently, I found it sensible and easy to support the Prime Minister in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. It was clear that a British intervention would be in the interests of peacekeeping, and in the interests of restoring democracy to those countries. Only 18 months ago, an overwhelming majority of us strongly supported the allies' going into Afghanistan. I am sure it was the right decision to remove the Taliban regime, and to try and restore some order to that troubled country.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman recalls the Gulf war of 1991. Does he also recall that although Kuwait and its allies—among whom we were numbered—had an inherent right to self-defence and required no additional authorisation from the United Nations, the United States and the United Kingdom then sought and received specific authorisation from the UN in resolution 678?
Mr. Mackay: I shall come to that in a moment, but on that occasion we were not thwarted by a French veto.
On 16 April, I said this to the Minister:
"But what has happened in the past two, three, six or nine months that requires military intervention to be considered that had not happened before? We are not told what weapons of mass destruction he has now that he did not have then."—[Official Report, 16 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 506.]
I had great doubts, which is why, like most of my constituents, I was delighted when, along with our American allies, we took the UN route with resolution 1441, while also strongly supporting the return of the weapons inspectors.
I think I speak for everyone in the House when I say we all hoped that through UN resolutions, through diplomacy and through the work of the weapons inspectors the crisis might be ended. Sadly, that has not happened. During that period my constituents, whose concerns I share, took the critical view that both the Prime Minister and the American President were not making a proper case for war. They were not helped by the unfortunate "dodgy dossier", which I think caused huge harm to the credibility of the Government's case. They were not helped by the suggestions of the American Administration, and at times our own Ministers, that for some time there have been direct and close links between the Saddam Hussein regime and al-Qaeda terrorists. That was clearly not true. There is never any point in exaggerating one's case, because one will not be believed.
I listened carefully to what I thought was one of the Prime Minister's outstanding speeches. I was convinced and satisfied that the case had now been made. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who expressed the hope that the full text of the speech would be given the widest circulation among the British public. I am confident that if it is, there will be a majority in favour of military action later this week.
It was also absolutely right for us and our American allies to send huge numbers of troops to the Gulf. I believe that only by that means—along with resolution 1441 and the presence of the weapons inspectors—could pressure be put on Saddam Hussein. At that point, however-here I return to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire

805
(Mr. Lansley)—we were sadly let down by our French colleagues: our French allies. I believe that their behaviour has been nothing short of disgraceful.
I am satisfied that many hon. Members—such as the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and others—believe completely and honesty that it is wrong to go to war. However, I do not accept that President Chirac and his Government believe in the same way. They are acting for entirely false reasons.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Selfish reasons.
Mr. Mackay: Their reasons are very selfish. They are acting for commercial gain, and for wider international and political gains. I shall take no lessons from a French President who breaks sanctions and invites the murderous Mugabe to Paris. I shall take no lessons from a French President and his defence Minister who threatened EU applicant states for merely supporting us and the Americans, and for signing a letter of support.
The behaviour of the French has been disgraceful. It ill befits a close ally and friend. I feel sorry for the French people today. I regret that the President was re-elected last year. I believe that he has done great harm to the international community.
In conclusion, every hon. Member faces a simple choice tonight. We must decide which course of action is more likely to bring peace and stability to the world and, in the short, medium and long term, ensure that fewer innocent lives, whether civilian or military, are lost.
I passionately believe that the whole international community would suffer if we and our American allies withdrew our troops from the Iraqi border without Saddam Hussein having complied with the UN resolutions that he has flouted. Every terrorist and tin-pot dictator around the world would be given a green light. The harm and damage that that would do, to us and to future generations, is incalculable. That is why I have reached the conclusion that the right thing to do tonight is to oppose the amendment and support the Government motion.
3.23 pm
Joyce Quin: It is a privilege to speak in a debate that in some ways seems to have started last night, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made his personal statement. I should like to pay a brief but deeply felt tribute to my right hon. Friend. I had the opportunity to work with him, in opposition when I was deputy in his team, and in government. He can look back on hugely significant achievements in all the roles that he has fulfilled in his time in the House of Commons.
It is a privilege to speak in the debate, but somewhat daunting. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of finding it very difficult to decide how to vote at the end of the debate. The arguments on each side are compelling. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a very powerful speech. I acknowledge and welcome that he said that hon. Members faced a test not of loyalty, but of whether they were convinced by the
806
arguments, and by the rightness of what he proposes. That is a comfort to those of us who are fiercely proud of our Government, and of all their many achievements to date.
When this matter was last debated, I voted with the Government. I felt that they were very vigorously pursuing the UN route. It the culmination of that process that troubles me this evening.
I supported the Government very strongly in relation to Afghanistan and Kosovo. I certainly believe that military action can be justified in certain circumstances, but the motion before the House troubles me in a number of ways. War is a last resort, to be begun only if it is absolutely essential. Despite my keen desire to see Saddam Hussein disarmed—and to see the end of him, if at all possible—I have to ask whether war is essential this week. Is it essential now?
Saddam Hussein has behaved despicably, it is true. As many speakers have noted, he has delayed disarmament over a period of 12 years. However, some progress has been made in the past 12 weeks, perhaps more than in the past 12 years. For that reason, I should like the inspection process to given an opportunity to produce results.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, rightly, that dealing with Saddam Hussein was like drawing teeth. However, I think that some teeth are being drawn. For that reason, too, I believe that the inspection process should have some time in which to work—even if that time is of limited duration.
Two countries apart from our own have figured in the debate—the US and France. I want to draw a clear distinction between those countries and their peoples, for whom many will feel a huge affinity. In my case, I have ties of both family and friendship, but many people at present feel totally at odds politically with those countries' Administrations.
I believe that the President of France behaved outrageously in throwing a mega-spanner into the UN works. That follows his equally outrageous statements on EU enlargement. However, I also believe that the American policy has many faults. At times, the Americans' diplomacy has been atrocious, especially in the summer of last year. Then, they were brought back to the UN route only by the efforts of our own Government.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if we did not support the US now, they would be tempted in future to go down the unilateral route. That worries me, as I do not want to feel intimidated into supporting action now on that basis.
I am worried by some elements of the Government's case. The links between Iraq and al-Qaeda seem tenuous in the extreme. Although the proliferation issue is serious and important, the risk of proliferation is very often to be found more in states where there is very little control. That applies especially to states that used to belong to the former Soviet Union. I consider them a real risk in terms of proliferation at present.
In conclusion, I worry about the timing of this military action, given that weapons inspectors could still pursue their work and that alliance building could still occur. That is why, so far, I remain unconvinced.
3.28 pm
Malcolm Bruce: I wished to pick up a point made by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about the comparison between the situation we are now in and 1938 that seems to me utterly inappropriate. In the confrontation between the west, and other democracies, and Iraq, the similarity with 1938 has already happened. It happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait, when the House and my party supported military action to confront Saddam Hussein and secure Kuwait's liberation. For the past 12 years, there has been an inconsistent policy towards Iraq, while that country got weaker and weaker and its capacity to inflict damage in the area reduced.
The sad situation that we have reached today is that the United Nations' own agents tell us that they believe that they are making progress towards neutralising the situation. It would be possible to secure international agreement either to accept that we can secure peaceful disarmament through the operation of the weapons inspectors or to give support for military action if the weapons inspectors conclude—after they have been given the time for which they have asked—that they cannot complete the job. Most of us now believe that we are facing a premature and pre-emptive decision to embark on military action before the process has been concluded.
Many of us are also concerned about the possible consequences. We all hope that military action will be swift and clean, with minimal casualties. However, even if not a single life is lost, at the end of that venture—if it is undertaken in the way that is proposed this week—the international community will be fractured in a way that has not been witnessed since the end of the second world war. That is because the approach to dealing with the problem has been totally incoherent, partly because the US Administration decided at the outset what they would do and demonstrated no real commitment to persuading the international community of the merits of their case.
We have been confused about whether the US objective is regime change, the defeat of international terrorism or the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of the legal advice—and I am not competent to comment on it—we can all recognise that the only legitimate reason for the United Nations to back action in the case of Iraq would be to deal with weapons of mass destruction. That position should have been sustained throughout. The President's speech about the axis of evil and rogue states has raised many concerns about what will happen after Iraq, especially as the US attitude to the UN has been inconsistent.
At first, the US saw no real role for the UN, or any need for resolution 1441. Thanks to the British Government, resolution 1441 was achieved, with the clear understanding that a further resolution would be required. Then we were told that a second resolution was not needed, because resolution 1441 stood on its own. That leaves us with the United Kingdom divided, Europe divided, NATO divided and the UN divided. Many of us share a deep anxiety—and it grieves me to say so—that those divisions may be exactly the outcome that the Bush Administration wanted.
The US Administration appear to be motivated by a fundamentalist conviction about the rightness of their cause, the absoluteness of their power and their ability
808
to confront the world and say, "We will decide who the good guys are, who the bad guys are and what course of action will be taken. Your job is to back us or make yourself our enemies."
Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that that may be the desire of some people in the US Administration. If true, would they not have that in common with the French Government, who are seeking to push the US away from a transatlantic alliance?
Malcolm Bruce: Everybody knows that the French have had their own view on transatlanticism for many years, and there is nothing new or unexpected about the position that they have adopted. Those of us with friends and relations in the US will understand the clear anxiety among the US population that they are vulnerable to attack in a way that they have never felt before and they look to their Government to demonstrate strong action to defend them against that attack. The problem is that that anxiety has encouraged a form of US nationalism that is determined to demonstrate that they can hit back hard after the shock of the terrorist attack on mainland America. Many of us were persuaded that that was legitimate in the case of Afghanistan, because the Taliban Administration was clearly harbouring the perpetrators of 11 September, and we backed that action. There is not the same connection in the case of Iraq. In those circumstances, we are entitled to argue that the case for military action has not been made.
Even if this war is quick, effective and decisive, and even if, as the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) claimed, opinion polls swing behind the Government because of a short, sharp, successful action—although such polls are not a concern of mine—the problems that I have described will still be there for a considerable time. How do we rebuild the ability of the international community to work together when the American Administration have demonstrated an unwillingness to use international institutions constructively?
With a number of colleagues from this House, I was in Athens yesterday at a meeting of the Western European Union. The meeting was organised by the Greek presidency of the WEU to discuss common mechanisms for Europe and America to defeat terrorism. However, everybody questioned how we could work together without a consistent engagement of trust and purpose with the American Administration, the tactics of which were based on economic bullying and political threats—such as the indication that, if France pursues its present line, it will face significant economic boycotts.
We have to consider how to rebuild the effectiveness of transatlantic co-operation in the aftermath of this war. We have to make clear our absolute determination to work together to defeat international terrorism, which threatens all of us. We need common purpose and we need to share intelligence. However, in return for a guarantee of international support, which we want to give, we are entitled to ask the Americans to acknowledge their responsibility to offer genuine leadership to the world and to show respect towards other democratic countries that do not always share the objectives of the United States and do not see the world as being defined entirely in terms of the economic

809
interests of the United States. I respect the leadership role that the United States can and must give the world. However, if the United States is going to provide leadership for the world, the United States needs to provide a world leader.
3.37 pm
Clive Efford: I want to say how much I appreciated the opening comments of the Prime Minister. I welcome his respect for the views of all those who have strong feelings on this matter. When Parliament was recalled last September, I tabled an early-day motion making my position clear. I have not moved from that position one jot. This is a challenging time for Members of Parliament and we have a heavy task in front of us in this debate. However, I have never been clearer in my mind about my position. Many people in the country feel that the inspectors have not been given time to complete their task in dealing with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I say to my right hon. Friends that, at this time, I fundamentally disagree with the military action that they intend to take.
Much has been made of the road map for Palestine. In the aftermath of 11 September, many people rushed to make statements on how the Palestinian issue and the middle east peace process were central to resolving the long-term problems at the heart of the cause of the tragedy that occurred, and the atrocities that were committed, that day. However, people are right to stop and take stock of what is being proposed with the road map. For me, it may not be too little, but it is certainly too late. The US may be sincere in what it says about the road map but, coming at this late stage, it smacks too much of political expediency. I have no doubt that pressure from this House has led to the road map at this late stage.
I understand something about road maps from my previous profession: the obvious route is not always the best way to get to one's destination. I do not say that to trivialise the matter. I sincerely believe that this House still has a significant role to play in ensuring that we reach the destination that we all want in terms of the middle east peace process, but it is not just a question of the views of this House, and it never has been. It is about how people in the middle east view the west and how we pursue our foreign policies and about learning the lessons of 11 September. It is about our not continuing to be, through the way in which we pursue our foreign policies, recruiting agents for Osama bin Laden and other terrorist organisations. I say to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that it is not an attack on Saddam Hussein that will be the recruiting agent, but the double standards that have been applied in relation to the rush to deal with Saddam Hussein at this stage and the approach taken to resolution 242, which has sat on the table for 35 years and has not been dealt with.
After 11 September, many people made the case for dealing with the middle east peace process to secure the peace for the long term. We understand the importance of ending the occupation of Palestinian territories, ending the plight of Palestinian people in their own land and stopping settlements that are in direct breach of United Nations resolutions on Palestinian territory. If
810
we are to develop a new world order, we have to address those issues in tandem with the issue of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Clive Efford: Not at this stage.
Much has been made of the use of the veto at the UN, but we are not all innocent in that respect. In the past 30 years, the United States has vetoed 34 resolutions concerning Israel. The veto has been used 250 times, in more than 40 per cent. of cases in relation to issues involving the middle east. Only this week, we have seen yet another attack in Gaza, where 10 people were killed, including a four-year-old child. Even in the days after 11 September, people were attacked and killed by Israeli forces in Jenin and Jericho. I have to ask whether that is the action of a country that recognises the weight of the issues involved in the tragedy that occurred on 11 September or its role in securing long-term peace. We need to find a way forward. How do we get those people to follow the route map set out by the United States and our Government? How do we convince Arab people of our sincerity? What guarantee is there that after this conflict is over the road map will not be lost?
The USA provides $2.1 billion of aid every year to Israel. Only last October, there was a request for another $10 billion of aid because the intifada has hit its economy and almost cut it in half. Just by threatening to cross a nought off the end of that aid, we could bring Israel seriously to the negotiating table and sort out the problem once and for all. We need more time and we need to deal with the issues in parallel. If we are to convince the wider world community of our sincerity, why not give the inspectors more time to deal with Iraq in tandem with sealing, progressing and following the route map that has been set out in terms of Israel?
The stakes involved are too high for failure. The UN is right to challenge the USA. For too long, the USA has been able to say to the United Nations, "Jump", and the United Nations has said, "How high?" The UN is absolutely right in this new world order to question whether it should jump in terms of the timing of any action that should be taken. I do not support what France has done during the past week—its actions have hastened the deadline for war—nor do I support its attempt to create a European axis against the United States in a new world order.
The UN is ours, faults and all. It is the route by which we should decide that in future we will negotiate away these difficult situations without the need to resort to military action. The Prime Minister said in his opening statement that the UN should be the focus of diplomacy and of action. I agree. If we are to win the peace for my children and for future generations of children, we have to go back to the UN and give it more time.
3.44 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson: I am very pleased to be called to speak in this debate at such an early hour. I believe that I have perhaps one small advantage over other Members of this House, which is that I have personal experience of being bombed by the Pentagon while in a capital city. I was in Belgrade, and then in

811
Pristina, during the Kosovo campaign, when B-52s and cruise missiles were deployed in an operation conducted, after all, by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), whose moving speech I listened to with great attention last night. Of course, that operation was carried out without UN endorsement. I remember writing some very angry articles while in Belgrade about the way in which that war was conducted, because I honestly hated the methods that were used. I despised the bombing from 30,000 ft, which seemed to me to be cruel and erratic. I also loathed some of the anti-Serb rhetoric, and I became, among the many unfashionable aspects of my beliefs, rather pro-Serb.
I saw lives ruined and families destroyed by bombing, and I saw civilians grieving for their loved ones, who had been killed by NATO. We all saw the results of the Pentagon's tragic mistakes: the slaughter of people in a convoy of tractors, the train that was blown up on the bridge, and the killing of the make-up girls who worked for Serbian television. I in no way retract all my criticisms of those methods, but as I look back now on that reporting, I must admit that my anger obscured a separate truth: the aim was a good one, and it was a good idea to force Milosevic to stop his persecution of the Kosovar Albanians, and to do what we could to force him from office. One would have to be rather perverse not to agree that the world is better for his going; indeed, Serbia is better and the whole of the former Yugoslavia is better. There are no more hideous pogroms whipped up by ruthless politicians, setting one ethnic group against another. There is no more torching of houses, no more rape camps, and all the rest of it.
Mrs. Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be even-handed and mention the 300,000 ethnically cleansed Serbs, Roma and Ashkali who are now living in dreadful camps in Serbia?
Mr. Johnson: I accept fully what the hon. Lady says. I am not pretending that life in Serbia is perfect now, and it is of course true that there are a great many refugees, and that many injustices have been done. However, it would be rather extremist and irrational to say that life in Serbia is not better, because it is. As I drove around the former Yugoslavia after that conflict, I was surprised at how few casualties there were, and at how few casualties the Serbs claimed.
If one were to ask me now whether that mission was worth it in order to end a culture of violence, hate and savage ethnic murder, I would say yes, it probably was. That is the lesson that I learned.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is describing how he became sympathetic to the Serbs on account of the suffering that he saw. However, does he not accept that those are exactly the ingredients that can lead to a resurgence of terrorism, and that there are analogies between how he felt, and the paramilitary recruiting drive that took place in Northern Ireland immediately after Bloody Sunday?
Mr. Johnson: I listen to the hon. Gentleman's point with great interest, but to be frank, I wonder why his party now stands against action to help the people of Iraq, given that its previous leader, Paddy Ashdown, was so vigilant and fierce in his demands for
812
humanitarian action on behalf of the Kosovar Albanians. I find that a very curious reflection on how times have changed for the Liberal Democrats, and I wonder whether it has anything to do with opportunism and how they see the public opinion polls moving. I do not really understand their motivation.
There is much that I admire about the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston. I noted with interest the acclaim with which he was greeted on the Government Back Benches last night, which may or may not be ominous for the Prime Minister. There was one striking omission from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, however. He dwelt at length on the threat that Saddam might, or might not, pose to western security—I thought that he was too optimistic about that—but he said not a word about the condition of the people of Iraq. How many people has Saddam Hussein killed? Is it 100,000, 200,000—a million? We have all met Iraqi people who yearn for that man to be removed. I am thinking in particular of an Iraqi computer technician who said, "You guys have got to get rid of Saddam Hussein because no matter how many people Bush kills it will not be as many as Saddam kills in a year".
The right hon. Member for Livingston spoke of a long-standing Anglo-American agenda to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Like many others, the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know "why now?" and "why Saddam Hussein?". Such objections are logically frail and hardly amount to an argument for doing nothing now. If anything, they are an argument for wishing that we had done something earlier and, indeed, in other places. To people who ask, "What about Mugabe?", I reply, "Indeed, why don't we do something there?"
It is possible to criticise many aspects of the way in which the Government have prepared the country for the course of action that we are about to take. I shall not delay the House further with repetition of my objections to the dodgy dossier and the UN bungling. I do not know who made the diplomatic assessment of the likelihood of French accession to a second UN resolution but he obviously blundered.
We can dilate until the cows come home about what the situation means for the so-called common European security and defence policy, which has nothing in common, nothing to do with security and barely amounts to a policy. I shall not go further into the curious hermaphroditic policy of the Liberal Democrats.
We should all like a second UN resolution but that is not going to happen. Tonight, we have to decide whether to give authorisation for British forces to engage in enforcement of UN resolution 1441 and, indeed, the 17 other UN resolutions that Saddam Hussein has continually flouted. Having learned the lessons from what I saw in Serbia, I shall vote for the motion. There are several reasons but one is paramount. It will mean the enforcement of the will of the UN and the removal of Saddam Hussein will make the world a better place, but, above all, it will make the world better for the millions of Iraqis whom he oppresses.

813
I deeply respect the hesitations of people on both sides of the House, but, as they make up their minds, I urge them to think of those people in Iraq and to decide whether, by our votes and actions tonight, we shall be prolonging their misery or bringing it to an end.
3.53 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: There are two reasons why I supported the Government and shall continue to support them tonight: one is moral and the other is political.
The moral argument has been clear to me for a long time and it is constantly reinforced. Every time that a psychopathic killer takes over a nation state, they drive people out; they commit genocide, murder and torture of a type that is hard to imagine and, because I represent a west London constituency, I see their victims in my waiting room. I have seen the victims of the Shah of Iran, the Ayatollah, Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, but only in one case—Saddam Hussein—have I seen people tremble at the mere mention of his name.
The regime is gruesome in the extreme and it is dangerous. Although I can accept the moral case on either side of the argument, it has always struck me as odd that democratic, freedom-loving, tolerant politicians can get ourselves in a moral mess when we are confronted with such people and try to determine who is morally right in the argument about whether we should go to war. The only person who is morally bankrupt in that argument is Saddam Hussein. We should never have illusions about that, and it also reinforces our views about what is right and what is wrong.
I have also heard in the debate, unlike perhaps some of the others, ambivalence about the United States, varying from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who takes the view that the United States saved us in the second world war. I do not take that view—it ignores the contributions of Britain, the fact that the Russians broke the back of the German army and a whole range of other things—nor do I take the view, which comes from various quarters of the House, that somehow everything that the United States does is bad.
Yes, the reality is that the United States is the dominant power of the day and, yes, it is true—we ought to remember this more than anyone else—that George Bush looks increasingly like Lord Palmerston in drag. I accept that the United States is doing the great power act and throwing its weight around in the world, but that does not make it wrong on such an issue.
The true criticism of the international community, the United States and all hon. Members is that we have done nothing about what has been happening in Iraq since 1991. The real criticism of all us is that we did nothing when Iraq first started to breach not just the 1991 resolutions, but the ceasefire itself, which Saddam had never put into effect. That ceasefire was signed with the UN, not the United States, and he breached it time and again with genocide, torture, human rights abuses,
814
weapons of mass destruction and terrorism—the lot— and we did nothing, because of which many people have died and the misery continues.
Mr. Mike Wood: I am interested in the fact that my hon. Friend says that we have done nothing since 1991 in relation to Iraq. Does he count the sanctions, the over-flying of the no-fly zone, the work of the weapons inspectors who destroyed 95 per cent. of the weapons of mass destruction as nothing?
Mr. Soley: I regard that as ineffectual. [Interruption.] Let me say why. The one bit that was effective was the no-fly zones. It tells us an awful lot that there is no starvation, no torture and plenty of medical supplies in either of those areas, and they use the same oil-for-food programme as that available to the rest of Iraq. Of course what failed was the sanctions regime itself. Why? Because Saddam Hussein did what all psychopaths do in such situations—he used the weapons against his opponents. He starved the people who did not support him and he fed the people who did. We need only look at the television broadcasts from the time when he organised demonstrations in Baghdad against the sanctions and, lo and behold, they involved well-fed, well-dressed people—his own supporters. Those broadcasts did not show the real misery and how Saddam himself had caused it.
I tell hon. Members that we really do have a duty—this is where I come to the political bit—to face up to the UN's failure to deal with those people. We call them tyrants and dictators, but if they were the people beating up their wives or children in a house down the road, we would call them psychopaths and send for the police who would arrest them and put them inside. We only started doing that 50 years ago. Before then, we used to walk by with our fingers in our ears, saying "We cannot intervene; it is his own house, you know." That is what we do with the nation state, and it is why the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is wrong about the morality. His morality is based on the concept of the nation state. I take the view that the UN ultimately needs to intervene more effectively when those psychopathic killers take over nation states. We need to be able to do that. We do not want to do it by force with an armed invasion straight away, but we have to find ways to deal with such things because every time we leave them, not only do we sentence those people to absolute misery, but we destabilise the area.
Many Arabs live in my constituency, and I will tell hon. Members that Arabs have no less a commitment to democracy, freedom and tolerance than anyone else. They do not like Saddam Hussein. Many of them do not support the war, but they all want rid of him. The reality is that—this is the other part of the political equation—if we want a settlement in the middle east, particularly of the Palestine-Israel situation, we also have to deal with Saddam Hussein; the two are linked in that sense. If the world wants to move forward and face up to the problems of terrorism, we must also deal with states that produce weapons of mass destruction. Instead of just reading Dr. Blix's abbreviated report to the Security Council, hon. Members should go to the House of Commons Library, get the full document, and look at the list of things that Dr. Blix says that Saddam Hussein

815
has got, some of which I have never heard of before. Unless we find ways of dealing with that, we risk the future of this world, too.
Lynne Jones rose—
Mr. Soley: The dangers opening up to us are severe and real.
The United Nations is the hope, but it has failed for 12 years. We cannot let it go on failing. I deeply regret that we do not have a second resolution, but the biggest failure is the failure to act. I say this particularly to some of my hon. Friends and to the Liberal Democrats, who say that delays are the answer: the reality is that we cannot go on passing resolutions unless we are resolved to act on them. It is better not to pass them in the first place, not to take risks, to let it happen and not get involved. Let us not pass resolutions unless we are resolved to act.
4.1 pm
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I have a great deal of experience of commending my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on the speeches that they have made as Leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition. I have much less experience of commending the Prime Minister, but I do so today without reservation. I would use his statement as the basis for a reply to any letter that I got from a constituent, as I feel that it represented broadly my analysis of and my reaction to the events that we face today.
I will not reiterate the Prime Minister's arguments, but I want to pick out two points. First, he said that the psychology of the United States changed, without qualification, on 11 September. I was on the last British Airways flight out of Boston prior to the hijacking of the planes that were used in the attacks. I was back in the United States two weeks later and have been there on a number of occasions subsequently. That psychological change is real, lasting and important. I agree with the Prime Minister that the rest of us had better go through that psychological change, and that we better do so quickly. The fact that so many have not yet faced up to those circumstances—God forbid that they should be forced to face up to them on the back of another atrocity such as that experienced by the Americans—and that Europe has not yet been gripped by that psychological change lies partly at the heart of the difficulties that we face.
Secondly, I want to highlight the Prime Minister's comment that there is no point in willing the ends if we are not prepared to will the means. That remark was addressed to his party and to our party—it was pointless addressing it to the Liberals, as they would not understand it. It is fundamental to the whole debate. Sooner or later, we must face up to some realities. This is not a debate about how much legality is on one side, and how much morality is on the other. I am just a simple Belfast boy: to me, it is a question of whether we have the will to do what we believe and know to be right, after having prevaricated for a long time.
Most of us in this House are parents. When we went through parenting, the one thing that we were told repeatedly was, "Don't say no to the children unless you
816
mean it and unless you will make it stick." That was because every time we said no and they ignored it, and we ignored their ignoring of it, we made it more difficult to put in place a discipline framework for the future. Internationally and nationally, we have been guilty of saying no, and then ignoring the ignoring of that instruction. It is now time to take action, and I support the Government's intention.
Having said that, the Foreign Secretary made the point in his statement last night that the second resolution
"has never been needed legally, but we have long had a preference for it politically."
We should not run away from the fact that our failure to secure it represents a political failure with which we must deal. When that point was put to the Foreign Secretary later, he said:
"France and Russia informally proposed that there should be a lock in resolution 1441 requiring that before any military action or any enforcement of the system of disarmament proposed—by force—there had to be a second resolution. France and Russia dropped that proposition. They never even put it forward as a formal amendment."—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 703–708.]
That was an extremely good answer in the field of diplomacy, but it was no answer in the field of politics. We are faced with the fact that there has been a political failure and a political breakdown. The Government must start to address that political failure quickly otherwise some of the more dire consequences that have been predicted may come back to haunt us, although I do not believe that they invariably follow from the Government's action.
There are two reasons why we need to reaffirm our will to act and focus on repairing the political damage. The first is that unless the damage is repaired, it will become more difficult to get new resolutions on humanitarian aid and the restructuring of Iraq through the United Nations. The situation might become more protracted, which is not to our advantage or to that of our troops, and it is certainly not to the advantage of the people of Iraq. The second reason, which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) mentioned, is that part of the political opposition in the country to the Government's proposals exists because they have not talked about an exit strategy. The House has no idea about how we intend to get out of the situation after the war is over. I believe that the absence of any conversation about an exit strategy is fuelling concern about, and antipathy toward, the actions that the Government must take.
In summary, I support what the Government are doing and I shall join them in the Lobby this evening. However, I urge them to take seriously the political failure at the heart of the issue and to take steps quickly to address it for the benefit of the national interest, as well as the people of Iraq.
4.9 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: There is only one issue that we must consider today: whether we should go to war at this time and set what is, to me, the terrible precedent of starting a pre-emptive war on a dubious legal basis without the support of the United Nations. Nothing else should matter. The issue should

817
transcend party politics. We know how the Front Benchers, Whips and others will argue that support for the war is a vital party loyalty test—whether that is support for the Conservative party or for the Labour party—but the issue is too serious for that. It should transcend our careers, whether we are Back Benchers or Front Benchers, because in this context we should regard ourselves as here today, gone tomorrow politicians. I do not remember the Prime Minister's exact words, but he summed it up when he said something to the effect that we are talking about the future safety of the world and therefore we should be concerned about the future of our children and future generations.
It is not a matter of whether or not we like France as a result of what it has done. It is not a matter of trade-offs: this will not become a just war simply because we say as a trade-off that we will do something about the middle east peace process or that we will tidy up in the aftermath in a very decent way.
Let us be clear about the position on UN support. The three original proposers had support from only one other member of the Security Council. Five other states said that they were opposed and there were six swing states. The Prime Minister made a lot of the position of Chile, but it proposed a delay of three weeks and was turned down out of hand by the United States. There are others who have been "unreasonable". Those of us who put a lot of faith in the Prime Minister's promise that war would be regarded as a last resort fear that the Bush Administration have not regarded war as a last resort.
The question put to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in respect of the unreasonable veto was not satisfactorily answered. If it was really just a question of France, why did we not put the issue to the Security Council? If the vote had been 14 to one in favour, we could have done what we did with regard to Korea and gone to the General Assembly and asked whether we had its support. We know that we would not have done that because we did not have the support of the majority of Governments in the world, and those Governments who do support us do not have the support of the majority of their population.
The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has suggested that if we go ahead in this form we will be breaching the United Nations charter. I respect the Attorney-General's view on legality, but we must respect the fact that a wide range of senior international jurists take a different view. Therefore, the only basis on which we could go ahead would be if there was an immediate threat to justify immediate war.
Reference has been made to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq does not only not have nuclear weapons, but, in answer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), Dr. el-Baradei has said that so far he sees no evidence for the suggestion that Iraq has restarted its nuclear weapons programme. Iraq has had most of its biological and chemical weapons—if it still has them, and I suspect it has—for several years. Do we believe
818
that there is an immediate intent to attack the United Kingdom, the United States, neighbouring states or other states?
Mr. Francois: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons programme in the early 1980s and that the main reason that it did not develop the nuclear bomb was that its nuclear reactor at Osirak was destroyed by military action?
Mr. Savidge: I accept that it had such a programme and I have no doubt that Saddam would like to develop a nuclear bomb, but it is important to be realistic about the nature of the threats from different countries.
Mike Gapes:My hon. Friend refers to weapons of mass destruction. Has he read page 98 of the Blix report, which makes it clear that
"Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials, including fermenters, bacterial growth and seed stock, to enable it to produce anthrax"?
Mr. Savidge: That is very possible. The major threat that is suggested is not that Iraq intends to attack anyone with such weapons but that it would pass them to terrorist organisations. I have already quoted what George Tennet said on behalf of the CIA on that, and I repeat that it is important when talking about what connections countries have with terrorism to distinguish between unconditional terrorist organisations, which would be liable to wish to use weapons of mass destruction, and political terrorist organisations, which, however unpleasant or vile, probably would not have a purpose in doing so. I am talking about groups such as the Mujaheddin-e Khalq Organisation and Hamas, with which I accept that there is evidence that Iraq has had connections. As for al-Qaeda, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East referred to evidence given by Vaclav Havel; in fact, Vaclav Havel later said that the information provided no clear evidence of a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
The Prime Minister said today that the question before us is how Britain and the world face the central security threat of the 21st century. I believe that he was referring to weapons of mass destruction, which brings us to an extremely important point. The general belief in the House has been that we should deal with that problem through a regime of non-proliferation and multilateral disarmament. That has been the common view of UK parties. That does not rule out the possibility of a counter-proliferation strike against a country that is disobeying that regime. However, we have to recognise that the Bush Administration are adopting a wholly different scheme, whereby counter-proliferation, as they call it, takes absolute precedence. In a sense, they are saying, "It is okay if our friends develop nuclear weapons, but not if our enemies do," and they choose who are the friends and who are the enemies. Let us remember that Iraq was regarded as a friend and was supplied during the 1980s, but is now regarded as an enemy. I find that approach capricious and destabilising.
Even more worrying is that the policy of the Bush Administration seems to be tending towards saying, "We can develop new nuclear weapons or try to make nuclear weapons more usable, and we can decide to

819
breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the security assurance that we gave under that treaty." That is a serious aspect of the overall problem of weapons of mass destruction, especially when it is added to the doctrine of pre-emptive war.
I have heard the Prime Minister speak twice today, and I apologise for not being able to remember whether he said this at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party or in the House, but it is not an internal party matter in any case. He made the point that war on Iraq was not on his agenda when he became Prime Minister in 1997, and he said that George W. Bush had told him that two days before 11 September it was not on his agenda. However, I fear that, long before 11 September, it was on other people's agenda—namely, that of several of the hawks whom George Bush appointed to his Administration. Some time ago, I sent hon. Members an e-mail entitled "Why Now?", which outlined some of the different things that they had said and gave original documents that one can get from various websites.
That raises another question. If war with Iraq was not on the Prime Minister's or the President's agenda in 2001, can we forget that it was not on their agenda for 10 years and say that we have been waiting for 12 years? If full-scale war was not on the agenda, why is it on the agenda now? Is it a logical response to 11 September?
The Prime Minister said that we can view the United States as a major power and seek a rival pole, as a unilateral power or as a partner. I want partnership, but I have doubts. I am not happy about partnership if it means that the United States takes the decision and the rest of us are expected to follow—that to me is not partnership—or if, as seems to be happening, the Bush Administration decide what action should be taken and what should be done immediately, and allow us to supply some of the rhetoric or some of the long-term wish list.
If we vote for a pre-emptive war against Iraq now, we should ask ourselves what precedent we will be setting, because the hawks have already said that they have plans for other pre-emptive divisive wars. We should contrast their plan of the world with the inspirational vision set out by the Prime Minister in Brighton in 2001, when he spoke of
"the moral power of a world acting as a community".
4.19 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) has been waiting to make that speech in a number of debates. He used his time extremely well; it was a very informed contribution. I shall continue directly from one of the points that he made about the new world order into which we are moving.
Fundamentally, the debate is not about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction or even oil, though oil is certainly a factor. The debate is about a new world order, with an unrivalled superpower adopting a doctrine of pre-emptive strike, and how we accommodate that and come to terms with that new world order. Eighteen months ago the United States had an atrocity committed against it and it is still in a trauma. The point was made a few minutes ago, and it is undoubtedly correct: on 12 September 2001, the day after the attack on the twin towers, the United States
820
was at its most powerful. In its moment of greatest extremity, the United States was at its zenith. In addition to its unrivalled military might, it carried total moral authority throughout the world. A hundred or more nations signed messages of sympathy, support or solidarity with the extremity that the United States had suffered.
Now, 18 months later, that enormous world coalition has been dissipated. I do not take the position that it was only a gang of four who gathered in the Azores. I accept that there are more countries—or at least countries' Governments—who are signed up, but the coalition of the willing for the campaign against Iraq is very narrowly based. Anyone who wants confirmation of that should just count the troops: 300,000 United States and British troops, and I understand that 1,000 Australians have been asked for, and 100 Poles have been offered. That is a very narrowly based coalition indeed.
The Prime Minister believes, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North identified, that the way to accommodate the situation is to accept that the United States will be predominant and that the rest must fall into line. They can try to restrain it, but they will have to fall into line with the views of the United States Administration. That is a wrong-headed policy, and it is taking people into ridiculous positions.
In his undoubtedly powerful speech today, the Prime Minister argued that the weapons inspection process had never worked. He came close to saying that it had all been a waste of time. I remember a speech on 2 October at the Labour conference in which another powerful speaker went into enormous detail to show how successful the weapons inspection process had been in the 1990s and how it had led to the destruction of chemical weapons, the chemicals used to make weapons, the armed warheads and the biological weapons facility. He concluded that
"the inspections were working even when he"—
Saddam Hussein—
"was trying to thwart them."
I watched that speech on television. Many hon. Members were there. The speaker was President Bill Clinton. The television was doing cutaways to Ministers, including the Prime Minister. They were all nodding vigorously last October when President Clinton said that through the 1990s that policy worked and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction than were destroyed, for example, in the Gulf war. The Prime Minister now seems to be denying what he accepted only last October.
We are told that the majority of the Security Council would have voted for the second resolution, if it had not been for the nasty French coming in at the last minute and scuppering the whole process. Let us get real. Have we listened to what other countries were saying? The Chileans proposed an extension of three weeks, but they were told by the United States that that was not on. In the debate in the General Assembly, country after country expressed their anxieties about not letting the weapons inspectors have a chance to do their work. They were told that the nasty French—I am not sure whether the Conservative party dislikes the French

821
more than the Liberals, or vice versa—were being extremely unreasonable, but the French position, and the Chinese position—
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The old alliance.
Mr. Salmond: The old alliance was important. Somebody should speak up for the French, because their position has been consistent, as has that of the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese, the French and the Russians issued a declaration on the passage of resolution 1441. It sets out exactly how the British and the United States ambassadors agreed that it was not a trigger for war. The reason that those countries did not want a second resolution was not that it would be a pathway to peace—I wonder who dreamed that up in Downing street. The reason was that they saw it as a passport to war, so obviously they opposed a resolution drawn in those terms. The majority of smaller countries in the Security Council and the General Assembly countries did not want to rush to war because they saw that there remained an alternative to taking military action at this stage of the inspection process.
We are told that the Attorney-General has described the war as legal. We could go into the legalities and quote professor after professor who has said the opposite, but one thing is certain: when the Secretary-General of the United Nations doubts the authorisation of military action without a second resolution, people can say many things about that action, but they cannot say that it is being taken in the name of the United Nations.
Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I wish to make one brief point: the French and Russians signed up to resolution 1441 after the words "all necessary means" were specifically taken out.
Mr. Salmond: In order to become acceptable, resolution 1441 had to be amended. Everything has been consistent in the opposition of countries that are against a rush to military action.
Will the approach that is being taken work? The argument is that it will be a salutary lesson, that a dictator will be taught a lesson and that that will help us in dealing with other dictators. I suspect that the cost of the action—I do not doubt the military outcome for a second—will be so high in a number of ways that it will not provide a platform for an assault on North Korea or Iran, which form the rest of the "axis of evil". I do not think that the policy of teaching one dictator a lesson and then moving on to other dictators can work. Most of us know that it will be a breeding ground for a future generation of terrorists. That is not the case because people like Saddam Hussein. The images that will be shown throughout the Muslim world will not feature him, although, without any question, he will be more attractive as a martyr when he is dead than he has ever been while alive. The images that will be shown are those of the innocents who will undoubtedly die in a conflict that will be a breeding ground for terrorism.
Will the nation-building work? The record of the United States on nation-building has not been impressive. Let me say something about one of the other
822
countries that is being reviled at present—Germany, which commits far more troops as a percentage of its armed forces to helping to secure the peace in the various trouble spots of the world for the United Nations.
We are told that the Prime Minister—this is the essence of his case—will try to restrain some elements in the United States Administration and make them take a multilateral approach, but that, if that does not happen, when push comes to shove he has to go along with their policy. I say that there is a broader United States of America than the United States Government. I believe that many sections of opinion in America would welcome a vote from this Parliament today that says "Not in our name", because the real America wants to see a stand for peace, not a rush for war.
4.27 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: After my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made his personal statement to the House last night, I felt it necessary to drive back to my constituency and speak with a number of people whose opinions I trust and value—people who are close friends and who have been members of the Labour party for many years. Not one of them wanted war, and neither do I. My constituency chair said to me, "Barry, you have to remember that this is our party leader and I trust him. He is our Prime Minister and, even though I disagree with the war, I want to give him our support now." I will not support the Prime Minister out of loyalty. I will support him out of the conviction that what he and the Government are doing is right.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that a genuine problem exists? The Government have experienced great difficulty in convincing the public about the rectitude of their position because people do not trust the Prime Minister. They do not trust him on health, education or crime. Why, therefore, should they trust him on Iraq?
Mr. Gardiner: I normally have great respect for the hon. Gentleman because he usually speaks with some sense. His comments on Iraq are ill judged. The people of this country know that our Prime Minister has behaved with absolute integrity on that issue. He has campaigned solidly for an international coalition. He went to the United States and brought George Bush to the United Nations to submit the power of the United States to the bridle of the United Nations. The people of this country therefore trust the Prime Minister on Iraq.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Prime Minister has experienced so much difficulty in persuading the people of this country because he did not even admit that there was a problem until September last year? He did not genuinely start to try to persuade people until six weeks ago.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The speech that the Prime Minister made on the day after 11 September 2001 states that we must revisit the position in Iraq. He has been focused on that ever since he became Prime Minister. Immediately after 11 September, he recognised a confluence. He realised that

823
terrorists were prepared to use weapons of mass destruction to achieve their ends and that if we allowed proliferation in Iraq, the two strands would come together, with the most appalling consequences.
I respect all hon. Members who disagree in principle with using military force in Iraq. However, I do not understand how anyone who supported resolution 1441 can espouse that position. What did such people believe that "final" meant when Iraq was given a "final opportunity" to comply: "final" before tabling another resolution; "final" before a few more weeks passed; or "final" before a few more months elapsed?
Mr. Simon Thomas: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman. As John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the UN explained, the resolution was final before being brought back to the Security Council for negotiation. The US Government also said that in a statement of explanation.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman's memory is selective. Resolution 1441 provides that the matter would revert to the Security Council for consideration, and that has happened. The resolution states that the Security Council will remain "seized of the matter". The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of "final" is odd if he believes that a final opportunity is not final before force is applied, in accordance with chapter VII of the UN charter.
Other words in resolution 1441 include "immediate", "full" and "unconditional". Are any hon. Members prepared to stand up and say that Iraq has complied—
Mr. Sarwar: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gardiner: Are any hon. Members prepared to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall. Is anyone prepared to say that Iraq has complied fully, immediately and unconditionally with its obligations to disarm?
Mr. Sarwar: Who is the final authority to judge whether Iraq is in breach of resolution 1441: United Nations weapons inspectors, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the UN Security Council, Bush or our Prime Minister?
Mr. Gardiner: I would urge my hon. Friend to read the words of the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, because he—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] If hon. Members will listen, they will find that I am answering the question. Hans Blix is quite clear that Iraq remains in breach. Indeed, every member of the Security Council is quite clear that Saddam Hussein remains in breach, and that there has been no full, immediate or unconditional compliance. There is an option to go down the containment route, and some hon. Members have suggested that in their speeches today. It is not an option that I agree with. I believe that we have to maintain what we said at the United Nations Security Council in resolution 1441, which was that we have to disarm Iraq.
There are those who have said that they cannot now support military action because there has been no second resolution in the United Nations. That is the
824
worst reason of all for not supporting it. If it were right to engage in military action, to kill innocent Iraqi people and to put our troops on the line to die for this country with the support of a second resolution at the United Nations, it has to be morally right to do so without one. The morality of our actions does not depend on who is prepared to carry out those actions with us; it depends on the judgment that we make about whether it is right or wrong. The Government are taking the right course of action. It is the only course of action that will achieve the disarmament of Iraq, and disarmament is the only way of ensuring that a further, far more bloody conflict does not happen in the future.
4.37 pm
Sir George Young: I plan to reach the same destination as the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), but I propose to take a slightly different route.
We are witnessing the most spectacular failure of diplomacy in my political lifetime. Here we are with the most sophisticated, best-resourced international institutions that the world has ever seen, peopled by the most civilised, best-educated diplomats in history, assisted by every modern communication device that technology can provide, and working at a time when many of the barriers that used to divide the world have come down—yet they have failed, with the inevitable apocalyptic consequences for Iraq.
First, those close to Iraq—those who may take a different view from that of the United States and the United Kingdom—have totally failed to convince Saddam that his country and his people were going to be hit hard by American and British troops, and that he would be annihilated, unless he agreed to what was being put before him. Many thought that Saddam would give way at the last moment, obliging the American and British troops to go home and leave him in control, without a regime change. But those close to Saddam, geographically and culturally, have failed to bring home to him the fate that lies in store, and that is the first diplomatic failure.
The second failure is more important. The world's democracies have failed to get their act together to present a coherent and united front to an obnoxious regime. It is that institutional failure, rather than the underlying case against Saddam, that has led to the equivocal response from public opinion.
We will need to revisit the whole architecture of international institutional peacekeeping, and re-engineer it radically to avoid future failure. I do not give that as a reason for going to war, but I happen to believe it will be easier to make the reforms that are necessary once the Iraq crisis has been resolved, than to do so with the crisis hanging over the United Nations indefinitely.
I believe there was a need for greater clarity at the inception of the resolution process, a need for more visible and better-defined milestones as we went along, and for greater certainty about the nature of the consequences if there was no progress. The traditional skills of diplomacy involve getting people to agree to something by persuading them that it means what they want it to mean, and saying that there is no harm in "signing up" because the eventuality is remote. All that has come horribly unstuck. There has been too much ambiguity and obfuscation in the process.

825
The public squabbling about what resolution 1441 actually means baffles our constituents, as do discussions on "Newsnight" and "Today" between expensive barristers about whether the war is legal. I believe that if the process had been more open and transparent—if there had been more clarity—we would be receiving a more supportive response from our constituents, because the underlying case is strong.
That, however, is for tomorrow. What should we do today? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) that the decision is close to call. I believe that, in a nutshell, the debate concerns the credibility of the United Nations on the one hand, and its unity on the other. The Prime Minister's view is that unless firm action is taken now, the UN's credibility will be fatally undermined. The alternative view is that moving too fast will shatter the unity of the UN, thus fatally undermining it.
With the benefit of hindsight, we may think it might have been possible for the United States and the United Kingdom to go a little more slowly, not to give Saddam more time, but to give the rest of the world more time. That is not possible now, though. The unity of the UN is no longer there—which makes it more important to assert its credibility.
When we last debated this issue I had some sympathy with the amendment that had been tabled, but I did not support it, for this reason: the best prospect for peace at that time was convincing Saddam that we were prepared to go to war. It seemed to me that the more people voted for the amendment, the more Saddam would get a picture of a country that was not prepared to go to war. Voting for the amendment ran the risk of encouraging Saddam to call the bluff. Having looked at the amendment tabled today, I feel that anyone who genuinely believes that the case for war has not been established should vote against the war. The amendment seeks to square a circle that is incapable of being squared.
Whatever the doubts and reservations about the process that brought us here, here we are. My constituency, like others, has a high military profile. Many of my voters are sitting on the hot yellow sand in Kuwait, wondering whether they will see the cool green fields of Hampshire again. I believe that they and their families are entitled to know that their Member of Parliament backs the risks they run in removing an obnoxious regime, and I shall therefore support the Government tonight.
4.43 pm
Mr. Stephen McCabe: We have reached the time of day when we have already heard many speeches, and I am not sure that I can add anything dramatically new.
Like many ordinary Members of Parliament, however, I have wrestled with this issue for several months. I did not start with the view that we should necessarily take military action in Iraq. Naturally, I have spent a good deal of time listening to the criticisms of those who are worried about the prospect of war. It has occurred to me that there have been a number of recurring themes in the arguments of those who believe
826
that we should not go to war. Obviously, nothing I say will have any impact on those who are already implacably opposed to war, but over the past few days many colleagues have told me that they are not sure about it, because they feel that the issue is very finely balanced. I wondered which matters people were not certain about. I regularly hear that the case regarding weapons of mass destruction has not been made. Some people are certain that Saddam Hussein has none at all, and others say that he has neither the capability nor the capacity to use them.
How did we end up in this position? We must assume either that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is misleading the House whenever he comes to the Dispatch Box to talk about his fear of those weapons of mass destruction and about the intelligence reports that he has been reviewing, or that the intelligence community is deliberately misinforming him. We must draw those conclusions if we say that the story about WMD is utterly wrong. Moreover, whenever there is a report from a respected journalist that a scientist has been assassinated or detained because he has knowledge of the weapons programme, we must believe that that journalist is seeking to mislead us.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) arranged for representatives of the INDICT organisation to come to the House. They gave a graphic description of the people held in Saddam Hussein's detention centres. After those people have been subjected to every sort of torture and humiliation, they are then gassed with mustard gas. Where does all that mustard gas come from, if all that sort of stuff has been degraded or destroyed? We cannot assume that there are no WMD in Iraq. The inspectors' reports repeatedly indicate that there are.
We do not know with any certainty the extent to which WMD exist, but anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein has no such weapons, and no viable chemical or biological weapons, should not vote for the amendment tonight. I agree with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young): anyone who honestly believes that Saddam Hussein has no weapons of that variety should vote straightforwardly against the Government motion. In those circumstances, it would be absurd to vote for the amendment.
People have been preoccupied by the question of the additional UN resolution. I have been troubled by the way in which that resolution has been regarded. For weeks, there has been a systematic effort from certain quarters to convince people that any such resolution would have been irrelevant anyway, as it would have been secured by buying people off, or by arm twisting. No hon. Members who are party to the view that the resolution would have been worthless anyway have a right to come to the House and say that they will not vote for the motion because that resolution was not secured.
I happen to be one of those who believe that the Government were right to try to secure a second resolution. I commend the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to go the full distance to try and achieve that, but it would be absurd to put to the vote a resolution that has effectively been blown out of

827
the water already. There is no getting away from the fact that that was the consequence of the French President's behaviour.
We have therefore been left without a second resolution and, as a result, Saddam has been given a further advantage. We might have been able to say today that we were all at one about how to deal with the man, but we find ourselves sidetracked into dealing with the question of the resolution. The second resolution in itself is important only if we disregard everything that went before, but the reality is that there have been umpteen resolutions in the past 12 years. For a full year, the House has had virtually no other topic for debate than the question of what we should do about Saddam.
Some hon. Members say that they would have supported the Government under other circumstances, but that the lack of a second resolution—a resolution which, a couple of weeks ago, the same people were calling dubious—has made the decision for them. With all due respect to the people involved, that is an extremely hard case to believe.
The other question that I have pondered is why the situation is suddenly different now. I read the amendment with interest, but it is the "Groundhog Day" scenario. It says that, despite everything that has happened, we want to go back to the beginning and start again. The amendment is saying, "Well, we think that Saddam might have some weapons and the UN might be well advised to take some action against him, but we think that the Prime Minister should start all over again and see whether he can get another resolution. If he gets a resolution this time, however, we think it should give Saddam an unspecified period of time." The amendment calls it a "defined period", but that could mean three days, 30 days or 30 years. Those who support the amendment think that we should start again, allow everything that has already happened to happen again and then, if we are no further forward, consider military action.
I am no fan of the prospect of military action, but the time has come to draw a line if we are to justify what we have said. The talking must end and we must show that our intent is real. Any other course of action diminishes everything that has happened.
Many people have raised the legitimate point that there are two issues that we cannot walk away from. If we resort to military action—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.
4.52 pm
Mr. John Randall: It is pleasure to speak in such a full Chamber. My normal lot is to speak when the Chamber is almost empty, which is probably a good thing. I am afraid that when the gift of making good speeches was handed out I must have been somewhere else, but I shall try to explain why I intend to vote for the amendment tonight. I shall do so with a heavy heart, and the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition nearly persuaded me to vote with them. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) nearly persuaded me not to vote with him.
There are many reasons for my decision and I cannot give them all. One of the principal reasons is the action in Yugoslavia, which I opposed. Although I understand the reasons given by other hon. Members—notably my
828
hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson)—I find it disturbing that that action has been portrayed recently in debate as a great victory and success. Anybody who knows the current situation in Kosovo will realise that we certainly have not finished what we started. It is one of my great worries that the same will happen in Iraq.
Enough has been said in some excellent speeches, but I have lost my faith in what happens in war because in the past the truth has been blatantly abused by our propagandists. I do not seek to make a party political point, but I thought that our Government were above that. If we want to keep the faith and trust of other countries, we must not try to hide the truth. Military considerations aside, we must try to tell the truth.
This is a difficult decision. Although I would normally say that the Whips are a fine body of men and women, and it is usually a good idea to do exactly what they say, on this occasion I suggest to all hon. Members that it is best to make up their own minds. Those who are voting with the Government are not warmongers; those of us who are voting for the amendment are not appeasers. Everyone has their own opinions and it is very difficult to come down on one side of the fence.
America is not a villain. I would like to count myself as a friend of America. However, as all good friends should, we sometimes have to speak out and tell our friends that they are doing something that they should perhaps think twice about. All I mean by that is that they should just hold back a little longer. I can understand that the military build-up is like water behind a dam. We cannot keep it there forever. That is why I think that what is going to happen is inevitable.
I was brought up to believe in serving my country. I also believe in doing my duty. My duty is first and foremost to my country, then to my constituency, and then to my party. However, one of the things that I have always been frightened of in the Whips Office is when people listen to the arguments. Listening to the arguments today has been a salutary lesson. Another expression that we have in the Whips Office is, "I'm afraid I'm all over the place."
Many of my constituents from RAF Uxbridge are already in the Gulf, and many others will soon join them. The last thing that I want is for them to feel that I am undermining them. If the amendment falls, I shall seriously consider the political and moral gymnastics of whether I can support the Government. I am not sure at this stage whether I can do that, but I can promise my constituents out there that I wish them well. Once I have said my piece, I shall shut up and let them get on with their job. I hope—I have never hoped this so much in my life—that I am wrong about some of the possible consequences. I will be the first to admit that, if I am wrong, I shall be delighted.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
4.57 pm
Donald Anderson: There was a quiet eloquence about the hon. Gentleman in spite of his disclaimer. What I liked about his speech was his considerable respect for those on both sides of the argument and his readiness to express honest doubt. I have felt little respect for those who have total confidence in either side of the argument. There are

829
many high risks and many uncertainties, and many questions that have not been answered—indeed, there are some questions that cannot, as yet, be answered. However, we are not a university debating society and we are not a seminar of professors. We have to make decisions. People will make decisions, exercising their judgment as best they can.
We are faced with this problem as we seek to come to a decision: should we now stand down our troops, and should we fundamentally change our strategy? In theory, we could indeed fold our tents and glide away, forgetting about the fact that there are men and women representing our country on the borders of Kuwait and Iraq. We have chosen to be engaged. In my judgment, we made a correct strategic decision way back last summer. We remain engaged with our US allies. To withdraw at this stage would be unthinkable. To suggest that we could was the essential flaw in the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) last night. His speech was highly compelling. Moreover, he has, in a short time, made a major and positive impact on the procedures of the House and on the House generally. The fact is, however, that we cannot easily now turn back without undermining our own credibility and the authority of the United Nations. The wording of 1441 was clear. One does not need any special knowledge to know that "immediate" should mean immediate and that "unconditional" should mean unconditional. Only in an Alice in Wonderland world do words mean what I say they mean: elsewhere, the word "immediate" must surely mean immediate. After four and a half months, Dr. el-Baradei said clearly that there would have to be a dramatic change on the part of Saddam Hussein if there was to be compliance. Given Saddam Hussein's record, one would need faith in a Damascene conversion to imagine that such a dramatic change was likely to happen. It was reasonable to assume that the words meant what they said. If we backtrack now, no future Security Council resolutions will have any credibility. We can make all sorts of pious declarations but a giant leap will be required if there is not the will to enforce them.
I turn to the role of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He promised in good faith to pursue the diplomatic path, and he has indeed gone the extra mile, as many of us demanded. The Prime Minister undertook to make possible a debate in this House before action. That was wholly unprecedented and wholly against all the practices and conventions of our constitution. I applaud his having done so; it is a major victory for Parliament. The Prime Minister stated clearly that he wished to act in conformity with international law—of course, there are weighty lawyers on both sides, but the opinion of the Attorney-General is very clear on this point; not one Member of this House could have tried harder than the Prime Minister to continue negotiations to avoid war; not one Member could have shown more commitment or more courage.
Ms Diane Abbott: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Donald Anderson: Yes, as long as I have injury time.
Ms Abbott: My right hon. Friend said that the opinion of the Attorney-General could not be clearer,
830
but in fact the Attorney-General's advice rests on a 10-year-old UN resolution. It is not as clear as my right hon. Friend thinks.
Donald Anderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend should see a lawyer. I have confidence in the Attorney-General. He chaired the Bar Council, he has his reputation among his fellow lawyers to maintain, and he is a man of stout independence. I urge my hon. Friend to look carefully at the conclusions that he reached.
Our Prime Minister made a strategic decision to stand alongside the United States on the basis that it would give him influence—it certainly has given him influence in terms of the UN route and of the middle east peace process—and on the basis that Saddam Hussein, given his past conduct, only responds to pressure with the credible threat of force. I am confident that that was the correct decision at the time. We could not have foreseen that the UN route could lead to the current impasse. One or two hon. Members have spoken of a spectacular failure of diplomacy, but all the advice available to our Government—not only from our diplomats but from conversations with leading members—was that there was a likelihood that 1441 would be obeyed.
The US has many vocal critics—I have frequently raised my concerns about its unilateralist policies in other areas—but the blame for the collapse of the diplomatic process lies with the wilful obstruction of the French Government, who said in terms:
"Quelles que soient les circonstances la France votera non".
The French is clear: whatever the circumstances, France will vote no. There is nothing clearer than that. The French ruled out negotiations on the proposals put forward by the UK Government even before the Iraqis did. That approach, which has led to a crisis in the international organisations and put at risk the transatlantic alliance, is based essentially on a Gaullist view of the world—the idea that Europe can be an effective rival or counterweight to the megapower of the United States. France has played into the hands of Saddam Hussein by blocking the UN route. Do we seriously expect Saddam Hussein to make concessions and to co-operate with the weapons inspectors now that the pressure has been taken off him—or would have been taken off him if the French had had their way? In short, France has dealt a mortal blow to any hopes of a peaceful, negotiated outcome.
I recognise the uncertainties and the high risks, and I share many of my colleagues' suspicions about the unilateralism of the US Administration. However, I am confident that the French position can only encourage that unilateralism, while our policy will help to keep the US engaged internationally, and will ensure our national influence for the good. Despite all the uncertainties and anxieties, I fully supported the Prime Minister when he lined up with the President to disarm Saddam Hussein voluntarily, or by force. That was done for the best motives, and on the basis of a correct analysis at the time, and it has had significant results. Disarmament is now impossible through the preferred route, so serious consequences are now imminent and inevitable. In my judgment, if we prevaricate, we lose credibility. To uphold the UN's credibility, we should hold our course. I shall support the Government tonight.
5.6 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: We could be at war in days, if not hours, and in meeting here today, we have perhaps one last chance to reflect on that fact. The Prime Minister has set out a powerful case. We can all understand his commitment and applaud his efforts; unfortunately, we cannot support his conclusions. Many of today's contributions have reflected the passions and concerns surrounding this issue. The House will, of course, unite on one key issue: that Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant who should not be in possession of weapons of mass destruction: he must be disarmed. The fault line in the debate is about how we do that. We take him on because he ignores international law, and in so doing we must respect the principles of international law, in whose name we act. War must be a last resort.
We believe that the military build-up was the right thing to do. Saddam and his regime have undoubtedly had their minds focused, but an important distinction surely exists between a credible threat of force, and the certain use of force. We must not go to war simply because the forces have turned up and are ready to roll. Resolution 1441 contained no automaticity. It was, of course, a significant achievement, and all the more powerful because it was unanimous. It did indeed talk about a "further material breach", a "final opportunity", and "serious consequences". We are all familiar with the litany; indeed, the Foreign Secretary can quote it unsighted, and has firm views on its meaning.
However, there is one part of resolution 1441, in paragraph 12, that often gets overlooked. It states that the Security Council
"Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 … in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance".
In weighing up the best way to tackle Saddam, it is the Security Council as a whole that must judge the course of action to take. The Government's efforts in recent days to persuade Security Council members about their course of action shows that they recognise this truth; however, their arguments have not prevailed. The core of 1441 is about the weapons inspectors. Doctors Blix and el-Baradei have made progress. The US and UK Governments may not be persuaded, but that does not alter the position. Dr. Blix said recently that the time allowed "is a little short". He also said that he needed
"not years, not weeks, but months".
The process set out in 1441 is not exhausted; alternatives to war have barely been explored. In the past few days, we have seen diplomacy laid bare, considered discussion subverted by shouting matches, and force of argument now replaced by force of arms. It has been ugly, but the downward spiral of international debate must not distract us from the underlying truths of the situation. The Governments of the USA and the UK have not won the arguments; not simply because a majority in the international community believe that the weapons inspectors should continue their work but, just as significantly, because there is disagreement about the war objectives—disarmament only, or regime change. There is also concern about the consequences of action, which could be horrific and extremely serious, whether in humanitarian terms in the middle east region or
832
through a spur to international terrorism. All those issues weigh heavily on us and they should tip the argument towards continuing with the UN route.
We are not yet at war, but in all likelihood our armed forces will be engaged in military conflict in the next few days. Our thoughts are with them and their families. As the cross-party amendment notes, in the event that hostilities commence, we pledge total support for the British forces. We express admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hope that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides.
We still have a final moment for reflection. Late last week, President Bush issued a plea. He said:
"Let us move beyond entrenched positions and make moves for peace."
He was talking about the middle east peace process, but his words also apply to Iraq. We should still be working through the United Nations. We have not yet exhausted all the diplomatic and political alternatives.
We should not be going to war.
5.11 pm
Tony Worthington: I shall talk about only one aspect of this issue: the humanitarian consequences of the action of my Government and the United States in going to war on Iraq.
In this debate we have been obsessed, as we have been for many months, with the wickedness of Saddam Hussein. There have been countless words of vilification, but for my constituents they were hardly necessary; they are fully aware of his behaviour. What bothers my constituents—it is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister fails to persuade them of the rightness of his approach—is that little or no attention is being paid to the consequences of the action that we are about to take.
If damaging consequences are set loose by our actions, we must take the morality of that into account. If, as we are likely to do, we take action that strongly increases the probability of the use of weapons of mass destruction, we must question whether such a policy is wise or moral. If we take action that involves the use of our own weapons of mass destruction in a horrific onslaught against the people of Iraq, that, too, has to be put on the moral scales. Half the people whom we are going to kill are children. None of the people whom we are going to kill had any say in the imposition of Saddam Hussein as their tyrant. We must take that into account.
We are going to invade a country of Balkanesque complexity where occupying forces will be unable easily to withdraw. We are rapidly in danger of becoming piggy in the middle for every discontented ethnic or religious group in the area. There seems little doubt of speedy, initial victory, but it is worth remembering that the six-day war in the middle east is still going strong after 35 years. This war has similar potential.
It is currently not easy to get countries to volunteer for armed service in Afghanistan. Which countries will have troops of the right quality to assist the Americans and us? Have we faced up to being an army of occupation?

833
Above all, we are being led by an American President who is completely honest about what his Administration intend to do with the world. I have recently been reading Bob Woodward's book, "Bush at War"—on his first war in Afghanistan—which is a real love story. Bob Woodward says of Bush:
"His vision clearly includes a radical reordering of the world through pre-emptive and, if necessary, unilateral action."
We have not just to look at the history, as we keep doing, but to think through the consequences.
I have been concerned by the lack of reporting to the House on the humanitarian consequences of an invasion. When I backed the Government in going down the UN route, the intention was certainly not that we would just debate and vote in the Security Council and then the Iraq issue would be simply handed over to General Tommy Franks. Obviously, the conduct of the war has to be done by the military, but what happens alongside and afterwards must be an UN operation.
The Government have been very remiss in reporting on what the operation will involve. The only people who have been clear about what will happen are the Americans, and they did so most clearly five to six weeks ago in a report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Douglas Feith, the Under Secretary of Defence.
The Pentagon would be in control. I quote:
"US post war responsibilities will not be easy to fulfil and the US by no means wishes to tackle them alone. We shall encourage contributions and participation from coalition partners, non-governmental organisations, the UN and other international organisations and others."
Another quote:
"The coalition officials"—
that is us—
"responsible for post-conflict administration of Iraq—whether military or civilian, from the various agencies of governments, will report to the President through General Tom Franks and the Secretary of Defense."
That is simply not acceptable as a way of administering a country that has been invaded. That is not conjecture; it is a statement of policy by the American Government. The expectation is that the Americans, not the UN, would have the lead role and that foreign Governments and organisations would report to the United States President. That had been planned without reference to the Secretary-General of the UN or any UN organisation.
Stories are now going around that, in fact, the Prime Minister has negotiated the lead role for the UN under a new UN resolution that will be proposed. I am puzzled by that story because it is not in the motion and it was not in the Prime Minister's speech.[Interruption.]It is not in the motion. If hon. Members read the motion, they will see that it does not refer to a UN-controlled mandate post-conflict. If that is there, it is very welcome. If it is true—this story is going around as well—that Kofi Annan will be in charge of the oil-for-food programme, that is a big step forward, but perhaps the Minister would tell us in his winding-up speech exactly what has been negotiated with George Bush to make the situation much more acceptable when the conflict is over, rather than what is in the motion at present. I would very much welcome that.
834
We have to consider the scale of the humanitarian problem. Iraq is a huge country, the size of France. We have to think about feeding 26 million people instantly. That has to be done by the UN, not by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance after the election. No one has paid any attention to that very important issue, but I hope that the Minister will be able to make it absolutely clear in his winding-up speech whether the UN or the American generals will be in control after the election.
5.19 pm
Mr. John Baron: It is my belief—I say this with a heavy heart—that war at this moment is wrong for a number of reasons. First, war should always be the measure of last resort, when all other approaches have been exhausted and are futile. Indeed, war can be justified only if there is no other possibility. As we stand today, however, that is not the case. The threat of force is yielding some results. UN inspectors want more time and are finally making some progress, slow though it may be, and no one can dispute that.
Many who advocate war point out correctly that Iraq has had 12 years to disarm but has not done so, and cite that as a reason to go to war now. However, many of those years were wasted by the international community. To resort to war now, having made some progress during the last 12 to 13 weeks of the present policy, makes little sense.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that it is not the inspectors' job to go on doing what they have been doing over the last few weeks in acting as detectives? If they are to perform their task properly, they need to be actively shown where the forbidden weapons are, and they are not being shown where they are.
Mr. Baron: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but he must accept that the UN inspectors' reports request extra time because they believe that some progress is being made and there are tentative signs that the regime may be changing its view. An extra 45 days, or a couple of months, would determine whether that was true. Time would tell.
To wage war now makes little sense when all the other possible approaches and measures have not been exhausted. Waging war is the ultimate act of politicians, yet such an act recognises the futility of their endeavours. Until we know that all other avenues have been exhausted, our consciences cannot be at ease. What is to be lost by giving the UN inspectors what they want: a few more months to see whether the task can be completed? Do we seriously believe that Iraq's biological and chemical weapons, in whatever state and quantity, pose such an immediate threat to the US, the UK or Iraq's neighbours that if we do not act this week or this month, we put our citizens at serious risk? I do not believe so.
Iraq's army is a shadow of its 1991 standing. Iraq is probably the most watched-over country in the world at present. It would riot pose any more of an immediate threat to our citizens during this period than it has done over the past 12 years. The prize for being patient, however, could be great: we would have a much greater chance of the UN speaking with at least a moral majority, if not one voice, on this issue.

835
That leads me to my second concern, which is for the UN. For whatever reasons, it is clear that the UN does not believe war to be justified, and will not vote for it. Unlike the action in relation to Kosovo, we cannot even get a moral majority for this action. The UN imposed the sanctions, and, on this issue, the UN should decide whether war is a necessity. By taking unilateral action, the US and the UK have undermined the organisation, which saddens me greatly. Having served with the UN, I have seen the tremendous potential for good that it possesses. It is not perfect, and blame can be laid at its door over the last 12 years, but it is the best that we have got, and could do much more if we put our minds to it. At a time when the UN should come together as never before to fight global terrorism and other threats after 11 September, it is being undermined by this action. The credibility that the international community will require when dealing with rogue states and terrorist organisations will be that much harder to muster.
Since the second world war, the threat of force, deterrence and containment have been successful policies, during the cold war and when dealing with rogue states such as Libya. The broad unity that has made that possible is at risk of fracturing, and that could be a serious consequence of this action.
Mr. George Osborne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Baron: I will not. I must make progress or I will run out of time.
We have debated the broad legality of the action long and hard, and I accept that, if one puts several lawyers in a room, one will probably not receive only one answer. Resolution 1441, for which I voted, clearly implies that war is possible, but only if other means have been exhausted. I thought that it was passed in that spirit and, as we all know, the American ambassador to the UN was at pains to emphasise at the time that there were no hidden trigger points for war in the resolution. However, we have been told that the resolution is sufficient justification for war in its own right. If that is the case, certain questions must be answered.
Why did the US and UK try to secure a second resolution if not to provide legal cover for war? Why has Kofi Annan cast doubt over the legality of war without a second resolution? Why does a growing body of opinion, both at home and abroad, question whether resolution 1441 is sufficient justification for war? The countries that signed up to 1441 believed that it could justify war only if there were no alternatives. We all agree that Iraq has a revolting regime—there can be little doubt about that—but that is insufficient justification to go to war.
Insufficient thought has been given to the consequences of the action and urgent questions must again be answered. Who and what will replace Saddam Hussein? What plans exist for humanitarian relief? We know little about that. What effect will the action have on the stability of neighbouring states? My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has consistently asked those questions but the Government have failed to answer them, broadly speaking. Any plans have not been assisted by the fact that the USA has cited different objectives at different times: regime change, links with
836
al-Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction and morality. We need to be clear about the objectives when taking such important decisions.
I wish to address the view expressed in some quarters that we are some how letting our troops down by questioning our policy here and now. It is only right that we question the policy given that we are probably about to go to war. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that we will wholeheartedly support our troops if and when they are sent to war. They deserve our fullest support and I know that they will not fail us, although we may have failed to address the issue adequately.
War now is not the right action. I have no doubt about the result of the conflict because the combined military power of the US and the UK will ensure a quick military victory. However, an easy victory does not make the war right. I am not anti-American—quite the opposite, I have great respect for America—but that is not the issue. Good friends need to point out where policy is going wrong.
The UN can only be weakened by unilateral action by certain members at a time when it clearly does not believe that action is justified, despite all the talk over the weekend in the Azores. That is why I cannot support the Government's action and I shall vote for the amendment.
5.28 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: We have just heard a courageous speech, although I am not sure how well it will go down with warlike taxi drivers from Billericay.
It is customary on these occasions to wish our forces well when they carry out the thankless task that we ask them to do in our name. In my capacity as the civilian president of 444 Squadron, Shoreditch—I proudly wear its tie today—I hope against hope that all our airmen and women, soldiers and sailors will return home safely from the war. I also hope that men, women and children in Iraq will be safe. With apologies to Churchill, I hope that this will not signal the end, or even the beginning of the end, for our Prime Minister. However, my gut instinct tells me that he will face almost insurmountable problems because of the position that he has taken. The scale of his misjudgment on this issue is enormous.
Who would have thought that the actions of a Labour Prime Minister would have given rise to the biggest demonstration in our history against his own Government? Who would have thought that his actions would give rise to the biggest parliamentary Back-Bench rebellion in modern political history? How did he manage to poison the idea of European unity? The attempts to make France the scapegoat for the miserable failure of British diplomacy have demeaned both our Foreign Secretary—I regret to say that—and our Prime Minister. Listening to some of today's debate, one would think that there is such an anti-French feeling that people have started to read the editorials in The Sun. It will be a long time before the civilised citizens of our continent forgive them.
How came it that our Prime Minister allowed a road map for peace to become a road map for war, thereby sowing deep division in the United Nations? Did he really think that the United States Government could

837
bully and bribe all the nations of the UN to acquiesce in armed conflict? It is sad that, both as a politician and as a lawyer, the Prime Minister should have forsaken the ideal of a tolerant and liberal \internationalism in favour of the frightening concept that might is right.
We are supposed to admire the Prime Minister because he is a man without doubts and one shorn of scepticism—two of the greatest qualities that the British people have. He just knows that he is right and is therefore prepared to ignore the advice of virtually all the leaders of the great religions in the world, including the Pope and our own archbishop. I find that approach rather frightening.
Worse than all that, the Prime Minister shows himself to be oblivious of and careless towards the shrewd moral judgment of the majority of the British people. No, we do not govern by opinion poll and focus groups, but in a modern democracy we need something stronger to hold on to than the slogan, "My Prime Minister, right or wrong."
In this catastrophe the Prime Minister, a self-avowed admirer of Baroness Thatcher, has ignored the principal lesson of her demise. He should know, as the rest of us do, that when arrogance turns to hubris, come-uppance is never far behind.
Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way.
Mr. Sedgemore: No, I will not give way.
The public find much of the background to this war difficult to comprehend. So do I. Shortly after Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons of mass destruction against his own people, I sought to go to Iraq with my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and a chemical weapons expert to find out just what had happened. I do not remember any of us being given any support, either by the then Government or by the then Opposition. The heroic efforts of my hon. Friend, for whom I have unstinting admiration, to help the Iraqi Kurds, were met with her dismissal by the Prime Minister on the advice of the then Labour Chief Whip. I find that appalling.
More recently, my hon. Friend has been thwarted by the Attorney-General in her attempts, as an alternative t o war, to indict Saddam Hussein and his henchmen for crimes against humanity. The Attorney-General's response, as my hon. Friend told the House in withering terms, was woeful. His legal opinion, which I have seen myself, was scorned by experts.
So now it is to be war on the basis of another bad legal opinion by the Attorney-General. I have it here in my pocket. I do not want to be rude to the Attorney-General, but he is a commercial lawyer who, frankly, seems to be out of his depth when trying to deal with this problem. Let us not forget too—I apologise to my learned Friends for this—that the law is a marketplace and if one shops around, one can always get some poor soul to give the opinion that one wants.
Of course there are laws, domestic and international, and they should be adhered to, but it takes people of clarity and understanding at the top to enable systems to work fairly and properly. In my view, we lack such
838
people at the moment. History frequently tells us that tragedies are rarely as bad as they seem at the time they occur; ominously, however, it sometimes tells us that they are worse. I suspect that the latter will prove to be the case this time. In the end, politics, like most other things in life, is about trust. Sadly, I do not trust some of the people who are leading us in this issue, so they cannot rely on my support tonight.
5.35 pm
Mr. John Maples: That was fairly indigestible. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) indulged his usual understatement, but apparently one can safely make that sort of speech from inside the Cabinet as well as outside.
I shall pick up the point about legality and spend a few minutes examining it. Seventeen United Nations Security council resolutions and the opinion of the Attorney-General are enough for me—although apparently not for some people—and I cannot see how one more resolution can make moral something that is otherwise immoral. However, to examine the issue strictly in terms of legality, the opinion of the Attorney-General seems to me powerful and well argued. No doubt, as the hon. Gentleman said, if one got a different lawyer, one would get a different opinion. I note that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament commissioned an opinion from a QC and got an opinion that was precisely the opposite of the Attorney-General's. How surprising. There is no point in paying one of those expensive people if they are not going to say what one wants to hear.
I wish to explore the views of many of those who are rebelling against the Government over Iraq but were perfectly content with the action that the Government took in Kosovo. We did not get even one United Nations Security Council resolution for Kosovo. We relied on a doctrine of so-called humanitarian intervention that almost certainly does not exist—certainly the point had to be stretched. The United States may be stretching the concept of pre-emptive self-defence if it uses that as an argument for intervening in Iraq, but at least that doctrine exists, unlike the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. What we did in Kosovo was illegal.
A great many Labour Members and some Conservative Members seem to have problems with what the Government are doing now, when there is a strong case that the action is legal, even if the case is not watertight. In Kosovo, the action was clearly illegal. There were three major debates in the House on that action, and no one voted against it, even though they could have forced votes on the Adjournment. There was nothing like the plethora of activity that we are seeing now. One cannot help wondering what prejudices this policy on Iraq has tickled.
The leader of the war party at the time of Kosovo, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who spoke yesterday—I told him that I would refer in this debate to what he said—is now apparently the leader of the peace party. At the time, he argued strongly for the intervention in Kosovo on what I consider were powerful and compelling moral grounds. There was indeed a strong moral case for intervening, but there was

839
not a legal case for doing so. Are we now saying that Milosevic was a bigger threat to international peace and security than Saddam Hussein, or that Milosevic was committing worse breaches of human rights than Saddam Hussein? Milosevic did not have weapons of mass destruction; Saddam Hussein almost certainly did.
Those who wrap themselves in principle and say that on this occasion they are behaving out of principle, as the right hon. Gentleman does, at least owe us consistency. If people base their views on foreign policy on principle and morality and they are inconsistent, one is entitled to ask about their sincerity. Those who will oppose the Government tonight out of their principles cannot have been acting on the same principles when they supported the Government on Kosovo.
Mr. Savidge: In the Balkans, Milosevic had started a series of wars in the recent past, and Kosovo was just one more, whereas Saddam Hussein, evil though he is, has been contained for more than a decade.
Mr. Maples: I do not want get sidetracked into the history of the Balkans, as we could be there for a very long time. All I will say is that our intervention in Kosovo was an intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Kosovo was part of Serbia. The then Foreign Secretary engineered a conference at Fontainebleau at which Milosevic was presented with a wholly unacceptable set of terms and conditions, which was then used as a pretext for starting a war. We intervened in the internal affairs of another sovereign state, without any legal basis for that action. I do not argue that there was no moral basis; there certainly was, and in that respect the intervention was successful, but nobody could argue that it was legal.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maples: No, I have taken an intervention on that point and I want to pursue my own argument.
We must understand that the world has changed since 11 September. If we do not think that it has changed for us, we must understand that it has changed for the United States. Things that were previously acceptable as nuisances or pinpricks no longer are. We must also accept that only the United States will sort out the problems. We will not do it; the French will not do it. If we and the French could talk to each other, we could not do it together. We are going to rely on the United States to do it.
The idea that our foreign policy can be carried out legally and morally only if it is the subject of a United Nations Security Council resolution is a dreadful hostage to fortune. It gives any of the five permanent members of the Security Council a veto over what we decide to do.
On my second point, I turn to what will happen or not happen tonight. I have read the amendment with more than 100 signatures against it. Presumably, rather more hon. Members will vote for it. The case could have been made until two or three weeks ago, but do those hon. Members really think that it is sensible, at this late stage in the day, to try to defeat the Government on the matter? Let us consider what the consequences would he if the Government were defeated.
840
If, on the verge of battle, with our troops and their command structure integrated into an alliance with the United States, playing vital small parts in that military effort, they were withdrawn, that would destroy the credibility of British foreign and security policy for a generation. Just reflect what happened at Suez. It took 26 years, till the Falklands war, for the credibility of British foreign policy to be reasserted. If we withdraw—
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maples: No. I am in the middle of making my main point.
If we withdrew our support for the alliance at this late stage, we would destroy the credibility of our foreign policy for a generation. We would damage immensely, if not terminally, our alliance with the United States. We would damage our relations with a great many countries in Europe that support the stance that the Government have taken, and I venture to say that we would never be trusted again while most of us are in the House, and probably long beyond.
I believe that the Prime Minister's actions will be vindicated. Even if one disagrees with what he is doing, the time has come to stop criticising and undermining him and to let him get on with the job. The best that most of the rest of us can do is hope and, dare I say, pray that the conflict will be short and that very few people will be killed.
5.42 pm
Hugh Bayley: In July last year the Prime Minister took the decision to work through the United Nations. He was the first person to call for UN weapons inspectors to be readmitted to Iraq. France was not calling for that, nor was Germany, nor was the peace movement and CND, nor was the United States, so it was a major achievement to gain unanimous support in November for resolution 1441.
I deeply regret the divisions on the Security Council that have opened up since then. Those divisions, as I said earlier, have had the effect of disarming the United Nations, rather than disarming Iraq. On 24 February France, Germany and Russia submitted a memorandum to the Security Council that stated:
"The unity of the Security Council must be preserved."
So why the talk of a veto? Why not negotiation with other members of the Security Council? Why not compromise on a defined period for disarmament to be followed by military action, as was proposed by our Government?
I wanted to see a second resolution carried in the Security Council before UK troops were committed to military action, but unfortunately the opportunity for that debate has been taken away by the French decision to wield its veto. I do not agree with the French or German view that if we give Saddam Hussein a little more time, he will change his mind and disarm, but I respect the German position when they say that they will not participate in military action. I would respect the French position if they said the same, but I cannot accept that France, Russia or China have a right to use their veto to prevent others from enforcing UN resolutions.

841
In the absence of the second resolution that I wanted to see, I simply ask two questions. First, has Saddam complied and disarmed? The answer is no. Secondly, does it matter? As far as I am concerned, the answer is yes. Given that we, the Americans and others have built up forces in the region, we now face only two alternatives—to commit those troops in the very near future to military enforcement of the UN resolutions or to pull them out of the theatre. If we pull them out, Iraq will immediately end what limited compliance it has shown with the UN's requirements. We cannot keep those forces on stand-by in tents in the desert and bobbing up and down in ships on Indian ocean for a further 120 days, as the French proposed. Every Member of this House knows that. Indeed, France knew that when it put forward its 120-day proposal.
I detest the prospect of war every bit as much as the many constituents who have written to me opposing it, but I do not believe that we can ignore the threat that Iraq poses to neighbouring states, the gross violation of the human rights of the Iraqi people or the risk that the Iraqi regime will at some point in future supply chemical or biological agents to terrorists who might use them in this country or elsewhere in Europe.
I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian consequences of war. There is an urgent need to ensure that responsibility for distributing food under the oil-for-food programme is transferred from the Iraqi authorities to the United Nations and that there is adequate funding to ensure that that happens, because 60 per cent. of Iraq's population depends on that food aid. We need to ensure that neighbouring countries open their borders to refugees and that refugee camps have water, sanitation and health facilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said, we need to ensure that the UN runs the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Without UN leadership, many donor countries simply will not make the contributions that will be necessary to rebuild Iraq.
I am pleased that our Prime Minister has put Palestine on to the agenda. There cannot be peace in the middle east without the creation of a Palestinian state and security for the state of Israel. Members of this House cannot ignore the fact that security for the state of Israel will be impossible as long as Saddam in Iraq is providing funding and support to the families of suicide bombers.
Finally, and importantly, I pay tribute to the almost 600 men and women of 2 Signal Regiment from my city, York, who are currently on active service in the Gulf. We in this House do not face the dangers that they face and we in this country are fortunate to have brave and professional soldiers in the British Army, and our other servicemen and women. They are deeply respected for their professionalism throughout the world and my thoughts are with them now.
5.48 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Securing the approval of the United Nations has become the rallying cry for some who oppose military action in Iraq. For them, no war without a second UN resolution has actually meant no war at all in any circumstances and
842
whatever the provocation. That evasion is deliberate. However, the United Nations cannot absolve us from exercising our own critical or moral judgment. Although UN approval is useful in garnering international support, a democratic sovereign nation state has the right to defend itself from external aggression, even if the UN or its Security Council has not given its blessing.
The judgments that we must make today are whether our country is right to go to war, and, if so, whether it is necessary to go to war now. Anyone who, like me, has voluntarily joined Her Majesty's regular armed forces is unlikely to support the "no war ever" brigade. No one who believes that a major war would probably be initiated by a nation where power was concentrated in the hands of the evil, the insane or the bigoted dictator can be in any doubt that Saddam Hussein poses a potential threat.
I have no doubt that Europe owes its freedom, and that some of its people owe their very existence, to the people and Governments of the United States. We owe that great nation a debt that too many in Europe ignore. Despite all that, I believe that the case for a war now has not been made. Too little has been done to put irresistible pressure on Saddam Hussein to effect the changes that our safety demands.
Any threat has two components: the available weapons and the likelihood of their use. In the past, the Iraqi regime has manufactured chemical, biological and probably nerve agents. They are weapons not of war but of terror, of which Saddam Hussein must undoubtedly be deprived. However, the Government have not demonstrated that they are easily available for use now. Neither have they shown that, contrary to all Saddam's previous actions, Iraq intends to threaten us with their use. I asked the Prime Minister on 12 February
"what new threat, proven threat or imminent threat is there to justify war?"—[Official Report, 12 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 860.]
The question remains unanswered.
We were first told that war was necessary as the Iraqi regime had a history of supporting al-Qaeda. Undoubtedly the regime has supported terrorism, and so have Syria, Iran and Libya. But al-Qaeda? Hardly. A godless, ruthless dictator with a history of oppressing his own Islamic people is inimical to such a fundamentalist terrorist organisation.
Mr. Dalyell: Of course, al-Qaeda had a connection with Saddam Hussein. On two occasions, it tried to assassinate him.
Mr. Sayeed: I thank the Father of the House for reminding hon. Members of that fact. It makes my point that Saddam Hussein is inimical to al-Qaeda.
Secondly, we were told that war was necessary because Saddam Hussein had a variety of foul weapons. When the inspectors did not find them, the Prime Minister changed his "just cause for war" again. In

843
answer to my question on 12 February, he introduced the concept of a moral war, waged as a humanitarian intervention to save the people of Iraq.
Mr. George Osborne: Surely it was not the weapons inspectors' job to find the weapons, but Saddam Hussein's job to show them where the weapons were.
Mr. Sayeed: I agree absolutely. Saddam Hussein should have done that. I intend to show why he would never do it.
Would the people of Iraq be better off if Saddam Hussein were dead or in exile? The answer is undoubtedly yes. Does the Iraqi regime have weapons of mass destruction? It almost certainly does. They are possibly so well hidden that they would be difficult to use immediately. Has Saddam Hussein supported terrorist organisations? Again, the answer is yes, but, as far as I am aware, to a lesser extent than Syria. None of those factors justifies immediate military action.
Much more could and should have been done to bring irresistible pressure to bear on Saddam Hussein by, for example, extending the no-fly zones to cover the whole of Iraq, by requiring Iraqi military personnel and equipment to be returned to agreed positions or by demanding that the weapons inspectors had unfettered access to sites and Iraqi personnel. Such draconian measures might have received international approval, and might reluctantly have been accepted by Saddam Hussein, provided that the visible threat of war continued. They certainly would have degraded the Iraqi regime's ability to resist military action if it came. Obviously, I cannot prove that my ideas, or any others, would have worked. I believe, however, that much more could have been done, and that much more should have been done differently, so that the effect of prevarication or cheating would have been obvious. We did not do that, however. Instead, we made demands that the Iraqi regime was always unlikely to accept, and which, if it did pretend to accept them, would be easy to cheat or lie about, as its dishonesty was hard to prove.

So, we are faced with war. It is a war whose justification will not be accepted by most of the Muslim world. Too little fresh thinking has been employed in trying to avert it, and its rationale has changed as each reason has remained unproven. It is portrayed as a war of last resort, yet it appears to be born of frustration with a regime and a leader without whom the world would be better off. I will give my unswerving support to those whom we have sent to fight in our name, but I will not support a premature decision to wage war. I hope that we will not come to regret this, but I fear that we will.
5.56 pm
Mr. Wayne David: I would like to begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I worked closely with him when he was shadow Foreign Secretary and Foreign Secretary, and I have a deep respect for his genuine internationalism.
Like many Members of the House, I have thought long and hard about this complex issue. I have great respect for everyone who has spoken in this debate and
844
for the many people with whom I have had discussions on the issue over the last couple of weeks. I want to say clearly that I support the Government. I do so not out of any sycophancy or blind loyalty, but because I believe that the position that they have adopted is morally correct.
Equally, I would like to say that I am not naturally a great ally or fan of the United States of America. I remember going to Nicaragua on two occasions in the 1980s, and I saw at first hand the extremely negative aspects of the US foreign policy of the time for the people of that country. Furthermore, when I turn on the television and see George W. Bush, I frequently cringe when I hear the vacuous rhetoric that he often employs. That is not a reason, however, to oppose the US position on Iraq. It is incumbent on all of us carefully to study precisely what the American position is, and what it means in practice.
Like many Members of the House, I had strongly hoped that we would have had a second United Nations resolution. However, having studied carefully the transcripts of various statements by President Chirac of France, there is no doubt in my mind that the French are primarily responsible for the fact that we do not have such a resolution. They threatened to use their veto in a quite unreasonable way, and many of us who wanted a second resolution did so on the assumption that all parties on the Security Council would approach the issue in a constructive, objective and fair way. That clearly has not happened.
We have to ask ourselves why the French have adopted this position. Some people might cite French commercial and oil interests. We have to bear in mind, however, that the French are playing a longer and bigger game plan here. They are concerned, it would seem, with developing an alternative global vision to that of the United States. They see themselves as the new and natural leaders of the European Union. I find that perspective extremely worrying, and I think that we in our country must ensure that there is a bridge between the United States and Europe enabling us all to work together as far as is humanly possible.
We must also never forget that, time and again, Saddam Hussein has been given the opportunity to resolve the situation. The onus has rightly been placed on him. If he had said at any moment—not during the last few days or months, but at any time during the last 12 years—that he was prepared to comply with United Nations resolutions, we would not be in our present position. We should never, ever forget that.
A clear choice is before us today. Many have talked of the consequences of military action; let me briefly refer to some of the consequences that I envisage in the event of no military action. First, I believe that the UN's influence would be reduced still further. Our Prime Minister's approach has, I believe, been the right approach. We must ensure that once military action has been taken, the UN continues to play a major role in world affairs and, in particular, plays a leading role in the creation of the democratic Iraq that we want to see. If we abdicate our responsibilities, the chances of that will be significantly less. Secondly, I believe that if we vote against military action there will still be a war: there will be a war if the United States alone attacks Iraq. I think that that more than anything else would reinforce the inclination of many in the US Administration to go

845
for unbridled unilateralism, which would constitute a huge step back for the global community. I fear, too, that the much-discussed road map would be that much more difficult to fulfil.
If the United States and we do not take action, however, Saddam Hussein will have been given the all-clear to keep his weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, he will have been given the OK by us to develop them still further. Let us not forget, too, that when we talk of weapons of mass destruction we talk of some of the most appalling weapons that humankind has developed—anthrax, mustard gas, VX gas, sarin gas and so on.
Finally, let me say this. If we do not take action—if we abdicate our responsibilities—the consequences for the people of Iraq will be dire. No one can doubt the barbarities of Saddam Hussein's regime: the torture, the persecution, the intimidation, the rape, the murder, the sheer inhumanity of the Ba'athist regime. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has depicted that inhumanity more graphically than anyone else I can think of. If we back down now, we will not be forgiven by thousands of ordinary people in Iraq.
Yesterday I was privileged to attend a meeting with the Prime Minister of Kurdish northern Iraq. The message was crystal clear: "Please stand by us. Please stand by the people of Iraq, the Kurds and the Shi'ites, so that we can have a better life—a life free of tyranny and free of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein".
Like all other Members, I have given this issue careful consideration. I believe that there are powerful and genuine arguments on both sides; but I also believe that at this crucial time we must stand by the people of Iraq, do what we believe is right, and support the Government's motion.
6.4 pm
Mr. David Trimble: As someone remarked earlier, there is a sense that this debate is a continuation of what we discussed at some length a few weeks ago. I dare say that we will come back to the subject in the next week or two.
Many arguments have been made and points touched on, but the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) spoke of containment and deterrence as a way of dealing with the problem. Those concepts worked well during the cold war, but the world has changed since the cold war ended. We must recognise that containment and deterrence will not work in the situation that confronts us.
In the modern world, we face danger from what are called rogue states, terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction. As a consequence of the cold war, there is a lot of expertise and materiel floating around the world that is not as well guarded as it should be. Perhaps we did not fully appreciate the problem before 11 September, but the events of that day should have concentrated minds on the matter. In the context of this debate, the significance of 11 September is that it made people realise that a different approach was needed if we were to deal with the problems caused by WMD, terrorist movements and rogue states.
846
That different approach was symbolised last year by the passing of resolution 1441. The international community decided to proceed by a route different from that offered by containment and deterrence, and to go back to the weapons inspections that had taken place immediately after the Gulf war. In that way, a serious effort was made to disarm Saddam Hussein.
As I noted in the previous debate on the matter, there was a paradox in the attempt to disarm Saddam Hussein through weapons inspections. The paradox was that disarmament was not going to happen unless inspection was backed up by a credible threat of force. That was how it turned out: Saddam Hussein was not going to disarm voluntarily, and any moves made in that direction would happen only if he believed that massive force would be used against him if he did not comply.
The paradox was that the peaceful, diplomatic route was credible only if a major power was ready to use force, if necessary. However, that approach was no longer tenable after Monday of last week, when the French said that they would veto a resolution whatever the circumstances.
People have talked about the position of other countries, and about the position of Russia in particular. I shall talk about Russia again in a moment, but the French took a unique position because they said that they would veto any resolution that appeared to authorise force, whatever the circumstances. The French were not going to say, "Give it another month or couple of months." If the French position had been to give the approach a little more time, it would have been possible to maintain the credible threat of force. However, as soon as the French said that they would exercise their veto whatever the circumstances, they destroyed the credible threat of force used through the UN channel.
The UN route was therefore blocked. The Government and the US Government spent a week seeing whether they could unblock it, or find some way around the blockage. I am surprised that they spent so long coming to terms with the French position, which effectively closed down the UN route.
Why have the French done this? Their actions are different from the normal French way of operating, with which we are all familiar. In the past, yes, the French have been awkward and difficult. They have hung on until people have met the requirements of what the French regard as their national interest, or until people have recognised the French position. They do not like being taken for granted, but in the past they have usually come into line.
There were indications that the Russians were going to do the same. Whatever their public position, the Russians had a shopping list. I am very glad that the Americans were not tempted to accede to the list, as the reports that I have heard suggest that it contained some pretty gruesome items. Be that as it may, the Russians were operating in their normal way, and one expected the French to do likewise. The question is, why did the French adopt the position of saying that they would exercise the veto, whatever the circumstances?
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) was getting close to the answer to that question when he said that it went back to the French view of themselves in Europe. The hon. Gentleman said that the French

847
believe that they should lead Europe, and that Europe should be another pole of power in the world—a challenge or a rival to the US. However, they discovered that that was not the view of the majority of European countries. That goes a long way to explain the French position and I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when we come to the accession of the eastern European countries to the European Union. I hope that that will not be subject to a veto. We should also remember that point when we consider the outcome of the Convention on the Future of Europe.
For present purposes, we must recognise that the UN route ended on Monday last week. What do we do no11w? We are not where we wanted to be and the situation is not ideal, but we must operate in the circumstances that now prevail. Are we just going to strike camp and go away? Will the United States allow itself to be humiliated by the French? No, it will not, and nor could anyone reasonably expect that. Nor would it be reasonable to think along those lines ourselves. If resolution 1441 is right, ensuring compliance with it is also right. The French action, therefore, is an unreasonable exercise of the veto.
The Prime Minister made a powerful and compelling speech. I agreed especially with the comments that he made towards the end of it. We must make a choice in the present circumstances. We must consider the consequences of that choice, some of which are unknowable and unpredictable. There is an element of risk in the choice that we make, but we must make it. The situation is imperfect—this is an imperfect world—and the issue cannot be easily compartmentalised. In the present situation, however, we do not have much of a choice and that is why my colleagues and I will support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
6.11 pm
Helen Jackson: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), because, as leader of his party, alongside the other party leaders in Northern Ireland, he has shown the way in going the extra mile when the point is reached at which they are as frustrated with the peace process as any Member of Parliament is with the present international impasse. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from that.
The imagery of the past few weeks has included some disturbing contrasts. We have seen 1.5 million people on the streets of London—one of the biggest demonstrations ever. We have seen the images of the Iraqis sending old al-Samoud missiles off to the knacker's yard and the awesome sight of an army of modern weaponry on the border of Iraq, prepared to invade and occupy a small but strategic and historic country in the middle east. There is always something distasteful and unpleasant about overweening might being used in war against a much smaller nation. It is the imagery of David and Goliath, the bully in the playground, the Soviet invasion of Hungary or the tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia, the bombing of La Moneda palace in Chile in 1973 and, indeed, the despotic acts of Saddam Hussein in oppressing minorities in Iraq.
I disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today when he compared this situation with that in 1938. In that situation, we faced a country that
848
itself was using overweening force to impose its will on other smaller countries. It was right to challenge the US Administration and go through the UN last autumn, but it became apparent that that approach could be interpreted in two ways. The danger was that the US would see the UN approach as a vindication of something that it always intended to do and would pay only lip service to resolution 1441. On the other hand, resolution 1441 could be seen as the consensus between those nations—I count Britain among them—that genuinely felt that it offered the potential of disarmament without military action.
The effectiveness of the peaceful approach was undermined every time that we saw Donald Rumsfeld or other members of the US Administration on television saying, "We will take military action to enforce our will in Iraq, but we would prefer a UN resolution." It was undermined every time that Britain failed to offer a strong rebuttal of such statements or to demand publicly that the US should declare that it was prepared not to use military force if that was the consensus reached in the UN. It was undermined whenever Members of Parliament said that the UN mandate would not prevail and that nothing would stop the US. It was undermined when the President of France, Jacques Chirac, threatened recently to veto rather than negotiate the terms of a second resolution, which we all wanted desperately to see negotiated in the Security Council.
Resolution 1441 required that the Security Council consider the outcome of the weapons inspections and it clearly left the UN in control of whether action was taken. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary understood that very well, and I applaud their efforts. The collective view has not been secured, however, and that imposes constraints on everyone, whether they comply or not. As matters stand, we are no longer in compliance with the international will and Kofi Annan has not lent his authority to military action.
When I was in Africa last week I was struck by the shock and incredulity of people in the small country of Malawi at the British position. They said, "But we thought that Britain was on our side. We thought that you would support small, developing countries that have only international bodies to protect them." Only six months ago, a large group of young constituents came here on the fair trade lobby, feeling totally in tune with a Government who had a proud record of tough international action on the issue. That has been a hallmark of this Labour Government and we have been in tune with the new generation, reflecting their growing recognition that the world is now a smaller place and that we are now more dependent than ever on a collective approach not only to security, but to the joint occupation of this planet.
Two weeks ago, I supported the amendment that considered that war was not yet inevitable. The decision and judgment for MPs is more difficult today, because further efforts have been made and there is a serious question about where we should go from here. First, we are all united in supporting the troops. Secondly, we hope that the new smart bombs that are supposed to be able to destroy everything within 600 yd will try not to destroy too many people. Thirdly, we hope that the excellent section of the Government motion—if it is passed tonight—on Israel and Palestine will be realised.

849
I remain sceptical about any war that is said to end wars; I remain sceptical that this war will secure defence against international terrorism; and I remain sceptical, finally, that this will reap—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady has had her time.
6.20 pm
Mr. John Burnett: Our difficulties in this debate are as nothing to those that confront our armed forces, who deserve our unqualified support. It has been a principled decision of my party to uphold international order and institutions—in particular, the United Nations. We have consistently argued, first, that military action should not take place to enforce resolution 1441 without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council, and, secondly, that no British forces should be committed to any military action without a debate in the House and a substantive vote in favour. I personally have engrafted a further condition to my constituents—I would in no circumstances do anything that I consider would undermine our armed forces.
I am grateful to the Government for—uniquely, I believe—providing an opportunity for this debate and vote. The whole country is well aware of the lengths to which the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and his team have gone to secure the further resolution from the United Nations to authorise military action. There has, however, been a failure of diplomacy. Considerable criticism has been directed at the United States Administration for adopting a bulldozer approach and displaying a cavalier insensitivity towards a number of our allies and a number of their potential, and crucial, allies. However, I support our strong links with the United States. Despite one or two hiccups, for the past century our close links with the United States have served both countries well.
The position of France has always been pivotal to the negotiations on a further resolution of the United Nations. It is deeply disappointing that France's final position was that, whatever further resolution was passed, it would veto any measure that provided authority for the use of military force in the event of failure. France's position was pivotal: if she had been prepared to vote for a resolution, not to vote at all, or not to veto a resolution, I believe that it would have caused a domino effect and that the resolution would have passed. Whatever criticisms can be directed at the allies, France does not come to this matter with clean hands. France has her own view of the world and the French have major contingent contracts and commercial interests with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
The Prime Minister has not spared himself in endeavouring to secure a second resolution, which demonstrates the importance that he and his Government attach to that second resolution. It would have been crucial to my party's support for any military intervention. The courageous men and women of our
850
armed forces are now about to be sent into battle. They simply cannot be kept hanging around any longer. I offer them my wholehearted support. In the terms of the main amendment, I express my
"admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty".
I not only hope but believe that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides.
I cannot vote against a motion that offers support to Her Majesty's armed forces who are now on duty in the middle east. Of course, there are matters in the Government motion with which I do not agree and which I cannot support. Nevertheless, there is much in the Government motion with which I do agree and which I can support. I shall, however, vote for the main amendment. I concede that it took the imminent threat of overwhelming force, but the weapons inspectors were having significant success. I strongly believe in world order, the reverse of which is anarchy and chaos.
Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman was following impeccable logic until the last moment. If his preferred amendment is defeated, will he—given what he has just said—vote in favour of the main motion?
Mr. Burnett: I will make my position quite clear. I shall probably have to abstain. There are aspects of the Government motion that I support and aspects that I cannot support.
Pre-emptive action must be reserved to deal with the threat of an attack on a nation or its allies, or there must be compelling evidence of imminent, impending attack, or there must be the sanction of the United Nations Security Council. There has been a diplomatic failure, which I deeply regret. However, for all its flaws, I believe in the United Nations and the rule of international law.
In his speech, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) described the decision on this amendment as finely balanced. I very much agree with him. He went on to say that this debate was a battle for the credibility or the unity of the United Nations. I submit that the United Nations cannot be credible without unity.
6.27 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: There is an old and famous observation about the relationship between murder and international power politics: if someone murders one person, they go to prison for life; if someone murders 15 people, they are put in a sanatorium; and if someone murders 150,000 people, they get invited to a peace conference. Those words were much in my mind yesterday when I listened to the Foreign Secretary talking about the prospect of Saddam Hussein resigning power voluntarily. The Foreign Secretary said that Saddam Hussein would be offered and would receive amnesty and indemnity internationally for the crimes that he had committed.
In these debates in the House, there has been no shortage of people who have set out in graphic detail the crimes and the iniquities that Saddam Hussein has committed against his own and other people; the individual and collective tortures that he has visited on those people; and the gassing, the burning and the

851
mutilations for which he has been responsible. If that indemnity is to take place, those who have suffered those injustices will have no justice.
Whether there is a greater right or greater wrong in offering such indemnity is not the reason behind my observations, but I wish to reflect on these questions. By whose authority is that indemnity offered? Whose writ runs here and whose may be abrogated? On what authority would that be done? Who decides which mass murderers should be the subject of indemnity and pardon, and which should be the subject of indictment? Who decides which mass murderers should be the subject of condemnation and which should be hanged? Who decides that Milosevic should be in The Hague, as he undoubtedly should be for his complicity in the murder of thousands in Bosnia? Who decides that Ariel Sharon should be supreme in Israel, which he undoubtedly should not be because of his complicity in the murders at Sabra and Shatila? Who decides that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, which it undoubtedly is, and that the Contras were a freedom-fighting organisation, which they undoubtedly were not? Who decides that the hundreds who are held without trial or civil rights in Zimbabwe present an affront to international justice? Who decides that it is necessary for international security to hold hundreds in Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo bay in Cuba, which undoubtedly it is not?
Who decides on the form of international justice that the Foreign Secretary talked about? The Foreign Secretary, of course, was echoing and acting as a mouthpiece for Donald Rumsfeld, who has already set it out.
I can say straight away that it is not the UN that decides such matters. When one reads resolution 1441, one finds, despite its inordinate length and impenetrable prose, absolutely nothing that speaks of any form of clemency for, or acquittal of, Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Alan Duncan: In practical terms, is not the logic of what the hon. and learned Gentleman advocates that he rejects a free Saddam and a free Iraq, and favours, by contrast, a free Saddam and a subjugated Iraq?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is not the position that I advocate, as the hon. Gentleman will realise if he listens for a while. My point is this: who creates this form of international justice? I am not arguing about its merits, but pointing out that the perception that concerns this House and creates aversion outside it is that this international power is wielded not by the United Nations, nor even by the United States, but by the Bush Administration from within the United States. What concerns my constituents and those throughout the country and the world is the prospect of the uncontrolled, unbridled power now exercised by America, as America chooses and America pleases. My constituents perceive, although they would not put in these terms, that we now have a de facto international monarchy—an autocracy that rules by its own version of divine right. The genesis of that divine right can be found in its charter—the project for a new American century.
Much has been said today about America. As I have said before, America is the greatest paradox in the world. There is no greater force for peace in my lifetime
852
than America, and I have never known a greater cause for war. No country holds a torch for freedom that burns as brightly a that of America, and in my lifetime no country has so often been vilified—on many occasions, rightly—for the perception that it denies those freedoms to others, as it has on many occasions, notably in Latin America. That is the great paradox.
What matters about America is who governs it and what is done in its name. We are now in a black period of American history, and that fact is perceived darkly by our constituents. That is why, sometimes apparently incomprehensibly, they oppose the overthrowing of a dictator because they believe that the method is unacceptable.
The American Administration wish to overthrow Saddam Hussein. That was set out in the project for a new American century even before George Bush obtained the power that he has in the White House. They will do it by whatever means that they can, and that is also known to those who observe, but they will not do it by war: it will be done by slaughter. It will be done by the means that we saw exercised on the Basra road and the Mitla ridge, when Newsweek reported that American soldiers, white-faced and vomiting, were standing underneath bridges ankle-deep in Iraqi blood and saying, "Jesus, did we do that?" That is the prospect that we face in the coming days. Of course it will be short: no such slaughter could be anything else.
I long—I really do—for a time when we have an international system that means that we no longer have to walk by and listen to the screams in our neighbour's house, and when the duty to intervene in Rwanda and in Bosnia will be undertaken by the international community, not taken by anybody as a capricious right. That day, which I long for both as a lawyer and as a politician, will not be brought a second, a minute or an hour closer by the exercise of arbitrary and capricious power.
6.35 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: So many hon. Members wish to speak—I have never known a previous occasion on which there have been so many at this stage—that I shall speak very briefly just to mention three points that I hope Ministers will bear in mind when they wind up.
The main point that hon. Members have addressed is the appalling weapons controlled by Saddam Hussein and the terrible damage that they could do to so many people. I hope that before we vote, the Government will help to clarify where those weapons and biological materials came from. I have tried for quite a while to get information about that. About three weeks ago, in Question Time, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm where they came from and whether they had perhaps come from America. We were told that the Americans had denied it. Earlier today, when I intervened on the speech of the Prime Minister, I asked him to help to identify where the weapons had come from and who was responsible for them. Hon. Members may recall that he said that Iraq had made most of them itself.
I would suggest that there is abundantly clear evidence that, instead of taking a high—handed and upmarket view of ourselves, we should accept a

853
considerable measure of the responsibility for what has happened. Now that our sittings finish at 7 o'clock, I am engaging in reading books, which is something that I have not done for a long time. If any hon. Member wants to know about the subject, they should buy a book called "The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq", by Kenneth Timmerman. It is a rather dramatic book that gives full details of where all the materials came from, and we simply have to accept some responsibility for that.
What kinds of materials are we talking about? I have managed to get full details not only of the materials that were sent, but when they were sent—on which days—from the United States to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission and Government. It is an astonishing list. It includes bacillus anthracis, which is just anthrax—a very substantial amount; clostridium, which is the source of a toxin; histoplasma, which causes a disease resembling tuberculosis; brucella, which damages major organs; another material that causes gas gangrene; E. coli; and seven others. Those materials were not produced by Iraq, but provided and sold by the western powers. We should show a little humility and decency, and say that part of the problem came from ourselves.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend explain whether the book and the documents that he has been reading actually say whether Governments or private companies supplied those things and, if it was the former, for what purpose they thought that they were supplying them?
Sir Teddy Taylor: It is abundantly clear that the US Department of Commerce approved every single thing that went from the United States to Iraq. It was not a question of secret firms doing nasty things; this was approved by Government. It is difficult to prove that one wants to use a material such as anthrax to help in the improvement of animals, or to achieve better forms of production.
Mr. Calum MacDonald: I, too, have read the book that the hon. Gentleman mentions, as well as documents issued by the House of Commons Library detailing arms exports to Iraq before the previous Gulf war. Will he confirm that 75 per cent. of all conventional weaponry exported to Iraq before the Gulf war came from two states, France and Russia; that 90 per cent. of the nuclear weapons technology given to Iraq came, of course, from France, in a deal signed personally by Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein; and that the overwhelming bulk of chemical technology came from Germany?
Sir Teddy Taylor: I would not question that in any way—of course Germany and France provided materials, and the Soviet Union and the United States did so as well. I am simply saying that, in arguing that here is a bad state doing evil things, we should remember that lots of other countries—including the United States, Russia and France—were involved in providing such material. It would be very wrong indeed not to accept some degree of responsibility.
854
My second point concerns our responsibilities in international law. The Government's biological Green Paper states that there was an "internationally legally binding instrument", and that
"those at every level responsible for any breach of international law will be held personally accountable."
That refers to the export of biological and toxic materials. The danger is that we are throwing away a great deal, and that, to some degree, we might be responsible for such matters. It is totally wrong to say that some people in the world are good and some are bad, because we have a great deal of responsibility for them.
There is a great feeling among us that we are going to intervene, improve matters and restore democracy, freedom and liberty, but where is the evidence that such intervention has been successful in the past? For example, a great deal has been said about Afghanistan, a country that I know a little about, but can we say that things there are much better as a result of the intervention that took place? Rather, it is a pathetic country, run by a group of people who have no democratic responsibility whatever.
Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, but I have no time. As we well know, the production of materials that run rife in that country—drugs—has increased dramatically. There is a danger in thinking that we can solve things too easily and too quickly.
I accept that we have a responsibility towards British troops, and that Saddam Hussein would probably have made no move at all had the troops not been there. However, as I said, there is a danger in not accepting our responsibility. The United Nations has a very important role to play, but we must ask ourselves honestly whether we are using that facility in the proper way. For example, the Government of Chile—an unusual little country—proposed that three weeks be allowed before intervention. Of course, they were told that that was not even a consideration.
At the end of the day, we will regret it if we destroy the United Nations. I shall in no sense go against France, as some of my colleagues have done. They have voted to hand over most of our national sovereignty to such countries, and they seem now to regard France as a great enemy. I regard no country in that way. We need to show a little humility, and not think that we can provide the answer to everything by running the world and becoming the emperors of it. If we can show such humility, this will be a better debate, and there will be a better outcome for all concerned.
6.44 pm
Peter Bradley: During the past six months, I have listened to my friends, to colleagues in my constituency party, to constituents, and to colleagues in this House today and during previous debates. Like every other Member, I have agonised over whether I could be party to a decision that will result in the death of innocent people, because that, inevitably, is what war involves. I hoped that we would not reach this day, that reason would somehow prevail, and that Saddam would come to order. However, the day has come, and we have to make a decision.

855

For us tonight, there is nowhere to hide. We will have to be honest with our constituents and, first of all, we have to be honest with ourselves. That is infinitely difficult if we cannot be certain that the decision that we take, individually or collectively, will be right; and it is all the more difficult when there is no unanimity on which is the right course.
I believe in just wars. I believe that they are commissioned in defence of freedom, and against oppression. I also believe that, for them to be just wars, they must be the last resort. Diplomacy must come first, but if we are ultimately to prevail in defence of what we believe to be right, there must also be a limit to diplomacy.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is it not much easier to decide what constitutes a just war a long time after the event, and much more difficult to make that assessment at the time one decides to go to war?
Peter Bradley:My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I was trying to make, but far more eloquently. We do not have the gift of hindsight, and we will not have it for many years. Nevertheless, tonight we must make a principled and rational decision.
Like other Members, I believe in the United Nations, for all its imperfections and deficiencies, and for all its sins and omissions. It is the best hope that we have, and it provides the best opportunity to build international consensus, and to impose and sustain a world order that believes in the same principles that we hold dear. I wish that the United Nations had been more consistent, and that we, too, had been more consistent. When we intervened in Kosovo without a UN mandate, I said that I hoped that this was the beginning of a new world order. I hoped that we would be emboldened to intervene, when required, before genocide was committed in Rwanda, rather than wringing our hands afterwards. Had we been more consistent, perhaps we would be facing less difficulty now over the legitimacy of intervening in Iraq. If we do intervene, as seems inevitable, I hope that we will in future take to heart the lessons about consistency, and that we will be prepared, together as an international community, to intervene to prevent genocide and oppression, and to deter dictators.
For the past six months, I have characterised my views on Iraq as being open-minded but sceptical: that I could be persuaded that this would be a just war, but that I had yet to be so persuaded. I was looking for the killer fact. We all acknowledge that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we know that he has used them brutally against his own people and against others. However, we, too, have weapons of mass destruction. The key point is: is he prepared to use them again? If he is—if we have that intelligence—the case for war is unanswerable. However, we have not had that killer fact.
In listening to the debate that took place in this Chamber three weeks ago, I had sympathy with the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He said that the case had not been made. He and his colleagues argued that we needed a second UN resolution desperately—in fact, it would have been the 18th resolution—because wars are always evil, and innocent people get killed in wars. They argued that without a
856
second resolution, we would light the blue touch paper to a conflagration in the middle east and recruit people to terrorism, but that f we got that resolution and Saddam still failed to come to order, undertaking military intervention would be justified. However, would innocent people still not die in those circumstances? Would we still not risk a conflagration in the middle east? Would we still not recruit people to terrorist causes? Wars do that, with or without resolutions.
I say to my colleagues that convictions are not enough; we also need courage and clear-sightedness to see the world not as we would like to see it, but as it is—as Saddam has made it. For 30 years he has oppressed his people and butchered Iraqi minorities; he has invaded his neighbours and threatened us all with weapons of mass destruction and for 30 years, yes, we have tolerated it. Some western nations supplied and fuelled his ambitions and his barbarity. We should indeed be humble, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) suggested, but that does not mean that we should do nothing.
Last November, it appeared that the United Nations had woken up to its responsibilities. There was unanimous support for resolution 1441, which spoke of final opportunities and serious consequences. Four months later, when Saddam has failed to comply with that resolution, the international community has shown that it is not serious about "serious consequences".
I was prepared to support the drive for a second resolution, not because I felt that we needed its legitimacy, but because the decision before us would have been much more straightforward if the international community had been united and also because public opinion demanded it. However, as colleagues have suggested, the French put that diplomacy beyond reach; their President foreclosed on diplomacy.
A stark choice faces us: we can walk away from our international responsibilities and our obligations to the Iraqis and cede victory to Saddam and to every fascist dictator who chooses to emulate him; we can decide not to decide; or we can take the decision that no one who loves peace chooses to make or ever thought that they would have to make—to fulfil our obligations and go to war to secure peace.
Do those who say no to war in their name want Saddam to continue his barbarity in their name? Are we to abandon his victims in their name? Just as they warn us of the consequences of the war that we may commit, it is right to warn them of the consequences of inaction. I share the misgivings expressed by right hon. and hon. Members about United States policy and about US contempt for the UN, which is in stark contrast to the commitment and consistent principles that we have adopted in pursuit of diplomacy; but if might is not always right, being strong is not always wrong either. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that the US is the only global superpower. We can either try to influence it within the international community or abandon the world to its often cynical self-interest.
Now is decision time. If we are to set aside our prejudices and accept that doing nothing is not an option, if we accept that diplomacy is at an end and that Saddam continues to defy and threaten us, what is the alternative

857
to war? It is not the Prime Ministers war. It is not the American President's war—it is Saddam's war. We must join it and end it as soon as possible.
6.53 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I am no peacenik. I supported action in the Falklands and the Gulf. I supported the Prime Minister's excursions in Kosovo. When the Serbian army withdrew, its condition was such that I was glad that Milosevic had decided not to fight. If he had, the outcome could have been much more bloody and horrific.
If there is a war, I, like everyone in the House, will give our troops full support. The Iraqi regime is rotten and the war could be short, so we shall be in the reconstruction and rebuilding phase quicker than we might anticipate. I wonder whether the Government have spent enough time looking at reconstruction, rat her than knocking things down.
I made it clear that unless there was a second resolution I would not support the Government. I shall vote for the amendment, but I shall do so with reluctance and regret; in 26 years as a Member of the House, this will only be the second or third time that I have voted against my party.
There are additional reasons for my views. The proposed action will crack unity—if it has not cracked already—in NATO, the EU, the Security Council and the United Nations. I am not saying that Humpty Dumpty can never be put together again, but it will take a long, long time. I take no pride in hearing clever-clever remarks knocking other countries, because sooner or later we shall have to get together and rebuild things. We shall have to bring about international agreement on the way forward. Smart remarks against the French and remarks such as those made by the American Secretary of State are not helpful and I greatly regret that they were made.
The Government produced various arguments that were apparently the best thing to do at the time, which seems to be part of their policy. They have proposed the morality argument. I go along with that. Saddam Hussein is an evil man. I am one of the few Members who have actually met him. If he were to be found dead tomorrow, I would not lose sleep. But where do we stop? It is Saddam Hussein today because he is an evil, wicked man, but who will it be tomorrow? would have more respect for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary if they had condemned what was happening in Rwanda at the time and said that we should put forces into that country to stop the terrible genocide. The standard punishment for young girls at that time was to take off their hands at the wrist.
Where will the moral argument take us? I am concerned that the Americans will become the international peacekeepers; they will be Matt Dillon while we are Chester, limping along behind. We must think carefully when we take the path of ending tyrannical regimes.
To try to bolster their case, the Government produced documentation, rightly described as dodgy documents. To lift vast chunks of a person's work, which was already several years old, lard it with words such as "terrorism" and try to pass it off as one's own work is less than satisfactory.
858
Another argument is that Saddam attacked other countries. He fought Iran and Kuwait. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) pointed out, several western countries do not have entirely clean hands in that matter; we seem to pick and choose our support or condemnation of various people. The world should be careful about providing equipment and weapons of mass destruction to people of the ilk of Saddam Hussein.
We are told that Saddam Hussein still has weapons of mass destruction, but what will happen if we do not find them when we go in? If I were Saddam Hussein, I would have got rid of them long ago. We could be creating justification for every extremist Islamic group in the world to declare open season on the United Kingdom and the United States.
Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Page: I should rather not. The magic hour of 7 o'clock is approaching and I should like to finish my speech by then.
I want to look ahead to the rebuilding. I am greatly concerned that we have not spent enough time considering how to rebuild Iraq. Have the Government thought the process through? What exactly will we put in place? I have heard about territorial protection and the maintenance of borders, but has anyone talked to the Kurds of northern Iraq about that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Has anyone spoken to those in the east of Turkey? Have they signed up to all this?
In conclusion, I have to say that, without world support, I fear that our well-established moral integrity and authority throughout the world will be damaged and that Islamic extremists will take advantage of that if weapons of mass destruction are not found in Iraq.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Iraq may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
Question agreed to.

Iraq
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
7 pm
Caroline Flint: If the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) wants to believe anything, let him read the reports of the inspectors themselves and Hans Blix. I certainly know without any doubt that, whatever measures of progress the inspectors may think they have achieved since resolution 1441 was passed, their reports indicate that there are a lot of unanswered questions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that weapons are unaccounted for and that they are seeking to find chemical and biological agents. There is no doubt that there is cause for concern.

859
Saddam Hussein's track record over the past 12 years shows that, time and again, when he has assured the UN and the world that weapons are not there, he has been found out, and the most telling time was when his own son-in-law gave information to that effect and, as we know, he lost his life as a result.
I personally have always believed that, sooner or later, we would have to come back to the issue of Iraq and the UN resolutions, having been a Parliamentary Private Secretary for two years to a Foreign Office Minister who had that as part of his brief and having sat in the Chamber listening to the debates on sanctions policy and whether the containment policy was working. Some of my colleagues who are against the Government this evening were also against the sanctions policy, as well as the containment policy. Despite the best efforts, we have seen that progress was not being made.
I well remember that the whole issue of sanctions and containment was argued and debated during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions and in Adjournment and other debates in the House before we broke for the summer recess in 2001. Then we had the disaster of the twin towers and 11 September. That changed the world's views, and it made people look back and consider how to move forward. Of course we had the situation in Afghanistan to deal with. During all that time, my personal thoughts were that that was the immediate issue to deal with, but we would have to come back to Iraq sooner or later.
Why? We would have to come back to Iraq because 17 UN resolutions legally require Saddam Hussein and Iraq to disarm. If we are to challenge and deal with the many different factors that create the very insecure world that we live in—whether organised terrorism, or those who are tyrannical in their repression of their own people and a danger to their neighbours and who have the ability not only to procure weapons of mass destruction, but to develop them and sell them on—we have to have a fresh look at our approach to all those matters. We were therefore bound to come back to the issue of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
People in my constituency and party members have made their representations to me about the issue. I understand that they sincerely believe that war should not be an option, but sometimes war is needed to secure the peace, and I believe that we are at that stage today. I am mindful of acknowledging those hon. Members and other people who sincerely hold views that are against the Government's strategy, but I have also received letters, e-mails and phone calls from constituents and party members who support the Government, the Prime Minister and myself in voting for the Government this evening.
Those who believe, as I do, in force as a last resort, to be used to achieve the greater good are no less principled than those who do not believe that we should vote in favour of that tonight. I certainly do not believe that I have a monopoly on truth or wisdom or necessarily the moral high ground above anyone else. All hon. Members and many people outside have to look at the information and make a judgment call on what they think is the right thing to do.
We have choices to face about Iraq. Those choices are undeniably hard, but we have to make them because the evidence of weapons of mass destruction is there, the
860
questions are unanswered and the reality is that, if Saddam Hussein had the will to co-operate and the attitude to take part in realistic disarmament, we would have seen evidence of that by now. There is no way that we can continue to make excuses for that lack of co-operation.
I also believe very strongly that only by tackling the issue of weapons of mass destruction can we seek to tackle Saddam Hussein's repression of his own people in his country. I first came into contact with the politics of the Ba'athist party as a student in the early 1980s, when Ba'athist agents in this country were trying to hound and track down exiled Iraqi students, find their names and addresses and put at risk their families back in Iraq. I have known about that for the past 20 years. In the past week, the reality of life for people in Iraq today has been brought to my attention because of the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd).
When the northern Iraqi Prime Minister Barham Salih was asked about war and violence, he said that this was not an issue of war or no war. All 22 million people in Iraq live every day in fear of violence and an internal war against them, and we cannot walk away from that. We have the opportunity not only to deal with weapons of mass destructions and to make sure that resolutions that have been passed time and again are finally enforced but to do the right thing by the Kurds in the north, the Shi'a Arabs in the south and the Iraqi people who are opposed by that regime, and I say that as a democratic socialist.
Lynne Jones: I refer back to my hon. Friend's comments about Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, whose testimony has often been cited to aid the case for war, but in the transcript of the evidence that he gave, which has not been publicised, he is alleged to have said that Saddam Hussein destroyed all his stocks of chemical and biological weapons before 1993.
Caroline Flint: I know whom I would give the benefit of the doubt to—it certainly would not be Saddam Hussein. It is interesting to note from reports this week that Saddam Hussein's regime executed Khalis Muhsin al-Tikriti, an engineer who supervised the burial of chemical weapons in the days before the inspectors arrived last November. Indeed, there are now reports that members of Saddam's special security organisation who took part in hiding weapons have already been killed by the regime for fear that they may disclose their whereabouts to the UN.
We are not dealing with someone who can be trusted. We are dealing with someone who has a track record of betraying his own people and lying to the international community. Take our Prime Minister's track record of doubling international aid, fighting repression in Kosovo and supporting people in Sierra Leone. If I were in a room with Saddam Hussein or Tony Blair, it is Saddam Hussein—(Interruption.] It is the Prime Minister I would back.
7.9 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I was going to say, "How can I follow that?"
Underneath the debate lies the burning question of the power of the sword and where it is vested. I happen to believe that it is an ordinance of God given to

861
mankind, and we have a responsibility to exercise the same. The scriptures make it clear: it is vested in proper authority. I believe that the proper authority for this debate is this House, and I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place. Today, the House has redeemed itself before the whole nation: this is the place where the issue should be settled and decided on. It will strengthen Parliament. I welcome the fact that the Government decided to have this debate and to keep their promise that the debate would take place. It is healthy to have this debate. I prefer this House to make the decision and not the UN. This House should say to the British servicemen whether they are to go to war or not, and not someone else who does not know the ins and outs of the situation.
I trust that, tonight, when the debate ends and the votes are taken, a message will go out from us all to our servicemen, who are already prepared for battle in the Gulf, that we will be backing them all the way as they do the task that we have appointed them to do. The main town in my constituency is Ballymena, which is the headquarters of the Royal Irish Regiment. The Royal Irish Regiment is in the Gulf at present, and members of the Irish Guards are there, as well as many people from Northern Ireland who are in various other regiments of the Army. All of us tonight are thin king of them, and not only of them, but of their wives and families. We sit here and have our debate in relative comfort, but they do not know what the day will bring forth. After we have had this debate, and after the voting is over, I would like to think that there will be a clear message: no matter what opinions have been expressed, the House will back those men, as they do the task to which we have appointed them. My prayers are with them and with their families, which I am sure that all can echo.
The Prime Minister stated at the beginning of the debate that some things cannot stop a tyrant. That is very true. Diplomacy cannot stop a tyrant. We can try to buy off terrorists, but they will not be bought off. As Churchill said, if we appease them they will come back for more: it only feeds their appetite. We need to remember that. When we are dealing with a tyrant, as we are doing in this instance, we are dealing with someone who has no conscience, no law and no faith: he cares only for himself. We have seen the sorrows, troubles and calamity that he has brought to his country: the woes of the people, the cries of the people and the broken homes and families. When talking to exiles here, they tremble when they are asked to discuss Saddam and where they were brought up: the fear is on them. We should ensure that that is dealt with. It should have been dealt with long ago.
None of us in the House tonight are responsible for what previous Governments sold to Iraq. We had nothing to do with that. People cannot come back and say, "Your own Government did this." It was not done with our votes. I am sure that many of us were not even in the House when some of those things took place. We had no responsibility for what happened. It was wrong: the Government should not have had such a relationship with Saddam; we should have had nothing to do with him, but it happened. That should not tie our hands tonight, however. We need to face up to one thing only: if he is not dealt with now, he will never be dealt
862
with. Things have gone too far. The troops are in the Gulf, and if they were withdrawn, he would have a great victory. That victory would spread, and others would be encouraged to follow in his wake. Let us not bluff ourselves about that.
The die is cast. It is imperative that this matter goes forward. It is imperative that we do our best to ensure that the bloodshed is not as grievous as it might be, but that is a very difficult task. We are going into a country where the dictator and his four generals will, it seems, fight to the end. If they are going to fight to the end, they will not mind whom they destroy. They will not mind the havoc that is left. If some country has already made an arrangement to take them in, as may be the case, of course, I totally disagree with any suggestion that any Government in the world should make a deal with them and say that they will never be brought up for the crimes that they have committed. They should all be in the dock, and they should all be tried for their crimes against the people.
I regret that the Prime Minister is not in the House to hear this, but I have said it to his face, to which I am sure that he will be glad to testify: it is a shame that the Government do not take the same view in relation to the terrorist situation in our country. I do not think that there is any difference between an IRA-Sinn Feiner who has killed, maimed and taken a screwdriver and driven it through a man's eye and the type of character that we are discussing tonight. I am sad at heart that in Northern Ireland we have reaped the dark harvest of attempting to appease terrorism. Where has it got us? With our so-called peace process and all our agreements, the Assembly has had to stop four times—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
7.17 pm
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I wonder whether we would be having this debate if Iraq had no oil wells. American companies will be running the oil wells once the war is over—if it happens, and I am sure that it will—and a trust will be set up that will be given money for the Iraqi people. If we look at the evidence in America, at its companies, and at President Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, we see that every one of them has been a board member if not a chairman of an oil company in America. The evidence also shows clearly that the biggest contributors to President Bush's election campaign were oil companies.
If one puts all that together, one begins to wonder: is it a question of oil? We have been told by the Prime Minister and by many others that that is certainly not so. As the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago, if it were, we could cut a deal with Saddam Hussein. But I am not sure. I think that when the Chilean President suggested a resolution asking for another three weeks, and the Americans did not want it, the Americans had the war all set up. I know that I am being anti-American, but other Members have had a good bash at the French this evening, and I am going to have a go at the Americans. I wonder whether it is all for the oil. I am sure that, by this time next year, it will have been proved that oil was

863
the issue. I honestly believe that we would not be discussing the motion and the resolutions were there no oil in Iraq.
Richard Younger-Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the often heard argument that America intends to take all the oil for itself is simplistic and wrong? The real argument is that by ensuring a continuous supply from a compliant country, America can keep the price of oil down. That is where its interest lies.
Mr. Campbell: The two ideas go together and the hon. Gentleman takes us deeper into the argument, but I look at the problem from the perspective of an ordinary Member of Parliament, and that is the way I see it. The Americans never wanted a diplomatic or peaceful solution. They wanted to go ahead with their plan and did not give the inspectors enough time to find the arms and the so-called weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: No, I have just given way and want to get on.
What are weapons of mass destruction? They include, of course, chemical weapons because they can kill a lot of people, but so can nuclear weapons. So let us consider who has nuclear weapons in the middle east? Iran might have a nuclear capability, but we are not sure, in the same way as we are not sure that Saddam Hussein has such a capability. Pakistan, India and Israel have nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a dictatorship with a general in charge. The country is unstable and there could be an uprising at any time. That is why members of al-Qaeda hang out in Pakistan. Even bin Laden might be hiding there. Although I do not think that India could fall at any time, Pakistan might and it would become a dictatorship with a regime in the same mould as Saddam Hussein's regime. Then what? Would we send our forces there?
Let us go across the water to North Korea. Its Government have told us that they are testing and developing weapons of mass destruction. What are we going to do about that? Will we have to fight a war there? I have news for hon. Members: the North Koreans will not wave a white flag and give up. They will stand and fight, and we will have a job on our hands. Once we go down the route of taking out tin-pot dictators, wherever they might be, we have to take them all out. There might be no oil in North Korea, but I gather that there is plenty of coal. The big fear is that America is saying to the United Nations, "You're useless. You're hopeless. We're going to be the guardian—the sheriff—of the world and take these people out wherever we see them."
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend is taking us on quite a tour of the world. I recall that he was against intervention in Kosovo. Is there anywhere that the international community, or the United States and the United Kingdom together, can intervene?
Mr. Campbell: Of course there is. Treaties and organisations have been set up to bring such countries on board so that they get rid of their weapons, but we
864
cannot ignore the fact that Pakistan and North Korea are testing weapons of mass destruction. The problem is getting worse: everyone wants a weapon. With Russia in the state that it is, people can get hold of such weapons and proliferation is a danger.
I have just read a newspaper article on the new smart bombs. It even gave their prices and made me wonder, "Here are all these lovely smart bombs. They only kill so many people and leave the houses standing, all for £1 million." That newspaper article is a shop window for selling arms, and the biggest contributor to Bush's election was the arms industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "We thought it was the oil industry."] Both industries gave a lot of money.
The new bombs can do all sorts of things. They all have names—the microwave bomb, for instance—and the newspapers act as a shop window for them. It amazes me that the Evening Standard gives their prices.
Hon. Members talk about how Saddam Hussein kills his people, but many dictators have killed their people. That is no excuse for us to kill his people as well. Two wrongs do not make a right. What happened years ago when Pol Pot murdered and plundered half his country? The British Government at the time—it was the Tories, I believe—had diplomatic relations with Pol Pot. So what do we do about dictators? We appease them. But we have a new order now and have to go to war with everyone who might have a weapon of mass destruction.
When the war starts, and it certainly will, moderate young Muslims will be told that that is what the west does to them: it invades a Muslim country and drops thousands of bombs on its people. By doing that, we will push those youngsters towards dictators, just as we pushed youngsters towards the IRA in Northern Ireland. Such action would make it much easier for al-Qaeda to recruit young people to become human bombs in this country. That is what I fear might happen. That is the worst scenario if the war goes ahead. Once we invade a Muslim country, the consequences here could be terrible. I am told that such weapons can be carried in a little container. In fact, two scientists carried a container from the Iraqi border, through Europe and Britain, and into America without being challenged.
There are problems if we push moderate Muslims into a corner. If the young ones see nothing but a big bully—in this case, the Americans and, unfortunately, the British—who bombs them and kills their families, they will be recruited to get into Britain or America—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
7.28 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) took us on his own unique tour of the world. Although he expressed many views, there was a grain of truth in what he said. He reminded us that if we are to embark on military action against Saddam Hussein, we must have a consistent approach to the way in which we deal with other rogue states subsequently. That was an important point.
I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and agree with much of what she said. I, too, formed the same view that if over the past 12 years Saddam Hussein had complied with his obligations, as agreed by the United Nations, we would

865
not be having this debate. Equally, f he had fully co-operated with Hans Blix instead of playing for time and making it ever more difficult either for him to show his weapons of mass destruction or for us to discover them, we would not be here this evening. Indeed, we would not be here if Saddam Hussein had not developed his unique and barbarous approach towards his people and weapons of mass destruction.
One interesting theme has emerged from many speeches, and it is that we should focus for a second or two on what comes next. It is vital—I say this to those on the Front Bench—that if military action is now embarked upon, as seems likely, we should ensure that the Iraqis are left in no doubt about what they can expect. If we are looking for help and acquiescence from the Iraqis, if we are trying to persuade their military that there might be a better life by laying down their arms and not fighting, they must have a clear idea of what will replace Saddam Hussein's regime.
No hon. Member will not have wrestled with their conscience in deciding how to vote this evening, worried about how they will explain that to their constituents, and considered whether they are doing the right thing for the country. Voting for or against war and conflict is never easy, but that is what we are sent here to do. The alternative to supporting the Government's motion, which was, if I may say so, outlined with skill, determination and clarity by the Prime Minister and supported by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is the amendment. But the amendment appears to be a formulation for having one's cake and eating it, and that is not an option for us this evening.
The amendment talks about
"the absence of specific United Nations authorisation",
but why do we not have that authorisation? It is because the French in particular, and the Germans and Russians, have made it extremely difficult for the United Nations to authorise anything. There is no guarantee that, if we went back to the United Nations, they would, as I might say, come to the party and agree some formulation that would, at some unspecified point in the future, resolve the matter.
One of the great mysteries about the diplomatic process has been the lack of seeming efforts by the French, Germans and Russians to use their so-called relationship and good offices with Saddam Hussein to persuade him to change his course of action. There is no sign whatever that Saddam is listening to anybody. If the Russians, Germans and French had been doing their bit behind the scenes, they might have found a way of opening up something in the United Nations with which we could have all agreed. I can only assume that, acting out of their own national self-interest, they are now denying the United Nations the opportunity to exert its power. Earlier, we heard concerns about the power of the United States, but the best counterbalance to that is a strong United Nations, and that, sadly, has been denied to us, in particular by the actions of the French.
One reason why I, after much thought, will be supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight and voting against the amendment is, bluntly, a question of conscience. How long can we in the international community walk by on the other side when people such
866
as Saddam Hussein, and potentially other states, threaten the very peace that we have worked on as a group of international nations working through the United Nations since the second world war? We have enjoyed an unparalleled period of world peace, but, particularly after 9/11, rogue states and terrorist organisations, answerable to no one—no democracy do they report back to—pose a threat to all that we hold near and dear. We have a great deal that is good to contribute to the rest of the world, but if that is put at risk by the Saddam Husseins and al-Qaedas of this world, there comes a time when we cannot walk by on the other side.
I have often regretted that we never did anything about Rwanda where 2 million of our fellow human beings perished while we sat on our hands. If we talk of a new world order, let us not have such matters on our conscience again. If going into conflict against Iraq starts a new process, that has my support.
Today's debate is being broadcast by BBC Radio 4 and, somewhere out in the desert, members of our armed forces may well be listening to our deliberations. They will want to know whether the House of Commons supports the action in which they have been invited to participate. I shall strongly support that. The very Tornados that may be in action within a few hours were made in my constituency of Fylde. I am left in no doubt about the awesome fire power of that weapon system. I am also aware of those who work for BAE Systems out in Saudi Arabia who are potentially at risk. Such matters go round in one's mind when deciding what to do, but on this I have clarity.
We must no longer allow Saddam Hussein to play for time. Leaving him the open option with the United Nations, further discussions and more time, pushes dealing with him not back a few months but possibly another year. We do not have that option. Having read again this morning the article written by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the torture and loss of life, the use of gas weapons and the way in which Saddam Hussein deals with our fellow human beings, I am left in no doubt about the correctness of my decision tonight to vote with the Government.
7.35 pm
Mr. Bill Tynan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents this evening. I sought to speak in the previous debate on the subject, but I was not called. It is important to make the point that on that occasion 121 Labour Back Benchers, of which I was one, decided to support the amendment. I cannot be regarded as one of the usual suspects and I had no intention of voting in order to destroy the Prime Minister, but, as a matter of conscience, I felt that the case for war had not been made.
I welcome today's debate for two reasons. We have an opportunity tonight to decide whether to support the amendment or the motion, and it is proper that the House should have the opportunity. I congratulate the Government on the decision to have that vote in the House of Commons today because it was a hard choice. If our armed forces in the desert are listening, I join all hon. Members who have said that they will support them if the decision for war is taken.

867
But I hope that the debate will create an opportunity to avoid war. To support the motion would be to give a green light to unleashing the weapons of mass destruction that the United States and the United Kingdom have lined up in the desert at this moment.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if the amendment is carried tonight, those young men and women will come back, the Prime Minister will fall and this country will be in a very great mess indeed?
Mr. Tynan: The best way to avoid war is to work through the United Nations. The amendment makes it clear that the case for war has not been established, and, especially given the absence of specific UN authorisation, we should not go in that direction. If we pass the amendment tonight, the UN will have the opportunity to continue with the inspections that have been taking place in order to disarm Saddam without bloodshed, and that would be an admirable position.
We are not talking about abandoning the troops and bringing them back. The pressure that they have put on the regime in Iraq has weakened it severely. We have the strength, without a shadow of doubt, to take Iraq at present. Iraq has no opportunity to resist that. I do not believe that it has weapons of mass destruction.
Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that the choice tonight is not whether to prevent war? We cannot prevent war. The choice is either to go in alongside the Americans to topple Saddam Hussein, or to let the Americans go in on their own. It is important that my hon. Friend and others realise that there is no choice to stop war. There will be a war. The question is are we going to be involved in it and extend our influence in the post-conflict Iraq and in the Palestine-Israel peace process? Let's get real.
Mr. Tynan: I believe that I am getting real. If we support the amendment, we can avoid a decision for war. This is a profound matter of conscience, not a loyalty test. If it were a loyalty test, I would fail it tonight. Anyone who examines my record on voting in the House of Commons will realise that this is an issue of conscience and that I do not vote to displace a Prime Minister. I am just not convinced that war is justified now.
We have heard of terrible suffering in Iraq. It has been made clear that for the past 10 or 12 years, the regime in Iraq has created enormous suffering for its people. If we decide to invade Iraq, we will be in precisely the same position—inflicting greater suffering on those people. The best way to deal with the Iraqi regime as a force is by disarming it. If we weaken Saddam Hussein enough, there is a good chance that his own people will overthrow him. That is a far more practical proposition than the one before us now.
I accept that human rights abuses have occurred and that Saddam Hussein rules through fear, but that is true of many countries. If we decide, simply because of that, to tackle Saddam, logically we have to follow through in other countries. We have to talk about North Korea,
868
Syria and Iran. We in this country have to decide whether to be perpetually at war. I think that the population of this country would not accept that.
Lynne Jones: Have not respected human rights organisations such as Amnesty International called for the implementation of UN General Assembly resolution 57/232, which calls for human rights monitors to be sent into Iraq? We have heard no mention of implementing that proposal.
Mr. Tynan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Britain is no longer a superpower. We can no longer act in isolation and we cannot solve the problems of the world, so it is worrying to find ourselves divorced from the international community, in agreement only with the United States, Spain and Portugal. How do we bring the family that used to exist back into being? Last week, at a meeting in Luxembourg, I listened to Luxembourg's Foreign Minister discuss Iraq with a committee. She believed that Luxembourg was like a child trying to resolve a problem between two warring parents. When our family is at war, we weaken the opportunities that might be available to the international community.
If military action is needed, as it has been before, it must be taken, but I do not believe that now is the proper time. There is an opportunity to continue on the road to peace. If we can do that, we will have achieved some sort of success. I have heard comparisons made between the League of Nations and the United Nations and the claim that the UN will end as the league did if it does not support an international war now. I think that the UN would be discredited if strong pressure from the US and the UK forced it not only to accept war when it did not believe that war was justified, but to join with those forces.
It is important that we deal with the issue as it is now. Who is to decide whether Saddam is a threat? To whom is Saddam a threat? The UK? The US? His neighbours? I believe that he is currently in such a weakened state that he is not a threat. We all understand the US reaction to 9/11. The world genuinely believed that that event would galvanise the international community into action. I accept that the Prime Minister exerted a restraining influence on the President of the United States, but after he had persuaded the US to take the UN route, he could not adopt a different view.
I do not believe that we can bomb the terrorists into submission. An idea, a belief or a cause cannot be killed in that fashion. We must try to change the conditions in which terrorism arises and change the terrorists' minds. If we can do that, we will achieve some success. How can flying a plane into a building be justified logically? We speak of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When sarin nerve gas was released in the cramped conditions of a Japanese subway, four people died and more than 100 were injured, but a cigarette end dropped in Kings Cross caused far more devastation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
7.47 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I trust that the House appreciates that this is a special evening. As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, tonight sees the rebirth of our democracy. We have heard many fine speeches, including those from the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). With great humility, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) described how he had been wrestling with his conscience about what he should do.
It is a legacy of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that we are having this debate. I trust that it will set a precedent, for there can be no doubt that we are entering a state of permanent war. After Iraq, other countries will face US might. I trust that the Government will be true to their word and that in future we will be able to debate and genuinely vote on military action before it takes place. The Liberal Democrats have been pressing such a policy throughout.
Hon. Members will not have heard it on the news tonight, but 30,000 children have died. Thirty thousand children—ten times the number of people who died in the twin towers on 9/11—die every single day because of lack of clean water, tuberculosis, cholera and lack of food. Their names will not be known. The might of the media and the internet conveyed terrible images of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but they do not carry images of the innocent who die. That is why I take issue with the way in which the Government are conducting themselves. This is not a Government crusade against poverty, but a crusade for war. It is a great tragedy and a missed opportunity. Even though the Prime Minister has previously spoken of healing the scar of Africa, he has never been able to deliver on that. He has followed what the US President has been telling him about conducting a war against Iraq.
I want to see a strengthened and reformed United Nations. Last week I was in New York, where I met some senior UN officials. They were aghast at what was going on. They could not believe that the US would not be prepared to compromise. I listened to Hans Blix's statement. He asked not for years, but for months in which to make a true assessment of what was happening in Iraq. More time is not too much to ask for. We can find a peaceful way through. At the very moment that the United Nations is successfully forcing the evil regime of Saddam Hussein to comply, the rug is pulled from under its feet, and it is told to get out of Iraq, to stop its job and not to fulfil previous resolutions, because war must be the answer.
In the 21st century, surely we can start to find better solutions than all-out war with a quarter of a million troops to plough through. The bomb doors will open and the bombs will start dropping in the next few hours. You will have 48 hours of sustained bombing that will kill thousands of innocent people. There are sons and daughters in Basra, and mothers, fathers and grandparents in Baghdad who tonight are living in great fear. They are the innocent. They do not support Saddam Hussein. They have nothing to do with his evil regime, but they will pay the blood price because the American President says, "This is the only way to free you."
870
Why cannot we look at the alternatives? As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) said, there are other ways to achieve a peaceful outcome. That would include a no-fly zone right across Iraq, and UN humanitarian observers stationed throughout Iraq. If you had said 12 months ago that there was no chance of UN weapons inspectors being able to come back into Iraq and fulfil their job, you would not have been able to believe that Iraq agreed to that. But it did agree to that.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the case for war has not been made; that is why I voted for the amendment a few weeks ago. Is the issue before us now whether we have more time? Is not the real issue whether the Americans act on their own or bilaterally with us? That is the only choice. The choice that we have to make tonight is whether the world is made a safer place by the United States acting on its own, or with us having some influence and being alongside it while the war is conducted? My inclination is for the latter proposition. I should like to know the hon. Gentleman's view.
Mr. Marsden: It is for every Member of the House to decide how they will vote tonight. It does not make it any better—any more right—if Britain decides to support the military operation. We should not feel that we are being bullied into that, or that we have to show our willingness to be partners in crime with the US by going into Iraq now. It is a great pity that the Prime Minister did not show more resolve earlier on in order to influence a US President to stop where we are now.
I accept what the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) says. Tonight we are on the verge of war. Thousands of our troops will be putting their lives in danger. I salute their courage and professionalism, and I would not thank—[Laughter.] Please do not laugh. This is a serious issue. We will face dreadful consequences not just in the next few weeks, but possibly for the next 10, 20 or 30 years. We will reap what we sow.
I say to each hon. Member: think so carefully. I want you to be able to look your children in the eye in years to come and say that you did everything you possibly could to stop the war and keep your conscience clear. To answer the hon. Gentleman, I say it is up to you. It is up to each and every one of us.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.
Mr. Marsden>: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is up to each and every hon. Member to decide for themselves.
In the final analysis, what kind of peace do we seek? Is it a genuine peace that we strive for? Is it peace in our time or peace for all time? Right around the globe, we all cherish our children's future. We all breathe the same air and we are all mortal. Those were the words of an American President in 1962 after the Cuban missile crisis, when the world almost came to grief. It almost destroyed itself. We have to think so carefully. I would say that hon. Members should vote against the Government tonight and vote for peace.
7.56 pm
Geraint Davies: The British people do not want war. A million people marched in London against war. None of us wants war. Nine million people signed a pledge before the second world war. We are not a war-loving nation, but war cannot now be stopped. Our choice today is not whether to prevent war—we cannot do so—but whether we join the US in toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein and have influence in the post-war settlement in Iraq and the peace process in Palestine, or stand to one side and watch the US act alone.
No one wants war, and no one has worked harder to prevent war than the Prime Minister. Early last year, the US policy was unilateral regime change through preemptive military strike. Saddam Hussein's position was that weapons inspectors would never be allowed back into Iraq, yet the influence of our Government, at great political cost, moved the US from a position of unilateral strike to disarmament through UN weapons inspectors. After 12 years and 16 UN resolutions that had left Iraq a threat to the world, the world united behind resolution 1441 demanding immediate disarmament, backed by the credible threat of US military action. It was only the threat of serious consequences that forced Saddam to let the inspectors back in.
Every concession that Saddam has made has been from fear of serious consequences. Without that threat, Hans Blix would not have been allowed to find weapons in Iraq, any more than we can find IRA arms in Northern Ireland. Yet, tragically, the unity of purpose of resolution 1441 that gave the inspectors their leverage has been weakened by the grandstanding of Jacques Chirac threatening the French veto, corrosively undermining the credible threat of force on which cooperation and disarmament rely.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I find the argument confusing. My hon. Friend says that the credible threat of force is causing Saddam Hussein to react favourably to us. How is the credible threat of force reduced by the French action when everyone, including everyone present in the Chamber, knows that war is about to be unleashed upon Saddam Hussein?
Geraint Davies: War could have been prevented. We would have had disarmament by now, had the French not been waving their veto and if there had been unity of purpose. As a result of the French corrosively undermining 1441, Saddam has spun out his concessions month after month as he knows we approach the hot Iraqi summer. That provides a safe haven from military action and a chance for further political division spun by the French.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. It is my certain recollection that Hans Blix asked for more time to complete a very successful inspection and destruction mission, but that the United States and Britain refused that extension of time. Hence, we are going to war.
Geraint Davies: My understanding is that Hans Blix said that there had not been active co-operation and
872
compliance. Time is useful if there is co-operation, but that co-operation is not occurring. No hon. Member who studies the cold-blooded cynicism of the calculating and murderous Saddam Hussein could doubt that he is playing for time. Of course, Jacques Chirac is playing into his hands by using up that time with all this prevarication. If the UN had stayed at one in its resolve, peace would have been possible and we might have been in a position in which disarmament would have been continuous.
Even in the last m mute of the last hour, when Britain has offered benchmarks for disarmament in a fixed time frame as the basis for a second resolution to avert war if Saddam disarms, the French have said that they will veto any second resolution, whatever it says. Even if that resolution gave Iraq a year to disarm, the French would still veto it, so the prospect of disarmament that is backed by the credible threat of force—the very basis of resolution 1441—is in tatters now and in future. Saddam knows that the French can be trusted—trusted to veto the will of the UN as expressed in resolution 1441 if it means a timetable for compliance. They want no ultimatum and no threat of force, and they have said so.
We face a stark choice: we can choose war without the express consent of the UN because the French have cast their veto even before the second resolution is framed or else do nothing, accept the veto to timetabled disarmament and hope that Saddam will voluntarily hand over his anthrax and biochemical weapons to UN inspectors whose authority is no longer backed by military force. That is not a credible option.
Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Geraint Davies:No, I will not.
The world has accepted through 17 UN resolutions that Saddam is an evil dictator who has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people in gas attacks, torture and execution, invaded Iran and Kuwait, bombed Israel, developed a nuclear programme and holds stockpiles of biochemical weapons. If resolution 1441 is not enforced, the authority and effectiveness of the inspectors will crumble as they did in 1998, Saddam will rearm and dictators around the world will know that they can establish arsenals of biochemical death in the knowledge that the UN does not act to enforce its will.
No Member of this House wants war or wants to face the choice of taking action alongside the US without a second UN mandate or letting Saddam off the hook, but it is not enough to stand on the sidelines and watch the US act alone, lose our influence in making a post-conflict settlement in Iraq that respects all its ethnic groups, as well as its borders and mineral wealth, and lose our influence in bringing a lasting peace to Palestine. Let us be in no doubt—I say to my colleagues that if we are not there, the constitutional arrangements for Iraq will not be framed by the values that we share, but determined by the interests of the US, and the obligation to bring peace to Palestine will not be shaped by our ambition for a quality and lasting peace, but relegated by an all-powerful and all-isolated US that is suspicious of outside countries that choose to stand aside.
This is not a comfortable decision for any of us. We are all driven by what we believe to be right and forced into choices that we do not want to make. I believe that

873
we must act even though there may be consequences that we do not like, as the alternative is a world of worse consequences. Our soldiers must know tonight that this Parliament will give them our support to liberate Iraq from an evil tyrant, remove the threat of biochemical attack and show the world that we will not accept a future of fear of the mass carnage of biochemical terror. However difficult or uncomfortable, we will take action to protect our freedoms, children and people, liberate the people of Iraq and build a world of peace and security where trust can be rebuilt in a future that we all must share.
8.4 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), who set out his case with passion and clarity.
Each of us must examine our consciences and determine how we will vote at 10 o'clock, for this is surely one of the most significant decisions that we will make as a House of Commons in this generation. It seems to me that the choice we have to make is not between an obvious right and an undeniable wrong. We are being asked to choose between two imperfect propositions. In my judgment, it is not obviously right to go to war now and not obviously right to seek more time for the inspectors to do their work. This is a murky and complicated choice and each of us must balance the arguments and decide where we stand.
In coming to our judgment, it is difficult not to be influenced by the certain imperfections and inconsistencies of US foreign policy over many years. It is interesting that we have had so many different objectives for this potential conflict. We must take into account some of the doubts that have been expressed in this excellent debate about the legality of the action. It is definitely true that the dodgy dossier and some exaggerated claims from the Government have not helped us in forming our judgment.
However, it is equally hard to believe that President Chirac has suddenly become the principled saviour of human rights and international legitimacy. It is hard not to see Saddam Hussein, the father of lies and master of deception, continuing to play cat and mouse with the UN inspectors, however long they are given to do the job. It is hard to imagine that this Iraqi tyrant will be disarmed other than by force. If we do not deal with him now, we will have to do so later. Who knows how many people will suffer in the meantime?
Many of us have said that we hate the prospect of war and I am no different. I hate the thought of war and all its gory consequences, but I hate even more the thought of Saddam Hussein continuing in office. I hate the thought of chemical and biological weapons falling into the hands of suicidal terrorists and of the west once again showing weakness in the face of terror and threat when we should show strength. I have made my decision and I know where I stand: I will support the Government tonight and back the motion to use "all means necessary" to disarm this tyrant. At the same time, I respect strongly those who have reached a different conclusion, but I am convinced that that is the right way forward.
874
I pay tribute to the leadership that the Prime Minister has given to our country in recent weeks. He first attracted my silent admiration when he said that, for him, the special relationship with America was an article of faith. I also believe that it is our current destiny as a nation that we should support this only superpower. That is the reality of modern-day global politics. The Prime Minister has done his utmost to achieve a second resolution and has articulated the need for action in a clear and compelling way. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whom I am glad is in his place to listen to this rare tribute from me. He has been steadfast in his position on Iraq not only for months, but for many years. That should be recognised and respected. He is also to be respected for not seeking to exploit the potential political difficulties of the Government on this issue, but focusing on doing the right thing. That is certainly what I came into politics for.
I want to make two other points. I was pleased to see that even the amendment expresses strong support for our troops who are about to go into action. Many of the armed forces now on the brink of conflict live or are based in my constituency—notably the Royal Marines of 42 Commando. They are highly professional and very brave. They will acquit themselves well and we in the south-west are all rightly proud of them.
Whenever I speak to a soldier, marine or person in the Navy or the Air Force, I am always most impressed by the fact that they are trained for action and, when the time comes, they want to undertake it on behalf of their nation. They are ready to do that despite the risks. It is vital, as they cross the desert, risking their lives in the national interest, that they know that the country is behind them. I hope that, after we vote tonight, the House will unite and send to our troops with one voice the clear message that they have our full backing.
It is also crucial that their loved ones at home know that. My family is experiencing its first taste of the personal agony of war. Our daughter married a fine young trooper in the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment only two and a half months ago. She remains by the television, constantly awaiting news of the conflict. However, she is surrounded by people in her university—we Streeters marry young—who demonstrate against what her husband is risking his life to do. That does not help. I therefore implore those outside who are planning their protests, marches and placards to think, once battle is engaged, of the thousands of troops who risk their lives and of their families at home. I ask people to show some common humanity and postpone their political protests until the conflict is over.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Streeter: I appreciate that that was a moment of fine rhetoric, but I had not finished.
I want to speculate briefly on the future of the international community. We need a credible United Nations if we are to try to build a safer world. However, the stark reality, whether we like it or not—some colleagues have stated today that they do not like it—is that the world has only one superpower. It is not perfect, and often speaks and acts in a way that baffles many of

875
us. We should certainly not give it a blank cheque. However, without positive American engagement, the United Nations would be a useless talking shop. The Prime Minister was therefore right to go the extra mile in persuading the US President to take the UN route. He is also right to make full use of our special relationship and be the closest ally to the only superpower.
President Chirac plays a dangerous game when he waves his veto around, reckless about the consequences. Driving the USA out of the UN would be one of the most serious things that could happen to global security. President Chirac and everyone else would rue the day.
8.12 pm
John McDonnell: Today is the first occasion on which I have spoken in a debate about Iraq and I am grateful for the opportunity.
It is a time to draw on one's inner beliefs and vote according to principle. I want to put my views on record for my constituents and the community where I live and which I work hard to represent so that they know and understand what I do today.
I shall vote against the war and for peace. I shall walk through the Lobby with many members of the socialist Campaign group, but one will be missing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will not be with us tonight, and I send him our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Last week, in a desperate attempt to gain support for war, the Ministry of truth at No. 10 tried to portray the Campaign group's position as a challenge to the party leadership. Let us make it clear that today's vote has nothing to do with the leadership. It is a vote on principle: one is either for war or against it.
The Prime Minister said that he wants people to vote not out of loyalty but on the basis of understanding and supporting the argument. I respect him for that. I would respect him even more if he gave us a free vote instead of a three-line Whip, and if the Whips were called off from trying to persuade people in their normal manner.
I shall vote for peace tonight because the Bush war plan is immoral. It fails the test of the basic just war principles of not only last resort but right intention. I do not accept that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Bush have the right intention for the future of Iraq.
I believe that war is illegal. We cannot simply erase the US ambassador's commitment to UN Security Council partners that resolution 1441 contained no hidden triggers and "no automaticity". Many will perceive war against Iraq as an act of international vigilantism by a superpower state that increasingly appears out of control. We will reap unforeseen and incalculable consequences for the world, our citizens and constituents for generations. People will suffer and die. No matter how few die, it will be too many for me.
If we go to war, we must be clear that we have the support of our people.
Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend has been eloquent about what he believes to be unacceptable. How would he disarm Saddam Hussein's regime?
John McDonnell: We will work through the UN. We will use weapons inspection and implement the proposal
876
for UN human rights inspectors. We will support the Iraqi people because a tyrant falls best and hardest when he is pushed by his people. We will not bomb but support them.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his usual courtesy. Did not we hope that the Iraqi people would get rid of Saddam Hussein in 1991 when we left it to them? They rose up and were massacred.
John McDonnell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that the Basra road is a good example of supporting the Iraqi people. We inflicted carnage on them. Many were simply conscripts who did not wish to fight.
If we go to war, we need the clear support of our people. In the past 12 months, we have been treated to a global propaganda exercise to persuade us of the need to attack Iraq. We have been subjected to a global stream of new-Labour-like publicity stunts, cynical in intent and increasingly ineffective. The lasting inheritance is the perpetrators' inability to tell the difference between truth and falsehood, even when lives are at stake.
Most people have seen through the global propaganda exercise. The great persuaders have failed to persuade. People have seen through the dodgy dossiers and the forged nuclear weapons evidence. They have been offended by the use of the memories of those who died on 11 September to justify dusting off Rumsfeld's five-year-old plan to invade Iraq. They understand that the war has no link to the war against terrorism and will exacerbate the terrorist threat for years. They have grown wary of pleas for and justification of war on humanitarian grounds by those whose humanitarian credentials are compromised by their military, economic and political support for the tyrant Hussein and who, after 20 years, have suddenly discovered the plight of the Iraqi people.
Even those who believed Bush and would have been held to the principles of the UN by the Prime Minister have been rapidly disillusioned. We now know that the Bush military regime had set a timetable for invasion of Iraq that was based not on the outcome of the UN weapons inspections but on the climatic conditions of the middle east. A second UN resolution was not an act of faith in the UN and the rule of international law. It was simply another part of the propaganda exercise to bring states, and especially the British electorate, on side. When not enough states could be bought or bullied, the UN route was cast aside.
We reached the height of cynicism last week when we were promised the Palestinian-Israeli road map. It comes from a President who was forced by world opinion to send Colin Powell to Israel when Sharon sent his tanks to demolish Jenin. To give Sharon the time to murder enough Palestinians, Powell took the longest route from Washington to Tel Aviv in the history of travel. Where was the road map then? Where was it this week when Israeli bulldozers drove backwards and forwards over the peace demonstrator, killing her outright?

877
When rational argument fails, we find a scapegoat. Who better than the traditional enemy, the French? The language that has been used in the debate against the French verges on xenophobia. Yet any criticism of the Bush regime is pounced on as anti-American.
It might be impossible to prevent the Bush regime from going to war, but we can still prevent Britain from being party to this international atrocity. Our vote tonight could withdraw any moral or political authority to take this country to war. Without the overwhelming support of the House, no Prime Minister can be confident that he has the backing of the British people for war, or the right to lead our people into this unknown risk.
If the Prime Minister proceeds to take us to war in this coalition—not of the willing, but of the killing—I shall say clearly, "Not in my name. Not in the name of thousands of Labour party members up and down the country. Not in the name of the British people." To our communities, we say, "Continue the campaign for peace, to shorten this war and to prevent the next." To the British troops, we say, "Safe home." To the Iraqi people—the parents—we say, "Hide your children deep in the shelters, but we wish you safety. We will stand by you when the bombing stops." To the peoples of the world, we say very clearly, "We will not let this coalition destroy the United Nations as the arbiter of international order." We must form a new coalition to build institutions of global governance capable of safeguarding the world from the new superpower that is globally dictating its policy to the rest of the world.
8.21 pm
Richard Ottaway: We conduct this debate, 18 months after the horror and tragedies of 11 September, with our institutions impotent, with no coherent solutions to the threats facing civilisation, and with the old world order split asunder, possibly irrevocably. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that international diplomacy has failed. The United Nations has shown that its structure is not equipped for the challenges of the 21st century. The European Union is split, and its plans for a common foreign and defence policy are in ruins. The future of NATO is threatened as the different aims, objectives and outlooks of its members are exposed. Out of this carnage of shattered institutions, a new world order will emerge. Rebuilding those institutions must be a priority, but this is not how it should happen.
Many will ask how we got ourselves into the position in which we find ourselves tonight. I have sat here for months listening to Ministers confidently predicting that those institutions would accept the challenges before them. I have waited for Ministers to produce the killer piece of evidence that they gave the impression was there. It has not materialised. With hindsight, their optimism was misguided, misplaced and misleading. There is no smoking gun. There is no clear link between international terrorism and Saddam Hussein. The dodgy dossier and the false claims of attempts to buy uranium in Africa have undermined the argument. There is some evidence that the tyrant is disarming.
878
These are all strong arguments for opposing involvement in this conflict, yet I pause. What would be the consequences of turning our backs on this motion tonight? In my judgment, it would simply make things worse and, if I had any doubts, I was persuaded by the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon.
As a young politician, I was brought up to believe that democracies do not start wars. It is not for civilised nations to interfere with the internal affairs of another country, no matter how much we disapprove. But now, the tyrants hide behind that principle and terrorise their own people, believing that they are immune. We need no further evidence than the stream of refugees fleeing from cruelty and torture in Iraq. If we couple that with the new emergence of the unseen enemy who leaves no fingerprints and dies for his cause—the suicide bomber and the man who flies a plane into a building—we realise that the rules of the game have changed.
We must never forget the horror and traumas of the 11 September nightmare in New York. Since then, the American people have been marching to the sound of a different drumbeat from the rest of us. I understand the view of a President who says that he does not distinguish between terrorists and countries that support terrorism, and my gut instinct is that Iraq is one country on a short list of countries that threaten the peace and stability of a world of democracy, opportunity and prosperity. I believe that those countries possess weapons of awesome capacity and that they will give them to terrorists who are prepared to use them. Saddam poses a threat to us all, and we must not shirk from addressing it.
The cry of those who oppose this war—for whom I have huge respect—is not to leave Iraq alone, but to persuade that country to disarm by peaceful means. That is well meaning and well intentioned, but, in my judgment, it is unachievable. If we were to give Saddam Hussein an extra six months to comply, we would be hack here in six months' time having the same debate. He has already flouted endless UN resolutions. That is what has brought us to this point. If France said that it would support a UN resolution, provided that certain conditions were met, I would understand—we all would. But if it continues to prevaricate, I cannot see the point of further delay. Despite serving in the Royal Navy for nine years during the cold war, I am as appalled as anybody by the threat of war. However, I believe that it is only a matter of time before 11 September repeats itself in a European capital. I ask myself, as I am sure many hon. Members do, whether I would regret not supporting the motion tonight if such a thing happened. The answer is clearly yes.
Failure to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict is at the root of the discontent in the Arab world. The announcement of a new impetus to solve that crisis once and for all is persuasive and warmly welcomed. Along with rebuilding Iraq and restoring confidence in our institutions, that must be our priority.
Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Palestinian crisis. Does he not think that 50 years of arming, financing and not condemning Israel, and

879
allowing it to possess nuclear weapons, are contributory factors to the destabilisation of the whole political process in the middle east?
Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but that is not the question before us tonight. The question that we are being asked to address is about the here and now, and whether we involve ourselves in this war. Of course his point is relevant, but it is not the central point.
A successful outcome to this conflict will not end terrorism, but it will contain it. It will send a message to those who engage in or support terrorism that there will be a price to pay. In a powerful speech, the Chief Rabbi recently said that we were not looking at the difference between night and day. He said that we were in the twilight areas of dawn and dusk, and that this was not about the difference between right and wrong, but about which of the two wrongs we should choose.
This is a defining moment in world history. Our policy of being at the heart of Europe is in ruins. We are witnessing the emergence of new principles in international affairs. We must play our part in the new order that will emerge from the rubble of this conflict. It is with a heavy heart that I will support this motion tonight, but to me it is the lesser of two evils.
8.28 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: May I say that it is with a heavy heart that I will not be supporting the Government's motion this evening? I feel it necessary to put a few things on the record about what one is not, when explaining what one intends to do.
I am certainly not anti-American. I agree very much with the points made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) about what we owe to the United States. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. As ever, he made a characteristically strong and authoritative speech. There must be many Conservative Members who wonder why he ever stood down and left them with his father as leader. I endorse his point that we owe a great debt of honour to the United States. If it had not been for the intervention of the United States in the last war, who knows, we would probably have been overrun by the Nazis, and many people in the Chamber would have been growing small moustaches and polishing their jackboots—those, that is, who had not already been eliminated.
I am not pro-Saddam Hussein. I was speaking against him in the early 1980s when the then Conservative Government, the German Government, the French Government and the Russians were all arming him, trading with him and sustaining him. I need no lectures on how evil Saddam Hussein is, but to compare him with Hitler is absurd. There is no comparison between the ramshackle state of Iraq and the military and industrial might of Germany in the 1930s. This is not the occupation of the Rhineland; it is not Czechoslovakia; it certainly is not Poland. And George Bush sure is not Winston Churchill.
I am not one of those who think that all leadership automatically leads to treachery. The Prime Minister has worked himself almost physically to a standstill to try and resolve this issue peacefully and through the United Nations, which is enormously to his credit. But,
880
tragically, we have failed in the process, simply because the case for war has not been persuasive in the United Nations, in Europe or in this country as a whole.
It is far too convenient to blame the French. Legally, of course, we might or might not have needed a second resolution as well as resolution 1441—you get your lawyers, and you get whatever view you are prepared to pay for—but politically, securing that second resolution was crucial. If it truly was only the French who opposed it, we should have pushed for a vote in the Security Council in order to isolate them. Their veto would then have been seen as unreasonable, if they had used it. But the threat of the veto was not, in fact, what it was all about.
While we are talking about vetoes, let me say that it really is time that we proposed getting rid of the veto in the UN Security Council. It is a legacy of the old cold war. Anyway, I do not think that this was about the threat of a French veto. We did not push for a vote to see whether we could isolate the French, because we knew that we would have been in the minority in the Security Council. It is simply not credible for us to say now, having not done that, that we propose to uphold the authority of the United Nations. What is being proposed will undermine the authority of the United Nations and replace it with Pax Americana.
I accept that the Prime Minister has been a restraining influence on the US Administration, but it is becoming clearer by the day that President Bush and/or his advisers have always wanted a war with Iraq. Now he needs one; he desperately needs that war for his own domestic agenda. For the Americans, Saddam Hussein has become a symbol of everything that is wrong in the world. No one could seriously suggest that Saddam Hussein poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, but the world has changed for the United States, dramatically and traumatically, and the Americans need the war for that reason. They need a war against the symbol, Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately—if I may use that old Texan cowboy cliche—we in this country, the British Government, have been led into a box canyon.
Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that numerous people in the United States passionately oppose American military foreign policy? In the demonstrations in New York, Washington and San Francisco, many carried placards reading "41 million Americans have no health care, yet we have money to bomb Iraq".
Mr. Banks: Of course I accept that. We could equally say that we have the money to send large numbers of troops to the Gulf, but we cannot get the Central line running.
What really worries me, though, is that we in this country are now trapped between a bunch of right-wing religious bigots in the White House and Islamic terrorists in the middle east. That worries me, and it should worry all Members. We are being dictated to by the demands of United States domestic politics. Just think about it: would we be here if the Democrats were still in control of the White House? Would we still be arguing the case for the invasion of Iraq if the Labour party were in opposition? Thank God we are not, but I

881
think that if we were I would hear people saying "No, we must stand by the United Nations. We in the Labour party have always been an internationalist party, and we must do nothing that would undermine the authority of the United Nations".
I am old enough to remember Suez. I recommend a reading of Anthony Eden's memoirs, which, ironically, are entitled "Full Circle". In that book, Eden suggested that the British Government wanted to use the invasion of Suez "to secure a solution of middle eastern problems". That is exactly what we are now being promised in the context of the invasion of Iraq. We have now come up with something called the road map. Well, it is a pity that we did not have that road map 46 years ago. Where has that road map been for the last 46 years? I can only say that it must have been in the hands of Mark Thatcher.
In 1957, we were forced out of Suez by the Americans—by President Eisenhower. I believe the Americans were right then, but they are wrong now. Regrettably, we were wrong then and it looks as though we are going to be wrong now. Clearly, we in this country learn very little from history.
I am not a rebel, and I really object to being described as one because I happen to disagree with what the Government propose.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Banks: No, I will not. Yes, I will: the hon. Gentleman is a lovable fellow.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to my old friend. Does he accept that the logical consequence of his vote this evening, whether or not he regards it as a rebel vote, would be the defeat of his Prime Minister?
Mr. Banks: I do not accept that at all. We have all agreed that this is a matter of conscience and judgment. I think that this is the place, in a democracy, where we can have disagreements, although I do not want them to be rancorous. I do not want the Prime Minister to get a bloody nose. I am not one of those who want to see him go. The Prime Minister has led this country and our party well, and I want to sustain him. On this occasion, I am afraid I cannot do that—but that merely underlines the strength of my loyalty, for I feel very unhappy that I will be voting against the Government tonight.
Ultimately, my decision not to support the Government is not a result of my wrestling with my conscience all night and then clinging to office. My decision to vote against the Government is based on a cold calculation of what I think is in the best interests of the country. The disadvantages of this clearly outweigh the advantages. Yes, we will get rid of Saddam Hussein, but the potential problems are enormous: a Pandora's box could be opened in front of us. We will have a divided country, a divided party, a divided Parliament, a divided UN and a divided European Union, which I think is terrible; and there will always be the chance of more terrorism in this country and around the world.
882
That is my analysis. If I am wrong there is no damage, but if the Government are wrong we really are in deep do-do.
8.38 pm
Mr. David Curry: Tonight's vote is not about whether there is war or peace. It is a vote about whether there is war with us or without us, and, by extrapolation, about whether there is reconstruction with us or without us—and, by further extrapolation, about whether there is a rebuilding of international institutions with us or, perhaps, not at all.
I will go into the Government's Lobby tonight after travelling a rocky and reluctant road, and without enthusiasm. I want to explore why so many people are concerned about the prospect of war, and why this war has commanded so little general support in comparison with previous conflicts.
When the Prime Minister put British troops into Sierra Leone, I thought that that was an act of outstanding courage. There were no votes in it, and no issues that would sway British electors; the Prime Minister saw it as a moral concern. When we participated in Kosovo and Afghanistan, it was apparent to me that that was the right thing to do. Humanitarian and security issues were at stake, and ethics and politics met.
I do not have the same conviction over Iraq. For one thing, we have been told specifically that it is not a humanitarian issue. The Foreign Secretary has said clearly that, if Saddam were to give up his weapons voluntarily and easily, he would stay in power. He would then be free to continue his activities, in power. It may be that, by accident and miscalculation, we can turn this into a humanitarian issue, but we did not embark on this venture for humanitarian purposes.
It is a pre-emptive war in its conception. However much I share the loathing for the Iraqi regime, I believe that there must be special reasons for embarking on a pre-emptive war. Of course there is a generic threat to the UK from the existence of weapons that lend themselves to terrorism. That is the reason that President Bush used in his broadcast much earlier today, but it has not been demonstrated that there is a specific threat to the UK.
The Prime Minister says that the national interest is at stake. It is, in the general sense that our national interest is to have a world that is well ordered and democratic rather than one that is unstable and run by despots. However, I and many other people cannot see how that national interest is more threatened today than it was three, five or 10 years ago. Indeed, my understanding is that over that period Iraqi capability has been degraded, and that Saddam has been debilitated and pegged down—that deterrence, in a nutshell, is working. We must remember that, in many ways, the war started a long time ago, with the constant aerial intervention over Iraq.
People say, "Well, the Prime Minister must know something we don't." We have all rather taken in refuge in the belief that the Prime Minister must have access to information that we do not have. The Government speak with such categorical certainty about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction that one is

883
inclined to believe them. But does Saddam Hussein have such weapons? Will we find the arsenals that we believe are there?
The nuclear inspectors have talked about the matter, but not with the apparentness to which public opinion responds. Moreover, the Government have made some statements that have been at odds with statements in the document that they issued in September, especially in connection with the building of nuclear capacity.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is unlikely that I will be called to speak, so I am adopting all his arguments, but is not the logic of the American position regime change? Trust has broken down so much that the Americans could never be sure that Saddam would ever give up all his weapons. Ever since 11 September, they have been determined to change the regime in Iraq.
Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the problem is that America's reasons for the war have changed often. The Americans have given a number of reasons for the war, and the UK has always been careful to exclude regime change from our rationale, but there is a dislocation between the logic being brought to bear in Washington and the logic here.
The Government seem to postulate a choice between the forcible disarmament of Saddam, and the inevitable rebuilding of his weaponry. Given the degree of surveillance constantly applied to Iraq, I wonder whether that really is the only choice at hand.
The Government say that they will fight to uphold the will of the UN or of the international community, but we chose the UN route knowing its rules. The Government pulled President Bush down that route, and we all applauded when they did. It is difficult now to invoke a mandate based on furthering the interests of the international community in the UN when we acknowledge that the UN would not deliver the endorsement that we sought.
The problem is that the US has given the impression that its only interest in the UN was to get its approval for war, and not to exploit the potential for progress by non-military means. Every report from the weapons inspectors has invariably been greeted by Washington as a causus belli. The US has shown a palpable distaste for the whole UN operation.
Of course I believe that the French actions would have been a great deal more plausible had President Chirac said that, if Saddam did not conform to UN requirements after a certain period, French troops would take their place alongside other troops in the Gulf. That he did not say that is a signal failure on his part. French policy has failed but, if France stands accused of wanting to veto war whatever the circumstances, many observers drew the conclusion that that was in reaction to an apparent US predetermination for war. The Americans' reasons for war kept changing, but their military build-up was remorseless.
I have real concerns about the position of the UK. I respect the depth and power of the Prime Minister's conviction that the policy is right, but there is a real danger that the UK will fail to meet US expectations, while at the same time it is burning its boats in respect
884
of relations in Europe. I have doubts about whether the policy—if it is the Government's policy—that the UK can act as influence, harness, guide and tutor to the exercise of power by the world's only superpower is, in the long term, any more than a historical intellectual conceit.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not another problem with UK involvement in this adventure that we are the old imperial power in Iraq? People in Iraq and throughout the Arab world must understand that. Even in 1955, we had Crown territories in the area, and Iraqi military recruits had British officers. Will not that pose a serious problem for how the Arab world perceives the UK?
Mr. Curry: I suspect not, as a matter of fact. I think that that history has died. I believe what is said about the relationship of the Iraqi people to their regime.
However, the question of how we cope with the world's only hegemon, especially after 11 September, is a real issue. I hope that the Government do not believe that the right answer is to ride postillion. There is an urgent need for us to repair relations in Europe, and for Europe to rebuild transatlantic partnerships. A Europe of 25 member states will be more flexible and open to influence than one still dominated by historical and traditional axes. If 11 September brought a new world to the American continent, enlargement will certainly bring new politics to Europe.
All European states ultimately have an enormous stake in the EU, the UN and NATO. Those structures are now badly fractured, but they are still of proven resilience.
I share the bewilderment of millions of Britons as to how we got here. It is reasonable for that unease to be registered in this Chamber tonight, but one thing that we must conclude is that the UK has to think hard about its role in the world, and about how its interests are best served in that world.
The decision tonight is not about whether there should be peace or not, because that decision has passed us by. If it had not passed us by, I should have had no hesitation about going into the Lobby that stands for peace. However, I must decide what my country's legitimate role and influence are. I have to decide how best I can propel my country to be that force in world affairs that is part of our historical destiny and which, to use a Gallic word, is our vocation.
That is why, with much heart rending, I shall go into the Government Lobby tonight. We must throw open the debate to deal with what happens in the aftermath of war. We must discuss how we reconstruct and rebuild, and how we can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. If we do that, the conflict—which we all pray will be as short and clean as conflicts ever can be—will have taught something to us, as well as to our enemies.
8.48 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: We all face a difficult choice tonight, whichever way we decide to vote, but we will all respect the choice that each individual Member makes. When I came here today I intended, reluctantly, not to support the Government, but I have listened to

885
Members on both sides and that has made my life very difficult. The expectation that we will do the right thing makes life difficult, and life is about difficult choices.
This week we have been told that the Prime Minister is reckless, but I do not believe that. No one could have done more than the Prime Minister. I must also support the Foreign Secretary for the way in which he has backed our Prime Minister. It is difficult and hard, and I wonder how we have ended up in this position. Hindsight is a great thing and we can look back and say that we would have done things differently. Unfortunately, we cannot change things now, and we all face a tough decision tonight. I am not yet sure how I will vote tonight. At first, I was fairly confident that I could not support the Government, but the conviction that I hear from both sides persuades me that I must question right up to 10 o'clock whether I am doing the right thing.
The Prime Minister deserves credit for what he has done to avoid war so far. Without doubt, we would have been at war already without our Prime Minister. What worries me—my quandary—is how we can rebuild the UN. I said that our Prime Minister has been called reckless, but the French Government and President are the reckless ones. I do not seek to blame them, but they have been reckless in this matter.
The credibility of the Government is what will count tonight. I am concerned about the credibility of the map that has been drawn for the future of the middle east. We will be united by the fact that we all fully support the British troops whose lives will be put at risk. It is not easy for me to say, "Go to war and risk your life." It will not be my life on the line, but that of an 18-year-old from my constituency and many others. Every hon. Member has constituents who will be put at risk. Two Territorial Army regiments have already been called up from Chorley, together with many full-time regulars. Their lives will be put at risk. I would like to think that we still had the opportunity not to put their lives, or the lives of civilians in Iraq, at risk.
Sir Patrick Cormack: What will those young men and women—our constituents—feel if the Government are holed below the waterline tonight, which is what would happen if the amendment were carried?
Mr. Hoyle: That would be an interesting scenario and I think we would then pull back our troops. The Government would be left with no alternative. The point is that the troops are now ready to go. We could have had an easy choice tonight if the Prime Minister had already committed the troops. We could all have got behind him and our lives would have been made easier. But tonight is not about easy choices: it is about difficult choices. We all face a difficult choice. I cannot easily face up to that choice, but I must do so later.
Many of my constituents genuinely believe that there should be an alternative to war, and I fully support that view. I wish that I could give them an answer, but we no longer have an alternative. It has now gone, and that is the difficulty. The press, the Churches, the constituency parties, other hon. Members and the general public all have their views, and we should listen to them and uphold their wishes, but sometimes we have to stand up and be counted.
886
Tonight we have to make a difficult choice, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be represented in both Lobbies. The split will not be straightforward, down party lines, because this is a matter of conscience. We should have a conscience on this issue. We should consider not what will happen to us, but what will happen to our armed forces. They will risk their lives, and that is what worries me. People say that the troops signed up for the job that they do, and that is true, but we should always seek to explore any alternative to war. We should grasp any opportunity to avoid war as firmly as possible, but my worry is that it is not there for us to grasp. That is what makes our choice tonight so difficult. When I vote tonight, I will upset people whichever way I go. I hope that we can all make the right decision.
I am one of those who have wondered whether, after 12 years, a few more weeks mattered. I believed that, if the opportunity was there to allow a few more weeks, I would support that. However, during those 12 years, we have failed, along with American Governments. When we saw the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds rise up against Saddam's regime—one of the most evil regimes that we know—we failed them in their hour of need. When they wanted us, we turned our backs. Are we going to mislead them again? There is a danger that they will rise up, thinking that they have the backing of this Government and the American Government.
Mr. Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend is struggling, as we all are, with these difficult issues. Some hon. Members have portrayed this as a simple issue—one Lobby for war and one for peace. Does he agree that it is not as simple as that and that there is no peace in Iraq to maintain? It is a country in which there is murder, barbarism, torture and oppression. Walking away from that will not help the Iraqi people one bit.
Mr. Hoyle: I agree that there is no simple answer. This is a difficult time for all of us. It will be a matter of conscience. I will not condemn anybody, no matter how they vote, because they will be voting for what they think is right. It is important that we will be voting for what we believe in and not for what we have been told to vote. People may say that we have been put under pressure. There is pressure from all sides, but I will not vote because of pressure but because I hope that what I am doing is right for my constituents.
There is no doubt that innocent civilians will be killed, because we cannot protect everyone. That is a price that I do not wish to pay. However, I am beginning to believe that we are left with little choice. The decision will be hard. I will swing between being with the Government and against the Government. As I say, this is a tough time. We have to make our minds up and do the right thing. We have to make the choice. I must make the right decision—not because of what happens to me but because of what happens to the people of Iraq and our troops on the ground. I must stand by my decision and explain it to my constituents if I let them down.
8.52 pm
Mr. David Heath: Nobody who has listened to the Prime Minister over the past few months and, indeed, this afternoon, when he made a powerful speech, could doubt his conviction and

887
sincerity on this matter. I agree with the Foreign Secretary when he says that no one has a moral monopoly.
I find myself in the same position as the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Before I start, I want to set out my reasons for taking the view that I have taken, am certainly not anti-American. Indeed, having shared, at least in a superficial way, the events of 11 September, when I was on Capitol Hill in Washington, I believe that I have at least some understanding of the change in the psychology of the American people that occurred that day. I do not ignore the failings of Saddam Hussein and his appalling regime, which I detest with every fibre of my body. I do not naively accept the actions of some countries and their representatives, which I believe are not without motives. I am not a pacifist. I freely admit that I take a robust line on occasion—as I did on Kosovo when I spoke for my party.
Having taken all those factors into account, I still feel that, at this stage and under these circumstances, the option of war is wrong. I believe that for three reasons. First, I do not believe that the alternatives have been exhausted. That has been largely because of a gross failure of diplomacy. My criticism is not of the energy levels of the British Government and our representatives in pursuing a consensus, but because I believe that the consensus that they were pursuing was on the wrong basis. Throughout the process, there was a ticking clock, and I agree with Sir Crispin Tickell, who asked who started the clock ticking. The British Government were trying to find a consensus on a military timetable rather than on a process of disarmament.
The case for war has not yet been made, certainly not to my satisfaction, but also not to the satisfaction of the people whom I represent in my constituency. Why is that important? Because, as a democracy, we can declare war only with the consent of the people of this country, and that consent is not presently there. The reason why they are not persuaded is partly because of the Government's changing position: first, the pretext was weapons of mass destruction, then regime change, and then some humanitarian impulse. At the last Defence questions, the Secretary of State for Defence seemed to be saying that, if British troops were put into Iraq, they would be attacked by Saddam Hussein's forces, so that was a pretext for putting British troops into Iraq.
Those arguments do not ring true to the British people. We have had a superfluity of dubious evidence that has been countermanded by the inspectors themselves when they have looked at it. We heard about the yellow mud from Niger, which turned out not to have been imported at all, and the mobile biological laboratories that proved to be ordinary trucks. There probably is significant evidence available to the security services, but it has not been shared with the British people.
Any progress that the inspectors have made has been belittled and demeaned by the American Government, and sometimes by the British Government as well. That is not helpful in persuading world opinion that the British and American Governments were serious about disarmament rather than about finding a pretext for war. Any number of fallacious arguments have been put forward, whereby anyone who does not agree with the
888
Government's position is held to hold views that are absurd. It does not do much for the body politic for such arguments to be advanced.
The third reason why I find myself in difficulty is that I believe in the United Nations. I do not believe that when the Security Council has not been able to reach a conclusion we can be said to be acting in its name. Without that agreement, action would be illegitimate and wrong. I personally have doubts about action even with that agreement, because it would then be legitimate, but folly. There are very many arguments for not taking military action in the present circumstances. I do not want to get hung up on international law, which is often a chimera that can take any shape that the strongest country chooses to adopt for it, but I do believe that the political legitimacy that the United Nations Security Council offers is a significant factor that has now been thrown away.
As regards the position from now on, I share the view of every Member of this House. I am arguing against war. I am not persuaded for one moment by the ridiculous proposition that, because our troops may be employed, it is wrong for us to argue against their being deployed. This is the only opportunity that we have to make that point. Once the troops are in the field, however, I will give them my every support, and I expect every Member so to do.
Mr. Barnes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who will vote against war and will later, when war starts, be opposed to it, are not thereby against our troops in any way, and that we will wish to support and sustain them as well as we can, even though we think that they should have been pulled out? Indeed, it would be difficult for me to adopt any other position. When I was 18—any moons ago—I was in Iraq as a member of the forces, never having heard a shot fired in anger.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman speaks with singular personal authority on that issue. I do not doubt the sincerity of any hon. Member, and nor will I doubt their credentials. I wonder whether we have paid sufficient attention to the humanitarian consequences of war, and whether the promised regional initiatives will come to pass. However, my biggest concern is that the consequences of this war are incalculable. I hope that they will be very much less than may prove to be the case, but I fear that there will be a knock-on effect not only in the region, but across the world.
In my more despondent moments, I feel that since 11 September, we have entered into a new hundred years war—a war not between religions, but certainly based on religion. If that is the case, my fear is that conflict in Iraq under these circumstances—without the support of the United Nations—can only inflame that situation: that it can only create more opportunities for conflict; that it can only reduce the influence of the United Nations and of other international bodies. For all those reasons, I believe that I am right to support the amendment, and to vote against the Government's position.
9.6 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate—it is a very difficult debate—in making a decision on which way to vote. I have been approached by many of my constituents, by party officers and by others in this House in the past 24 hours, and they have given me advice as to which way I should vote. I say that the debate is difficult because, as an officer in the Labour party for some 45 years, this is one of the most difficult decisions that I have had to take. The last thing that I want to do is to damage the Labour party and the Government, who are so ably led by our Prime Minister. They have done an excellent job since 1997, and I recognise the part that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have played in the past few weeks in trying to get a second United Nations resolution.
At the end of the day, of course, the decision has to be mine. I have decided that I will vote for the amendment, although I would have preferred one that included a timetable. I would have liked to incorporate amendment (b), which was not selected, into amendment (a), on which we will vote. I would have preferred a timetable, because a line must eventually be drawn in terms of how long we are prepared to give Saddam Hussein to disarm, and of how long the exercise can go on. I shall abstain on the main motion. I cannot support it because it contains a passage that effectively gives the power to go ahead to war now; however, I do support almost everything else in it. It refers to what will take place after the conflict, assuming that it happens, and I fully support that. It is with great regret that I will not be able to support the Government tonight.
I accept that Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant and that he possesses weapons of mass destruction, although exactly what they are we do not know. However, I recognise that the weapons inspectors have asked for more time, and it is for that reason that I will vote for the amendment. It is wrong for Hans Blix's report to be rejected. He has clearly said that he wants more time—months, not years—and I believe that we should give him that time.
I also believe that it is very import ant that we do not fall into the trap that some seem to have fallen into today. They say that war is inevitable in any event, regardless of tonight's vote, and in doing so they are implying that it is essential for us to go ahead, so that we can influence the United States after the conflict has taken place, and that if we do not join them, they will totally ignore us in future. That would be an appalling tragedy for the whole world. I want us to strengthen the United Nations.
Lynne Jones: I am perplexed by my hon. Friend's speech. If the amendment falls, by voting for the Government motion, he will be voting for war.
Mr. Pike: I did not say that; I said clearly that I would abstain. We all have to make our decisions and defend them. I shall defend my decision because it is based on my personal view of the situation. It is my vote and I shall vote for the amendment and abstain on the motion.
As I was pointing out, I do not believe that if the US chose to disregard the views of this country, there would be no future for unity or for the credibility of the United Nations.
890
I am concerned about stability in the middle east. We must also consider countries such as Pakistan where the National Assembly was prorogued last Thursday. I am a supporter and sympathiser of President Musharraf; he should be assisted. I want the infant democracy of Pakistan to succeed. If Musharraf fell, there would be an extremist Government, which would be appalling.
Wars do not result only in death and injury; there are also massive refugee movements. On my last visit to Pakistan, I saw refugees from Kashmir and the 2 million refugees from Afghanistan. They had not fled from recent events in Afghanistan but from the Soviet invasion of 20 or 30 years ago. There are many such displaced persons all over the world.
I can remember the end of the second world war. I was living in London when the flying bombs and rockets started so I know what it is like to be bombed. Indeed, to this day, I remember my seventh birthday. Just as I picked up my present, we heard a flying bomb overhead. We panicked because the engine cut out and we thought it was coming straight at us, so I never saw my present again. After that, we moved north to Burnley, which is why I ended up as its Member of Parliament. Burnley suffered as a result of my evacuation.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) referred—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are breaking out throughout the House. I appreciate that we are coming to the end of the debate, but the House should do the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) the courtesy of listening to what he is saying.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham referred to the Suez invasion. I am no pacifist and I was doing my national service at that time as a member of the Royal Marines. I was not called to Suez although I should have been if the conflict had continued.
Suez shows that some conflicts do not yield the aims that we set out with. That is why I am worried about the present situation. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the aim of Suez was to end the middle east problem and to keep the canal open: but what happened? Ships were sunk in the canal and it was blocked for years. We had to develop supertankers because we could not use the canal.
The other fiasco was that there were tragic deaths. A marksman in my squad was killed by the Egyptians as he was disembarking from a helicopter. I shall never forget that. We were only 18 or 19 years old. The consequences of war can be extremely serious.
I do not think we have reached the stage where we need to go to war. We need a few more months to allow the weapons inspections to be completed. The inspectors should be allowed to say whether disarmament is taking place. We could then make a decision.
The action that we are taking is tragic. I realise that 11 September changed the world. Wherever we were at the time, we saw what happened then. I support the Prime Minister in his fight against terrorism, especially the fight against the causes of terrorism, which we must always keep in mind. I believe that the Prime Minister has a 100 per cent. commitment to settling the problems of Palestine and Israel—unlike President Bush.

891
We also need to solve the problems of poverty and illiteracy throughout the world. Our Prime Minister is committed to that and I give him my full support, but I cannot vote with him tonight.
9.15 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: This has been a remarkable and extraordinary debate. We have heard from 55 hon. Members—too many for me to refer to them all, I am afraid, and I hope that those to whom I do not refer will forgive me. It has been a passionate and sincere debate in the best traditions of the House, and may I say what a pleasure it is to see the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in his place this evening? We could have done with him earlier in the debate.
None of us can derive any pleasure from where we find ourselves tonight. We had all hoped that the UN would provide a route to disarming Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, sadly, we were wrong in that hope. We had all hoped that a united international voice would bring Saddam Hussein to his senses. We knew that only a united and determined voice, backed by the credible threat of force, would work.
Now, sadly, we will never know whether a second resolution would have brought Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily. What we know is that that chance has been sunk by the ill-considered action of France, and I hope that, as the transient euphoria and popularity fade, the French will reflect on the chilling consequences of their ill-considered action. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) in their judgments on France; I do not believe that history will treat France kindly.
Lynne Jones: Although it is extremely unfortunate that President Chirac used the words "regardless of the circumstances", is it not time to consider a more accurate portrayal of what he actually said in the context of the assessment that the weapons inspection process was working and the acknowledgement of the role that the threat of force has played? President Chirac says:
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote "No" because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves—to disarm Iraq."
Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady; I had not realised that she is an apologist for the French President. The French President knew exactly what he was saying when he said it, and he knew its impact.
Serious concerns have been expressed today and, as we have said throughout, we must respect the sincerity of one another's views. I heard the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg); my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Billericay (Mr. Baron); and the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I do not agree with their conclusions, but I respect their views and pay tribute to them for the way that they expressed them today.
892
I also tried to listen with respect to the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He knocked me off that attempt very early in his remarks. He lectured us on the need to listen to the voice of the House if it were to vote against the Government tonight. He then told us that he would not accept the judgment of the House if it voted for the Government motion tonight—some democrat. He made false accusations that the Government sold arms to Saddam Hussein after he gassed the Kurds, and then he refused to accept an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr.Lilley), who would have proved him wrong—not much moral fibre in that. He talked of consistency; his only consistency is his inconsistency. He makes the Grand Old Duke of York look like a paragon of decisiveness.
The debate has revolved around a number of key questions. First, does Saddam Hussein—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Too much conversation is going on.
Mr. Ancram: First, does Saddam Hussein really pose a risk to international peace and security? Well, the UN certainly thinks so, and it has thought so for the past 12 years because all but one of the 17 resolutions was passed under chapter VII of the UN charter, which deals with threats to international peace and security and which, under article 42, permits the use of military force if necessary to deal with them.
It was interesting that the words of resolution 1441 deliberately replicated the language of article 42. Nobody who signed up to it, including France, can be in any doubt as to what that resolution means. They knew at the time when they signed, and they still know it. Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with resolution 1441. It is incomprehensible that any of the signatories did not accept the need for the action that must flow from it.
The second question is: does Saddam pose a threat to us? The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in powerful speeches today, made a compelling case, to which I do not need to add. Hans Blix's 7 March report demonstrates the terrifying weapons of mass destruction that are missing, and that must still be assumed to be there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) said, they are clearly a threat to us today, and they will be a growing threat in the future if they are not dealt with now.
Why should we act now? There is no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) argued effectively, that if we were to withdraw from action now and withdraw our troops, we would not only destroy the credibility of ourselves and our policy but of the United Nations and international security, too. There can never be an absolutely right time, but history teaches us that action delayed or postponed is rarely action avoided. Putting off what needs to be done almost always leads to more dangerous challenges later. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, if we do not deal with it now, we will have to do so later. To me, that is the most compelling reason why we must vote for action tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) said that it was not enough to know what must be done if we do not do

893
it. We do not have the moral right to turn our backs on a threat in the certain knowledge that we will leave to those who come after us something far worse and far more dangerous. There can be no more dishonourable political act than that.
The next question is: is military action legal? I accept the Attorney-General's advice. It is not the advice of an individual lawyer or legal expert but the considered legal advice of the person who is charged with the constitutional duty of advising the Government and the House on the legality or otherwise of actions. The House should give exceptional weight to that advice.
Mr. Lansley: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in 1991, in the Gulf war, an inherent right of self-defence enabled us to repel Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, but the British and US Governments sought and received specific approval from the United Nations? Many, such as me, feel that we should have continued down the path of seeking specific approval from the UN. In the absence of that, however, the question we must resolve tonight is: will we vote for this amendment, the only result of which would be for the American Government to go it alone, knocking away the last remaining central pillar of British foreign policy, after all the damage that has already taken place?
Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend on his last point. On his first point, if he looks at the Attorney-General's advice, he will see that, under resolution 1441, consequent on the previous resolutions, the legal authority is there.
What we must realise tonight is that we vote but our armed forces fight. We must never forget our armed forces as we debate conflict. We must never take them for granted. They are brave, professional and courageous. They will do what is asked of them, and they will perform magnificently. They must know that they have our unequivocal and wholehearted support.
What we are doing is right in the national interest, but it must also show positive results in meeting all our objectives, and I was pleased to see that those objectives are set out in full in the motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay was correct in saying that the House and the Government must address them. The first of those is the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We must not forget that that is the objective of the United Nations resolution: it was never regime change; it was the elimination of those weapons. We need to be sure that our military operations will specifically target Saddam's weapons of mass destruction—whether it is the nerve agents, the mustard gas, the illegal warheads or the other vile weaponry that we have heard about.
We know from the experience in South African that if a country is committed to disarmament, the United Nations can achieve it extraordinarily quickly. I remember that nuclear disarmament in South Africa was carried out in a matter of days once the Government decided to go down that route. I hope that arrangements are being made with the United Nations to ensure that once relevant areas of Iraq are secure from Saddam Hussein's regime, it will finally be able to complete its mission fully and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
894
We also want to hear the Foreign Secretary outline clearly that the Government are making adequate provision for the swift delivery of humanitarian aid. That is not only to reassure the House and the British people but, more importantly by far, to let the people of Iraq know that with the removal of Saddam Hussein, the aid that they so desperately need will be immediately forthcoming. It is important to get that message to them as early as possible. We are told that all that is in hand, but we have not yet heard what is in hand or how it will be delivered. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge rightly pointed out, in a moving speech, that in Yugoslavia we started but we did not finish. This time we must finish.
We must also ensure that what replaces Saddam Hussein's brutal regime is a truly representative Government, accepted by the Iraqi people and, as Kofi Annan said and the Azores meeting agreed, under the auspices of the United Nations. The new regime should allow the fledgling, functioning democracy of Kurdish northern Iraq to continue to meet Kurdish aspirations for a degree of autonomy. It should recognise the long-ignored Shi'a majority rights and their claim to a share in the Government. It should safeguard the rights of the Sunni Arabs of central Iraq and of smaller minority groups, such as the Turkoman population in the north and the small Iraqi Christian population. If the Administration are not representative—if they are not balanced—they will fail. I hope that the Government are well appraised of that in their conversations with the United Nations. Above all, we must preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq, as the United States, the United Kingdom and the United Nations have all recognised. Coupled with representative Government, that is vital in order for that country to move forward to the domestic cohesion, stability and prosperity that it so wants and, I believe, deserves.
But we cannot look at Iraq in isolation, especially when we talk about stability in the region. We know that the focus of so much anger emanates from the continuing Israel-Palestine dispute There will never be a settled peace in the wider Arab world until there is a lasting peace between the Arabs and the Israelis. If action is to be taken in Iraq, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said, there must also be immediate progress in the nearer middle east. We must urge the United States not only to publish the road map, but to promote discussion and implementation of it. We must also press both Israelis and Palestinians urgently to engage in genuine negotiations that lead to a secure Israel sitting alongside a viable Palestine.
Once that is done, further immediate challenges will face us all in rebuilding, reforming and renewing those institutions that have been the victim of the divisions in the past months. As my right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Cambridgeshire, for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, the events of the past months have called into the question the ability of the United Nations to act with unanimity when international security is threatened. The events raise serious doubts about the current structures and procedures of the United Nations. When the crisis is over, we will need to generate a debate on how it can be made effective again.

895
We will also need to look at NATO. We cannot let a body that has assured our peace and security for 50 years to become a footnote in history, but that is what we face today. Recent events have shaken NATO to its foundations. They have sown severe doubts in the minds of the United States and many new members. We must fully embrace the vision advanced at Prague last year for NATO to develop greater capabilities and specialisations to deal with new threats, crisis management, non-proliferation and, indeed, missile defence. Above all, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in a remarkable and typical speech said, we must ensure that the United States remains fully engaged in NATO and that the Atlantic partnership remains its foundation.
Recent events have also created fundamental rifts in the European Union. They have proved that a unified European foreign policy is a fantasy. I have to say that the Opposition have always said that it was. We need to repair Europe and to restore damaged relations, not within a coercive structure, but as part of a true partnership, and I hope that the lessons of the last months will be well and truly learned before the Convention on the Future of Europe resumes its work.
This debate has highlighted the evil with which we are faced, and it has made it clear why that evil now needs to be removed. It has shown clearly that Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is a threat, that the threat is current and real, that Saddam will not disarm voluntarily, and that the people of Iraq have suffered under this tyrant for long enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) said, we can choose tonight to prolong the misery or bring it to an end.
The time for decision has come, not just for the Prime Minister, not just for the Government, but for the House. The motion asks us to authorise "all means necessary" to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We know what those words mean. Those words mean military action and military action means war. This is not easy for any of us. I say in all seriousness that voting for war is the most serious vote that can be cast in the House. Voting for war in the knowledge that we are committing our armed forces, that lives may be lost, that injuries will be sustained and damage caused, is hard. It is a grave moment for us all. But as Conservatives on these Benches we know what we must do.
Our party has always stood for the national interest. Our party has always stood for the security of its citizens. Our party has always stood for what is right. These are our principles, our instincts, our traditions, and we will remain true to them tonight. We know where the British national interest lies. This debate has confirmed that the Government are acting in that national interest and we will support the Government in doing so.
Tonight we will do what is right. We will be true to our country, to our principles and to ourselves. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment and support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
9.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): This has been a fine debate on a momentous issue. There have, as we heard, been 52 speeches from the Back Benches and I commend them all. I should particularly like to welcome back the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). It is a real delight to see him in his place. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke with feeling and for the House when he said that we have sorely missed him—a point to which I shall return, if tempted, in a moment.
It is invidious to pick out from those 52 speeches any for special mention, but I do pick out two—one made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I greatly regret the fact that he has chosen to resign. I do not happen to share his view, but I have to say, first, that I greatly admired his record as a Minister in two Departments, and I think that the whole House was impressed by the quiet and dignified way in which he made his speech of resignation.
That gives me an opportunity to put on record my appreciation for my right hon. Friend and my friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), my predecessor as Foreign Secretary for four years, a very fine Foreign Secretary, and an excellent Leader of the House. I am sorry that after great years of collaboration in the shadow Cabinet and in government, he has left the Front Bench. That will not reduce our respect or friendship, but it will necessarily reduce our opportunities to work together. I am especially sorry that it should have happened on an issue such as this, on which there are great divisions, and it is not possible for me, and I think I can speak for the whole Government, to support his position.
The other speech I particularly wanted to mention, and I hope that in so doing I do not undermine the great prospects ahead of him, is that of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the former leader of the Conservative party—and who knows what is in store in the future? He made a very powerful case for the need for us, not only in the UK, but in Europe and the international community, to work in partnership with the United States rather than separate ourselves from the United States. He is right, because of simple facts that none can gainsay: the United States has one quarter of the world's wealth and income, and armed forces greater than those of the next 27 countries put together. The issue is not whether we can argue that the United States is the only superpower. It is whether and how we encourage the United States to work within the multilateral system, or, by our own actions, push the United States away and force it to become unilateral.
The right hon. Gentleman's dismissal of the leader of the Liberal Democrats will be recorded as one of the great parliamentary put-downs of all time. When he spoke, the House was fairly crowded, and I am sorry that it was less crowded when the Liberal Democrat hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) spoke, because hon. Members missed an absolute gem.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall in a moment, but I wanted to do the hon. Gentleman honour and flatter him by repeating

897
precisely what he said. We were spellbound for seven minutes and 30 seconds as he made a powerful case against the amendment and in favour of the Government's motion. We were waiting to see whether the iron discipline of the Liberal Democrat party would, for once, break down and a man of conscience and principle would stand up—and of course he will in a moment. Then, in the last 25 seconds of his speech, the hon. Gentleman turned on his head, span around and explained how he would vote for the amendment.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Foreign Secretary give way? [Laughter.]
Mr. Straw: Of course, that is only a minor error as far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) asked whether, in view of the hon. Gentleman's statement that he would vote in favour of the amendment, he would, if the amendment were lost, then vote with the Government. This is what the hon. Gentleman replied—I wrote it down exactly. He said, "I shall make my position quite clear. I shall probably have to abstain."[Laughter.]
Mr. Burnett: We will see what Hansard says tomorrow. Like other hon. Members, I shall abstain on the motion. I am surprised that the Foreign Secretary plays games on such a serious occasion. I made it clear that there is much in the Government motion that I can support, but, for example, I cannot support the proposition—and there is an overwhelming weight of opinion against it—that
"the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today".
That is simply not the case.
Mr. Straw: Very good. There is nothing more to say. I will just add, before I move on to other matters, that we have seen more each-way bets placed by the Liberal Democrats this evening than ever we see on a grand national.
Before I come to the central issue of Iraq, let me say a further word about the related and very important issue of Israel and Palestine. It is as important for the future stability of the region as the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Our aim remains a just and lasting settlement of the disputes between Israel and her Arab neighbours. That settlement must allow for a secure state of Israel and a viable and secure state of Palestine, consistent with United Nations Security Council resolutions and the principle of land for peace.
There are, I know, many criticisms, and many were expressed today, of the position of the United States Administration in respect of Israel and Palestine. That debate is for another time. However, I draw attention to the fact that in addition to resolutions 242 and 338, we now have Security Council resolutions 1397, 1402 and 1405. Those were put on the Security Council statute book with the support and at the instigation of President Bush of the United States. Never before had the United Nations committed itself to a two-state solution. It has done so now, and I commend the President of the
898
United States, as well as the Security Council, for taking that bold step. It is crucial that we ensure that progress is made towards the implementation of that vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side.
Richard Burden: I applaud the efforts of my right hon. Friend and those of the Prime Minister in bringing about the road map. Let us all hope that it turns out to be rather more than the basis for discussion, as President Bush said. There are three people who are likely to use the situation in Iraq for their own ends and use the Palestinians to that end. One is Saddam Hussein, who will attempt to dupe the Palestinians into thinking that he is their saviour, and he is not. The second is Osama bin Laden, who will try to use the situation to create the idea of a general war between Islam, and Christianity and Judaism. The third is likely to be Ariel Sharon, who may well use the situation in Iraq to strengthen the occupation inside the west bank. If he attempts to do that, perhaps as the price of his non-participation in the war in Iraq, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that will be resisted absolutely?
Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and I greatly applaud his work on behalf of the Palestinians. Whatever reservations he or others in the House may have about Prime Minister Sharon, Prime Minister Sharon is the elected head of a democratic Government. I do not happen to agree with my hon. Friend and I do not believe that it is fair or reasonable, therefore, to compare Prime Minister Sharon with the tyrant Saddam Hussein or the terrorist Osama bin Laden. Of course, if there is military action, as well there may be, it is incumbent on all Governments and states, especially democracies—that includes Israel and Turkey—to act responsibly, and I believe that they will do so.
Mr. Francois: The Foreign Secretary has just described Saddam Hussein as a tyrant, and I entirely agree. Throughout the debate, Members in all parts of the House have criticised Hussein's regime as evil. Is it not appropriate tonight, therefore, to remember Burke's famous dictum that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing? Should not hon. Members bear those words in mind as they prepare to go through the Lobby?
Mr. Straw: That is good advice, but I also say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said yesterday, that none of us should claim a monopoly of morality or a monopoly of wisdom. Each of us must respect the position of the other.
As the Prime Minister spelt out earlier today, we greatly welcome the process of Palestinian reform, which has led this evening to the passing of legislation by the Palestinian Legislative Council to create a Prime Minister with Cabinet-making powers. It has confirmed the nomination of Abu Mazen as Prime Minister. That legislation has this evening been signed and approved by the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat. After a few formalities, which we expect to occur today, and when the appointment of Abu Mazen is confirmed, we expect the immediate publication of the

899
Quartet's road map. I greatly welcome President Bush's announcement last Friday to that effect. That will be another very important step forward.
The road map charts a clear course to a resolution of the conflict of the kind that I have described within three years. The promise that I give to this House is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I and the Government as a whole will fully and actively support the Quartet and the parties in its implementation of the road map. We will hold all the parties to the promises and pledges that they have given.
During the course of this debate, a large number of questions have been asked about humanitarian relief. I should say that the House has been greatly assisted in its consideration of questions of humanitarian relief in Iraq by the fourth report of the Select Committee on International Development, which was presented just a week ago. One of the propositions in a list of recommendations made by that Select Committee was that there had to be a new United Nations Security Council resolution to provide proper authority for reconstruction and redevelopment work, and, in addition, a proper mandate for any Government who are to operate within the territory of Iraq once Saddam Hussein is removed. As the Prime Minister, President Bush and Prime Minister Aznar agreed in the Azores on Sunday, such a new resolution will be put before the Security Council. I hope very much that it will attract the fullest possible support, whatever position Security Council members have taken on the issue of military force in Iraq, and that the United Nations will be fully and actively involved in the reconstruction effort.
Mr. Salmond: If this war goes ahead, the minimum cost if it is quick war will be $100 billion, which is 30 times the annual budget of the United Nations for peacekeeping and 20 times its annual budget for development and humanitarian relief. Can the Foreign Secretary offer us any indication that there will be a change in those ratios?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great confidence about the costs of reconstruction. I do not have his confidence in his figures. I say to him that Iraq is an astonishingly wealthy country. The oil is important to this extent: it has the second largest oil reserves in the middle east. One of the other agreements clearly reached in the Azores, which must also be endorsed by a United Nations Security Council resolution, which we shall propose, is that every single cent and penny of those oil revenues are not plundered by Saddam Hussein and his friends, but used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I am quite clear that, when that happens, the costs of reconstruction to the rest of the world will be remarkably insignificant. I also tell the hon. Gentleman that we have already provided funds for contingency work to ensure the smooth passage of the reconstruction work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is travelling to New York tomorrow to see the Secretary-General of the United Nations further to co-ordinate that work.
Mrs. Mahon: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us now exactly what the cost of this war to the British Exchequer will be? Does he agree that many pensioner
900
and students who are in favour of free grants and do not want top-up fees would rather that that money was spent on them, including his own son?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has many arguments against military action, and I respect her for them. However, we cannot reduce the value of doing right to the price of a student grant or loan. We should not indulge in that sort of calculus. Of course, I cannot say precisely what the cost of military action will be. However, I know that if we fail to take action in the face of an obvious evil and an unresolved problem, the costs not only to the international community but, over time, to this country and the rest of the world will be calculable and high.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Foreign Secretary remind those who are considering voting for the amendment that, however pure their motives—I do not dispute the purity—if it is carried, Britain's influence in the world will be destroyed for a generation?
Mr. Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. Those in government and those who aspire to it cannot have it both ways. Many hon. Members, not in the main parties, claimed that we would never go to the United Nations and that military action would be taken without a mandate. We cannot go to the United Nations and argue for a fresh resolution—as we did, with the House's support—get a mandate, stand up and claim that words mean what they say and subsequently resile from that at the moment of difficulty and withdraw our troops. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is right.
Mr. George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who fervently hoped for a second Security Council resolution had the option removed by President Chirac, not the Security Council? Does he further accept that that leaves anyone sensible who has considered the issues no option but to support the Government?
Mr. Straw: It appears as though the French Administration may be changing their position. At 5.22 pm, the BBC News website stated:
"Later on Tuesday, Paris' US ambassador Jean-David Levitte said France would join US-led action if Iraq used biological and chemical weapons."
I say to the Liberal Democrats that they should not be behind Chirac.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Straw: In a few minutes, we shall vote and I shall therefore not take any more interventions.
We are about to vote on the most crucial issue that has been before the House in the 24 years that I have been privileged to represent my constituency of Blackburn. I have been present when military action by British troops has been debated. However, never before, prior to military action, has the House been asked on a substantive motion for its explicit support for the use of our armed forces. The House sought that, but, more important, it is constitutionally proper in a modern democracy.

901
The substantive motion places a heavy responsibility on each of us. We will carry it for years to come. The choice is not easy for any of us. In our previous debate on 26 February on the subject, I said that the issue was the most difficult that I had ever had to tackle. That is truer today. I did not want the country, the Government or the House to be placed in our current position. Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and many others, I have worked for months for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. However, I am as certain as I can that the Government's course of action is right.
We are where we are. We all wish that the world was different and that Saddam Hussein had actively, fully and immediately complied with his disarmament obligations. However, he has not done that, and, however much they may have resisted the conclusion, no one, either today or in New York in the four Security Council meetings that I attended, has had the thought in their heads, still less the words in their mouths to claim that Saddam Hussein has fulfilled the full and immediate compliance that was required of him.
So, what are the responsibilities placed on us? First, we have clear duties to our troops in the field. I do not claim this as a conclusive argument—of course not. I do say, however, that if our troops go into battle, those young men and women—constituents of every Member of this House—need to know not that this motion has scraped through, nor that some here have willed the end but not the means, but that they, our troops, have the fullest conceivable support from each one of us.
Then there are the responsibilities that lie at the very heart of this debate—namely whether we seek the exile of Saddam Hussein, and, if that fails, his disarmament by force. For me, now, there is no other alternative, and nothing that I have heard today seriously suggests otherwise. I have already dealt many times with the issue of containment, but let me repeat that containment is not the policy set out in resolution 1441. Containment failed when the inspectors had to leave in 1998. We first had to resort to Desert Fox to set back Iraqi WMD facilities. Then, in December 1999, there was Security Council resolution 1284, which represented an attempt to offer Iraq a new way to peaceful disarmament while containing the Iraqi threat. Months of negotiation followed, and a new inspection regime. But three permanent members failed to support the resolution, Saddam said no, no inspectors were allowed to return, sanctions were eroded, and containment was left weaker than ever.
The world did nothing—until last year, that is, when President Bush's speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 12 September invited the UN to reconsider its approach. The United Nations embraced that invitation, and what it agreed—which was encapsulated in 1441—was not containment but a realisation that containment and the exhortation of Saddam Hussein had run their course and had failed. In their place, there was a new strategy for the active disarmament of the regime, backed by a credible threat of force—a threat that, if it is to be credible, has to involve the actual use of force if and when the threat itself has failed to work. As Sir Jeremy Greenstock told the Security Council when resolution 1441 was passed, there was indeed "no
902
automaticity" about the use of force: it was entirely conditional on Saddam Hussein's compliance or otherwise with the resolution.
In the debate today, some have said that we should have shown more flexibility and offered more time. We did both. We offered great flexibility and clarity about the terms of the ultimatum, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out. We also said—I said—to our five permanent colleagues that if the only issue between us and them over the ultimatum was more time than the 10 days that we had allowed, of course we could negotiate more time. But no country that has asked for more time has been prepared to say how much more time should be allowed before time runs out. None of them is prepared to issue an ultimatum. In reality, they are not asking for more time. They are asking for time without end.
The fact is this: Saddam will not disarm peacefully. We can take 12 more days, 12 more weeks, or 12 more years, but he will not disarm. We have no need to stare into the crystal ball for this. We know it from the book—from his record. So we are faced with a choice. Either we leave Saddam where he is, armed and emboldened, an even bigger threat to his country, his region and international peace and security, or we disarm him by force.
I impugn the motives of no one in the House. The different positions that we have taken all come from the best, not the worst, of intentions. But as elected Members of Parliament, we all know that we will be judged not only on our intentions, but on the results, the consequences of our decisions. The consequences of the amendment would be neither the containment nor the disarmament of Saddam's regime, but an undermining of the authority of the United Nations, the rearmament of Iraq, a worsening of the regime's tyranny, an end to the hopes of millions in Iraq, and a message to tyrants elsewhere that defiance pays.
Yes, of course there will be consequences if the House approves the Government's motion. Our forces will almost certainly be involved in military action. Some may be killed; so, too, will innocent Iraqi civilians, but far fewer Iraqis in the future will be maimed, tortured or killed by the Saddam regime. The Iraqi people will begin to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that should be theirs. The world will become a safer place, and, above all, the essential authority of the United Nations will have been upheld. I urge the House to vote with the Government tonight.
Question put, That the amendment be made—
The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 396.

Division No.117]

[10:00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Battle, John

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Beith, rh A. J.

Allan, Richard

Bennett, Andrew

Allen, Graham

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Austin, John

Berry, Roger

Bacon, Richard

Best, Harold

Baker, Norman

Blizzard, Bob

Baldry, Tony

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Banks, Tony

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Barnes, Harry

Breed, Colin

Baron, John (Billericay)

Brennan, Kevin

Barrett, John

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

903

Bruce, Malcolm

Heyes, David

Buck, Ms Karen

Hinchliffe, David

Burden, Richard

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Burnett, John

Holmes, Paul

Burstow, Paul

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Hopkins, Kelvin

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Horam, John (Orpington)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Carmichael, Alistair

Illsley, Eric

Caton, Martin

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Chaytor, David

Chidgey, David

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clapham, Michael

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Keetch, Paul

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Cohen, Harry

Coleman, Iain

Kidney, David

Connarty, Michael

Kilfoyle, Peter

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Lamb, Norman

Corbyn, Jeremy

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Cotter, Brian

Lazarowicz, Mark

Cousins, Jim

Leigh, Edward

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Lepper, David

Crausby, David

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Dalyell, Tam

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

McCafferty, Chris

Davidson, Ian

McDonnell, John

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

McGrady, Eddie

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

McKechin, Ann

Dawson, Hilton

McNamara, Kevin

Denham, rh John

McWalter, Tony

Dhanda, Parmjit

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Malins, Humfrey

Dobson, rh Frank

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Doran, Frank

Doughty, Sue

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Edwards, Huw

Martlew, Eric

Efford, Clive

Moore, Michael

Etherington, Bill

Morgan, Julie

Ewing, Annabelle

Mullin, Chris

Fisher, Mark

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Foster, Don (Bath)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Galloway, George

O'Hara, Edward

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Öpik, Lembit

Gerrard, Neil

Organ, Diana

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Owen, Albert

Gidley, Sandra

Page, Richard

Godsiff, Roger

Perham, Linda

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Pollard, Kerry

Grogan, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Gummer, rh John

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Prosser, Gwyn

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Pugh, Dr. John

Hancock, Mike

Purchase, Ken

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Randall, John

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Harvey, Nick

Rendel, David

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Heath, David

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Ruddock, Joan

Hepburn, Stephen

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

904

Salmond, Alex

Truswell, Paul

Salter, Martin

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Sanders, Adrian

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Savidge, Malcolm

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Sawford, Phil

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Sedgemore, Brian

Walley, Ms Joan

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wareing, Robert N.

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Singh, Marsha

Weir, Michael

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

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

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Stevenson, George

Willis, Phil

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Wishart, Pete

Stringer, Graham

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Stunell, Andrew

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wright, David (Telford)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wyatt, Derek

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Thurso, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Mr. Tony Lloyd and

Trickett, Jon

Mr. Douglas Hogg

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Alexander, Douglas

Browne, Desmond

Amess, David

Browning, Mrs Angela

Ancram, rh Michael

Bryant, Chris

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Burgon, Colin

Burnham, Andy

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Burns, Simon

Burnside, David

Arbuthnot, rh James

Burt, Alistair

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Butterfill, John

Atherton, Ms Candy

Byers, rh Stephen

Atkins, Charlotte

Caborn, rh Richard

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Cairns, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cameron, David

Bailey, Adrian

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Barker, Gregory

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Barron, rh Kevin

Caplin, Ivor

Bayley, Hugh

Casale, Roger

Beard, Nigel

Cash, William

Beckett, rh Margaret

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bell, Stuart

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Bellingham, Henry

Benn, Hilary

Chope, Christopher

Bercow, John

Clappison, James

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Betts, Clive

Blackman, Liz

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Blair, rh Tony

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clelland, David

Blunkett, rh David

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Blunt, Crispin

Coaker, Vernon

Boateng, rh Paul

Coffey, Ms Ann

Borrow, David

Collins, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Conway, Derek

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Cooper, Yvette

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Corston, Jean

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cran, James (Beverley)

Bradshaw, Ben

Cranston, Ross

Brady, Graham

Cruddas, Jon

Brazier, Julian

Cummings, John

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

905

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Hendry, Charles

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Heppell, John

Curry, rh David

Hermon, Lady

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Darling, rh Alistair

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

David, Wayne

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hodge, Margaret

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Howard, rh Michael

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Dismore, Andrew

Djanogly, Jonathan

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Dodds, Nigel

Howells, Dr. Kim

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Hoyle, Lindsay

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Drown, Ms Julia

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Hunter, Andrew

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Hutton, rh John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Ingram, rh Adam

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Jack, rh Michael

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Jamieson, David

Evans, Nigel

Jenkin, Bernard

Fabricant, Michael

Jenkins, Brian

Fallon, Michael

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Flight, Howard

Jowell, rh Tessa

Flint, Caroline

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Flook, Adrian

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Follett, Barbara

Keeble, Ms Sally

Forth, rh Eric

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Foster, rh Derek

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Foulkes, rh George

Kemp, Fraser

Fox, Dr. Liam

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Francois, Mark

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Khabra, Piara S.

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Gardiner, Barry

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Garnier, Edward

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Gilroy, Linda

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Goggins, Paul

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Goodman, Paul

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Grayling, Chris

Lammy, David

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Greenway, John

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Grieve, Dominic

Leslie, Christopher

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Hague, rh William

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Hain, rh Peter

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Hammond, Philip

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Hanson, David

Lidington, David

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Lilley, rh Peter

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Linton, Martin

Hawkins, Nick

Loughton, Tim

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Love, Andrew

Heald, Oliver

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Healey, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

McCabe, Stephen

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

McCartney, rh lan

Hendrick, Mark

McDonagh, Siobhain

906

MacDonald, Calum

Redwood, rh John

MacDougall, John

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

McFall, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Robathan, Andrew

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

McIsaac, Shona

Mackay, rh Andrew

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

McKenna, Rosemary

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Maclean, rh David

Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

McNulty, Tony

Roche, Mrs Barbara

MacShane, Denis

Roe, Mrs Marion

Mactaggart, Fiona

Rooney, Terry

McWilliam, John

Rosindell, Andrew

Mandelson, rh Peter

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Maples, John

Ruane, Chris

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Ruffley, David

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Mates, Michael

Maude, rh Francis

Selous, Andrew

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Shaw, Jonathan

May, Mrs Theresa

Sheerman, Barry

Meacher, rh Michael

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Mercer, Patrick

Shepherd, Richard

Merron, Gillian

Sheridan, Jim

Michael, rh Alun

Short, rh Clare

Milburn, rh Alan

Simmonds, Mark

Miliband, David

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Miller, Andrew

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &Lunesdale)

Mole, Chris

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Moran, Margaret

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Morley, Elliot

Soames, Nicholas

Morris, rh Estelle

Soley, Clive

Moss, Malcolm

Southworth, Helen

Mountford, Kali

Spellar, rh John

Mudie, George

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Munn, Ms Meg

Spicer, Sir Michael

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

Spring, Richard

Norman, Archie

Squire, Rachel

O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

Stanley, rh Sir John

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Steinberg, Gerry

Olner, Bill

Stewart, David (Inverness E &Lochaber)

O'Neill, Martin

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Ottaway, Richard

Stinchcombe, Paul

Paice, James

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Straw, rh Jack

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Streeter, Gary

Paterson, Owen

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pearson, Ian

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Picking, Anne

Swayne, Desmond

Pickles, Eric

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Pickthall, Colin

Syms, Robert

Plaskitt, James

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Portillo, rh Michael

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pound, Stephen

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Timms, Stephen

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Prescott, rh John

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Tredinnick, David

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Trend, Michael

Purnell, James

Trimble, rh David

Quinn, Lawrie

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rammell, Bill

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

907

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Wilson, Brian

Viggers, Peter

Winnick, David

Ward, Claire

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Waterson, Nigel

Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

Watkinson, Angela

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Watts, David

Whittingdale, John

Woodward, Shaun

Wicks, Malcolm

Woolas, phil

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Yeo Tim (s Suffolk)

Young, rh Sir George

Wiggin, Bill

Wilkinson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Willetts, David

Joan Ryan and

Wills, Michael

Dan Norris

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 412, Noes 149.

Division No. 118]

[10:14 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Burns, Simon

Ainger, Nick

Burnside, David

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Burt, Alistair

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Butterfill, John

Alexander, Douglas

Byers, rh Stephen

Amess, David

Caborn, rh Richard

Ancram, rh Michael

Cairns, David

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Cameron, David

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Caplin, Ivor

Arbuthnot, rh James

Casale, Roger

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Cash, William

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Atkins, Charlotte

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bailey, Adrian

Chope, Christopher

Barker, Gregory

Clappison, James

Barron, rh Kevin

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Bayley, Hugh

Beard, Nigel

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Clelland, David

Bell, Stuart

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bellingham, Henry

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Benn, Hilary

Coaker, Vernon

Bercow, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Beresford, Sir Paul

Collins, Tim

Betts, Clive

Conway, Derek

Blackman, Liz

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Blair, rh Tony

Cooper, Yvette

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Blunkett, rh David

Corston, Jean

Blunt, Crispin

Cran, James (Beverley)

Boateng, rh Paul

Cranston, Ross

Borrow, David

Cruddas, Jon

Boswell, Tim

Cummings, John

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Cunningham,rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Bradshaw, Ben

Curry, rh David

Brady, Graham

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Brazier, Julian

Darling, rh Alistair

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

David, Wayne

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Browne, Desmond

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Bryant, Chris

Burgon, Colin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Burnham, Andy

Dismore, Andrew

908

Djanogly, Jonathan

Horam,John (Orpington)

Dodds, Nigel

Howard, rh Michael

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

Drown, Ms Julia

Howells, Dr. Kim

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Dunwoody,Mrs Gwyneth

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Hunter, Andrew

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Hutton, rh John

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Illsley, Eric

Evans, Nigel

Ingram, rh Adam

Fabricant, Michael

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Fallon, Michael

Jack, rh Michael

Farrelly, Paul

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Jamieson, David

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Jenkin, Bernard

Jenkins, Brian

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Flight, Howard

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Flint, Caroline

Flook, Adrian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Follett, Barbara

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Forth, rh Eric

Jowell, rh Tessa

Foster, rh Derek

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Foulkes, rh George

Keeble, Ms Sally

Fox, Dr. Liam

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Francois, Mark

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Kemp, Fraser

Gardiner, Barry

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Garier, Edward

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Khabra, Piara S.

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Gilroy, Linda

Godsiff, Roger

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Goggins, Paul

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Goodman, Paul

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Kumar, Dr.Ashok

Grayling, Chris

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Greenway, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Grieve, Dominic

Lammy, David

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Gummer, rh John

Leslie, Christopher

Hague, rh William

Letwin, rh Oliver

Hain, rh Peter

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Hammond, Philip

Lewis, Dr.Julian (New Forest E)

Hanson, David

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Lidington, David

Hawkins, Nick

Lilley, rh Peter

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Linton, Martin

Heald, Oliver

Loughton, Tim

Healey, John

Love, Andrew

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Luff, Peter(M- Worcs)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

McAvoy, Thomas

Hendrick, Mark

McCabe, Stephen

Hendry, Charles

McCartney, rh Ian

Heppell, John

McDonagh, Siobhain

Hermon, Lady

MacDonald, Calum

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

MacDougall, John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

McFall, John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hodge, Margaret

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

McIsaac, Shona

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mackay, rh Andrew

909

McKenna, Rosemary

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Maclean, rh David

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

McLoughlin, Patrick

McNulty, Tony

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

MacShane, Denis

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Mactaggart, Fiona

McWalter, Tony

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

McWilliam, John

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Maples, John

Rooney, Terry

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Rosindell, Andrew

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Martlew, Eric

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Mates, Michael

Ruane, chris

Maude, rh Francis

Ruffley, David

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Russel1- Ms Christine (City of Chester)

May, Mrs Theresa

Meacher, rh Michael

Selous, Andrew

Mercer, Patrick

Shaw, Jonathan

Merron, Gillian

Sheerman, Barry

Michael, rh Alun

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Milburn,rh Alan

Shepherd, Richard

Miliband, David

Sheridan, Jim

Miller, Andrew

Short, rh Clare

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Simmonde, Mark

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Moffatt Laura

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Mole, Chris

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Moran, Margaret

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Morley, Elliot

Morris, rh Estelle

Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

Moss, Malcolm

Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

Mountford, Kali

Soames, Nicholas

Mudie, George

Soley, clive

Munn,Ms Meg

Southworth, Helen

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Spellar, rh John

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Norman, Archie

Spicer, Sir Michael

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Spink, Bob Castle Point)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Spring, Richard

Squire Rachel

O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

Stanley, rh sir John

Olner, Bill

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

O'Neill, Martin

Steen, Anthony

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Steinberg, Gerry

Ottaway, Richard

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Paice, James

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Stinchcombe, Paul

Paterson, Owen

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pearson, Ian

Straw, rh Jack

Picking, Anne

Streeter, Gary

Pickles, Eric

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pickthall, Colin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Swayne, Desmond

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Portillo, rh Michael

Syms, Robert

Pound, Stephen

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Prescott, rh John

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Purnell, James

Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

Quinn, Lawrie

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Rammell, Bill

Timms, Stephen

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Redwood, rh John

Tredinnick, David

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Trend, Michael

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

Trimble, rh David

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Robathan, Andrew

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

910

Twigg, Derek(Halton)

Willetts, David

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wills, Michael

Tyrie, Andrew

Wilson, Brian

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Winnick, David

Viggers, Peter

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Ward Claire

Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

Waterson, Nigel

Watkinson, Angela

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Woodward, Shaun

Watts,David

Woolas, Phil

White, Brian

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Whittingdale, John

Young, rh Sir George

Wicks, Malcolm

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wiggin, Bill

Dan Norris and

Wilkinson, John

Joan Ryan

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Allan, Richard

Gerrard, Neil

Allen, Graham

Gidley, Sandra

Austin, John

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Bacon, Richard

Grogan, John

Baker, Norman

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Banks, Tony

Hancock, Mike

Barnes, Harry

Harris, Dr.Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Barrett, John

Battle, John

Harvey, Nick

Begg, Miss Anne

Heath, David

Beith, rh A. J.

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Bennett, Andrew

Heyes, David

Berry, Roger

Hinchliffe, David

Best, Harold

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Blizzard, Bob

Holmes, Paul

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Breed, Colin

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Bruce, Malcolm

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Burstow, Paul

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Keetch, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Carmichael, Alistair

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Caton, Martin

Lamb, Norman

Chaytor, David

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Chidgey, David

Lazarowicz, Mark

Clapham, Michael

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Cohen, Harry

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Connarty, Michael

McCafferty, Chris

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

McDonnell, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

McGrady, Eddie

Cotter, Brian

McKechin, Ann

Cousins, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Crausby, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Dalyell, Tarn

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Davidson, Ian

Moore, Michael

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Morgan, Julie

Dawson, Hilton

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Denham, rh John

öpik, Lembit

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Perham, Linda

Doughty, Sue

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Efford, Clive

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Ewing, Annabelle

Fisher, Mark

Prosser, Gwyn

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Pugh, Dr.John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Randall, John

Galloway, George

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

911

Rendel, David

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Thurso, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Tonge, Dr.Jenny

Salmond, Alex

Trickett, Jon

Sanders, Adrian

Turner, Dr.Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Savidge, Malcolm

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Sawford, Phil

Vis, Dr.Rudi

Sedgemore, Brian

Walley, Ms Joan

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wareing, Robert N.

Singh, Marsha

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Weir, Michael

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

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

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Willis, Phil

Wishart, Pete

Stevenson, George

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Worthington, Tony

Stringer, Graham

Younger-Ross, Richard

Stunell, Andrew

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Tony Lloyd and

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Mr. Douglas Hogg

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.

Immigration Statistics
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Sutcliffe.]
10.29 pm
Mr.Nicholas Soames rose—
Hon. Members: Speak for England!
Mr. Soames: I shall try.
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to return to a matter of great domestic importance. I want to start by making three points absolutely clear. First, I have nothing whatever against genuine refugees and immigrants, many of whom have greatly enriched and enhanced our national life. They deserve to be welcomed and given shelter. Unfortunately, our ability to welcome them is hampered by large numbers of applicants whose cases do not succeed—to put it mildly. Last year, nearly 100,000 people were refused both asylum and exceptional leave to remain, yet there were only 11,500 removals, or so-called voluntary returns. I shall go back to that point later on.
Secondly, I want to make it clear that the debate is, above all, not a question of race but of realism. The number of immigrants to Britain is now so great as to have a profoundly major impact on our society, especially in the south-east. Schools, housing and hospitals are coming under intense pressure. Indeed, that is acknowledged by the Government.
Thirdly, I want to make it plain to the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, that I have no history or form on this matter. Indeed, I consider myself to be a largely tolerant, compassionate, old-fashioned, one-nation Tory. I always have been and I always will be. However, like many others, I am truly concerned about the lack of proper information on an issue of the first importance. The conspiracy of silence about immigration, which has lasted for a generation, must end. It is my ambition that immigration should become as respectable a subject for debate as any other.
I make no apology for focusing on numbers. This is in no sense a game; it is deadly serious and we need proper, accurate and truthful figures. The sheer scale of immigration, which has more than doubled under the Labour Government, causes widespread and understandable concern throughout the country. Of course, numbers are not everything. Each statistic is a human story—sometimes a tragic one. We constantly ask the British people to be both tolerant and inclusive, but it is high time that we told them what they are being asked to tolerate and include.
I want to consider first the overall picture on immigration and then the related question of asylum seekers, who may make up half the total. My starting point is a letter to me from the official statistician dated 27 January 2003, which gives net non-European Union immigration for the past 10 years, revised in the light of the recent census. The number given for 2001 is 178,000. The rate of increase is alarming. Net non-EU immigration has more than doubled under the Government; it has gone up by no less than five times in the past 10 years.

913
If present trends continue, the number will be at least 2 million over the next 10 years. Furthermore, there is no end in sight, as the existing immigrant community brings in wives and relatives from overseas. If that number is wrong, the Government need to tell us why.
Will the number fall or could it even rise? Three decisions taken by the Government suggest that it will rise substantially. First, the abolition of the primary purpose rule has already resulted in a significant increase in the acceptance for settlement of husbands and wives. In 2001, that amounted to 46 per cent. of all settlement. There is also an important matter of longer-term significance. The abolition of that apparently obscure rule means that we face the prospect of unlimited secondary immigration.
Secondly, the Government have announced a massive increase in work permits, from about 30,000 a year in the 1980s and early '90s to a target of 200,000 in the coming year. That will add substantially to the immigration total, as workers coming to the end of their permit apply for settlement. A recent study by Migration Watch UK suggests that the increase in work permits alone could lead to additional settlement of up to 70,000 workers a year in four years' time.
Thirdly, the Government's decision—alone among the major EU states—to open our labour market to workers from eastern Europe immediately on their accession to the EU is bound to lead to a significant additional flow.
I want to turn now to one of the major components of immigration—asylum seekers. Only rough estimates are possible. If the Home Office had proper statistics, we could be more accurate, but the order of magnitude is as clear as a bell. That makes nonsense of our border controls and is, of course, a major pull factor in drawing yet more asylum seekers to Britain. It is therefore no surprise that they are arriving in record numbers—110,700 last year, up 20 per cent. on the previous year. In the same year, Holland achieved a 42 per cent. reduction and Denmark 51 per cent.
Lastly, I want to turn to illegal immigration, which, as the Home Secretary recognises, is additional to the totals that I have mentioned so far. One significant source is students and visitors who overstay. Of course most of them go back, but the numbers involved are very large indeed. Roughly 3.5 million students and visitors come to this country every year just from eastern Europe and the third world. If only 1 per cent. of them were to stay behind, it would amount to 35,000 a year. The evidence is only anecdotal, but it is certainly abundant. If that number is too high, let the Government make their own estimate and let us know.
One major loophole, regrettably created by our Government, is the absence of embarkation controls for non-EU citizens leaving the country. That is an invitation for all comers to overstay. I understand that the Minister is considering reinstating the recording of departures of non-EU citizens. That is now a matter of urgency. The Government must press ahead and get that matter dealt with.
A further source of illegal immigrants is clandestine arrival, often by truck and sometimes with the most tragic and often very regrettable results. They
914
immediately claim asylum and, as I have described, have every chance of remaining in Britain, legally or otherwise. Again, what is the Government's estimate for clandestine arrivals? Without such an estimate, we cannot even guess at the total figures. It follows from what I have said that the best estimate of total non-EU foreign immigration over the next decade is of the order of 2 million, and probably more in subsequent decades.
Mr. David Cameron: My hon. Friend may not have noticed, but the Minister just shook her head. Does he not agree that it is absolutely vital that we have accurate statistics? If the Government cannot provide us with estimates of the numbers of overstayers and illegal entrants, it will be impossible to get to that accurate number, without which it is difficult to have a debate. Will he join me in asking the Minister not to shake her head, but perhaps to promise to provide some estimates, so that we can have some figures on which to have a reasonable debate?
Mr. Soames: I will indeed, and I wholly endorse the point that my hon. Friend makes. I congratulate the work that he and others who serve on the Select Committee on Home Affairs have done on this matter.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I can assure my hon. Friend that, at a seminar that I attended in Oxford addressed by Baroness Scotland, the figure of 2 million for settlement over the next 10 years was the one that she herself proposed on behalf of the Government.
Mr. Soames: That is very helpful, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said, we require confirmation and firm figures to be able to have a proper and sensible debate about this sensitive but very important matter. There may be some argument about the detail, but there is hardly any scope to deny that we face massive immigration on a scale never before seen in this country.
The pressure on public services, schools, housing, transport and the health service is already intense, particularly in the south-east, where the infrastructure is already dangerously overstretched. In my view, that pressure cannot be allowed to continue without a full and serious debate about the consequences for our society. The decisions to be taken may well be difficult, but doing nothing is simply not an option. Public confidence in the asylum and immigration system is at an all-time low. That is a matter that I, and the Minister, will deeply regret. It is therefore essential that we have clear and accurate information on which we can base a sensible debate.
Specifically, I invite the Minister—I know that she will write to me, as I do not expect her to be able to answer these questions immediately—to answer the following points. What is the Government's latest estimate of net non-EU foreign immigration in each of the last 10 years? What are her predictions for the future? What is the Government's estimate of the size of the illegal work force in Britain? What is their estimate of the scale of illegal immigration into Britain every year? What is their most recent estimate of the population of the UK in 2020 and 2050, and on what level of immigration is that based?

915
A Home Office research paper, R DS No. 82, has recently admitted that 1.5 million migrants arrived in Britain over the last decade. The nature of our society is clearly changing before our eyes. In a recent MORI poll, 57 per cent. expressed concern that Britain is losing its culture. I do not believe that those concerns can be tossed aside lightly. The British people have a right to be told how many more immigrants are expected to arrive over the next 10 years, and how the Government propose to deal with them.
For my part, I call on the Government to take serious measures to bring the situation under control. For a start, they should redouble their present feeble efforts to remove failed asylum seekers. Secondly, they should reintroduce embarkation controls for non-EU citizens. Thirdly, they should cut back on the huge number of work permits now being issued with only the flimsiest of controls. Fourthly, they should review the controls concerning marriage and immigration, which are now wide open to abuse. Fifthly, they should conduct a fundamental review of the legal framework that is preventing us from dealing with asylum seekers swiftly, and, therefore, humanely.
Above all, the Government need a policy a policy that can be explained to the British people. They are seeking simultaneously to halve asylum seekers and to more than quadruple work permits. They are spending millions to keep economic migrants out while opening our labour market immediately on accession to the east Europeans. The Home Office apparently claims that it has no view on the desirable level of immigration. It is time that they took such a view. Will the Minister say how many people the Government want in this country overall?
To conclude, importantly, I want to emphasise that I am not anti-immigration. Every modern economy will have quite high levels of both immigration and emigration. My concern is that a pattern seems to be developing of a significant net migration into this country. We do not seem to be able to have accurate and proper figures, however, and public anxiety continues to mount. My message to the Government is simple: give us the real figures, let us have an honourable and frank debate, let us discuss the matter with our constituents in an open, frank and sensible way, and then let us try to come to a settled view of what should be the right level of immigration. That is not an unreasonable request, and I look forward to a considered reply from the Minister.
10.43 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) will agree—I think that his basic premise accepts this-that any responsible Government positioning their country for economic growth and prosperity must consider their policy on migration with a view to maximising the considerable benefits that migration offers, while, at the same time, minimising the challenges that that presents. We are trying to implement a fair and balanced immigration policy that aims first—I make no apologies for this—to open up routes for regulated migration to support our economic needs; secondly, to do more both domestically and internationally to help refugees; and thirdly, to tackle abuse in the asylum system and illegal immigration.
916
The hon. Gentleman spoke to me briefly before the debate and said that his main concern was to get accurate figures, but having heard his comments I find it hard to accept that that is his basic premise. He seemed to say that immigration is a bad thing. [Interruption.] If hon. Members read the Official Report tomorrow, they will see that his speech was almost wholly concerned with his view that the scale of immigration is too high. He criticised the extension of work permits, a method of entry that is determined not by the Government, but by employers who apply for them when they cannot employ people from the indigenous population. He also criticised our decision to allow people from accession countries to come here to work even though they are not dependent on the state. Indeed, he criticised anyone who might come here to support our economy.
The Government recognise that migration is part and parcel of the modern world. We need to welcome its considerable benefits but, at the same time, be determined to manage it effectively, and to safeguard national security and the economic and social well-being of this country. [Interruption.] With respect to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), I disagree with him about the main message delivered by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. He may dress it up another way, but that is not what his hon. Friend said.
Migrants contribute to our culture and society. They bring a range of backgrounds, cultures and faiths, which is one of the positive hallmarks of life in Britain in the 21st century. We are determined to pursue a balanced immigration policy. Part of that is about having sensible, appropriate ways for people to come here to work legally in ways that boost our economy. That is not an alternative to developing the skills and employment opportunities of our existing population, but rather a complement to ongoing work to achieve that.
International migration is likely to continue now and in the longer term. It will have important social and economic impacts—I recognise what the hon. Gentleman said about that—including on work force size and composition, the demand for housing and education, and the provision of social services. I agree that statistics on international migration are important. It is important that they are as accurate as possible. He knows that the statistics on international migration are produced by the Office for National Statistics, and statistics on the control of immigration and asylum produced by the Home Office need to be as accurate and comprehensible as possible both to inform policy and decision making, and the general public and the debate that needs to take place.
The hon. Gentleman obliquely criticised the accuracy of the statistics and their availability. International migration contributes significantly to total population growth in the UK, but I hope that he accepts that it is the most difficult component of population change to estimate because it has to rely on data sources that cannot match the accuracy and completeness of birth and death registrations.
Since the early 1960s, the main source of statistics on migration flows in and out of the UK has been the international passenger survey, supplemented by administrative data from the research department of the Home Office. The ONS and the Home Office continue to

917
work together to try to ensure that the best use is made of all available data in the compilation of estimates of international migration.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Office for National Statistics is undertaking a national statistics quality review on international migration, the main aim of which is to make recommendations on how far the existing process should continue or how far changes to current data methods and outputs of UK international migration statistics need to change. A number of options are being considered, including the uses of other sources of information on international migration. It is anticipated that that report, including its recommendations, will go to the national statistician in April and be made public soon after.
This is an important issue. The statistics need to be as accurate as possible, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there has been no attempt on the part of the ONS or the research department of the Home Office not to proceed with that endeavour as fast and as well as we can. We want those statistics for ourselves, as well as for public debate.
The ONS, in consultation with the Home Office, is undertaking further work on a number of international migration issues in the light of the results of the 2001 census, and in due course the findings of that review will be published.
The statistics on migration produced by the ONS and the research and statistics directorate of the Home Office are part of national statistics, and their compilation and publication are covered by the national statistics code of practice. That means that they are free from political interference and are produced to high professional principles and standards. The ONS operates completely independently in producing the figures on international migration. It receives statistics and advice from other Government Departments, including the Home Office, but decides independently on how to produce those international migration statistics.
One problem with the figures, which the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) will recollect I raised recently at a meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, is the way in which information was traditionally collected during the course of the Conservative Government's 18 years in office, which I should like to see changed. At the moment, the figures describe the number of claims, outcomes of initial decisions and appeals, and the number of removals. We do not yet have a comprehensive picture of the way in which those populations move through the system—in other words, a cohort-based analysis of the statistics, so that we can say how many of any given cohort of people applying for asylum at a particular point in time receive an acceptance, go to appeal, are refused and then removed. That is something that we need, but it is complicated. New technology is now coming on line as a result of this Government's investment, and I hope that we shall shortly move to that position.
The asylum statistics are an important part of the debate on immigration and asylum and they are an integral part of managing the end-to-end asylum process. During the past year and a half, we have consistently improved the way in which the asylum
918
statistics are presented and published to try to ensure that the messages provided by those statistics are accurate, informative and comprehensive. They are more accurate because they are now produced more slowly, allowing late reported cases to be included, and they are more informative because the quarterly figures are a better guide to trends than the monthly ones, and because the bulletin gives more detailed data about the asylum system. They are also more comprehensive because the statistics now include information on the removal of asylum seekers; supported asylum seekers, by location—local authority—and type of support; asylum seekers in detention; an estimate, shortly to be an accurate figure, of the number of dependents of principal asylum claimants; international comparisons, and progress against the public service agreement targets, for example on the speed of decision making. We want to develop those statistics about the control of immigration and asylum further, to reflect improvements in administrative data sources and the implementation of the policy changes.
The work required to assess the number of illegal migrants in the UK is important and it is being done. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex will appreciate that it is a difficult task to estimate their number and claim significant reliability and validity for the number that one produces; obviously it is difficult to estimate the number of people who are here illegally. As I mentioned, the Home Office has its own sources of information on immigration, which comes from the administration of the immigration and asylum process, but that information is collected for the purpose of monitoring the process, not migration.
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, only the flow of people into the UK is currently recorded, and that only of those who enter lawfully or who are discovered to have entered illegally. There is no corresponding record of those leaving the country. I told the Home Affairs Committee recently that the Home Secretary has asked for work to be done to examine both the feasibility and the cost of reinstating embarkation control, which, as I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, the Conservative Administration abolished some years ago. Without both an embarkation control and a robust and secure mechanism to identify people in this country, and with only a record of those coming into the country, it is extremely difficult to estimate accurately the number of illegal migrants present at any one time. However, we have commissioned research into the methods used by other countries to estimate illegal migration, and based on that information and the likely sources of UK information, we will consider how to develop that estimate.
Mr Cameron:Given that the Government are still trying to work out the exact level of immigration and get the statistics right, can the Minister explain why they have already decided to increase massively the number of work permits? When will she publish estimates on illegal over-stayers and illegal entrants? Without those two figures, a total is not possible.
Beverley Hughes: As I explained, the number of work permits is determined largely by demand. There is a rigorous process in which an employer has to establish

919
that he or she has not been able to employ a member of the indigenous population; only then can they apply for a work permit to employ someone from abroad. In that sense, the system is established to fulfil the needs of employers in our economy, subject to their being able to show that they have not been able to employ someone who is already in the country. I will address the other questions raised about figures in a moment.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Has the Minister considered a system similar to the German Gastarbeiter system, whereby guest workers enter the country to do a job, and leave when the job is finished? Has she done any research into the implications for housing of 100,000 new immigrants every year?
Beverley Hughes: Work is ongoing within government to estimate the impact on a range of public services,
920
including housing, health and education, of increasing people's ability to come here and work. That is an important question and it would irresponsible of us not to consider it.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex mentioned the estimate produced by Migration Watch UK that a net inflow of at least 2 million non-EU citizens will come to this country per decade. I find slightly puzzling the constant emphasis on non-EU citizens of Migration Watch UK and some Opposition Members, but I leave that for them to ponder. We do not accept Migration Watch UK's immigration projections as accurate—
The motion having been made after Ten 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 one minute to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Serbia and Montenegro
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.30 am
Mr. John Randall: It is a great privilege to raise this issue. The debate is timely in many respects, although it is overshadowed by another conflict that will be looming imminently. NATO started bombing Yugoslavia four years ago. Sadly, the debate is also timely because the Prime Minister of Serbia, Mr. Djindjic, was assassinated last week, an action that I am sure all hon. Members regard as a retrograde step for the country, as well as a personal tragedy.
I am pleased to introduce the debate, given that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I recently went on a private visit to Serbia. I also visited Montenegro briefly. I want to return to those events of four years ago. Although we must discuss the current position in the country now known as Serbia and Montenegro, which, until a few weeks ago, was known as Yugoslavia, we should bear in mind some lessons for not only that country but the current conflict. Perhaps we should have been warned, when it was decided that military action could be embarked on without the sanctions of the United Nations and a resolution, that that might set a precedent for further events. Tragically, that precedent has been used and we are in the position that we are in today.
It is sad that many people who are now vociferously opposing military action against Iraq were silent at the time of the problems in Yugoslavia. It is strange that some parties that were among the most hawkish of parties advocating bombing Yugoslavia are now the most dovelike. I have great problems concerning the current action against Iraq, but even I can say that there is much more of a case to answer in respect of Iraq than there ever was against Serbia four years ago.
There will be a small gathering of people in Whitehall on Sunday to note the passing of another year since that bombing, and to remember when once again this country, with its NATO allies, attacked a sovereign country that had not threatened us or British interests. Although the importance of history in the Balkans is vital, I shall not dwell too much on its past history. Suffice it to say that Serbia and Montenegro is a linchpin in the future of the Balkan region. The need for it to be a stable and democratic country, playing a major part in the European community—with a small 'c'—and among European countries generally, is indisputable.
When, on 5 October a few years ago, Milosevic was ousted from power, we all rejoiced. Some people claimed credit for that, although perhaps they should not have done, as it was the result of a popular movement and was made possible by the people, not outside powers. As always happens in such cases, the hopes of the country were riding high. It had been told
176WH
by western powers that the removal of Milosevic would lead to democracy, freedom and, above all, prosperity for the country. Sadly, it was quickly let down, and by those very powers that had demanded Milosevic's removal.
Advances have been made, although the assassination of Mr. Djindjic has set things back greatly. Unfortunately, although law and order is present, there is a great deal of underworld activity, and the black market rules. I am not sure that the laws of the country are always put into practice as we would expect and hope them to be. We found on our visit that Mr. Djindjic was not, by any means, the most popular of politicians. There was a certain democratic deficit in his being in power. The main reason why many in Serbia feel let down is that they gave a lot, in terms of trying to agree to all the conditions imposed on them, and yet it seems that they cannot advance. Worse still, when they fulfilled the majority of those conditions, new ones were imposed.
In my opinion, the country is at a difficult stage. Our attention is naturally focused on the middle east, but we should ensure that we keep a close eye on developments in the Balkans, because others may decide that the time to move is when our attention is drawn away. The country has a huge economic problem, and unemployment is tragically high. One of the problems that we saw at first hand—in my case for the first time—and that moved me greatly was that of refugees and internally displaced persons, whom we visited. The difference between the two categories is that although all are from the former Yugoslavia, some of those people had fled from Croatia or Bosnia, which are independent countries, and so are refugees. The internally displaced people are those from Kosovo, and are mainly Serbs, but also include Roma and other ethnic minorities.
That visit moved me because I saw the forgotten story and the forgotten people of Europe. More than 750,000 people, by conservative estimates, have been placed in that country, which is itself struggling with its economy. Those people stay in conditions that would, if we saw them on our television screens, perhaps move us to act more. The Government have a great problem: some of the Kosovan people that we saw in Kraljevo, which is not far from the demarcation between Serbia and Kosovo, want to return. Nevertheless, Kosovo is, by international recognition, a part of Serbia and Montenegro. If the Government try to settle those people, which would be the humanitarian thing to do, notwithstanding the fact that they need assistance, that would give the lie to the fact that they would never return to Kosovo and it would mean that they would be giving up Kosovo as part of their territory. They are caught in a difficult position.
The trouble is that those conditions will cause unrest and I fear that, in the current political situation, that might become more than unrest. As we know, sadly, the people in those areas have always had great pride in their country. That pride has spilled over into unacceptable nationalism, but it is also part of their make-up and it does not mean that everyone is a rabid nationalist. To such people, Kosovo is at the heart of Serbia and it would be impossible for them ever to think of giving up that territory. There is trouble ahead.

177WH
Kosovo itself is not quite the picture about which we would like to be told. In debates about current military action, the action against Yugoslavia is hailed as one of the great successes. I want to know why—perhaps the Minister, who previously had a job in the Home Office, can tell me—there are so many Kosovan Albanians who come to my surgery, having had their asylum claims rejected, and who do not want to go back to Kosovo. They would rather go to Albania, because Kosovo is such a hell-hole. Perhaps those people were Albanian, not Kosovan. It seems strange that a country, or an area, that we claim is sorted out is, in fact, far from it.
The Minister for Europe apologised beforehand for not attending the debate—he has other duties, in Brussels. During Foreign Office questions, his answer to my question on the refugees indicated that perhaps he did not have his finger on exactly what was going on inside the region. Even the current country of Serbia-Montegro is something that was by and large suggested to that country by others outside. That leads me to a plea to our Government and all western Governments. We should stop treating some of these countries like 19th century central Asian sultanates, over which the great powers argue, trying to vie with each other for influence. The countries concerned are in Europe and the people and politicians are getting a little bit fed up with being told what to do.
Conditions follow conditions. We need to encourage the process of democracy—and there is democracy in Serbia. After all, Milosevic was ousted because he called an election, lost it and would not accept the result. He thought that he could win that election. To encourage the process, we must look to our laurels to see what we can do to help.
Serbo-Croat may sound strangely amusing to hon. Members. It used to crop up in comedy programmes as an obscure subject to study. Many hon. Members will know that I studied it at university. Perhaps I rather enjoy doing obscure things, which is why I became a Conservative Whip. I chose to study Serbo-Croat because, 20 or 30 years ago, although Yugoslavia was ruled by a dictator—who was not pleasant, but not in the premier league in the present scheme of things—it was at the forefront of trying to develop western influences. It was a nice place to be. That is why it is so sad that Yugoslavia has not had the same opportunity to move forward as the rest of Europe.
I return to the things that can be done. We should be doing more to encourage trading links. Unfortunately, the assassination of Mr. Djindjic has once again created an image of Serbia as a place where gangsters rule and bodyguards are everywhere. That is sad because it is not entirely true. There are many opportunities for British firms to invest, especially in Montenegro. Many people, including many hon. Members, will have enjoyed pleasant holidays on the Adriatic coast in earlier years. The coast in Montenegro is one of the most beautiful in the world. As a result of sanctions and isolation, the coast is largely unspoilt and there are many opportunities for tourism. I hope that, with encouragement from Government Departments, British companies will look seriously for those opportunities.
178WH
The one thing that will really improve relations between our countries and change the popular image that many people have of Serbia is for people to visit the country.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: During our visit, the hon. Gentleman—I shall, if I may, refer to him as my hon. Friend—and I visited a camp in the most beautiful little town in the midst of a wonderful sculpture park. The arts are still thriving in Serbia. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Serbs have much culture and art to offer that is being overlooked?
Mr. Randall: I do of course agree with the hon. Lady, whom I shall refer to as my hon. Friend. Serbia has a great deal to offer, including many skills. My hon. Friend may wish to expand on the fact that we also visited spas where we saw the great skills of Yugoslavian and Serbian doctors and nurses, especially in physiotherapy. We are lamentably short of such skills in this country. Imaginative work by representatives of the national health service, or, dare I say it, private medicine might achieve a useful exercise in helping to improve facilities there while helping us to reduce our waiting lists.
As my hon. Friend said, we should look at other cultural links, ranging from highbrow arts to things that my children know more about than me, such as pop music—although I think we are supposed to call it rock music nowadays. I have been moaning on for a bit, but I wish to pay tribute to the British Council. It has been working hard in Belgrade and Podgorica. It has an imaginative scheme that can be applied not only in Serbia and Montenegro but throughout the world. It is called Dreams and Teams, and it encourages young people to acquire leadership skills and other attributes through sport. There is a good link-up between the British Council and the Red Star Belgrade football team.
I could continue talking and bore for the party on this subject, but other hon. Members are present and we want to have a discussion about the matter as we rarely get an opportunity to do so. It is time for us to think seriously about how we can encourage the region— which includes not only Serbia and Montenegro but Macedonia as it is different but has similar problems. We have ignored the situation in the region. I understand some of the points that the Minister will undoubtedly make, but we must give encouragement to the region too. We have given it the stick for too long—although it might be a verbal stick on this occasion, in contrast to what happened four years ago. It is time to get the carrots out. We must do something positive to help the region, not as victors but as friends—which is what we have always been.
9.52 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I want to start by expressing my sympathies to the family and colleagues of the murdered Prime Minister, Zoran Djindjic. His assassination was an appalling act that will do nothing to advance the cause of the people of Yugoslavia.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, he and I recently visited Serbia. We went there as officers of the all-party group on Serbia and Montenegro—I think that that is what we now must

179WH
call the area—to see for ourselves the problems that the country is facing and to talk to as many people as possible about them. In September 2002, I also visited Kosovo for the fifth time with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
During our visit in February, we met representatives of all the major parties. We did not meet the Prime Minister as he was abroad, but we met his No. 2. We also met people from non-governmental organisations, Government officials and trade unionists. I wish to put on the record my thanks to our fellow parliamentarians, led by Liliana Colic, who showed us wonderful hospitality and worked very hard to ensure that our visit was fruitful.
We arrived shortly after the change was made to the constitution that replaced the name Yugoslavia with the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro. There was huge resentment across the board about that. Speaker after speaker told us that it was a temporary arrangement and that it had been invented by the United States and the EU to delay the secession of Montenegro. The west has interfered in and bombed Yugoslavia but it has not yet made up its mind about what to do to finish off the country: it is currently more occupied with bombing yet another part of the world. What I found most shocking about that major constitutional change was the fact that there was no referendum; the people were not asked about it. I think that most people feel deep bitterness about that.
Mr. Randall: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a chance that there was no referendum because they knew what the result would be?
Mrs. Mahon: That is more than likely. All parties have a deep attachment to the name of Yugoslavia.
The dangers of further destabilisation in Yugoslavia are plain for all to see. The west does not want the secession of Montenegro because Kosovo would follow. Kosovo would, in my view, be swallowed up into a greater Albania if it became independent. That would have destabilising effects in Macedonia, where ethnic Albanians are seeking to redraw maps. The Greeks are understandably very nervous about that.
Last year, I visited Montenegro with a friend on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). We talked with an Albanian MP who supported the bid to separate Montenegro from Yugoslavia. When I said, "Well, being a Montenegrin is okay, but this is a balkanisation process in which you might be better off sticking with a big country," he said that he did not want to be a Montenegrin; he would be an Albanian always. He made no bones about the fact that a greater Albania was his dream. We have to be very careful about what is going on in Montenegro. The west cannot simply walk away from the issue, as it appears to be doing.
In the present crisis, we are being told over and over what a success story Kosovo is, and that the liberation of Kosovo was worth it. Hon. Members in this Room have different opinions, and I will not go into the history, because we have different views on that. However, I must say that Kosovo is not, at the moment, a success story. It is under the protection of the United
180WH
Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, which has some 30,000 or 40,000 troops and so many aid agencies that one almost trips over them. In fact, they seem to provide the only employment in Kosovo now.
Kosovo has become an almost mono-ethnic state. We visited the tiny enclaves. We went to Mitrovica in September and talked to people, and to the army. It is always interesting to do that, because one always gets the truth from servicemen and women; they do not have a political axe to grind. In spite of all the real efforts—some really good people are working there; I would not like to dismiss them—the Government of Ibrahim Rogova is not really able to rule because the Kosovo Liberation Army is still in charge. It is, in effect, a mafia-run state. People staying in the Grand hotel, Pristina could pay only in cash—in dollars or marks. I have met Mr. Rogova a number of times and admire him greatly; I wish that there were far more people like him in that part of the world. However, the truth is that he is powerless. Some of his colleagues have been killed by the mafia, and the mafia state carries on.
Even with all the troops in Kosovo, some 1,300 Serbs, Roma, Ashkali and people from other minorities are still missing. More than 1,000 have been killed since NATO liberated Kosovo. Nearly 300,000 have been subject—permanently, it seems to me—to ethnic cleansing. That, our Prime Minister tells us day after day, is a success story. God help us if that pattern should be repeated in Iraq.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and I visited the camps, many of which I had visited before. I do not think that I have ever felt more depressed than when we visited the Kosovo refugees. They are about 50 miles from home. It is ironic that one camp that we visited is in a beautiful setting; I mentioned the sculpture park and the mountain in the background. It is a lovely place, but the conditions are a disgrace, and it is a disgrace that we can allow them in the middle of Europe. The people there want to go home. They are mainly not sophisticated people from Sarajevo or Croatia but rural people who have, for centuries, farmed in Kosovo. That is where their cultural background and churches are. I have been to camps all over the world and it was one of the saddest visits that I have made. Eyes look up hopefully when people visit. Children are born in those camps. The real disgrace was the attitude of UNMIK to the returnees—less than 1 per cent. have returned.
We talked to politicians in Belgrade and to the head of the returnee programme. The high representative, Michael Steiner, refuses to implement plans to take 50 or 100 people back to their empty villages and to protect them there. The policy seems to be—I hope that the Minister will take this on board—that if one or two people want to return and their Albanian neighbours do not mind, they may go back. In effect, the Albanian neighbours have a veto. We supposedly went to war to stop ethnic cleansing, but we have presided over the biggest permanent ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, which is an absolute disgrace.
A 75-year-old lady in Mitrovica, Vero Stalantovic, had to go into hospital. While she was away, some Albanians looted her home and the final straw was that they took everything, so she is unable to return home. If 40,000 troops cannot protect one elderly lady in Kosovo, that is a symptom of terrible failure.

181WH
We talked at great length to politicians about the international war crimes tribunal at The Hague and we talked to people who had helped to depose Milosevic. They were not Milosevic lovers, but belonged to the assassinated Prime Minister's party. Our host, Liliana Colic, was a member and had spent years opposing Milosevic. Everyone expressed their dismay at Carla del Ponte's attitude to Serbs and her lack of interest in going after other world criminals from other ethnic groups. They all said that they were fed up with the threatened withdrawal of aid if they did not deliver this or that war criminal. One exasperated Minister said, "If I knew where the war criminal was, I would personally go and get him, but I do not know and we might lose $100,000 in aid by the end of March if we do not deliver." That attitude is breeding bitterness and we shall reap the whirlwind.
Unemployment, as my hon. Friend said, is appalling. Organised crime in Kosovo and links with terrorist organisations are all very frightening.
Reconstruction in Yugoslavia has been a dismal failure. The bridges across the Danube have still not been rebuilt. There is some reconstruction, but it is very little and not enough. My firm belief is that a truth and reconciliation commission should have been set up on the Balkans. That was hugely successful in South Africa. As my hon. Friend said, politicians from some European countries act like victors storming in and laying down conditions. We are creating an undercurrent of bitterness, such as that in Germany during the 1930s because of reparations, and a feeling of injustice. We are pushing people into extremist camps.
I agree with my hon. Friend about trading links because it is vital to reintroduce them. We were impressed by the spas—it seemed that there was a physiotherapist for every patient—and by the continuing high level of training for health service workers. Were I to suffer from, for example, a stroke, I hope that the national health service would send me there. I imagine that I would recover well at one of those spas.
Culturally, we have much in common with Yugoslavia. Cultural exchanges and sports competitions have taken place, and we share a sense of humour with its people. I hope that people start holding out the hand of friendship and that they stop the bullying and stop strutting the European stage as victors, because that is helping no one and is destabilising Yugoslavia still further.
10.5 am
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate and on his very informed contribution. He probably knows more about the region than almost anyone in the House of Commons. I have had many interesting conversations with him about the Balkans, which is an area that I dealt with when I worked for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
As a preamble, I wish to say that for many years the west's foreign policy in the region left a great deal to be desired, contrary to the rewriting of history in which the Foreign Office Ministers of successive Governments
182WH
have engaged. The United Kingdom and the west should have intervened very early at the time of the break-up of Yugoslavia. Western policy in the last days of Margaret Thatcher was to prop up the then Yugoslavia because its collapse would signal the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Margaret Thatcher's policy was to hang on to Gorbachev at any cost. As Kissinger later said, it is always a great mistake to try to build foreign policy around the retention of a single individual. So it proved, because both Gorbachev and the Soviet Union fell shortly afterwards.
The right policy in that instance was that of the Germans, who said that it was vital that Yugoslavia be allowed to collapse and that we were prepared to respect the integrity of those parts of Yugoslavia that were trying to pull away from Serbia, particularly Slovenia and Croatia. It was absolutely clear very early on, after the assaults by Serbia on Vukovar in eastern Krajina, that the retention of an integrated Yugoslavia was unsustainable, but the west did nothing. That was a grave policy error. Early intervention might have avoided much of the terrible suffering that has since been experienced in the Balkans.
We failed to intervene early enough in Bosnia. We eventually arrived at a better policy, but we were very late. As a result of those two failures, we drew the wrong conclusions about what was happening in Kosovo. We decided to get in early because we had failed to intervene early enough in the two earlier cases. We made a great mistake by intervening in Kosovo. I do not agree with the prevailing human rights-dominated view that we did some moral service to the region. Instead, we inflamed the suffering in Kosovo.
A large part of the policy on Kosovo was driven by an early form of regime change pursued by Madeleine Albright. Rubin, her adviser, said that at a meeting she banged on the table and asked whether she had made it clear enough that her No. 1 priority was that Milosevic had to go before she left her job. That was how foreign policy was conducted in the United States at that time.
I supported the Afghanistan invasion. It was absolutely right to go in and break up al-Qaeda. However, the issue of what was to be done afterwards was the same. The Prime Minister said that we must not walk away from Afghanistan, but we have. There are only 300 troops in Kabul. Most of the rest of Afghanistan is controlled by warlords who are scarcely better than the Taliban, which we ousted. Of course it was right to intervene. We had to, because there were terrorist cells there that had to be broken up, but we have not cut a very good figure in the reconstruction effort.
That brings me to the question of how to reconstruct Serbia. At the absolute heart of that reconstruction must be an attempt to win over ordinary, middle-of-the-road Serbian opinion. Without that, we will not manage the reconstruction effort. Anything that we do will be a failure. Although we like to try to minimise this and Ministers, if I may say so, have on occasion seemed to imply that it was some sort of liberation, the people of Serbia, especially Belgrade, were shocked that the west engaged in a series of bombing attacks on them. They do

183WH
not see that as an attack on Milosevic, as we said in public, but an attack on them, their values and their way of life.
Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman will know that I visited Yugoslavia during the bombing. One small town, Cuprija, which was bombed by mistake—fortunately, only one person was killed—was almost totally opposed to Milosevic. It had an Opposition mayor, and every person that I met said, "He got a handful of votes here. Why are you bombing us?" That was the message from that town.
Mr. Tyrie: That point makes in microcosm the point that I am making in general. The hon. Lady speaks with the benefit of having been to the region recently and had such discussions.
We are now engaged in another form of alienation: the persistent attempt to impose heavy conditionality on the provision of development assistance. That will only breed a sense of mistrust between the Serbian population and the west. In particular, the linkage of development assistance to the extradition of alleged war criminals to The Hague is sending completely the wrong signal to the wider population. It looks to them almost like a form of imperialism, and the imposition by force—or by a very muscular diplomacy—of a western way of doing things. The west gets its conscience-salving display of defendants for trial, but the people of Serbia get the message that they are being pushed around by the west in general and by Washington in particular.
We need to take a much longer, broader view of our relationship with Serbia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position? I am not entirely sure what it is. Is he suggesting that the alleged war criminals should not be returned, or is the issue that concerns him the link between aid and their return? Does he feel that they should be returned but that aid should not be linked to that? In that case, how would he propose to provide encouragement? It would be very difficult then to return some of those war criminals, who have, in certain ways, some popular support.
Mr. Tyrie: There are a number of alleged terrorists in Britain at the moment, one of whom, in particular, the French want to interview. We are refusing to send him over because we are concerned about the treatment that he may receive and we are not convinced that the evidence is strong enough to require his extradition to France. We are doing that because we think that our judicial system is robust enough to form such judgments. However, we are now saying to Serbia—a new democracy, proud of its new institutions—that it is not capable of dealing with such issues itself. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of the Serbian population want to bring those people to trial and see the issues resolved. They want to do that, however, in their own way and in their own time, using their own institutions. That must be the best way to strengthen those institutions in the medium term. We are making a crass mistake by trying to impose on those people our western values and our rather narrow idea of exactly how that judicial process should take place.
184WH
My answer to the Minister is: take a broader view. Do not rely on that very narrow reciprocity to try to achieve what we all eventually want to see—those who have perpetrated terrible offences brought to trial. The first thing that we need to do is to win over the Serbian population, but there are two or three other things that we need to have in mind. We need to bear in mind the symbolic importance of membership of the EU to the Serbian leadership. Whatever the costs and benefits of the EU to Britain, they pale into insignificance compared with the benefits to the fledgling democracies of eastern Europe, for whom membership of the EU is the hallmark of re-entry into the family of western nations. We should be holding out a much more direct pathway to EU membership to Serbia. That is also true of Croatia. If anything, we should be trying to create some sort of competition and a sense of encouragement that the door is open and that both countries may achieve membership of the EU.
Another crucial factor is that we must give Serbia the impression that it can start to play a role in assisting with the stability of the whole region. Far from being a problem, a new democracy can be part of the solution. We have not done remotely enough about that. I have heard scarcely a word about the long-term prospects of Serbia becoming integrated or greater co-operation with the western alliance.
Finally, we also need to take a much broader and longer view of reconstruction. We need to grasp that the early stages of reconstruction are by far the most difficult. The creation of a set of institutions in a country that—although it has a highly educated and sophisticated middle class—has been in the hands of a narrow group of thugs and criminal gangs for some years, needs an enormous kick-start of assistance. If we can provide that assistance early on, even if it is costly in the early years, we will find that it is amply repaid down the line. I am talking about basic things such as assistance with the consolidation of property rights, cleaning up the banking system and giving whatever support is required to ensure that the judicial system operates adequately and that the faith and trust of the population is restored. That last point is closely linked to the one that I made a moment ago about war criminals. Such basic building blocks of development will be crucial in the weeks and months ahead.
In the period after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the mid-1990s, the west decided to channel huge amounts of extra aid to the region, first through the International Monetary Fund and then through other western institutions. Even though the amounts coming in were still relative pinpricks because of the size of the Soviet Union, at least we realised the need to go down that road. In the case of Serbia, even though the amounts of money involved are comparatively small, we have not gone down that road. We are not moving up a gear to the much higher levels of aid that are required in the early years to give Serbia the stability that it needs to develop quickly, as several other east European countries did immediately after the collapse of communism.
I do not know what will happen in Serbia in the weeks and months ahead, but I do know that the west can have a real influence. The decisions that we take will be absolutely crucial to the direction that Serbia takes, which is why I am participating in this debate and why

185WH
I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge managed to secure it. I plead with the Minister to give careful and serious consideration to putting Serbia and the stabilisation of this part of the Balkans much higher on the Government's agenda. Achieving stability is crucial to the west's interests and our interests.
10.19 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: There are one or two points on which I profoundly disagree with the previous three speakers, but I support the general tone of what they said.
I say to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) that the demand that indictees be sent to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague must be fulfilled. The demand is of long standing and is correct under all known interpretations of international law. It is right and proper that Belgrade and other countries in the region should honour their obligations.
The hon. Gentleman's assertion on the renationalisation of the judicial process would make more sense if the renationalisation process had begun in all countries in the region to deal with those charged with crimes of a standard below that required to take them to The Hague, but that has not been the case. Every country in the region has lessons to learn in order to conform to the standards that we expect. Those standards are not, as the hon. Gentleman said, "our western values"; they are the values to which Serbia and Montenegro aspires as part of the European family. I profoundly believe that Serbia and Montenegro is part of our European family, and we should make that clear.
I also disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view on the need for military action in Kosovo. Given the humanitarian situation, we had little alternative but to act. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that since then the way in which Britain and the international community have not got a grip on the Balkans has been a bad exemplar for other parts of the world where reconstruction is a necessary process after conflict. More important, the Balkans is still a difficult area in our European home and things can still go badly wrong if we do not begin to put in the effort to rebuild its shattered communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) made the point that there cannot be further balkanisation of the Balkans. We have a problem with Kosovo, which was put in the too-hard-to-handle box four years ago—it is still in that box and there has been little progress. I agree with the comments made by other hon. Members that the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo shames us all; it should rest on the consciences of those, like me, who played an active role during the military conflict in Kosovo.
I want to join the previous three speakers in saying to my hon. Friend the Minister that we must carefully examine where we are today. In the context of Serbia and Montenegro, we are in a position of uncertainty because of the brutal assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. Along with other Members, I should like to place it on record that the assassination was, by any
186WH
standards, an outrage. I first met Zoran Djindjic when he was an Opposition politician. At the time, he was acting bravely and putting his liberty, and maybe his life, at risk. That was no mean feat against the powerful Milosevic regime in Belgrade. As many commentators have pointed out, Zoran Djindjic was not flawless. Nevertheless, he was trying to take his country into a position in which it would be better able to deal with the United Kingdom, the rest of Europe, the international community and, indeed, Belgrade. His death is not only a personal tragedy but a tragedy for Serbia and Montenegro.
Recently, I met Mr. Dragoljub Micunovic, the Speaker of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who led the delegation to the Council of Europe, which Serbia and Montenegro is actively trying to join. His feeling that the standards demanded of Serbia and Montenegro change and that there is not a consistent road map came up in that conversation. Those issues come up time and again in conversation with people from Serbia and Montenegro. There is no clear indication of what Serbia and Montenegro has to achieve in order to make progress—to access the carrots, if you like. There is a feeling that too often the sticks are easily available and visible, but the carrots are more difficult to access. I say to the Minister that we need to pay serious attention to what that means.
We are blind if we do not recognise that there has been real progress in Serbia and Montenegro. Equally, Serbia and Montenegro is blind if it does not recognise that there is an expectation of more progress in the reform of its institutions, and various aspects of its relationship with the international community and its own population. If we do not address some of the basic problems, we confine the region—not just one country—to much slower progress or the possibility of regress. I acknowledge the pleas from other hon. Members for recognition of economic factors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax made the fair point that the reconstruction of the shattered infrastructure that was the result of military conflict has not moved forward at any great pace. The Danube still operates, as it did historically, as a barrier in the region, not as part of the main infrastructure. We need to pay attention to that, and to trade. A country that has so many unemployed and so many thrust into poverty, which is unusual and way below the expectations of Serbia and Montenegro, will experience political instability and will potentially suffer a reversion into the narrow nationalism that cost the country so dearly over the years.
My appeal to the Government is for us to look again long and hard at what we do put on offer. Council of Europe membership is a small thing for this country, but would send a strong signal to Serbia and Montenegro that people believe it to be part of a European home. It is making progress on the journey to that common European destiny. It is important that we put out a hand and say that we want Serbia and Montenegro to look outwards. That is a step forward, and we should be clear about the conditions that we expect to be fulfilled.
People in Belgrade say that they have met the criteria that were part of the original demands. To make progress on that would be a strong signal. To explain what Belgrade must do to make further progress is vital, so that there is clarity in the relationship above and

187WH
beyond everything else. It would be valuable if the Minister could take that message back to his colleagues, and our country could pursue that process with our American partners as part of our ambitions in the EU—if we are still talking to people in the EU at this stage.
We can take the view—as most of our colleagues in the House do—that the Balkans is a finished operation, which happened some years ago and is now done and dusted. There will be, quite rightly, a huge turnout for a debate on Iraq today; there is a relatively small turnout for a debate on Serbia and Montenegro this morning. Serbia and Montenegro is vital to the whole of south-eastern Europe. We want to be part of a process of building a south-eastern Europe that trades, works and re-establishes the old relationships—not the old nations, which are gone—that allow the emergence of a strong part of our continent, which is less problematic for us. That is not a difficult ambition, and it is certainly easy to state.
Progress has not been made in recent years. All parties need to make a commitment and say that the region still matters enormously. We have responsibilities, and we have something enormous to gain if we get the process right. In this case, we can travel with a little more hope than the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) showed in his remarks. I want to finish by paying tribute to him. He speaks with enormous affection and emotion for the region, and Serbia and Montenegro. He has done the House a great service by securing the debate this morning.
10.29 am
Malcolm Bruce: I thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for securing the debate. He will acknowledge that, given the assassination of the Prime Minister, the debate sadly has become more topical than he might have appreciated when he requested it. I certainly defer to his local knowledge and expertise, and to that of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and others who have spoken.
I should declare an interest as a member of the steering board of an organisation cumbersomely named the East-West Parliamentary Practice Project; it is changing its name to the Institute for Parliamentary Democracy, which is more manageable. It is organising a series of programmes over three years to work with parliamentarians in all the new Balkan democracies, at their request and according to the structure of their reforms and parliamentary workings. It has always been my view that we have as much to learn as to teach at seminars and discussions. It is our job not to turn up and tell people what to do but to share our weaknesses and failings.
As the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) half implied, it is a huge irony that, at the beginning of the 20th century, the future of Serbia was a matter of great concern on which the shape of the century pivoted. Here we are at the beginning of the 21st century, and the problem of Serbia and Montenegro is as unresolved, and as important to the stability of south-east Europe and the future shape of Europe, as ever. The history and politics of the Balkans are confusing, and none of us has the right to stand up and suggest that one solution is correct. Ultimately we have to work with the people of the area to help them arrive at viable solutions.
Britain has a legitimate interest in the area. I take gentle issue with the hon. Member for Uxbridge, who seemed to be casting aspersions in the direction of
188WH
Liberal Democrats about a difference between our approaches to the Balkans and the current crisis in Iraq. The difference hinges on the fact that the Balkans is part of the Europe that we are trying to build and it is important that those of us who want to see a successful, if changing, European Union, recognise that Britain's interest is directly involved. By contrast, many of us view Iraq as crucial to the stability and future of the middle east; of course, we have an interest there, but it is not under our immediate political influence. That is why our approaches differ.
I absolutely agree that whatever one's view about the actions in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans, they were supported because we saw the immediate effects of people killing one another and sought to intervene to stop that. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge rightly acknowledged, we might have been successful in stopping ethnic cleansing in the short run, but not in its ultimate manifestation. We were successful in stopping people killing each other, and that was the justification that many of us went along with. I acknowledge that one of our biggest problems is the tendency to enter countries with a sharp military impact, creating long-term political problems that we do not have the interest or momentum to follow through. That is why mention has been made of Afghanistan and the Balkans.
In recent months, I visited Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina to monitor elections. I witnessed their perspective on Serbia. I take no opinion; I simply acknowledge what I saw. One thing hit me sharply. After a day at a seminar and a dinner, our host took us to a jazz club in Tirana some time after midnight. A girl got up and started enthusiastically singing, "I wanna be an Americano". People literally stood up on the tables and cheered, which would be a little surprising if it happened in Swindon or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Such action brought home to me the fact that America was seen by that audience as the champion of some form of Albanian nationalism, whereas in Bosnia and Herzegovina there is the problem of Sarajevo's civil war experience of the Republika Srpska and its aspirations to be part of a greater Serbia.
In a sense, we can stand back and try to find viable political solutions, but any attempt to impose them will not succeed now any more than it has in the past. Our job must be to approach such matters without arrogance, but with humility and as genuine friends who want the region to have a stable and viable future, for its sake as well as for our sake. After the shocking assassination of Zoran Djindjic, we must be concerned that that was a signal that organised crime will confront attempts to crack down on those involved and create a climate where democracy and free enterprise can flourish. We must hope that the pledge of the successor, Mr. Zivkovic, to fulfil Djindjic's dream of a European democratic, efficient and prosperous Serbia will succeed.
We must recognise the obvious disparities and tensions in the new union of Serbia and Montenegro. We have not yet observed a democratically elected president for either of the entities because of the 50 per cent. rule, which I understand Montenegro will now try to alter. My guess is that Serbia will need to do so in due course. The union needs legitimate, elected political leadership that can carry through such reforms and that requires courage and a great deal of confrontation. I am not breaking any confidence by saying that, when I

189WH
visited Sarajevo, Paddy Ashdown—the United Nations high representative—made it clear that he understood fully that confronting and defeating organised crime was probably the single most important issue that had to be resolved before true democracy, free enterprise and inward investment could flourish in the Balkans. Anyone who says that has to take on board the fact that we are confronting extremely vicious, ruthless killers who are willing to take on anyone without fear or favour. It is a difficult and dangerous area in which to operate.
We must clearly acknowledge the legitimacy of a constructive engagement between members of the European Union and the Balkans. I agree that the prospect of eventual membership of the European Union—which will be a different organisation in any case 15 years from now—is crucial. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central is the leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, of which I have the privilege and honour to be a member. I accept entirely his remarks that, within Britain and this Parliament, the Council of Europe is perhaps not regarded as an important body. However, those of us engaged in such a process realise how important it is and that the Government must recognise the role that it plays, which is different and distinctive from that of the European Union.
Of course, the Council of Europe works with European Union institutions. We lack their resources, but we have the beacon of 50-plus years of championing human rights and democracy. That is the absolute core of the Council of Europe. The prospect of membership of the Council of Europe on reasonable and clearly understood conditions for Serbia and Montenegro is the first step towards reassuring the country that it is part of the European family. It is not—I repeat the words of the hon. Member for Uxbridge—our job to tell it what to do. Our job is to work through its institutions and ours to create a prosperous, democratic Serbia and Montenegro and a stable Balkans, which is in the interests of the entire European continent.
10.39 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for securing this debate. We had the benefit of his extraordinary knowledge and understanding of the area today. There have been some excellent and considered speeches, but I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), whom I have come to know. She is a remarkable parliamentarian and I very much regret her decision to leave the House of Commons at the next general election.
I also wish to add to what other hon. Members have said about the assassination of Prime Minister Djindjic. It is a tragedy for Serbia and the region. My party and I send our condolences to his family at this difficult time for them and for the country. The tragedy once again brings into stark relief the problems still faced by Serbia and the great challenges still waiting to be addressed. We in the UK and the international community must continue to extend our help and support to Serbia and Montenegro at this most difficult time and recognise the
190WH
great effort that Serbia is making to break with an authoritarian past and reform both its polity and its economy.
If we study the sad background to what has happened in Serbia and Montenegro, we see that in the 1990s there were terrible wars with genocide, slaughter, displaced people and destruction of property, leading ultimately to the Dayton accords. We should feel a certain amount of pride in the UK in recognising the role that we played in trying to help to stabilise Bosnia with our participation in I FOR, UNPROFOR and SFOR. We watched with horror the ethnic cleansing unleashed by Milosevic of Kosovo Albanians at the same time as we saw the Kosovo Liberation Army radicalised, coupled with an increase in cruel violence against innocent Serb civilians. We know what happened as a consequence, which ultimately led to the fall of Milosevic in October 2000.
The history of the Balkans is far too complex to provide easy answers, but the legacy is there. The economic condition of Serbia and Montenegro, with all of the displaced people mentioned by hon. Members this morning, remains a massive problem, with deep psychological scars there for all to see. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will enlarge on what we are doing and must continue to do to assist Serbs who have been displaced and remain refugees.
The role of the UK in supporting the opposition parties during the dark days of the late 1990s is equally worthy of praise. The fall of Milosevic and his subsequent extradition to The Hague and replacement by a new breed of politician marked a new opportunity for Serbia and Montenegro, which we must acknowledge and seek to build on. That opportunity must be seized.
One point has been made rather tellingly this morning; the British Government should not examine the situation on a purely country-specific basis. A broader approach is needed, designed to encompass the whole region. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) touched on that point indirectly. I hope that the Minister will talk about the wider regional angle of the Balkans' place in Europe, a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). Only by adopting a suitably broad approach can we truly preserve the peace that we have sought to help to rebuild.
Much has changed in Serbia since 2000, the visible evidence of which is the change in the constitutional arrangements that flowed from the end of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia earlier this year, following last year's agreements and the replacement of the new looser union between Serbia and Montenegro. The settlement, which was brokered by the EU, provides for a larger degree of Montenegrin autonomy, although many want outright independence. The long-term future will be decided in 2006, when the two countries will decide whether to continue the arrangement. We hope that the new arrangements prove successful in meeting the aspirations. However, the changes have not proved flawless. It is important that the new arrangements will produce a better relationship between the two countries.
There are still some unresolved issues. We have heard again, in graphic terms, from the hon. Member for Halifax, about the missing Serbs in Kosovo and about

191WH
the many Serbs who do not feel safe enough to return. That is still a massive problem. We must show our commitment to equality and democracy and we must show that the safety and security of Serbs in Kosovo is every bit as important to us as was the safety of the Kosovo Albanians, when they were threatened and attacked by Milosevic. The numbers of Serbs who fled Kosovo and who feel safe enough to return is still worryingly small, according to figures produced by our Government. All citizens of Kosovo—whether Serb or Albanian—must feel free from persecution and harassment.
One reason for the low turnout in elections is a sense of frustration born, possibly, from the state of the economy. The economic situation remains a problem and gives much concern. I met Serbian Members of Parliament last week and we talked about that matter. One of the factors that held back greater growth in Serbia and Montenegro, aside from the Milosevic legacy, is organised crime and lawlessness. Despite policies to counter it, it is still a massive problem; we saw that in the tragic assassination of the Prime Minister.
The Serbian Government are right in their determination to take on this insidious and destructive evil. Money goes where it feels safe and an impression of lawlessness unsettles investors, making them unwilling to invest directly into the area. The political situation in Serbia and Montenegro—its stability and the determination of the Government to reform—are vital in creating the conditions that are necessary to attract investment.
New members will be coming into the EU next year and I hope that, after a continuing process of reform, we will see exactly the same thing happening in due course for Serbia and Montenegro. The hope that that might happen is important to the people of those countries. Both countries have massive potential and I hope that that will be realised. Those points were specifically taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and I agree entirely with the point about the Council of Europe.
We must help and support the reformers in Serbia and Montenegro, rather than simply criticise people. We must continue to work with those who are trying to bring about stability and prosperity after all the tragedies that they have endured, and we must encourage them to stick to a reformist course, however tough the obstacles might be. If we play our role and continue to work together—aiming to create a successful and prosperous Serbia and Montenegro—that would be an enduring legacy after the terrible tragedy suffered for far too long by the people in that region.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on calling the debate; it was called when the political situation in Serbia and Montenegro was somewhat calmer than it is today. I welcome this opportunity to set out the Government's policy on Serbia and Montenegro. The debate has been good and has been characterised by important
192WH
contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central that the Balkans is of enormous importance to Europe. What happens there is directly relevant to us and to what happens here. Because the Balkans area is so close, we must ensure that we have a close eye on everything that happens in it. If things go wrong there, the impact will be felt quickly in Britain and the rest of Europe.
The situation had looked better; the Serbia and Montenegro constitutional charter had been adopted and a new president was elected. New institutions were being formed. A new team was coming together to tackle the challenges that lie ahead and to bring Serbia and Montenegro further into the European family.
That has now changed. On 12 March 2003, the Serbian Prime Minister, Zoran Djindjic was assassinated as he walked from his car to Serbian Government buildings. He had been shot twice by a sniper. He was taken to hospital where he died in the operating theatre. The entire House will wish to join me in expressing revulsion at that supremely undemocratic act and in sending our condolences to his widow and children and to the people of Serbia.
On 15 March, the then Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) attended the funeral on behalf of the Government. It was one of his last and most important acts as Leader of the House, and I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend did in that post and as Foreign Secretary in recent years. He delivered letters of condolence from our Prime Minister to Zoran's widow and the President of Serbia and Montenegro. The funeral was very moving. It was held in St. Sava church in Belgrade and hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets to pay their respects.
I wish to say a few words about Zoran Djindjic. I did not know him, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knew him well, and several Members of this House met him, including my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. Many Members met him when he visited Britain in 2002. He had a vision of where Serbia and Montenegro should be going and how to get there: he was brave and visionary. He was fluent in English and German, and he was a European politician who was capable of growing in stature. His achievements were many, but I will mention the three for which he will be best remembered: organising the Serbian pro-democracy movements of the 1990s; the transfer of Slobodan Milosevic to the International Criminal Court in June 2001; and starting to tackle the organised and war criminal networks that grew out of the Balkan wars during the past decade.
I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that confronting organised crime in the Balkans is the most important and difficult policy objective of the international community and the Governments in the region. It was probably the cause of Zoran Djindjic's murder because what he and other reformers strove for—democracy, the rule of law and

193WH
vibrant economies—directly threatened the lifeblood of the criminal networks. Europe has lost a European leader, and the UK and Europe have lost a Serbian friend.
By 17 March, the Serbian authorities had pulled in at least 400 suspects for questioning, including the former head of the Serbian state security service. We welcome the Serbian authorities' determined efforts, and we have offered our support if and when they require it. A state of emergency has been declared and there is an increased security presence throughout the country. A working group consisting of key Serbian Ministers and the chief of the Serbia and Montenegro armed forces is monitoring its implementation. It is expected to stay in place until the end of April.
We are closely monitoring the situation. The political situation on the ground remains fluid, but it is slowly stabilising. On 16 March, Zoran Zivkovic was nominated to replace Djindjic as Serbian Prime Minister. On 17 March, Boris Tadic was appointed Defence Minister. Goran Svilanovic has been appointed Foreign Minister. On 7 March, Svetozar Marovic was elected President.
It is too soon to assess the long-term implications, but let me outline what the Government think are the key points for Serbia, the union of Serbia and Montenegro and the wider region in the coming weeks. We want to avoid Serbia descending into the hands of criminal elements. The determination with which the Serbian authorities have handled the situation so far bodes well, but this is not an easy task for them. There are testing times ahead. We will provide moral as well as practical support. The authorities must establish full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and ensure that war criminals are transferred immediately to The Hague. Any failure to take action against organised and war criminals will be interpreted as a sign of weakness.
Together with our European partners, we will want to avoid any attempt by those opposed to the recent agreement on Serbia and Montenegro to undermine the deal. The appointment of the new Ministers will help to ensure the stability of the newly formed union. They must work together to ensure that the union makes early progress. A first priority should be the early adoption of a working and effective single market between Serbia and Montenegro, paving the way for an EU feasibility study for a stabilisation and association agreement.
Montenegro and the region suffer from the threat of organised crime. On 30 November 2002, the then Minister of the Interior, Andrija Jovicevic, ordered the arrest and prosecution of the deputy slate prosecutor for alleged involvement in people-smuggling. The Montenegrin authorities need to ensure that the case is properly investigated and that justice is done. The
194WH
leadership shown in the fight against organised crime in Serbia must be replicated in Montenegro. Together with our partners and allies, we are warning off regional extremists, particularly Albanians, who may attempt to use those tragic events as an opportunity for disruption.
KFOR has stepped up its patrols. We welcome the universal condemnation of Prime Minister Djindjic's murder by politicians across the region and by the provisional institutions of self-government in Pristina. Their joint commitment to clamping down on organised crime and terrorism continues the legacy of political maturity that Prime Minister Djindjic was demonstrating in Serbia. We have requested that SFOR step up patrols in Republika Srpska. One of the chief suspects in the assassination attempt, Milorad Lukovic, is rumoured to be hiding there.
At the General Affairs and External Relations Council today, EU Ministers will consider what help we can give to the reformers in Belgrade and to the new Government at this critical time. Meanwhile, as NATO contact point in Belgrade, we continue to provide advice to the armed forces and civil society about the importance of reform and effective civilian control of the military.
The November 2002 London conference on organised crime identified organised crime as perhaps the biggest and growing threat to regional stability. Since we announced the conference, we have committed over a million pounds to crime fighting initiatives throughout the region. UK law enforcement officers have been posted to the region and neighbouring countries.
I have not had the opportunity to deal with all the points raised, but I hope to write to hon. Members on one or two points that I had hoped to deal with. I should just say that the murder of Prime Minister Djindjic was not just another murder in the Balkans. It was an attack on Serbia's stability, regional stability and the Balkans partnership with the European wider community. It is a grisly reminder that, although outwardly stable, the region remains vulnerable.
Since the Dayton agreement in 1995, the extremists have been gradually marginalised. The Kosovo campaign in 1999 and the overthrow of Milosevic in 2000 have made their pernicious influence wane further. However, the assassination reminds us that they and the organised criminals and gangsters who sustain them have not disappeared. Despite the other claims on our attention at the present time, we cannot afford to neglect the Balkans.
The criminals must learn that they have had their day. We will support the Belgrade reformers at this crucial hour. They and we must continue to tackle the underlying causes of extremism and act against the gangsters, war criminals and other thugs who hinder Serbia's future. We will do that and work with Serbian reformers to create a better Serbia and Montenegro.

International Oil Reserves
11 am
Norman Baker: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce a debate today on foreign policy objectives relating to international oil reserves. Given the international situation, this short debate this morning is timely. It will perhaps constitute a light breakfast before the main meal in the Chamber later.
The central thesis that I want to put to the Minister today is that it is in Britain's interests, and should be a foreign policy objective, to diminish reliance on oil in this country's economic activity, partly for diplomatic reasons. It makes no sense, and is dangerous, to continue our present reliance. I want an assurance from the Minister that he recognises the importance of moving away from oil and towards other methods of powering the economy.
I mention first the environmental aspect of oil production. The British Government have signed up to Kyoto, which we are all pleased about. They have set themselves a tough target, which the Minister for the Environment and others say that they are on line to meet. That is good news, although it is not the case with all the world's countries; most notably, the United States and Russia are currently outside the Kyoto protocol. However, it is difficult for this country and other western democracies to argue that Kyoto is vital if we make no attempt to reduce our dependency on oil.
I remind the Minister that the British Government predict that, by 2080, 94 million people around the world will be at risk from flooding every year as a result of global warming and that, by 2025, increasing incidences of drought will mean that up to 5 billion people will lack sufficient water. Those are startling figures, which should cause concern not only from a humanitarian viewpoint but in terms of the world's stability, a central concern of the Foreign Office.
Oil is a major pollutant. Between 1978 and 1999, the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea recorded 12,746 oil pollution incidents. They occur every day. Yesterday, I was on the beach at Newhaven in my constituency and saw birds, covered in oil, dead on the beach. There are environmental implications of oil, on a grand and on a lesser scale. The other environmental aspect is that oil is a finite resource. It will run out, and it is rather selfish of this generation and the preceding one to have used oil in such a cavalier way, knowing that it will be exhausted before very long. That will lead to all sorts of problems for the world.
The reply that I had from the Minister for Energy and Construction earlier this year said that there are thought to be 959 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 939 billion barrels of undiscovered resources across the world. That might sound like an enormous amount, but even that Department of Trade and Industry answer recognised that, at the present rate of consumption, we will face problems by 2030—that is the Department's date—unless we find new sources of oil, a finite resource, or, more appropriately, we move towards an alternative solution that breaks our reliance on oil. I very much hope that we will take that second course.
Oil has built up over billions of years and we, as a human race, are proposing to use the entire resource in a period of some 200 years, the bulk of it at the end of
196WH
that time. The Minister will recognise that instability will flow from the increasing consumption of oil, a decreasing resource; that is happening globally at the moment. That could lead, first, to increased economic costs and, secondly, to a destabilised world in which nations fight over the remaining oil. We must try to build a system that avoids a catastrophe in 20 or 30 years' time.
In Britain, oil production has peaked and is declining. That is also the case in other western countries, such as Norway and the United States. In the years ahead, the countries that peak last in terms of production will be the most unstable countries in the world, including Saudi Arabia and I raq. We do not want a situation in which we are dependent on unstable regimes for an essential commodity such as oil.
The United States consumes over 25 per cent. of the oil produced worldwide, but US production of oil has long since peaked and is in serious decline, which makes it more dependent than ever on imports. That would be the case even if we were talking about satisfying a steady demand, never mind one that continues to increase. The Bush Administration's 2001 energy plan predicted that an increased demand for oil was inevitable, with oil imports needing to rise from 10.4 million barrels per day at present to 16.7 million barrels per day by 2020. That is a huge increase of some 60 per cent. over the first two decades of the century, yet the resource is declining. The US currently spends $100 billion a year on oil.
We know why US demand is high; it is related to the standard of living, the cavalier attitude that the Bush Administration in particular have towards the environment and the refusal to go along with Kyoto or to recognise the need to have sensible pricing regimes for, for example, fuel for vehicles. The price of gas, as they call it, is extraordinarily, artificially and irresponsibly low.
The reliance on oil that we and the US exhibit in our behaviour can have significant economic consequences, including short-term consequences. We know, for example, that oil shocks can act as catalysts for substantial damage to western economies, as they did in 1973–74, 1979–80 and 1990–91. The interplay between the economy, the environment and security of supply is an increasingly central issue to the Foreign Office, as the debate over Britain's nuclear energy and gas has demonstrated. Oil shocks damage oil-importing countries because they simultaneously depress demand and raise prices. All three shocks to which I referred were caused by, or were a catalyst for, a serious downturn in western economies.
As I mentioned, the reserves of oil are being held in the world's unstable regimes. The US relies hugely on imports from countries that cannot guarantee a stable flow over a long period of time. Venezuela, the fourth biggest supplier to the US, virtually halted oil exports to the US when the turmoil occurred there last year. Saudi Arabia may have been seen as a stable regime, in some ways, over the past 20 or 30 years, but we cannot guarantee that it will be so in the years ahead; particularly if the middle east is destabilised as a consequence of activities likely to begin shortly.
If the US and others were able to secure control over some of the remaining oil reserves in what are presently unstable regimes, it would provide a short-term

197WH
breathing space. Iraq is sitting on 11 per cent. of the world's oil reserves, or 112 billion barrels, making Iraq second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of its oil reserves. There are 16 years' worth of US oil consumption in Iraq alone. The US Department of Energy recently confirmed that. In its Iraq country analysis brief of October 2002, it was stated that:
"Iraq's oil production costs are amongst the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect."
I am not saying that we are seeing the events that are unfolding in the world today simply because there is a drive for oil. There are clearly other factors at play. However, oil is undoubtedly a factor, because the price, availability and regular supply of oil affect the economies of the west, and the US and UK in particular. Clearly, the US Administration have signed up to deal with the oil problem, as they see it, in Iraq. A letter to President Clinton in 1998 from Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage said:
"US foreign policy should aim at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. [If this strategy is not followed] a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will be put at hazard."
Those authors are now, with one exception, in the US Administration. Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser said in September 2002:
"When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add 3–5 million barrels [of oil per day] of production to world supply … The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."
Oil is not necessarily the only factor, but it is clearly a factor.
There is a problem with the logic being employed in some quarters. The assumption is that Iraq's capacity can be increased. That will increase the flow of oil around the world, which will lead to more competition and a more stable supply. There are two problems with that. First, as the Minister and his colleagues will recognise, attacking a middle east country has the potential to destabilise the region, particularly in Saudi Arabia where there is a clear element that is unhappy with any pro-western association. That could lead to a situation in which Iraq was gained and Saudi Arabia was lost, which would not be a sensible outcome.
Secondly, there are economic consequences to such an attack if it leads to Iraq producing higher quantities of oil. In the short term, if Iraqi production were raised markedly it would lead to a glut of oil in the world market, which would depress the price of oil. That may be seen as a good thing, but it would depress the gross domestic product and income of Saudi Arabia, which is hugely reliant on oil, and could also have a destabilising effect on that regime. It is perfectly possible that through efforts to increase oil supply, the opposite could occur.
That leads me to conclude that is not sensible for the world as a whole, and the west in particular, to rely on oil as the lubricant for the worldwide economy. We have to move away from oil and invest far more in alternatives, as BP and Shell are doing. Those British companies are leading the way in developing alternatives. "Beyond petroleum" is BP's new title and it recognises that we cannot be reliant on oil. In that sense,
198WH
industry is ahead of Government. I am not just talking about this Government—I am not making a party-political point—but Governments in the west in general.
The attitude of those companies is in stark contrast with Exxon Mobil, which is doing everything it can to snuff out renewable technologies and keep the oil pumping. The Government have a key role in encouraging BP and Shell to develop alternative technologies and ensuring that the west, and the world in general, is not dependent on oil. When we look for the lubricant for our economic engine in years to come, we do not want to face a small number of countries, many of which are unstable, controlling the price at a level not helpful to us and holding us to ransom, which may engender a military response from a nation, or nations. That is not a healthy situation, and we need to avoid it. We are on the cusp of it now.
I should like to raise a further point—the environmental consequences of any oil-related activities that occur in the next month or so in Iraq. The point is serious, and I have raised it with the Prime Minister. When I asked what assessment he had made of environmental damage and what steps had been taken to prepare for it, he simply said that there was no war with Iraq. Strangely, I was aware of that when I asked the question—it had not bypassed me—but his answer did not help.
I say to the Minister that we are facing a potential environmental catastrophe, assuming that action starts. We know that because we experienced an environmental catastrophe during the 1991 Gulf war. What happened then, and what could happen again now, is the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere: something like a million tonnes a day could come out of the oil wells, if Saddam Hussein sets fire to them, as he may well do, or if they are struck by bombing from the UK or US. Huge amounts of carbon dioxide could be released. The temperature could drop by 10°, as happened last time, because of the cloud cover from oil pollution. Many birds and much other wildlife were badly affected and killed as a result of the deliberate destruction of oil wells that Saddam Hussein embarked on in 1991, and human health was massively affected as air pollution levels rocketed.
I warn the Government that there will be a serious environmental pollution problem if we have a war with Iraq. I hope that they have some scheme for dealing with it and that preparatory work has been done to ensure that damage to the environment can be prevented or, if not, will be minimised and put right as soon as possible.
Finally, I refer the Minister to article 55, which states that part of any war activity is a duty on each party to protect the environment. I very much hope that the Government keep that in mind in the days ahead.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) for raising such an important issue at this time. As usual, he spoke with great clarity and conviction. The security of international energy supplies is a matter of concern to all countries, including the United Kingdom. Energy policy is a prime example of the increasing interdependence between foreign and domestic policy.

199WH
I wish to begin by referring to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Kyoto protocol. He rightly referred to the fact that the UK is, justifiably, a signatory to the protocol, whereas the United States of America is not. We are entering a period in which our relationship with the USA will be a matter of some debate. We are right to work with the Americans on the Iraq crisis, but there is a significant difference of opinion on the Kyoto protocol, and we will continue to offer arguments about it to our American partners.
The Government are very conscious of the need for a radical new approach to energy policy. That was clearly set out in the energy White Paper that was published on 24 February, which marks a departure by setting energy policy firmly in the context of environmental challenges, particularly those of the global environment. I welcome its clear strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some 60 per cent. in the next 50 years. That is a radical ambition, which we are right to put forward. We are encouraging the development of renewable energy in the UK and greater progress in energy efficiency, which are central to achieving that aim. I certainly concur with the hon. Gentleman's points about our need to cut oil consumption. We must do that if we are to meet the ambitious targets that have been set by the Kyoto protocol.
The policy to which we have committed ourselves is based firmly on four pillars—protecting the environment—promoting competitive markets in the UK and beyond; tackling fuel poverty at home, which is crucial; and, last but not least, maintaining the reliability of our energy supplies. Energy is vital for the world's economic prosperity and development. At present, oil accounts for some 40 per cent. of world energy consumption, mainly in the transport sector. That is why it is important that we enact the measures in the Kyoto arrangements.
To put our dependence on oil in context, as a country we have been a net exporter of energy, with significant imports and exports, for the past two decades, following the successful development of North sea oil. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that will certainly change. Forecasts vary, but it is commonly agreed that UK oil and gas production will decline significantly in coming years. On an annual basis, it is likely that the UK will become a net importer of gas by about 2006 and of oil by about 2010.
By 2020, we are likely to import about three quarters of our primary energy needs and therefore need to rethink and to respond. We value the contribution of our world-class energy companies to the successful development of our oil and gas reserves. We will continue to give a high priority to developing the UK continental shelf, and the Pilot scheme is central to that work. The Pilot scheme, which is now in its third year, is an initiative based on promoting industry co-operation with the Government to enhance the economically efficient recovery of the UK's oil and gas resources to prolong our indigenous supplies.
As well as promoting energy efficiency to help us address the challenge of climate change, consuming countries also need to explore alternatives to mitigate our dependence on fossil fuels, especially and importantly within the transport sector. Mobilising innovative science and technology is a major theme in the White Paper to which I earlier referred. We need not
200WH
only to use our science and technology base but to multiply its effectiveness through international collaboration. We are focusing on that in our public expenditure priorities, particular on energy research, development and innovation. The Department of Trade and Industry spent about £40 million supporting sustainable energy-related research and technological development in 2001–02. We have already put in place a substantial renewables support programme worth some £250 million between now and 2005–06.
We are not acting in isolation. I took some of the hon. Gentleman's points about the actions of the United States of America, but there is an indication that movement is beginning. The development of hybrid vehicles, which could dramatically cut fuel consumption, is beginning to be looked at in the United States, which is welcome.
We need to put into context the fact that we will move from being a net exporter to being a net importer. Relying on imports need not be a problem. Import dependency, especially for oil, has long been a fact of life for all the G7 countries, except for Canada and the UK. Having said that, the economic health of all countries depends on the stability of the international energy markets. World population growth and economic expansion suggest that demand for oil will significantly increase over the next 20 years, so we have to get it right by seeking to create stability.
Worldwide, fossil fuel resources are large and there are sufficient oil reserves to meet projected demand for around 30 years. If we look to the development of non-conventional reserves such as Canadian oil shales and Venezuelan heavy crudes, as well as improvements in technology, oil reserves could last for twice as long.
Also, the bulk of conventional oil reserves are, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, located in the middle east, which currently supplies about 25 per cent. of Europe's imports; a situation that is likely to continue for a considerable time. However—I want to make this point strongly—there are also significant oil reserves in north and south America, Russia, the countries of the Caspian basin and Africa. The Caspian basin, for example, may hold as much as 5 per cent. of global oil reserves and is likely to produce 3 million barrels of oil a day by the end of this decade, which is about 3 per cent. of the world's oil needs.
The picture is complicated and we need to look at all its aspects. Exploring the development of diverse oil reserves helps us to stabilise the market and, crucially, to underpin the security of supply. The Government certainly regard such a development as a high priority, as we have clearly set out in the energy White Paper.
We also need producers and consumers to work together to produce an effective trade in energy products. For more than a decade, oil and gas producing and consuming countries have been engaged in a dialogue on both a bilateral and, through the international energy forum, a multilateral basis. The UK has been an active supporter and participant in that process.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the need to secure regional stability in the key oil producing areas. He flirted with the argument that the current action on which we will be voting in the House of Commons this evening is driven by the need for oil. That is the least

201WH
persuasive argument in all the current debates on that subject. I genuinely and profoundly do not believe that committing ourselves to military action in Iraq, if that is what happens this evening, is about oil. I believe that it is about weapons of mass destruction and a regime that has consistently and defiantly flouted the will of the international community for the past 12 years.
If oil were the only issue, we could simply cut a deal with Saddam Hussein, as has been made clear many times, and allow him to continue to hold and develop his weapons of mass destruction in return for access to his oil reserves. I am sure that he would sign up to such an agreement within moments. The argument about oil is not persuasive.
It is worth putting into context the scale of Iraqi oil production. Iraq may be a major oil producer, but that should not be overstated. Iraq currently produces around 2.4 million barrels a day—the same as the UK—which puts the matter into realistic context. It is arguable that oil may be a stronger influence on Russian and French policy as we have seen it developing during the past few weeks, because they have a much more significant strategic interest in Iraq's oil reserves compared with the overall size of their economies. With respect, the picture is much more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Norman Baker: Could I put it on the record that I suggested that oil was a factor? I did not say that the situation was only about oil. I am prepared to accept that the Prime Minister is driven by a messianic zeal in his approach, but the same cannot be said of President Bush, who, with his colleagues, is steeped in oil.
Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman's argument about oil was not made with conviction. If he has any genuine doubt, I hope that he was reassured by the announcement made at the weekend in the Government's "Vision for the Iraqi people", in which we made it clear that we would work with the international community in the event of military action
"to ensure that the Iraqi people can exploit the country's resources for their own benefit and contribute to their own reconstruction, with international help where needed."
202WH
We suggested a UN trust to administer that. There is no vestige of credibility in the argument that we and the Americans are driven by the need for oil.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Prime Minister's messianic zeal, but most people are coming to the conclusion that he has a sincere and genuine conviction of principle. People do not recognise principle and conviction in the somersaults of the leader of the Liberal Democrats on the issue and on the need for a second UN resolution during the past several months. They recognise opportunism during the most extraordinary and difficult situation that this country has faced for many a year.
Securing stability for oil supplies requires the resolution of the middle east peace problem. It is a credit to the Government that they have been at the international forefront in striving to achieve that. We welcome President Arafat's decision to appoint Abu Mazen as Prime Minister, which is an important step forward. We are pleased that that was followed up by President Bush's statement on 14 March reiterating his commitment to the implementation of the road map. It is clear that the British Government and our Prime Minister have pushed most strongly and passionately on that important issue.
Demand for oil is likely to increase and the role of the middle east in supplying oil to world markets will become even more important. That reinforces the need for us to move the important issue of the middle east process forward.
In conclusion, the need for secure energy supplies throughout the world is complicated and a changing picture. It is important that we get it right. That requires the development of new energy markets, growth and dependence on renewable energy, to which the Government have strongly committed themselves. If anyone was in any doubt about that, the fact that publication of the energy White Paper at a difficult and challenging time for the Government has been widely welcomed across the political spectrum underlines that. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman secured this debate today to enable us to discuss those important issues.
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Research Funding (Universities)
2 pm
Jonathan Shaw: I was delighted to win the ballot to secure this debate because it addresses the important issue of the future of our universities. Those institutions are crucial for the health of our economy, for social cohesion and for much more, and we will do our best to debate them, although events have overtaken us.
The importance of the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education" cannot be overstated. Our nation's ability to educate and train its population at the level of higher education has never been more essential, and our ability to compete in the world and to increase our wealth will be greatly affected by the decisions made in the White Paper and the Bill that follows it.
The public debate about the White Paper has been dominated by the issues of student finance and the access regulator, which have an important effect on who goes to university and which institution they attend. The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have demonstrated a willingness to engage in the debate on those matters, particularly student finance.
There is a third strand in the White Paper that is equally important—the future of research funding in our universities. The Government must be scrutinised about that, and they must make their case. I wish to focus on what happens when students are studying, on how universities deliver by nurturing talent and inspiring people, and on how they contribute to our economy by doing those things and much more.
I am probably the least qualified participant in the debate, because I do not have a university degree, although, because of the Government's widening access agenda, I do have a qualification. I do not, therefore, enter the debate with any baggage that I might be accused of having if I had worked in certain institutions. I would not accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) of having any baggage—or not much, anyway.
Research is the lifeblood of many of our universities. Good universities should be the generators of ideas. Research provides stimulation, attracts attention and makes a vital contribution to the quality of teaching which the Government have too readily dismissed. By 2005–06 public expenditure on science and research will have increased by £1.25 billion per year compared with 2002–03. That increase is widely applauded, but there are serious concerns about the further concentration and allocation of those resources. If we are truly trying to widen access, do we really want to create such a super-elite, which would lead to so few working-class young people being exposed to research?
Already, we have the most concentrated research funding anywhere in the world, with 75 per cent. of funding going to 25 institutions. The Government argue that only by concentrating research further will we be able to compete. They say that that is the way forward, and often refer to the United States. However, the top deciare of institutions in that country received 43 per cent. of federal research and development funding in
204WH
1997; in 1980–81, the figure was 47 per cent. Rather than increasing concentration, the United States is spreading funding across a greater number of institutions, albeit that there is a smaller amount in percentage terms.
That is not happening in the UK. We are moving towards a position in which 80 per cent. of research funding will go to a few universities. The Select Committee on Education and Skills yesterday took evidence from Sir Richard Sykes, the rector of Imperial college. His assessment was that in future only five or six institutions would conduct leading research. If that is not the Minister's vision, I hope that she will explain why this afternoon. What will be the impact of continuing in the direction in which we are moving? I am not sure that the Government have had the opportunity to describe in detail the consequences, good or bad, of policies for which they are arguing and which they are already implementing.
I am worried that on research funding, unlike student finance and access, the Government are already ploughing ahead with changes. The previous research assessment exercise began in 2001 and is intended to run until 2006, yet those with a level 4 rating have recently had £30 million sliced from their budgets; that money has been passed to those with a 5* rating, which, we presume, will become the 6* rating of the future. That change was forced on HEFCE—the Higher Education Funding Council for England—by Ministers. Sir Howard Newbury told the Select Committee that his advice had been contrary to what Ministers wanted. We have not heard from the Minister why she took a decision that went against HEFCE's advice. What was that advice, and what would its impact have been? The purpose of the debate is to scrutinise the Government, so I hope that the Minister will tell us why she took that decision.
I should like the Minister to understand the message that she is sending out to people working in research. In 2001, one could have gone through the research assessment exercise in good faith and been awarded a level 4 rating in accordance with the rules, but £30 million has been taken off the budget in 2003, even though a review of the RAE is currently being conducted. Is that any way to carry on?
Mr. Tim Boswell: Would the hon. Gentleman also consider the overtly political point that it seems bizarre that a Government who make so much of their commitment to involving the access student are, in the same breath and the same White Paper, bent on making the research funding system more elitist?
Jonathan Shaw: I shall come on to that; it is an important point. We want working-class youngsters to have access to research. Equally, I want the Eton graduate to feel able to attend a university such as Greenwich.
At the heart of my concern is the damage that the proposals may do in preventing new research from taking place and preventing departments from developing to international standards. Not all departments begin their lives with a 5* rating, but many achieve that; it is about developing infrastructure. There are examples of departments that have been assessed as level 3a, 3b or 4 achieving research breakthroughs. Those institutions have been outside what we call the golden triangle.

205WH
What do the following have in common: the first-rate adaptive heart pacemaker; total hip replacement; the portable defibrillator; the contraceptive pill; the relationship between babies' sleeping position and sudden infant death; liquid crystal display; the motorway signage system; strained quantum lasers; and genetic fingerprinting? They were all invented or discovered at universities outside the golden triangle, many at departments that were rated at level 4 or below when the RAE was introduced. Many universities with lower ratings have gone on to gain a 5* rating. My great concern is that we will stifle that much-needed development in our universities.
The Minister has been a great supporter of the collaboration between Kent university, Greenwich university and Mid-Kent college in the Thames gateway area, and I thank her for all the practical assistance and financial support that she has given. I should like to mention a research programme in the university of Greenwich, which has a campus in the Medway towns. It has taken 17 years for that research team to develop its infrastructure and its capability to carry out international research and provide life-saving solutions that have considerable relevance to the matters being discussed in the main Chamber.
Since 1989, Greenwich university's school of computing and mathematical science, led by Professor Edwin Galea, has been developing a suite of human behaviour and evacuation models, aimed at helping designers of buildings, aircraft and ships to save lives. It has developed software to model people's behaviour in various conditions in which evacuation is necessary, and what happens when fire and smoke are introduced to that situation.
The list of clients is impressive and includes Airbus, Boeing, and the Sydney Olympic stadium. Most recently, Greenwich has been asked to assist the Beijing Government with evacuation designs for the Olympic games that will be staged in China. On that occasion there will be millions of spectators and tens of thousands of competitors. Getting evacuation right, especially in today's climate, is essential. That research has been developed over the past 17 years in Greenwich, one of the new universities. Greenwich has already won its gold medal; indeed, last year it was awarded the Queen's anniversary prize because of its research.
Returning to my point about developing research, the unit is now rated level 4, but when it went through the previous RAE, it was level 3a. That trend can be found throughout the sector. In 2001, the RAE found that 55 per cent. of research-active staff worked in highly rated departments compared with 31 per cent. in 1996. There is immense improvement throughout the institutions, but, if today's rules had been applied in 1996, it is unlikely that the team at Greenwich would have been able to develop the expertise that they have. The £30 million cut means that the unit has lost £150,000 in funding; that means fewer PhD students, and members of staff will have to be cut.
Mr. David Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that such matters are especially unfair? So many university research departments were
206WH
led to believe that, if they improved the quality of their research, they would receive more money. As a result, many universities put more money into research, only to find that, in a sense, some of it was wasted, not because the research was not good, but because their efforts to ensure that they would receive more money under the new RAE were fruitless due to the goalposts having been moved.
Jonathan Shaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; that is an important point.What were the rules in 2000 and 2001 when universities applied for research funding? Now, two years later, level 4 institutions, which are meant to be the bedrock of research, have had £30 million lopped off their budgets, and that is not to mention the effect on 3a and 3b-rated institutions. I have been advised that academics are withdrawing applications from institutions that are not level 5. That is not surprising, given that they are witnessing changes in the funding rules. The notion is that to stay alive the institutions must be level 5. Who will put their career behind an institution whose future and funding is in doubt?
Professor Galea will obtain another job easily, but a team of 25 people that has taken 17 years to develop cannot simply be picked up and put in another institution; its infrastructure has been damaged. It takes a long time to develop such expertise. The detrimental effects of the Government's decisions are being felt now. Students at institutions such as Greenwich need to have an opportunity to be exposed to research.
One of the many examples about which I was advised was a final-year undergraduate who took on a project about hospital evacuation for non-ambulant patients. The student's research led to a journal paper and several conference papers. If the research establishment were not at Greenwich, that young working-class student would not have been able to take part in the research. If we are to have a widening agenda, it is also important for us to be aware of what happens when youngsters go to university. There should be equality of opportunity at all our institutions, including exposure to research.
The Government want to encourage collaboration on research between different institutions, but for that to work, people need to feel that they are equal partners. That need is not unique to universities; it is common to us all. A great deal of collaboration has been taking place for many years, and the removal of funding from level 4 institutions puts that collaboration in jeopardy.
The Education and Skills Committee heard from Professor David Eastwood, Vice-Chancellor of the university of East Anglia, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will know well. Professor Eastwood told us that there was collaboration not only between institutions, but between units at the university. One might have one unit, as he does, rated 5* and another rated 4* which is losing its funding, and that jeopardises both projects. Yes, there should be collaboration, but one must be aware of the relationships involved. It is not always possible to collaborate, and the future of so many of our institutions should not depend on the need to work with others.

207WH
Much in the White Paper is brave and right, and I applaud it, but since the Select Committee embarked on its inquiry, I have become alarmed at the proposals. That alarm has been heightened because changes have been implemented against HEFCE's advice, without consultation, and there is already a review of the RAE. That is having a profound effect on many research departments in universities throughout the country. I hope that the Government will pull back and ensure that they do their own research so that they fully appreciate that effect and the likely consequences of any further concentration.
2.22 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing this important debate. Discussion of this issue will no doubt continue until Christmas. The window is now open on higher education, which is excellent. At last, we have a Government who are examining the problems and advantages that higher education brings to this small island.
The first question that I asked myself was "Why does research take place in universities?" After all, we could set up research institutes, free from the clamour of undergraduates and without all the administration and support necessary for undergraduates and postgraduates. People could get on with research 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, the young people who carry out most of the research in this country enjoy working in a university environment. They can work with younger undergraduates and produce a generation of future scientists. That system has served this nation well.
The debate is not only about Nobel prize winners, although they were also once young people with their bottoms hanging out of their jeans and long army coats who spent their time in pubs talking about the issues, getting excited and using their brains. They moved on to leading research teams because they were inspired and enthused by our university system. The reasons for conducting research in universities have been well proven over the years. As someone who has spent a lot of my active life acquiring grants from research councils, charities, the United States and many other sources, I can tell hon. Members that it is a hard business in which one is turned down many times, and has to come back again with new ideas. There is nothing like being in the ghetto to make people fight to get out of it, even in science. People in universities have done that to acquire research funding.
We should consider the record of work done in universities in this country, especially our citation index—the papers that are quoted across the world. Many scientists have had accolades, and many have headed school science labs. Last Friday I visited Totnes in Devon to help an ex-student of mine who runs a science lab and had acquired special science status. The enthusiasm engendered in that person, who, I might add, is somewhat older now, was generated in university teaching and research. She remembered the research project she undertook during her third year at university. That added value to her teaching, because she questioned and argued about things, which is what research is all about. That is also what universities are all
208WH
about: students challenging what they are taught, knowing that there is more to discover. The literature is littered with people whose ideas and publications were not understood, or were rejected, but who won Nobel prizes after other facts were discovered. They have excited others to take up the cudgels and develop the research.
As far as I can tell from my experience, this is the first Government who have reacted to that situation. Since 1997 they have put billions of pounds into infrastructure, supporting research councils and generating more excitement and activity in research in universities and the UK research complex. However, there is still more to be done. How do I know that? The Department for Education and Skills has produced a paper called "The Future of Higher Education", which acknowledges the need for research in all areas, from writing books and creative writing, right through to science and the wealth of knowledge that is formed in the UK. That makes us a great nation in research fields compared with others.
The last 10 minutes of my lectures were always about current research. I would refer to the textbooks and prepare a good lecture, but I would suddenly talk about someone who disbelieved what I had just taught and had not yet been quoted, and about continuing research. Both the young and the mature students picked up on that. They would say, "Cor! If we had just read the textbook, that would have been it. We could have passed the exams, but now we are excited about this idea—tell us more about it." Research is all about students wanting to get their hands dirty and get involved. That is true for school science and university research.
There have been many other reports in addition to "The Future of Higher Education". The research assessment exercise has taken place and the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I am Chairman, has made a few friends through its publication. We have challenged the research assessment exercise, primarily on the basis that Jim Watson and Francis Crick would not have got a level 3 rating if they had followed the procedure. They grew up in an environment in which they exchanged ideas. We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the publication of the DNA paper.
Harry Kroto, another Nobel prize winner, would also have found it difficult. Work done by such people as Sir Paul Nurse does not go on in universities. They spend part of their lives in a university and continue in research institutes. The network that we have built up in this country is superb, and is envied by people in the United States. The research assessment exercise was an attempt to engage excellence and to relate money to that base, to ensure that people got the support. I can be critical of it—our report is critical of it—but out of that has come a real review of the whole exercise, which I think will now have a lighter touch. Sir Gareth Roberts is already touring the Corridors of the House talking about the options. I welcome that and so does the scientific and research community.
This is not just about science: it is also about the arts getting the money. We concentrate on science because much more of the money goes into that field. I welcome what is being done, and I welcome the acknowledgement that academics are playing a few

209WH
tricks. After all, they are probably the smartest people in the country, and if they cannot beat the system who else can? That is what we train them for. One of the purposes of the report is to ensure that they do not manoeuvre within the system, but it is also to ensure that multidisciplinary research takes place.
Our universities are still departments in silos. I was at a Downing street meeting the other week at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills spoke. The vice-chancellor of Warwick university said that departments merely undertake administrative manoeuvres in a university, and that it is the whole university that teaches and carries out research. What he meant was that there ought to be more interaction between departments on research. He is absolutely right.
I can tell a story about that. At the university of East Anglia, people working on atmospheric chemistry in the school of environmental sciences and people in the chemical sciences department were doing similar work, but because of personality differences they never got together. It is in such situations that a tough vice-chancellor should say, "Look, let's find a way to do this together, so that we'll access more research money". Breaking down boundaries in universities is about good university management and exciting people to work together. That will help.
Levels 1 to 5 are merely a way of apportioning the cake, and there is now more money going around. That system is also about trying to recognise excellence, but it is fudgy at the edges, and not only because of the situation of such people as Watson and Crick. A headline in a local paper on Friday read: "Arts School has Designs on Extra Research Cash". An article below that reports on the Minister opening a fame academy for budding ballerinas and others, which seems rather appropriate. The arts school concerned is the Norwich school of art and design, which has a level 3 rating. A 3,000 per cent. increase in its research money was announced last week. Members may argue that, like people on low pay, the school did not start with very much anyway, which is true. It started with only £4,000, but suddenly, because it became a level 3b, it has some £144,870 and has to submit details of the art and design research that it intends to carry out.
If I were at the Norwich school of art and design I 'would be rather excited about that, despite the gloomy news that we often hear from universities. The Minister is trying to induce me to table an early-day motion on that subject, just to show how good departments can emerge from a rotten system, which is fine. There will be other good news stories. The principal is very pleased, as one might imagine. Things are certainly getting better for that school, which is producing some very bright young people in the artistic and design world.
Such people are interacting with people in universities. I dined with Antony Gormley, who designed the Angel of the North, and his wife the other night. They are very keen to do artwork in university science departments. The connection between arts and science—which correlates with what I said about university departments—is really beginning to happen. There are imaginative, innovative individuals out there
210WH
who want to undertake that work, and we must find and encourage them, from whatever class or background they come, and ensure that it takes place.
There was a cross-cutting review of science and research in March 2002, which was very interesting. I think that the Treasury requested it, to see how money is used for research in universities. It makes some interesting points. It discusses the dual support system—the money given directly to universities by the Government for research and the money from research councils for applications and peer review research—and the third leg funding scheme, which involves money from charities and sources such as endowments and conferences that can be used for research. The review points out that there is deep tension among academia, Government, business and other research funders on the funding of science and technology and, in particular, on the failure of funding processes, which has led to a serious gap in university research funding.
The review mentions the need for state-of-the-art infrastructure and buildings. Most of the 1960s universities are crumbling. They may have been well designed by the architects who built festival halls that looked wonderful in the 1960s, but rain and time have turned them into shoddy buildings, and they are not that safe because the cement is crumbling. Much more money must be put into universities to allow the research to be done. I used to work in a lab in which the rain came through the roof. When I was a young student at medical school in Edinburgh I had first-hand knowledge of pigeons' nitrogenous excretion falling on lab benches—that would have made a good research project. It is not on for science students, scientists or academics to work in such conditions, and much more money needs to be put into that area.
The dual support system has worked well, but we must ensure that it is clear whether the money is for blue-skies research or whether it is for research that will be of use to society. A friend of mine in academia got a grant for squashing the testicles of grasshoppers. I used to say to him, "What is the use of squashing the testicles of grasshoppers?" Academics are especially good at being articulate, and he gave me a one-hour lecture. A friend of mine, who was not helped by me, sent a letter to the newspapers asking that question. The academic replied that, "It is not much use, but it is damned interesting. It might be useful to humans." No doubt the individuals who committed the atrocities that we have been hearing about learned what to do by squashing grasshoppers. There are serious problems trying to justify research in universities. They must talk more about their research in order to win public support.
There is also a funding gap in universities, and a creative accountancy model is currently used. For example, research councils do not fund the whole of a research project, so people have to find money from other sources. Universities will not turn down grants from charities. I had lunch with Sir Paul Nurse, who said that he was not going to use money from cancer charities to pay for toilets in universities. The management of money in universities must be more subtly tailored to grants. There are big gaps, and there is evidence that money is sometimes taken from teaching pots in order to pay for research that is not funded.

211WH
The Select Committee on Science and Technology is examining how framework 6 and, eventually, framework 7 European money is accessed by people in this country. One reason why many people who could get that money do not apply for it is that they would have to find 20 per cent. of the funding from other sources.
Mr. Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one historical problem has been the poor level of internal accounting in universities? When departments achieve 5* ratings and receive significant research funds, sometimes not all the money is allocated to them, but is put into the general pot rather than rewarding excellence.
Dr. Gibson: That is true, but the Government and the various councils have instituted a transparency review. We have identified where such cases have happened, which is the first time that proper accounting has been introduced to justify the use of money in universities. I remember having to learn what a spreadsheet was—these days, one does not become the manager of a department without learning how a spreadsheet works in order to be able to see the flow of money in a continually updated format. Universities have smartened up their acts, but they have some way to go in justifying themselves, at least to the public.
The funding gap has been identified. The research councils are examining the model used by the Wellcome Trust, which provides all funding in grants. It provides sufficient money to ensure that its grant is fully operated, so that universities do not have to take money from other sources.
The cross-cutting review identified the issue of academic pay, and we will never get good research in universities until we address that problem. I shall not go into how far academic pay has fallen behind that in industry. People work in universities because they love the work, the teaching and the articulate environment. Sadly, some of them like the senior common room a little too much, but in general there is excellence in our universities for which people are paid a pittance, which is why that issue is being addressed.
A great deal of research is conducted by research staff who are on contracts of one, two or three years. The Select Committee considered that. For example, some young women, who become old women after 20 contracts, live on six-month or one-year contracts. That is not on if we want the best people to stay in universities and carry out research. I make no apologies for that.
The White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" makes the point that we will have to concentrate our research much more in certain universities. I believe that Richard Sykes, who is at Imperial college, said in a Select Committee yesterday that we need only five top-class universities in the country. I do not agree. We have to resist that temptation, because there is excellence in all our universities. The university of Dundee, which is an institution of some excellence now, was founded on one man's discovery of protein for sporulation, from whence have come spin-off companies, cancer units and so on. Dundee is becoming one of the top universities for research.
212WH
We should encourage such thinking in every university, and we should find mechanisms to recruit people from the United States or from this country, where many of them have been trained, who want to work in Britain. We have done that for stem cell research; Britain leads the world in that area, and we have people queueing up to come back and carry out research in this country. Members of this House and the other place were very much instrumental in bringing about the regulations that allowed that to happen. We should pat ourselves on the back for what we did in this Parliament and the previous Parliament to make research and its funding top notch in the stem cell field.
Other good work is being undertaken, including Beagle 2 landing on Mars, the Open university and the construction of new joints for people with damaged bones. We had a meeting last Thursday that was full of good news stories relating to science, because science is being backed in this country and industrial relations with universities have been made to work so that they benefit our people.
I want to talk about excellence. I was brought up in a very Scottish way and hated Oxford and Cambridge. I did not need to go there to get a blue in football. I preferred to play for the team that I played for in Scotland rather than to get a blue from Oxford or Cambridge. Some people were tempted to go to Oxford and Cambridge, because there was a feeling that they were the jewels in the crown and the glittering places to go. Given the Scottish culture, going to England would have been a huge step at that time and was something to be resisted. At university, I heard about the magic of Oxford and Cambridge and a few places around London—the so-called golden triangle. I never believed what I heard, because my teachers were superb. My teacher is 90 this year and there will be a big do for him up in Edinburgh. It will be full of glittering past students, such as Professor Stephen Jones, all of whom passed through a small department, talked and argued together, and were cultured as a result of the teaching and research. Edinburgh university was not bad either, even though it was not part of the golden triangle.
Money is predominantly going to the universities that make up the golden triangle, and we should ask whether that is the best way it could be spent. Given my culture, hon. Members will understand what I am about to say. I am not an envious person, but when I see the election of the chancellor of Oxford university getting the coverage that it has had in the papers over the past few weeks, I ask myself, "Who gives a fig? Why is it so important?" There were three aged blokes and a token woman—there has not been a woman chancellor in the 800 years that the position has existed and I bet that there will not be one in our lifetimes.
The network that controls grants spins out into the scientific and academic establishment in this country—I am not envious, because I have benefited. It decides the subject areas that will be funded. I am writing a piece on that, and there is plenty of good evidence about the people in question. They are no better than people elsewhere in the country. We must break that elitism, otherwise we will not break the elitism surrounding access to universities. We also need an access regulator to examine where the scientific research money goes, who is on the committees that decide who gets it and so on. There is a correlation. I was part of the inner

213WH
network and knew how to access that money. I might have gone out of the room when my subject was being discussed, but my mates were still there, and I was in there when theirs was being discussed.
We must provide transparency and openness in the funding of research in this country. The story of the election of chancellor of Oxford university shows how important a chancellor of a university in one part of the country can become. Who is chancellor anywhere else? Jeremy Paxman would never ask that question on "University Challenge". He might ask about the chancellor of Oxford university, but he would not ask who the chancellor of Dundee university or the rector of Edinburgh university are, or where the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to university or which university he was rector of. Hon. Members know what I am getting at.
There is concentration on Oxford and Cambridge. When the Government say they are going to concentrate on certain universities, I fear that we will miss out on the excellence found in universities in Greenwich, Dundee, Norwich or Manchester. Some of us were involved in the debate about the siting of the synchrotron in Oxford. That may have been the right place, but it left people in the north-west of the country feeling angry and undervalued. I welcome the fact that the Government responded to the protest by investing money there.
Research funding is important for the creation of wealth in this country and for the future. It is also important that we ensure that it is spread around, and that mechanisms are used to allow access for all people in this country who want to carry out research. Research is exciting; it blows the mind. It can be boring, too. One can carry out research for a long period, and not understand what has happened. Sometimes the best discoveries are made on a Friday afternoon after going to the pub. People try to repeat the discovery on a Monday, and wonder what they did right or wrong. Sometimes it is an accident that brings about discoveries. We have to create that environment and not expect those people suddenly to turn something up in five minutes, or even five years.
I welcome the debate. Much more will be said about all aspects of higher education. We have a great opportunity to build on the paper presented by the Government. There will be ups and downs in the arguments, and I welcome that. The research funding issue is a good place to start. We must ensure that we provide more funding, and encourage all those who want to carry out research to give us more of what we have had in the last 200 years.
2.47 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I am slightly hesitant about following the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), as I have to admit that I did my first degree and my second—not that I ever achieved it—at Oxford. That makes me one of those who has absolutely no right to speak in the debate—according to the hon. Gentleman, that is. I tend to agree with a great deal of what he said about the recent election of the chancellor of Oxford, about which he was pretty well spot on, and I had to agree with much of what he said about Oxford being an elitist institution. There is no question but that it needs to come into the modern world in some ways. Having said that, I should also declare an interest.
214WH
One of my sons is about to start a research degree at university, so university research funding is at the centre of my thinking. Two of my other sons are at university as well, and they are being taught by people who are involved in university research and teaching. I have a personal interest in the matter, quite apart from my spokesmanship, and I am delighted that the debate has been secured and to have a chance to participate.
The first thing I would like to say—it should appeal to the Government if nothing else does—is that research has clear economic benefits for our country, and the rate of return on even basic research is thought to be as high as 40 per cent. Even if there were no other reasons, that is why we should fund university research properly.
Secondly, research involves pushing back society's intellectual boundaries—knowledge for its own sake, although the Government are less keen on talking about that in relation to our universities. It seems that the push is to ensure that universities meet the economic needs of the country, but they are also very much about meeting our country's social and cultural needs as well as enabling our young people to get the best out of themselves and to give the most of themselves to society, thus benefiting us all. If Britain is to have researchers not just in universities but throughout its economy, they must be trained to do research. That is an important function of university research departments, and everyone who goes into research almost certainly starts by doing a research degree at university.
Research enables Britain to benefit from research done in other parts of the world. Only some 5 per cent. of research is done in this country, but researchers who work at the leading edge of their particular subject are best placed to use research done elsewhere. People who are not working at the leading edge of their subject may not even understand it. One has only to think of the number of people who do not use high-tech equipment simply because they do not understand how it works. The more that people in this country are at the leading edge of research, the more likely that Britain can make good use of research done overseas. Therefore, research is worth while. It is beneficial in purely financial terms to this country.
We must encourage more of our most talented people into academia, and, obviously, allowing them to do research at universities is one way to do that. Academically talented students are deterred from staying on in academia to study for PhDs, however, and there is a recruitment and retention crisis in our universities. In the past two decades, staff-to-student ratios in UK universities changed from 1:9 in the early 1980s to 1:18 at the turn of the century. Forty per cent. of those in the profession are over 50. The Association of University Teachers says that an extra 17,000 university teachers are needed to replace those who are due to retire by 2010. An important aspect is that there are particular problems in core subjects such as science, maths and engineering, which are precisely the areas in which we have problems getting enough teachers in our schools.
According to an AUT survey released this month, 27 per cent. of academics—the equivalent of more than 40,000 staff—are seriously considering leaving the profession, mainly because of the growing work load and, of course, poor pay. According to the same survey, only 36 per cent. of academics said that they would

215WH
recommend work in higher education to an undergraduate. If an undergraduate does not get a recommendation from someone who already works in the profession, they are unlikely to become involved themselves.
Let me say more about pay, which is, clearly, a key factor. During the past 20 years, academic pay has increased in real terms by only 5 per cent. while average pay in the community has increased by some 45 per cent. Despite the 2002 pay agreement, salaries are still well below those of counterparts in other sectors. The Liberal Democrats believe that it is essential to pay academic salaries that will attract new, high-quality recruits and we are committed to freeing up the resources needed to meet the Bett salary recommendations, updated from 1999 levels to equivalent 2003 levels. We would do that now, and we have pointed out in our alternative Budget precisely how it could be done.
Top-up fees, which are yet another tax on students, will not bring in the funds needed to pay university research staff properly until 2006 at the earliest. Universities need money now to fund the pay increases that researchers and academics must have if they are to be encouraged to enter and stay in universities.
It is also important to mention student debt, which has been much discussed recently inside and outside the House. It is noteworthy that 81 per cent. of academics oppose the introduction of top-up fees, according to the AUT survey. If someone wants to become an academic, they must have a PhD. That means relying on the relatively low graduate stipend for several years, probably until the age of 26 or 27, and putting off even further the repayment of graduate debts. Academic salaries are pitifully low and the effective 9 per cent. marginal tax rate is very difficult for people to cope with.
The 2001 British Academy report on graduate studies in the humanities and social sciences found that the UK is failing to attract sufficient of the best British students to take up PhDs in the arts, humanities and social sciences. An increasing proportion of postgraduates are recruited from other EU countries and overseas. I was told recently that not a single British student is studying for an economics PhD in this country—they all come from overseas. The same report concluded that debt—that accumulated from undergraduate study and prospective debt from postgraduate study—is a major deterrent to potential PhD students.
A good point that has already been made is that universities have also been criticised for excessive use of short-term contracts and denial of employment rights to research staff. Almost 50 per cent. of university employees are on short-term contracts and numbers have increased rapidly since the early 1980s. Most are employed on post-doctoral research in science departments where, as with junior doctors, they are expected to do all the hack work, while their seniors claim the credit and write up the results.
Researchers are generally paid less than tenured lecturers, although they are linked to university scales, and employed for only limited periods of perhaps six months to two years. That makes it difficult to obtain a mortgage, for example, as their employment prospects are variable and uncertain. Many universities refuse to employ people on a second contract to avoid liability for redundancy payments.
216WH
Talented researchers have often gone on to become tenured lecturers, but there are often 10 applications for every post and it is difficult for them to move on in that way. Sadly, salaries are not high enough to attract some of the best and most highly qualified candidates, who might otherwise opt for academia.
Pay, work load, lack of adequate career structure and debt are fuelling a damaging brain drain of academic talent to overseas, and creating incentives for people to opt for a career in the private sector and to opt out of a career in our universities.
The third reason why research is important is the link with research teaching. Traditionally, university teaching has been distinguished from further education and other post-19 teaching by the fact that academics in those institutions have simultaneously undertaken research. That may not be so true now that more and more research takes place in further education institutions, but there is still a lot of truth in it.
Teaching benefits from people working on research for a number of reasons—it keeps them up to date, they must actively follow the literature to contribute in that area and they tend to be more able to talk about their research and how it links up with their studies—but the White Paper makes the extraordinary statement that
"the connection between an institution's research activities and its teaching is indirect".
Very few people working in universities would agree with that. The vice-chancellors, as represented by Universities UK, and university staff are at one in disagreeing with the Government. According to the AUT survey, 86 per cent. of academics believe that the research-teaching link should be retained. Universities UK says that it cannot understand the White Paper's assertion. It says:
"Teaching at undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research degree level relies fundamentally on research work, and the best teachers are attracted to universities by research opportunities."
Liberal Democrats believe that, far from being indirect, the research-teaching link is integral to what universities do. Students benefit immensely from teaching grounded in a research environment because that facilitates a more active engagement with the subject at the very frontiers of the discipline and because of the thinking and research skills that are imparted. Academics also benefit because teaching allows them to test their ideas and arguments.
In contrast, the Government's proposals imply a two-tier higher education system with elite research institutions—Oxford among them, no doubt—at one end of the scale and others relegated to being teaching-only institutions. In the latter case, high-quality staff will be lost as they seek, understandably, to work in a research university.
I turn to the Government's proposal to concentrate research funding. The White Paper states:
"The Government intends to improve the position of research further by focusing resources more effectively on the best research performers",
arguing that "larger, more concentrated units" are justified on the ground of "economies of scale". It continues:
"We will ask HEFCE … to identify the very best of the 5* departments which have a critical mass of researchers—a '6*'—and will provide additional resources to give them an uplift in

217WH
funding over the next three years. At subject, as well as at institutional level it is critical that we focus our resources on the strongest, who bring us the best returns."
In fact, research funding is already being concentrated in that way and the trend is to move even further in that direction, which will benefit the top 10 research universities. There is a real risk not only of a two-tier university system but of damaging the institutional diversity that is a strength of our higher education system.
In the briefing circulated to hon. Members for this debate, Universities UK notes:
"There is a risk that the net effect of the research proposals in the White Paper could be a more rigid hierarchy of institutions with only a relatively small number having access to significant research funds. There could be a substantial reduction in the capacity and potential of UK research if departments graded 3 or 4 are no longer funded, or are funded at a, reduced level."
That is a particular kick in the teeth for those departments that have worked sc hard to raise their rating in the research assessment exercise. Science, engineering and maths research could be at particular risk—precisely those subjects in which we face important shortages.
Plans to concentrate research in only a few research universities are deeply flawed. When economies of scale in scientific research have been claimed, it has been proved that they do not exist. There is no evidence to support such a contention, except in rare cases involving very large pieces of equipment such as telescopes or synchrotrons. What is required to stimulate innovative and productive research is work in the specific sub-field in which the researcher specialises within a group of five or six people with whom to test ideas.
Evidence of economies of scale is not only unconvincing but there are obvious dangers in shutting out the unorthodox and restricting research in ways that damage British universities' international reputation for research excellence and innovation. That will also damage our economy.
The key issue is concentrating research funding in the hands of only a few research-intensive universities and the danger is that such an approach might stifle diversity and creativity. Britain's dual system of funding research has rightly been called the jewel in its research crown, precisely because it has always allowed for the serendipity from which so many of our most creative scientific breakthroughs have emerged. The Government would be foolish to throw that away, but their policy pronouncements have raised a real worry that that is what they intend.
3.3 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on having the good fortune to secure this debate and on the characteristically modest but thoughtful way in which he introduced it. He made some valuable points.
At the same time, I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman for his ill fortune in having been given this moment for his debate. I sense that the mood of the majority of the country, as well as hon. Members, will be focused on the main Chamber rather than here. However, I can offer some comfort: Winston Churchill's memoirs of the second world war record that the great
218WH
man found time in the middle of conducting global warfare to attend, by minutes to his colleagues, to such matters as the state of the Admiralty flag and the future of British bloodstock.
The latter of Churchill's concerns is analogous to the serious matter that we are considering—a jewel in the British crown which we are all anxious to preserve. That has been the theme of all of the speeches so far and, to anticipate the Minister, of her speech as well. We are all on the side of British research, and broadly on the side of British universities, but although we are distributing compliments, it is fair to say that we recognise the tensions. The first one is that, almost inevitably, there will be elements of a zero-sum game between the various interests involved. The access universities will be at one end of the range, and the Russell group at the other, and they will all be finding ways to devise or modify existing formulae or practices to secure greater advantage. I heard elements relating to that in the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).
I assure the hon. Gentleman, by way of declaring an interest, that although I began life as an Oxford classicist, I spent time on a science research council. I am not sure what qualifications I had for the post, but it was educative—perhaps I was chosen because I had run a small science research charity. One of the most interesting developments that we produced, which eventually became intellectual property, was due to somebody, whom we were sponsoring, in the department of electronics and electrical engineering at Sheffield university working in conjunction with a colleague who was a zoologist. That led to some interesting ideas on marine biofouling. If two departments are not in the same place, or they are not talking to each other, such opportunities will be lost. [Interruption.] I am pleased to hear the Minister acknowledging that that is a great strength of the university system.
I should like to talk about the huge diversity of research funding. The hon. Member for Norwich, North was right to remind us of the European element, but, in domestic funding, different streams are coming from the HEFCE research selectivity exercise and from research councils, charities, non-governmental organisations and others; finally, there is contract, commercial research. All of those are to be welcomed and drawn on, and we must recognise that complexity. That range of streams must continue; no one stream should be dominant or calling all the shots.
An important point about the university portfolio which has been acknowledged—I hope that the Minister will acknowledge it too—is that universities are not there to conduct one-shot exercises of a highly specialist nature, and it would be contrary to the definition of a university for them to do so. I feel strongly that in almost all cases there should be some coincidence between teaching and research. Being invited as a first term undergraduate to a seminar given by the doyen of Oxford classicists—a Nazi refugee who had arrived in London unable to speak English and was therefore required to lecture in Latin in his first year—was a remarkable cultural experience. The man was also very good at his job. Whatever institution one is in, there must be opportunities for such exposure to people of excellence.

219WH
I shall also mention my local university college in Northampton. I do not grade it below Oxford—they are equal in my affections. It is doing an excellent job as a regional university college, and because of the local boot and shoe trade, it has the National Leathersellers Centre—a world centre of reference for expertise in that industry. We should not have the kind of tidy-mindedness that compartmentalises universities into those that solely teach and those that solely conduct research. We must recognise strengths. I hope that Ministers will reflect on some of those points when they consider their detailed plans on collaboration. The matter is much more complicated than a superficial reading of the White Paper suggests.
I want to highlight three points of particular concern relating to the White Paper which the Minister may like to consider. The first relates to the degree of selectivity. The Universities UK briefing asserts that under the new system that the Government are devising, which will have a level 6*, we will have a more selective system than that applicable in any other country in the world. That was also explicit in the remarks made this afternoon. The Minister must deny that, and explain why it is not the case, or justify it because I do not believe that the Government have done either of those things. The matter needs to be thought about.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to consultation and to people being caught without a chair when the music stops—if I can use such a phrase in relation to a research selectivity exercise. As the exercise has been set up on a quinquennial basis, it is unfortunate that it should be altered in the middle of that period. The fact that it is being altered, apparently without consultation, is greatly exercising the universities. The Minister must explain the degree of consultation and understanding involved. No one should necessarily mind having to adjust to a new regime for the next period, but to find that a legitimate expectation, as lawyers would call it, is being frustrated in the middle of the process is unfortunate. I leave that point with the Minister.
I come now to the practical consequences of such action. One matter to which the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) referred, and about which I am concerned, is the present situation of teaching staff and the impact of changes. The withdrawal of money from an institution, especially when that money is not lavish, will have an impact, with likely consequences for teaching staff and research groups. In the White Paper, the Minister forgot about the support staff and the technicians—important people who make research possible in our universities. The matter needs to be treated with great sensitivity because an intellectual resource is likely to be thrown away. I have strong sympathy with those who want to make changes, but I am not in favour of changes made hastily, especially in the overly tidy-minded, compartmentalised way of Ministers.
The White Paper is almost silent on the Bologna process. The Minister was kind enough to give me a response this week by way of written answer, but the inference among European rectors and in the European university process is that universities are about teaching and research. An institution that was, for example, simply teaching would not prima facie qualify as a Bologna-acceptable university. I think that the Government must pause on that point, too.
220WH
Issues about how research should be configured have been implicit in the debate. However, a point that has not been made clearly concerns knowledge transfer. I have kicked it around a bit, but I am still not clear where knowledge transfer fits in between teaching and research. There is an important economic point to be made about knowledge transfer, and I do not argue against that, but it is not entirely clear how it is to be delivered and what is its relationship with teaching and research. To put it another way, if all the money from research will go to institutions with a 6* rating, will not there be a gap in fun ding for institutions achieving the lower ends of knowledge transfer? I happen to think that both research and knowledge transfer are extremely important.
Universities are, and should be, protean organisations, reaching out in all directions, and receiving, bringing together, disseminating and transmitting excellence of all sorts. Naturally, there will have to be concentration on funding. There have to be formulae—we have always understood that—but the balancing of funding must be done sensibly.
When I was the Minister responsible for higher education nearly a decade ago, we did our best to offer development funds for research in the new universities. We tried not to destabilise the existing system, and, in general, we tried to make haste slowly. There are big research teams, which need a lot of kit and high capital investment. I do not resile from that, and it may be sensible to concentrate on those cases. However, there are institutions and smaller-scale research teams that are doing excellent work, and in the humanities there will still be lonely scholars in garrets who are thinking important thoughts about philosophy, history or whatever, perhaps without a lot of support.
I conclude by paying the Minister a compliment. I am delighted that the long process of establishing an Arts and Humanities Research Council has reached fruition. Such processes always take a long time. This one started about 10 years ago, but we have got there. That is welcome, and it may act as a counterbalance. However, we should also celebrate the university sector in all its diversity, and I think that we have done that. We should recognise that things cannot be put into narrow boxes or compartments and, above all, that the sector needs a system that is broad-minded and sensitive enough to cater for excellence wherever we find it.
3.16 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing the debate. It is regrettable that it should be taking place on a day when there is a momentous debate in the Chamber. I know from conversations that I had last night that several hon. Members would have contributed here today if they had not wanted to participate in the main debate. I hope that we will discuss this subject again because I agree with hon. Members that it is a vital part of our White Paper and our higher education policy, and that it has not so far received adequate attention.
All hon. Members present agree on the importance of research. I share the view of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that we are all on the side of

221WH
British research. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford that it is the key driver of economic growth and productivity, as do the Secretary of State and everybody in the economics Departments—the Chancellor and people in the Department of Trade and Industry. We have given it such prominence in our White Paper because it is so important, and that is why it was also given prominence in the funding plans of the Chancellor and the Government.
When we talk about research, we often talk about science, but we should never forget the important research that takes place in the arts and humanities, which is why I am delighted that we will be able to establish a council in that field. Some of that work creates economic growth and productivity; the cultural industries a re a good example of that. Other kinds of work—such as community development research—help to strengthen community cohesion, which is an important function of research. However, some research work simply enriches our lives, and we should never forget that one purpose of much of the activity that takes place in our universities is to foster great enrichment in the life of every individual in our society.
Global competitiveness means that there is a growing concentration of research resources throughout the world. In the United States of America, only 200 of the 1,600 higher education institutions have the power to award postgraduate degrees, so there is a history of concentration and differentiation in the USA that is not a part of our education system.
I recently returned from a visit to China. The Chinese Government are focusing massive research investment—much more than we are capable of investing, simply because of the size of China's population and economy—on the country's most research-intensive universities. We should look forward to the capacity that we will have in five or 10 years to compete with China, particularly in science research. If we do not focus our research, much less of it will take place in this country, and we will not be able to have the growth and productivity that comes from research.
Jonathan Shaw: Does China have the widespread research base that this country has" Where is it starting from?
Margaret Hodge: It is true that China is starting from a lower base, but it is an enormous country with a huge population, and it is increasing its higher education budget by 20 per cent. per annum over the five-year spending period. If one focuses such resources on a very few institutions—as China is doing—one can quickly build up enormous capacity. I saw new laboratories in China's leading institutions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) would be deeply envious of the equipment available there. Because of China's size, it can skip a generation and can quickly overtake us on research.
Some hon. Members mentioned a tension between our agenda for widening participation and our research agenda. I do not agree that there is a tension. First, we want to achieve excellent teaching for all in all our universities. I hope that that ambition wins through in
222WH
the White Paper. Excellent teaching will provide a lot of opportunity. Secondly, we want fair access to our most prestigious universities. Those two policies combined mean that there is no conflict or contradiction between our widening participation agenda and our research agenda.
I think that we all agree that the UK's research record is unrivalled. We have had many Nobel prize-winners because of our traditional and historic investment in research. We have only 1 per cent. of the world's population, but we produce 8 per cent. of scientific publications. Most interestingly, in 15 of the 20 main fields of scientific research, America comes top and we come second. We are proud of that record, and we are determined to maintain and build on it. That is why, in this comprehensive spending review, our investment in research capability is the most generous ever. By 2005–06 we will have increased investment and research by 30 per cent. That will help to ensure proper funding for research, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, which the transparency review identified as one that we need to address.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), representing the Liberal Democrats, failed to say how his party, were it ever to be in Government, would tackle his massive agenda. He has not said what would be his party's priorities or how it would fund them. All that I have ever heard from the Liberal Democrats is that they would fund everything by cutting student funding to two years and forcing people to go to local universities. That is not a route that I want to take.
We have always concentrated research funding. In the following examples, I have deliberately taken the 2002–03 figures rather than the 2003–04 figures that came out last week. In 2002–03, Cambridge got nearly £68 million in research funding, but Anglia polytechnic university got £369,996. Oxford got nearly £65 million, while Oxford Brookes got just over £2 million. Imperial college got over £60 million, but London Guildhall university got £200,000. Although I do not agree with Richard Sykes that we will end up with a concentration on just five or six institutions, I think that a limited number of institutions will compete in the global economy. Many more departments will play a role on the world stage.
There are accusations about a golden triangle. I draw to the attention of all hon. Members the important collaboration that took place last week: the merger of Manchester and UMIST. That will, I hope, enable us to start breaking down the concentration of research funding, which I accept exists in the golden triangle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North raised the matter of academic pay, which is critical. If we are to keep our best researchers in the UK, we must pay them well. All the evidence that we had on the average salaries for the top professorial posts in the UK led to the finding that there was a brain drain, and too many of our best researchers were leaving and going elsewhere. If we do not tackle that problem, a threat may emerge from places like India and China, so academic pay requires a concentration of funding in future, or we will be in danger.
On the link between research and teaching, I regret the comments made by the hon. Member for Newbury, who said that universities were being relegated to teaching-only institutions. At the heart of the White Paper is our effort to raise the status and importance of

223WH
teaching in our universities. It is as important to us to build the capability among individuals as it is to provide the research base to fuel the economy and enrich our society.
Let us consider the distribution of money last week by HEFCE. I use Greenwich as an example, because it was raised by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford. He was correct in saying that Greenwich lost some £615,000 of its research funding. However, it gained money in its teaching grant. That was done deliberately, so that we can start getting our universities to focus more on what they do best and thereby concentrate our research resources. People often ask me about the evidence for that. In 2000, HEFCE commissioned a report on the interaction between research, teaching and other academic activities; it took evidence from 40 universities and colleges and concluded
"that not every teacher needs to be engaged in 'research' as a narrowly defined activity but might be expected to engage in scholarship to inform their work as teachers."
I have often said, in the Chamber and here, that the last RAE determined the distribution of quality through a peer review exercise. It was never supposed, nor intended, that it should determine a distribution of resources. It was always a relative quality exercise, never a resource-distribution exercise. I am delighted that Sir Gareth Roberts is engaged in reviewing the RAE—various hon. Members have talked about the way in which he is doing that. Perhaps the academic community will feel more comfortable with the outcome of that peer review.
I accept that change is difficult. It is difficult for us to achieve the greater focus on mission that lies behind the White Paper. I accept that, a year after the last RAE, some institutions have found change especially difficult. However, to put it bluntly, we could not have afforded to wait until 2008—the time of the next RAE—to start instituting some of the changes that we wanted.
People talk about a greater concentration of research funding. Let me tell hon. Members what happened. Between 2002–03 and 2003–04 there was a 1 per cent. increase in the proportion of money that went to the top 25 universities. That is not a massive shift, but it is important and it moves in a direction that we believe will best conserve the best research in the UK. Much of the stress in the White Paper is on concentrating and building collaboration between universities and between departments in universities. That is why we talk about collaboration and consortia; such things reward talented researchers and offer better funding for postgraduate research places. All that is intended to build capacity and ensure fluidity in the system so that we can grow good research.
I say quickly to the hon. Member for Daventry that I accept that the money that comes under knowledge transfer will have to be focused primarily on the non-research intensive universities, to enable some redistribution in that direction.
The White Paper provides the basis for ensuring that we can fund the best research properly—that is critical to the nation's economic growth and prosperity—and fund emerging research and capability in certain institutions, to ensure that we grow new research in our universities.

Wapping Station
3.30 pm
Ms Oona King: I am very pleased to have t ie opportunity to draw to the Government's attention the future of Wapping station. It is incredibly important for my constituents and for me, and I am particularly grateful that several of my constituents have made the journey to Westminster today. Obviously, that journey would be much more difficult for many of them if they did not have a station in Wapping. We are desperately hoping to avoid any threat to it.
I should like to mention a tiny bit of history. Anyone who has any association with Wapping is proud of its history. I do not know whether people are aware that Wapping has a long history associated with forward-thinking transport endeavours. What do I mean by that? Sir Walter Raleigh's ship was equipped in Wapping before he sailed from Limehouse to Guyana in the 16th century. Young James Cook lived in Wapping and Captain Bligh of the Bounty lived there for many years. I say that merely to point out that Wapping's residents have long travelled far and wide from its shores, in many directions. We should not wish, at this point in our history, to see any difficulties arise in access to transport. I shall return to the problem of access to transport in a moment, because we must consider issues relating to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
I should like to thank the many constituents who have contacted me and, in particular, the Wapping pensioners group, led by the highly esteemed Sybil Yates. I am slightly worried to see that she has come here notwithstanding a rather nasty altercation with a lorry. We wish her well, but that is all the more reason—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I appreciate what the hon. Lady is doing, but strangers do not exist here. This is part of the Chamber, so they should not be mentioned.
Ms King: I did not realise that strangers do not exist, but my point relates very directly to the future of Wapping station. We are concerned that more and more constituents could have rather unpleasant altercations with cars and other vehicles if they do not have access to their station in Wapping. I hope that you will forgive me if I make that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady misunderstood me. It is perfectly in order for her to make that point, and she was in order making her point earlier, but mentioning people who might be in the environs, but who are strangers, is out of order.
Ms King: Right. Thank you for your direction on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should mention that many so-called strangers are with me all the time in my mind because they just do not stop contacting me on this issue. That is why I am so grateful for the opportunity to raise the future of Wapping station.
I shall outline some of the more near-term history that has led us to the situation that we are in at the moment. In November 2002, I started to receive letters from constituents expressing concern about rumours that

225WH
Wapping station might be closing. They were angry and frustrated at the lack of information. I then contacted the Strategic Rail Authority and London Underground. The SRA said:
"We need to ensure that stations on the extended East London line comply with modern safety standards given the significantly increased number of passengers expected to be using the line. Wapping presents particular challenges in ensuring safety compliance. No final decisions have been made. We need to look at the options including closure."
There seemed to be a reluctance to talk more specifically about the case, perhaps due to jeopardising the valid and important business case for the East London line extension. I shall return to that.
I then wrote to the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and received a similar response. On 14 December, more than 300 local residents turned up at a public meeting accompanied by local councillors Denise Jones, Richard Brooks, Shafiqul Hague and Michael Keith. Also present was the other Member of Parliament for Tower Hamlets, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), and the GLA Member, John Biggs, who deserves credit for presenting a petition to the Mayor signed by 880 people. In January, I tabled a parliamentary question asking about the station's future and at the beginning of this month I had a constructive meeting with Ian Brown, on behalf of Transport for London, who is the managing director of London Rail.
Before turning to the technicalities we discussed, I want to put the situation in human terms. Wapping tube is a vital lifeline for residents who are hemmed in by the river on one side and an extremely busy road—the Highway—on the other. If the tube station closes, Wapping will be isolated, as it was during the 1990s when the tube was closed for repairs. The situation is not acceptable because there is no reliable alternative public transport. The 100 and D3 buses are, sadly, unreliable. The wall of traffic that can build up on the Highway often blocks them and it is a further 20-minute walk to Tower Hill or Shadwell.
I received many letters previously—before the current issue arose—from constituents who were concerned about the service provided by the 100 bus route. London Transport acknowledged the less-than-adequate service and cited problems with driver recruitment. I am concerned about that, but I am more concerned about my constituents having access to the station they need. I must also draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the fact that there are two primary schools in the area and that recreational facilities in Shadwell basin attract children. We need a safe, clean way to get in and out of Wapping.
I hope that Members recognise that Wapping tube is a vital link to south London and that, without it, it takes more than an hour to get there. We must also consider the congestion charge. Wapping is on the edge of the zone and the tube is a vital link to east London, the City and the west end, without resorting to a car or a taxi. Has the SRA carried out surveys to discover how many people use the station? I know the answer to that question, but I would like the SRA to bear it in mind when doing such surveys that there have been problems with the reliability of the service provided at Wapping
226WH
station, which have led to some people not using it when they might otherwise have done so if they thought that they could rely on it. Local people need to know the evidence and the results of the feasibility studies carried out by the SRA and how decisions are made on the future of Wapping tube. They need to know that those decisions are transparent.
Turning to the technicalities, there are three main problems at Wapping: gradients, curvature and station platform width. TFL estimates that bringing Wapping up to the required safety standard could cost £100 million. Everyone who lives in Wapping, as well as myself, is astonished by that figure. Having had a detailed meeting with TFL, I realise why it has arrived at that figure, and I shall briefly go into the matter.
I will quote from the Wapping station engineering summary. It states that Wapping underground station is sited at the northern end of the Thames tunnel designed by Sir Marc Brunel. Upon completion, the Thames tunnel became the first underwater tunnel in the world. The tunnel is now scheduled as a grade 2 listed structure. The station is substantially as it was when originally constructed in 1869, so it includes very narrow steps, narrow stairs down to platform level and a narrow and curved platform with no secondary means of escape during evacuation of the station.
Obviously, I recognise that we have to be concerned about safety. The station is adjacent to the River Thames and consequently has a very high water table. It operates with a significant volume of water ingress and continual pumping. What has the SRA done? It has come up with an engineering and safety feasibility study. The options include relocating the station or reconstructing it on the existing site. The most advantageous option is to redevelop the existing site with a new ticketing hall and station entrance. The proposed new station development will not be a fully compliant facility in terms of the network rail standard or mobility-impaired passenger access. However, it would—this is significant—be a great improvement on the existing station.
On the technical complexities to which I referred and the high water table, the SRA has a computer model of the soil structure and engineering design of Wapping station, which it has developed to analyse the impact of works on adjacent buildings and the operation of the underground railway. The results show that the ground would lift upwards by as much as 220 mm. I know that that is rather technical, but the point is that we must understand the technicalities if we are going to come up with a solution. The construction risks include flooding, movement, cracking and movement in adjacent buildings, the possible collapse of the existing railway tunnel because of ground movement or arch collapse and a prolonged construction duration, which would close the site for one year.
The estimated cost, which I mentioned, relates to an initial adjusted budget estimate of £54 million. Possible measures needed to prevent the lifting of the ground would cost £13 million. The risk, which the Treasury insists, probably rightly, is built into any project in accordance with the Green Book, is £33 million, which brings us to the £100 million total. What are the possible ways of avoiding that spend? The most obvious, although not the most satisfactory, is derogation from the Disability Discrimination Act and in respect of the

227WH
Health and Safety Executive. In some respects, that has already happened. Wapping station has a Health and Safety Executive derogation and its history is relevant, which is why I have mentioned it.
After all, something built in the 1860s will never comply with our 21st-century standards. We recognise that, but we are concerned that we might move backwards. There could be regression rather than progress, because people who had access to transport would no longer have access to it.
One of my constituents, Mike Smith, has battled with access problems at the station because he is a wheelchair user. I know that Mike would never argue that if he cannot have access to Wapping station then neither should any of his neighbours. I would argue that provision must be made to keep Wapping station open and to ensure that Mike and other wheelchair users have access, even if it is not the full and unfettered access that they should be given under the law.
Will the Minister let me know whether derogation can be looked at as a possible solution? Will he also write to me outlining how we might improve the current access for wheelchair users?
Now I will move on to the general issues relating to the East London line extensions. I appreciate that the SRA and TfL have been working extremely hard on options to keep Wapping station open, and no final decisions have yet been taken. They are considering a range of options, but it is crucial that Wapping station has a secure future.
It is also crucial that the consideration of options for Wapping is seen as a separate exercise from the planning for the East London line extension. Nothing should detract from that extension because it will bring major transport and regeneration benefits to some of the most deprived areas of London. In Tower Hamlets, for example, it is estimated that the scheme would boost approximately £1 billion of regeneration initiatives. For London as a whole, the figure is £10 billion. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can also tell us when we might expect a decision on the business case, which would allow construction for that vital scheme to proceed.
Finally, can the Minister confirm that TfL intends to keep Wapping station open, if it can? Will it actively work to deliver that outcome? No other outcome is acceptable to me, or my constituents in Wapping. We know that there are problems, and we know that it is difficult, but we also know that an answer must be found.
3.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing the debate and on presenting her case so forcefully, as usual, on behalf of her constituents. She has had much correspondence with the Department, and has taken a great interest in this subject. I congratulate her on taking this issue up so assiduously. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) has also taken a great interest in this matter.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for her short but interesting history lesson about Wapping. I thought that the great
228WH
voyages of the world only started in Plymouth, but I can assure her that it is difficult for people in my constituency to come here for a day out. I will be seeing some of them in a few minutes, after the debate.
I recognise that there has been some speculation about closure, and I would like to make it clear from the outset that no final view has been taken by anyone regarding the closure of Wapping station. Should there be such a proposal, there would be a statutory process to follow, and we cannot anticipate what might happen in that process. Having said that—and I have to be candid—the business case for the East London line extension project currently before Ministers is predicated on the closure of the station, partly for the reasons that my hon. Friend explained. That assumption is based on safety considerations and engineering feasibility. I should emphasise that the business case for the project is based on a prudent assumption. It is not a determinant of future decisions, nor is it cast in stone.
As I have intimated, the closure of a railway station is not done lightly, or without good reason. A thorough statutory closure process must be undertaken, which gives all the interested parties, especially those most affected—such as m y hon. Friend's constituents—the chance to voice their opinions. Given the importance of the project, the No. l priority has to be to ensure that it can be delivered. The project would underpin regeneration of some of the most deprived parts of the capital by improving links between north and south-east London, and between the national rail network and the London underground network.
The extended line would pass through 25 per cent. of the most deprived areas of London. It would provide improved travel choice for around 330,000 people. The project would provide a range of benefits for Londoners, including additional network capacity to accommodate increasing demand, and the improvement of public transport accessibility to areas such as Hackney, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark and the docklands, which are currently poorly served. It would facilitate a future orbital rail service between north and south London, providing congestion relief to central London rail terminals and on major roads into central London, particularly the A10, the A23 and the A205. There would also be better integration with other modes of transport, including buses and light rail.
Critically, the project would bring frequent metro-style rail services to parts of east London that have been without any rail links, which would act as a driving force for regeneration in some of the most deprived boroughs in the United Kingdom. I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to see such regeneration—as do we all. Future travel on an extended East London line is forecast to increase by more than 200 per cent. in passenger journeys and by an even greater level in passenger kilometres. It is also estimated that some 2 million car trips per annum would be taken off the road, with people switching to rail.
Ms King: We are talking about an increase in passenger numbers. Currently, Wapping has 10 trains per hour. If it stays open and the East London line extension goes ahead, that will increase to 16 trains per hour. I would welcome that, but does the Minister

229WH
accept that we cannot ask people to divert their transport patterns if there is nothing for them to divert to?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes. I hope to come on to that point. In order for the extension to take place, the stations along the line will, of course, have to meet safety standards, and that is the problem with Wapping. The safety requirements are likely to be significant. They will include the provision of greater space for passengers on platforms and at entrances and exits, the upgrading of the secondary access and the creation of proper access for visually impaired and disabled passengers, older people and those with small children.
My hon. Friend asked about a derogation with regard to people with disabilities. That is always done with reluctance, and it would be up to the Health and Safety Executive to make a recommendation on that point. It is possible, but there are other difficulties beyond that. Wapping station may have to be proposed for closure because of the challenges it presents in complying with safety and accessibility standards, given its age and present configuration, and the major impact that those challenges would have on the viability of the whole project. For example, if the necessary modifications extended beyond the current footprint of the station, a new transport and works order would be required, which would take several years to conclude, and that in turn would make the project extremely high risk.
There are technical constraints, too. My hon. Friend has a detailed knowledge of the station. As she said, it is right by the riverside to the south and hemmed in by converted warehouses on the other quarters. The station's close proximity to the adjacent buildings and the listed Thames tunnel limit the scope for extensive modifications. Similarly, the proximity to the Thames and the consequent high water table in the area present extremely complex engineering difficulties that, I am afraid, may not be resolvable. Certainly, I am advised that no viable engineering solution has yet been identified. Currently, the station operates with a significant volume of water ingress and requires continual pumping. Any major engineering work undertaken could introduce the risk of flooding not only to the East London line but to other nearby parts of the underground system.
I should remind the House that, as my hon. Friend said, Wapping station is situated on the oldest tunnel under the Thames, which was started by Marc Brunel in the first half of the 19th century, with the station itself opening in 1869. The tunnel was originally constructed for horse-drawn vehicles. Of course, various alterations have been made to the station since that time, but even today it is substantially as it was when it was originally constructed.
The platforms are narrow and can be accessed only by negotiating a narrow flight of stairs after leaving the lifts, and there is no secondary means of escape during an evacuation of the station. The station operates under a derogation from the Heath and Safety Executive, and were it to be built now, it would not meet current standards. The station was never intended to cope with the number of passengers who are expected to pass through it when the extension project is completed, and upgrading the line raises serious safety issues.
230WH
My hon. Friend will agree that safety must be paramount in all our considerations. London Underground counts some 2,660 journeys a day starting or ending at Wapping, with trains every 10 minutes or so.
Ms King: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for returning to this point. My constituents find it difficult to understand why a service that they are able to use now should be closed in the future. Why cannot the standard of service remain the same as it is, even though it is not up to 21st century standards, rather than become worse?
Mr. Jamieson: The simple answer is that the Health and Safety Executive will want the whole of the new service to meet new standards of safety. One must also consider the length of the trains. At present, the length of the trains that can pull in at the station is limited. Some of the trains that are expected to run on the line may be considerably longer than can be accommodated at the station. Therefore, following the planned upgrades, stations on the former East London line, which will be served by dual voltage overground trains at a much higher density, will be designed to accommodate eight-car trains. Although some stations can be altered, the engineering difficulties are very great at Wapping station, as I indicated to my hon. Friend. Quite simply, passengers on a full high-density train would not be able safely to get in and out of Wapping station as it is configured at present. That is the difficulty that we are facing.
There may be a way forward for my hon. Friend and her constituents. The Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London are discussing the problems with engineering specialists and health and safety authorities to ascertain whether a solution can be proposed that takes full account of the risk to passengers, surrounding property owners and users of the national rail network. It is important to note that any decision must fully address the impact on the current station structure and take into consideration its heritage, adjacent structures and physical obstacles and risks, such as the Thames, the community that it serves directly and indirectly through the railway, the project itself, and linked infrastructure and services, such as the Jubilee line. I assure my hon. Friend and her constituents that discussions and deliberations are ongoing and that no conclusions have been reached.
Ms King: On the Minister's point about train length, I understand that the service will operate with a four-car service at first. Therefore, Wapping station would not present a problem. Will he write to me on that point?
Mr. Jamieson: I shall deal with the matter in correspondence with my hon. Friend, because we will not be able to cover all the points in the debate.
If no satisfactory solution can be found, the operators will have to consider closing the station. However, that will be the very last resort, after all other options have been carefully considered. I believe that my hon. Friend's powerful points in the debate today will also be taken into account. A station closure is subject to a lengthy, detailed and public statutory process. I assure her that, if initiated, the closure process will be public and transparent, and her constituents will have a full role in the discussions.

231WH
Before any closure can take place, the station operator—in this case, London Underground Limited—must submit an application for closure to the London Transport Users Committee, which is a statutory body made up of independent representatives of the travelling public. The station operator must advertise by means of notices displayed in the relevant station and in the local press that an application to close the station has been submitted. The application must include a statement of reasonable closure, which must show exactly why the closure has been proposed.
I understand why my hon. Friend and her constituents are worried. I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to discuss the matter further. If I can pick up other points in correspondence, I shall be happy to do so.

Colin Skellett
3.59 pm
Mr. Don Foster: Notwithstanding the momentous debate taking place elsewhere in the House, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the handling by the City of London police of the case of Colin Skellett.
Colin Skellett is a constituent of mine, and at the beginning of the saga was the non-executive chairman of Jarvis plc and chairman and chief executive of Wessex Water, whose headquarters are also in my constituency. On 22 August last year, Mr. Skellett was arrested and accused of fraudulently accepting a bribe of £1 million to influence the sale of Wessex Water to a Malaysian company. I want to state at the outset that neither I nor Mr. Skellett have any criticism to make of the principle of fraud investigations when there is sufficient evidence to justify them. I am 'worried about the insufficiency of initial evidence, the way in which the investigation was conducted and the impact that it has had on my constituent, his family, Wessex Water, Jarvis plc and the Malaysian company.
I shall describe the background to the case. Wessex Water was owned by Azurix, a company partly owned by Enron. Following the Enron scandal, Azurix, with the help of Schroder Salomon Smith Barney—SSSB—sought to sell Wessex Water. All decisions on the sale were made by Michael Anderson of Azurix, with advice from SSSB, and had to be approved by the Enron creditors committee. In January 2002, four final bidders were selected, including the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Malaysian company, YTL Power, which was part of the YTL Corporation.
Colin Skellett and the Wessex Water team preferred the RBS bid, but on 24 March last year, they were told by Michael Anderscn that an agreement had been signed with YTL. Following that announcement, Colin Skellett said that, while he would oversee the transition to the new owners, he was not minded to stay with Wessex Water in the long term. However, over the following few months, numerous discussions took place and eventually he agreed to a deal whereby he would complete the transition period and then move to a part-time chairmanship role, spending more time to help the development of YTL's wider business interests in Europe and Malaysia. An agreement for that consultancy work, including the payment of £1 million over five years, was drawn up by Slaughter and May and signed on 6 July, nearly three and a half months after the sale of Wessex Water was agreed.
Later in July, Mr. Skellett informed his bank, Barclays of Stoke-on-Trent, where his family had banked for many years, that he would shortly be paying into his account £920,000, which represents £1 million, less Malaysian tax at 8 per cent. All his dealings were open and above board. He was not responsible for the decision to do the deal with YTL. Indeed, he had preferred the RBS bid. His agreement with YTL over the consultancy arrangements came months after the sale decision and the money that he had received was placed not, for example, in some hidden offshore account, but in his family bank account with tax paid and the bank having been notified in advance. Nothing could have prepared him for what was to follow.

233WH
At 6.30 am on Thursday 22 August 2002, seven police officers turned up at Mr. Skellett's house with a search warrant, saying that they believed that he had, in effect, been bribed with £1 million to influence the sale of Wessex Water in favour of YT L. Though handled professionally and courteously, the search was extremely upsetting for Mr. Skellett, his wife Jennifer, who had just been battling with ca ricer, and his 90-year-old father. He asked the police if they had carried out basic checks on the allegations before making the dawn raid. Had they, for example, talked to Enron, Azurix or SSSB, which had handled the deal? Had they seen the sale documents? Had they seen the consultancy arrangements? They admitted at they had not. It seemed that no basic inquiries had been made. As The Guardian put it much later,
"It involved Enron, a Malaysian company and you put two and two together and get five."
Mr. Skellett then learned that seven additional police officers were standing by to search Wessex Water headquarters. Bearing in mind the commercial implications and therefore the need for sensitive handling of such a police visit, with which the police initially concurred, he arranged for his personal assistant to rush to the headquarters to ensure smooth access to his office. An 8 am meeting time with the police was agreed.
What actually happened was that the police arrived at 7.40 am and served the search warrant on the first person they met—the head of information systems. So much for commitments to sensitive and discreet handling. Despite that, the police confirmed to Keith Harris, the director of finance and regulation, who had arrived soon after, that they were conscious of the need to keep a low profile. They were, they claimed, aware of the possible impact on the finances of Wessex Water, Jarvis and YTL, if news of the searches and planned arrest of Colin Skellett got out. It is strange that keeping a low profile meant issuing a press release, a copy of which I have here, and offering an officer for media interview. Journalists have subsequently reported that the police even rang media outlets to tell them about the press release. Interestingly, although the press release did not mention which senior Wessex Water official was arrested, I am told that Colin Skellett's name was given "off the record".
While all that was going on, at 10.30 am Colin Skellett was arrested and taken not to the local Bath police station but, bizarrely, to Staple Hill in Bristol. With nothing to hide, he had no big-shot City lawyer to call on and happily accepted the services of Joan Hughes, the duty solicitor. When people, bcluding Nick Hood, the former Wessex Water chairman, rang Staple Hill to see if Mr. Skellett was there, they were told he was not. He was not allowed to phone his wife until 5 pm. She did not know where he was, and as a result of the police press release she was besieged at home by journalists and film crews. Although interviewed for part of the time, for most of the day until his release, on bail at 11.15 pm, he was held in a police cell. The duty solicitor still believes that he was held for an unnecessarily long time and with inadequate evidence against him.
234WH
Of course, having been driven to Bristol on his arrest, there was no offer of a lift back on his release. The following day, on 23 August 2002, Mr. Skellett was again interviewed and released on bail. Despite the case then dragging on for months until 4 February this year, when it was officially dropped, that was the last direct contact he ever had with City of London police. Indeed, even when over five months later all charges were dropped, he heard it first not from the police but from a friend.
The case dragged on and had many worrying elements, which clocked up enormous and needless expense to taxpayers. A few examples will suffice to illustrate that. Two police officers drove from London to Bath and back to return two mobile phones taken during the initial searches. Mr. Skellett, who is frequently in London, would happily have picked them up. Police officers made the same trip merely to ask the owner of Woods, a Bath restaurant, who had paid for meals long after the YTL deal—at which Mr. Skellett was present. A simple phone call would have elicited the information. Police officers flew to and subsequently stayed longer than necessary in Houston, Texas to interview staff at Azurix. The key player, Michael Anderson, who was coming to the UK anyway, had offered to be interviewed over here.
On several occasions police officers coming to interview Wessex Water staff in Bath came and stayed overnight for interviews that commenced about 10 am and were often over by 2 pm, hardly justifying the cost of overnight stays. For two months the Crown Prosecution Service discussed the possible wording of a statement to be used when the charges were dropped. It then extended the bail period because it was awaiting information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in America which had initially gone missing and was then apparently held up in a snowstorm. It eventually turned out that the FBI had never had it.
While the cost of those and other unnecessary activities to the taxpayer was significant, many others have lost out, too. Jarvis plc, already battered by allegations following the Potters Bar crash, suffered a fall in share prices. As a result, Colin Skellett resigned as non-executive chairman, with inevitable personal financial loss and question marks over his reputation. Senior staff at YTL were, in effect, banned from travelling to the United Kingdom to meet the Wessex Water team, for fear of being arrested. Perhaps worse, the reputation of YTL was badly dented. If evidence were needed, it is worth noting that when charges were dropped YTL's shares rose by 5 per cent.
Wessex Water was for a long time unable to go to the capital markets, and development plans had to be put on hold. Martin Bushnell, who had been involved in negotiating the consultancy deal between Mr. Skellett and YTL, offered to help the police with their inquiries and was promptly arrested, which did nothing for his reputation. The impact on Colin Skellett, his family and friends is incalculable. Fortunately, they—and the board of Wessex Water—remained convinced that he was innocent all along. Indeed, he displays in his office the furry red handcuffs given to him by colleagues, and a teddy bear, like the one I have here, which was given to him by the chairman of YTL.

235WH
That support should not mask the effects on Mr. Skellett, who lost his job at Jarvis plc and had his reputation placed in jeopardy. Dropping the charges does not wipe that away. His arrest led to acres of media coverage; the dropping of the charges led to far less coverage, as the press cuttings files before me show. Hon. Members can see the difference between the two. There is a thick wodge of press cuttings from when he was arrested, and a very small number from when the charges were dropped. That is hardly surprising, as on his arrest there was a police press release and detailed background briefings, but when the charges were dropped, there were no such briefings and no one was available to comment. No wonder, then, that there are 270 press cuttings covering his arrest and just 48 covering the fact that the charges had been dropped.
As Anthony Hilton said in the Evening Standard on 5 February, the story of the dropping of the charges
"was clearly intended to make no more than a couple of downpage paragraphs, which just shows how unfair these things are. Everyone sees the arrest; no-one sees the dropping of the charges."
From the beginning, with the failure to carry out the most basic checks before the dawn raid, the handling of the whole business has been inept. It was prolonged for an inexcusable time—five and a half months. It has wasted huge amounts of taxpayers' money. In the end, there was not even an apology.
Huge questions remain about how such cases are handled, the accountability of the City of London police, and the support offered to those wrongly accused. Colin Skellett is not a vindictive man. He has gone out of his way to make it clear that he accepts the need for fraud investigation, and despite all that has happened to him he has no intention of suing anyone or seeking compensation. Despite all that has happened, Dato Hong Yeoh, the chairman of YTL, has demonstrated his forgiving nature by making generous donations to charities and events in Bath. We are delighted that he is already playing an active role in the city after initially being denied access not only to Bath but to the UK.
Colin Skellett is hugely respected in Bath and plays an enormous voluntary role in the life of the city and the surrounding area. He is also an active supporter of the charity WaterAid. Indeed, even during the dawn raid on her house, Jennifer Skellett, ever hopeful of donations, handed out WaterAid leaflets to the police. I hope that, if nothing else comes of raising this issue today, the City of London police will offer a full apology to Colin Skellett and will make a donation to WaterAid out of their own pockets.
4.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on securing this debate. I fully understand the importance of the matter to him, his constituent and his constituency. These matters are never easy or pleasant for anyone involved. We all understand that.
Before I deal with the substance of the hon. Gentleman's remarks and his account of the case, I should say that the actions and decisions taken by police officers in the course of their duties are, constitutionally,
236WH
the responsibility of the chief officer of the force involved. Ministers do not have the authority to intervene in operational matters, or powers to act as an avenue of appeal against decisions by chief officers. In formulating my response to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I hope that he understands that I will give the police account of how the investigation was carried out. I hope that that will at least provide some background to and clarification of the reasons why matters proceeded as they did.
It is important to understand the background to the sale of Wessex Water. That private company was owned by Azurix, which was a subsidiary company of Enron Corporation. In November 2001, before the announcement of the now well-known problems associated with Enron, Azurix had decided to put Wessex Water up for sale. At that time, Azurix provisionally appointed a merchant bank to facilitate the sale. According to police investigations, Mr. Skellett was not given the task of facilitating the sale; that was to be undertaken by the merchant bank. I think that the hon. Gentleman referred to that. Later that month Enron went into bankruptcy, so the sale was supervised by the Enron creditors committee.
In December 2001, the merchant bank approached some 50 companies in Europe, the United States of America and Asia that it believed might be interested in purchasing Wessex Water. That was the start of a two-stage auction. The first stage was bidding based on limited information, and the second stage was bidding involving a reduced number of serious bidders, who would be provided with briefings and all the appropriate information.
Four companies participated in the second stage, and bids were concluded on 1 March 2002. The leading bidder—the Royal Bank of Scotland—was confident that it would succeed, but the merchant bank, on behalf of Azurix, negotiated a better deal with YTL, the Malaysian company to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Again, according to the police investigations, Mr. Skellett was not involved in that and was in no position to sign a deal with the Royal Bank of Scotland. On 22 March 2002, the leading offer by YTL was accepted.
On 3 July 2002, the City of London police were made aware of a transaction that appeared to be suspicious, which I shall describe. On that basis, the police conducted an investigation into the sale of Wessex Water and, in particular, the part played by Mr. Skellett. I should make it clear at the outset that, as a result of the investigation, the City of London police are now satisfied that Colin Skellett was unable directly to influence the outcome of the sale, but he had been involved in giving management briefings to prospective bidders during the second stage of the process, and he had knowledge of matters that could have been valuable to prospective purchasers.
In April 2002, an offshore company, which I need not name but which the police inform me is a legitimate company, was informed of an impending deposit of £1.2 million into its bank account. In compliance with

237WH
money laundering regulations, the company inquired into the source of the money and was told that it was payment in respect of consultancy and associated services, and that a large percentage of it was to be paid to a United Kingdom resident employed to assist.
On 17 May 2002, the company received unsigned documents from YTL purporting to be an invoice and agreement in respect of the purchase of Wessex Water. On 27 May, the company was advised that £1.2 million was expected in the next two days. Also received was an unsigned agreement, dated 10 January, between Mr. Skellett and the second manߞthat is, before the second stage bids in respect of the sale of Wessex Water.
The company required the documents to be signed, but was told that that would not be possible, as it had been a "handshake deal". The money had been sent by YTL. Police inquiries later established that £1 million was intended to be forwarded to Mr. Skellett, and the remaining £200,000 was for the second man, for his part in facilitating the payment.
On 29 May the company was advised by e-mail—I quote loosely—that
"there was a problem with Skellett receiving the advisory fee via the draft agreement as he is a director of Wessex Water and has to report to them in the accounts … Mr. Skellett did not want his fellow directors or the rest of the company to know that he was to receive the money and that Mr. Skellett was the only person who could get done what needed to be done."
The company was asked to re-draft the agreement to show that the fees were for a fictitious transaction in south-east Asia, but it said that that would not be possible.
Having become suspicious about the true nature of the transaction, the company refused to conduct a transaction without sight of signed and appropriate agreements and said that the money should be returned—it subsequently was. The police were satisfied that all their information came from a legitimate source. On 9 or 10 July 2002, Mr. Skellett contacted his branch of Barclays and informed them that he was about to receive a substantial sum from Malaysia. On 11 July, £919,994 was credited to the account. That was later found to represent £1 million, less 8 per cent. Malaysian tax and bank charges.
Initial inquiries revealed that market commentators were surprised that YTL was the successful bidder. Inquiries were made via the FBI, to establish whether the officers investigating the collapse of Enron could find any legal purpose for the payment of the funds to Mr. Skellett—for example, whether the sum was a retention bonus. They were unable to find any trace of such a payment. In view of all the attendant circumstances, the suspicion remained that the £1 million was associated with criminal activity. Having exhausted covert investigations and in order to further the inquiry, the police found it necessary to embark on overt investigations. In order to reduce the risk of potential evidence being destroyed or concealed, it was decided to mount an arrest and search operation on 22 August. On that date, two officers went to secure potential evidence from the offices of Wessex Water and from Mr. Skellett's home address.
238WH
I shall now deal with the release of information by the police, because that matter greatly concerns the hon. Gentleman. Wessex Water is privately owned, but it is a public utility company. Consequently, it was inevitable that the police investigation would arouse public interest and give rise to intense media speculation. The presence of police officers at both locations would almost certainly lead to information about the arrest coming to the attention of the public and the media. In order to allay consumer fears, and so that the normal operation of the company and its ability to provide water would not be jeopardised, it was important to emphasise publicly that Wessex Water was not directly the focus of a fraud investigation.
On the morning of 22 August, the City of London police released a press notice to the effect that fraud squad officers had arrested a senior official of Wessex Water Ltd., who was suspected of receiving a corrupt payment of almost £1 million in respect of the recent takeover of Wessex Water by a Malaysian company. The offences were being investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. The press notice said that a senior official was being held at a police station of the Avon and Somerset constabulary and that he would be interviewed later that day. It made it clear that the investigation was focused only on the suspected payment to the official, and that there was no suspicion of general mismanagement within Wessex Water.
Later that day, the City of London police issued a second press notice to the effect that a second man, who had no direct connection with Wessex Water, had been arrested after voluntarily attending a City of London police station in connection with the arrest of a senior official from Wessex Water. The second man—I shall continue to refer to him as the second man—was to be interviewed in relation to a questionable payment of almost £1 million allegedly received by the senior official. The police released the information about the arrest with the knowledge and agreement of Wessex Water to prevent any media speculation that could damage the company.
Mr. Foster: I have been studiously trying to avoid intervening, but the Minister has raised many points with which I have a problem. Will he confirm that the police informed him that Wessex Water agreed to the issue of the press release?
Mr. Wills: My information is that the police released the information about the arrest with the knowledge and agreement of Wessex Water. I understand that Wessex Water also issued its own press notice to that effect. I am given to believe that at no time did the police reveal the identity of either man. However, during the afternoon it became apparent that the press had discovered that Mr. Skellett was being interviewed at a police station near Bath. Later, following his release, I understand that Mr. Skellett gave a wide range of TV and press interviews.
Having put on record my understanding of what happened as far as the police were concerned in relation to the release of information, I return to the question of the investigation. At his house, Mr. Skellett produced a copy of a contract dated 3 July 2002, which he claimed

239WH
was a contract between him and YTL for "the provision of services" and that the £1 million represented five years' payments in advance. The contract clearly stated:
"YTL should pay the consultant (Skellett) subject to the receipt of appropriate invoices, a fee of £200,000 per annum. The fee shall be payable calendar monthly within three days after the end of the calendar month to which it relates".
However, attached to the contract was a short letter dated 8 July. It stated:
"As discussed, we are agreeable at your request to make payment of the £1,000,000 fees payable under the Consultancy Agreement in one lump sum. The payment will be subject to 8 per cent. Malaysian withholding tax in respect of which we will in due course provide you with certificate issued by the Malaysian inland revenue for your tax purposes. Kindly acknowledge receipt once the payment has been credited into your account."
The letter was signed on behalf of YTL.
The police still doubted the veracity of the contract, but thought that the letter fundamentally altered a crucial element of the contract rendering it invalid. In response to police questions, Mr. Skellett admitted not having engaged a lawyer to assist in the drafting of the contract or its amendment, although the police felt that, as an experienced businessman, he would normally do so. Later that day, officers made contact with the second man who had just arrived in London and asked him to attend Wood street police station, where he was arrested. As with Mr. Skellett, he was taken to Staple Hill police station on the outskirts of Bath and Bristol.
Examination of the second man's laptop computer revealed attempts to purchase properties apparently in an effort to pay Mr. Skellett in kind by providing him with a flat in London, which could later be transferred into his name. Inquiries with estate agents have established that the second man viewed properties for that purpose.
The police inform me that, in interviews, Mr. Skellett only mentioned the successful payment into his Barclay accounts and made no mention of the attempts to make the payment to him via the second man's offshore route until he became aware that the police had evidence of that. He amended the dates of the attempts to transfer money each time the police proved that they were aware of an earlier involvement, and did not volunteer any information about the attempt to reward him with the purchase of a property until the specific evidence was presented to him by the police.
Faced with the suspicious nature of attempts to transfer money via the offshore route, what appeared to be efforts to hide payments from his fellow directors and what appeared to be a lack of forthrightness in the
240WH
interview, the police had no alternative but to continue with a thorough and extensive investigation. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath can now see that it was not simply a case of making inquiries of Mr. Skellett's bank—the investigation needed to be wider than that.
The police wish to make it clear that Mr. Skellett was in custody for two periods—12 and a half hours on the day of his arrest and two and a half hours the following day. A significant percentage of that time was spent out of the cell being interviewed by officers. The police released him at the end of the first day precisely to prevent his having o spend the night in a cell.
On the question of checking with YTL, the police wanted to investigate the chairman of YTL who had authorised the payment and engaged the second man. They spoke to him over the telephone, but he declined to attend the UK for formal interview. The police inform me that the constraints of cost and time required to obtain authority through legal channels for officers to visit Malaysia prevented that course of action. However, the chairman provided his version of events through his UK lawyers.
On completion of the investigation, the police concluded that the payment to Mr. Skellett was not a bribe relating to the sale of Wessex Water, as was originally suspected, and no other criminal offences were revealed. City of London police issued a press release on 4 February this year to the effect that, after discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service, the fraud squad was satisfied that no criminal offences were committed in relation to the payment received by the official, and that the Wessex Water senior official and the second man had been released from police bail without charge. They went on to say that the investigation was extensive and thorough, and involved the assistance of financial regulators and international law enforcement. Despite the initially suspicious nature of the payment, City of London police state that it did not constitute a criminal offence in this or any other country.
Everyone accepts that the City of London police fraud squad has a duty fully to investigate any reports of suspected financial irregularities. The hon. Member for Bath mentioned wasting money. Of course, all police officers and public servants have to operate cost-effectively and efficiently. In relation to the return of the mobile phone—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.
It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT

  A696
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in opposition to the de-trunking of the A696 in Northumberland; and if he will hold a public enquiry into the proposal. [102843]

  Mr. Spellar
  Initially 11 objections to the draft orders published on 23 August 2001 were received from Northumberland County Council, Tynedale District Council, Scottish Executive, Northumberland National Park, Freight Transport Association, five parish councils and a private individual. Tynedale District Council, Scottish Executive and Freight Transport Association subsequently withdrew their Objections.

  Negotiations continue with Northumberland County Council, which will be the highway authority after detrunking, over the future funding of the A696/A68 and it would therefore be premature of me to comment on whether there will be a public inquiry into the proposal before these discussions are concluded.

  Amber Beacons
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on restrictions on the use of flashing amber beacons on motor vehicles on the public highway; what plans he has to change the regulations; and if he will make a statement. [103476]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department of Transport regularly receives requests for clarification of the regulations on the use of flashing amber beacons on motor vehicles. In the past five years only one request has been made for these regulations to be extended. This was to permit amber warning beacons to be fitted to vehicles which are used for the purposes of rescuing animals injured on the roads, as they sometimes need to stop on the highway.

  A consultation exercise is currently being carried out on proposals to permit recovery operators to use red rear flashing lights in conjunction with amber beacons at the scene of a breakdown.

  The Government has no immediate plans for any further amendments to the regulations on amber beacons on road vehicles.

  Motorised Wheelchairs
  Mr. Robert Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he intends to publish the findings of his Department's review of the use of motorised wheelchairs on the highway; [103736]
  618W
  (2) what plans he has to introduce a requirement in law for compulsory third party insurance for users of motorised wheelchairs; and if he will make a statement; [103640]

  (3) what representations his Department has received from (a) pedestrians and (b) motorists on the unsafe and dangerous use of motorised wheelchairs; and if he will make a statement. [103639]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We receive a wide range of correspondence about the use of motorised wheelchairs on the highway from disabled people themselves as well as from other pedestrians and motorists. A proportion of that correspondence is expressing concern about safety issues.

  In response to these concerns I will shortly be launching a review of the law which currently governs the construction of these vehicles and their use on the highway. The review will cover the full range of issues that have been raised with the Department, including the case for compulsory insurance for the users of motorised wheelchairs. We will be seeking the views of users and all other stakeholders before drawing any conclusions about possible changes to current arrangements.

  I will publish the results of the Review once it is complete, which I would hope to be later this year.

  Motorways
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many additional miles of motorway in England and Wales he expects to have lighting(a) by December 2003 and (b) by December 2004. [102815]

  Mr. Spellar
  Motorways in Wales are the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment at the National Assembly for Wales.

  In England, the Highways Agency expects to install lighting on approximately 10.8 miles of existing motorway by December 2003 and a further 14.5 miles by December 2004.

  The new M6 toll motorway will be open by December 2004 and will have lighting on lengths totalling approximately 10 miles.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of changes in the number of injury-accidents occurring after introduction of driving on the hard shoulder; [102220]

  (2) what guidance he has (a) sought and (b) received from the Health and Safety Executive on the proposal to permit the use of motorway hard shoulders as a running lane; [102219]

  (3) what steps he has taken to gauge the opinion of motorists on the proposal to remove the hard shoulder on many motorways; [102221]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the (a) construction and (b) maintenance costs associated with the introduction of driving on hard shoulders; [102218]

  (5) what plans he has to permit use of hard shoulders as a running lane; and if he will make a statement; [102213]
  619W
  (6) what assessment he has made of the safety implications of using the hard shoulder as a running lane; [102214]

  (7) what meetings he has had with motoring organisations to discuss the safety implications of the proposal to remove the hard shoulder on many motorways; and what responses he had (a) in favour and (b) opposed; [102224]

  (8) what guidance he has (a) sought and (b) received from the Fire Service on the proposal to permit the use of motorway hard shoulders as a running lane; [102223]

  (9) what estimate he has made of the costs to public funds as a result of a change in the number of accidents caused by driving on the hard shoulder, with particular regard to (a) insurance, (b) medical costs, (c) care of dependants and (d) time off work; [102225]

  (10) what meetings he has had with (a) the Transport and General Workers Union and (b) other trade unions, to discuss the safety implications of driving on hard shoulders for those who work at the roadside; [102222]

  (11) if he will place in the Library copies of research he has assessed in relation to his policy regarding use of hard shoulders as a running lane; [102216]

  (12) if he will commit the Department to retaining the existing hard shoulder network for the purpose for which it was intended. [102215]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on 27 July 2001 that the M42 between Junctions 3a and 7 had been chosen as a pilot site for Active Traffic Management (ATM). The pilot offers the potential to allow carefully controlled use of the hard shoulder as a running lane during congested periods. The outcome of the pilot will be assessed very thoroughly before any policy decision is taken about the more general use of the hard shoulder as a running lane. The hard shoulder is routinely used as a running lane during motorway maintenance.

  The Health and Safety Executive regularly provide input into the standards applied when the hard shoulder is used as a running lane during motorway maintenance. They will be consulted about its use as part of the M42 ATM Project when the Highways Agency has developed its proposals more fully.

  The Highways Agency has met with and discussed the proposals for the M42 ATM with the local fire service. There is a programme of ongoing liaison with the emergency services to discuss matters in more detail.

  The Highways Agency has arranged a number of exhibitions and local presentations and has generally received favourable feedback on the proposals to use the hard shoulder as a running lane on the M42. As part of this assessment a range of surveys will be undertaken to assess motorists' opinions on the scheme. A driver simulator has also been developed and this was displayed at the 2002 Birmingham International Motor Show. Again, a favourable response to the use of the hard shoulder was received.

  The controlled use of the hard shoulder in the M42 ATM Project is not expected to result in an increase in the costs to the public funds with regard to insurance,
  620W
  medical costs, care of dependants or time off work. Extensive monitoring as part of the M42 ATM Project will be undertaken to quantify the actual impact of the scheme. The proposals are subject to an ongoing assessment and safety audits have already been undertaken as part of the design process.

  The proposal for use of the hard shoulder under controlled motorway conditions on the M42 is being designed with safety in mind. Hard shoulder running will only be allowed when a lower speed limit is in place and control room staff have ensured that the hard shoulder is clear. There will be emergency refuge areas, equipped with emergency roadside telephones, installed at regular intervals for motorists that breakdown or require assistance.

  I have asked the Highways Agency to place in the Library copies of the reports, listed as follows, that have been assessed in relation to the use of the hard shoulder as a running lane.

  (a) Safety Review of Making Better Use Techniques—Final Report.

  (b) PR/T/168/2001 Development of the Candidate Operational Regimes and the Assessment Strategy for the M42 Active Traffic Management (ATM) Project—Review of innovative schemes for lane, speed and incident management.

  (c) PR/T/019/2002 Development of the Candidate Operational Regimes and the Assessment Strategy for the M42 ATM pilot Project—M42 ATM Pilot CORE Proposals.

  (d) 42691/03A/012—Operational Team Visit to Utrecht Traffic Information Centre.

  It is not envisaged that there will be an increase in the injury accident rate through the controlled use of the hard shoulder for the M42 ATM project. Extensive monitoring of the M42 project will be undertaken to quantify the actual impact of the scheme on safety. The safety of drivers and those concerned with the operation and maintenance of the road will be a major consideration.

  The Highways Agency is in the process of discussions with various motoring organisations about different aspects proposed for the M42 pilot. These discussions are on-going.

  The M42 ATM Project has received initial funding of £40 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund to cover the ATM infrastructure construction costs. An initial estimate of £3.2 million per annum was made for the future maintenance and operational costs for the project.

  No meetings have yet been held with the Transport and General Workers Union or other trade unions to discuss the safety implications of hard shoulder running in general or on the M42 ATM Project. The advanced signalling and monitoring equipment being installed on the M42 will provide the ability to close lanes and provide advanced warning of incidents on the M42. This infrastructure will allow the protection of road users involved in incidents and will support existing maintenance activities which is likely to be especially beneficial in reducing risk to traffic management operatives.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Conservative Party
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Council pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), of 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 156W, if he will list the individual sums of public money paid for (a) salaries, listing the offices held, (b) expenses and (c) Short money; and what the value was of services in kind to the Conservative Party since 1997. [103339]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The scheme for financial assistance to opposition parties (Short money) provides funding for three purposes:to assist an opposition party in carrying out its parliamentary business;
  for the running costs of the office of the Leader of the Opposition
  for the opposition parties' travel and associated expenses.

  The amounts received under these three headings were as follows:

  £

  year

  Assistance for parliamentary business

  Office of Leader of Opposition

  Travel expenses etc.

  Totals

  1997–98

  919,627

  0

  67,136

  986,763

  1998–99

  1,037,125

  0

  75,761

  1,112,886

  1999–2000

  2,800,314

  500,000

  77,356

  3,377,670

  2000–01

  2,872,763

  513,000

  79,368

  3,465,132

  2001–02

  2,833,866

  524,799

  80,401

  3,439,066

  2002–03

  2,846,649

  531,621

  81,266

  3,459,537

  Total

  13,310,344

  2,069,420

  461,288

  15,841,054

  Note:

  As a result of roundings, figures may not total exactly.

WALES

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102064]

  Peter Hain
  None.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of his Department's spending on(a) consultants, (b) advertising and consultancy, (c) travel and (d) conferences in each year from 1999–2000 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [90357]

  Peter Hain
  My Department was created on 1 July 1999. Figures for 1999/2000 are not readily available in the format requested.

  (a) for spending on consultants, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 March 2003, Official Report, column 249W.
  622W
  (b) for spending on advertising I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor gave the hon. Member for Buckingham on 15 April 2002, Official Report, column 750W.

  (c) total expenditure on travel, excluding payments to the Government Car and Despatch Agency, was £86,000 in 2000–01; £105,233 in 2001–02; and has been £121,000 in 2002–03 to date.

  (d) there is no separately recorded expenditure on conferences in any year.

  Fiscal Balance
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the fiscal surplus or deficit was in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available. [89825]

  Peter Hain
  No official figure for the fiscal deficit/surplus in Wales has been calculated in recent years.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost was in each case. [101484]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W, in response to a similar question from the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws).

  Special Advisers
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103599]

  Peter Hain
  None.

  University Students
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many university students his Department 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. [98538]

  Peter Hain
  The staff of the Wales Office are secondees from other Government Departments and in particular the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly has an annual scheme which offers opportunities to students as well as work placements.

  Whole of Government Accounts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what impact the Whole of Government Accounts project has had on Wales. [103371]

  Peter Hain
  The introduction of Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) will assist in ensuring that best practice accounting methods are used to construct accounts covering the public sector as a whole,
  623W
  and that fiscal reporting is as transparent as possible. Central Government Accounts (CGA) are the first step towards WGA.

  The Treasury has planned to produce `dry-run' CGA for 2001–02 and 2002–03, with the first CGA published for 2003–04. The Wales Office and the National Assembly for Wales are part of this process.

  Both the Wales Office and National Assembly for Wales have produced consolidation information for the first dry run year. The Assembly's 'consolidation group' currently includes the Assembly itself, its agencies, the Health Authorities in Wales, Estyn and the Assembly Sponsored Public Bodies.

  In future years the project will be extended to include NHS Trusts and local authorities. The Assembly is co-funding a project with the Treasury to examine the issues involved in consolidating local authority accounts in Wales.

  In addition to CGA the Assembly will produce a `Whole of Government of Wales Account' to the same timetable. This account will include bodies designated for inclusion in CGA plus the 'Wales elements' of certain cross-border authorities like the Forestry Commission in Wales.

DEFENCE

  Allied Harmony Operation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in implementing the common action for an EU military mission to take over from NATO's Allied Harmony operation in FYROM; which(a) European states that are not yet EU members and (b) other third countries have expressed the intention of taking part in that mission; what NATO assets the EU will use for that mission; whether the launching of this operation depends on finalising permanent arrangements for the EU's use of NATO assets; when those arrangements are expected to be finalised; and if he will make a statement. [102671]

  Mr. Hoon
  The "Berlin Plus" arrangements for ready access by the European Union to the collective assets and capabilities of NATO are now in place.

  Good progress has been made on the Council's Joint Action on the EU military operation in Macedonia. For example, the EU has agreed that the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander for Europe will be appointed as the EU Operation Commander and that the Supreme Headquarters of Allied Powers in Europe will be used as the EU Operational Headquarters. Arrangements with third states have been agreed and a Committee of Contributors has been formed. The Operation Plan has been finalised, subject to approval by the Council. As envisaged, contacts and meetings between the EU and NATO have been stepped up.

  The non-EU European states that are expected to take part in the operation are Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Poland, Iceland, Turkey, Hungary and Norway. Canada is also expected to take part.
  624W
  NATO has drawn up an indicative list of those assets that will be available for the EU-led operation in Macedonia, and the EU is expected to place a formal request for the assets that it wishes to use in the very near future.

  Chartered Ships
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what special measures are being taken to vet the crews of ships chartered by his Department from overseas countries where there are security considerations. [103638]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not possible to vet the crews of commercial ships chartered from overseas countries, due to a combination of circumstances which include: non-residency in the United Kingdom, the rapid turn-over of crew members and the short notice nature of the Ministry of Defence charter requirements. Special measures are taken when there are security considerations and these can include the placing of a UK military escort party onboard chartered commercial ships.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates the Government have made regarding the number of military personnel required to provide support to the civil authorities in response to a large scale(a) conventional and (b) chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attack on the UK. [103410]

  Mr. Ingram
  The primary responsibility for handling the consequences of any attack in the United Kingdom lies with the emergency services. The nature of any request they might make for military assistance will be determined by the type, scale, impact and location of the attack and the availability of civil resources. It is therefore not possible to make a specific estimate of the level of military support that might be requested. Information on the contingency plans for specialist Armed Forces responses to terrorist attacks is classified and details are therefore being withheld under Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which Department's budget the cost of(a) creation, (b) maintenance and (c) deployment of the civil contingency reaction forces will be taken. [103411]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence budget will bear the cost of establishing and maintaining the civil contingency reaction forces. The treatment of the costs of deployments will be determined case by case under existing arrangements in the same way as other military assistance to the civil authorities.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost is of(a) creating and (b) maintaining the civil contingency reaction force. [103412]

  Mr. Ingram
  The annual cost of maintaining the 14 civil contingency reaction forces will be some £4.5 million. This comprises the costs of the 406 new Volunteer Reserve posts established within the parent Territorial Army Infantry battalions to support the administration and training of the civil contingency
  625W
  reaction forces, and of the additional man-training days allocated to existing Volunteer Reserve personnel who volunteer for the CCRF role in addition to their current roles.

  Start-up costs are estimated to be some £2 million in 2002–03.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many joint regional liaison officers have been created since July 2002 to act as a single point of liaison between civil authorities and the armed forces on emergency planning matters. [103407]

  Mr. Ingram
  22 Joint Regional Liaison Officer posts have been established as part of the SDR New Chapter measures to enhance the Armed Forces' capability to respond to requests for assistance from local authorities and emergency services. These measures were announced in the House on 31 October 2002.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many more civil contingency reaction forces are planned. [103408]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishment of fourteen Civil Contingency Reaction Forces was announced in the House on 31 October 2002.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists are deployed in civil contingency reaction forces. [103409]

  Mr. Ingram
  None of the 14 Civil Contingency Reaction Forces has yet been deployed.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals there are to commit units and assets from the regular armed forces to home defence. [103413]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is responsible for the defence of the United Kingdom from military attack, including air defence. The lead responsibility for security within the UK, including the response to the activities of terrorist groups, rests with the Home Office and the police. However, where appropriate, the Ministry of Defence responds positively to requests for military assistance from civil authorities, drawing on available resources. Although fluctuations do occur, a significant number of military personnel are stationed in the UK at any one time and we are also establishing a capability in the Reserve Forces to undertake military assistance.

  EU Operations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the main features are of the EU/NATO arrangements for EU access to NATO capabilities for EU-led operations; how they differ from the agreement concluded between WEU and NATO; and if he will make a statement. [102676]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the NATO summit at Washington in 1999, the Alliance declared that it stood ready to "define and adopt the necessary arrangements for ready access by the European Union to the collective assets and capabilities of the Alliance, for operations in which the Alliance as a whole is not engaged militarily as an Alliance". The main features of the arrangements, known as "Berlin Plus", are assured EU access to NATO operational planning capabilities, and a626W
  presumption of availability to the EU of pre-identified NATO capabilities and common assets for use in EU-led operations.

  The North Atlantic Council (NAC) decided on 13 December 2002 that assured EU access to NATO's operational planning capabilities was effective immediately, and undertook to put in place the rest of the Berlin Plus arrangements swiftly. This has now been done.

  The NATO/EU arrangements go beyond those established for the WEU in two important respects. First, because EU access to NATO operational planning is assured (i.e. continuous and guaranteed), NATO agreement is not required for any EU requests for NATO planning support; every WEU request would have required specific NAC approval. Second, there is a presumption that those NATO assets and capabilities that have been pre-identified will indeed be available to the EU. There was no such presumption under the NATO/WEU arrangements.

  The implementation of the Berlin Plus arrangements is a manifestation of the genuine strategic partnership in crisis management which NATO and EU have decided to establish together.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his Spanish counterpart regarding the British military base on Gibraltar. [102919]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has not met his Spanish counterpart formally since December 2001, nor has he had any recent discussions. However there has been some correspondence on security matters.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the British military base on Gibraltar. [102920]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has had no recent discussions with Commander British Forces (CBF) Gibraltar. I visited British Forces Gibraltar in November 2002 and had extensive discussions with CBF and others.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of Gulf War veterans who are(a) receiving treatment for Gulf War syndrome, (b) have outstanding compensation claims to his Department for Gulf War syndrome and (c) have been compensated by his Department for Gulf War syndrome. [103452]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: The Ministry of Defence does not recognise "Gulf War Syndrome" as a medical condition. It accepts that some veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict have become ill and that many believe this ill health is related to their Gulf experience. A large number of multi-system, multi-organ, non-specific, medically unexplained symptoms have been reported by some Gulf veterans as well recognised medical conditions. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community is

  627W
  that there is insufficient evidence to enable this ill-health to be characterised as a unique illness, condition or `syndrome'. The MOD's approach must be guided by findings from the scientific and medical community. Primary health care records for the 53, 000 or so veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict are held by their doctors and are not accessible centrally for reason of patient confidentiality.

  When compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the MOD has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability arising to pay compensation we do so. The MOD has received about 2,000 notices of intention to claim from Gulf veterans, and members of their families in respect of illness allegedly arising from the Gulf conflict, but no writs or formal claims have yet been received. No compensation has therefore been paid following claims for Gulf veterans' illnesses.

  The fact that there is, at present, no proper basis for recognising "Gulf War Syndrome" as an appropriate diagnostic label does not prevent a Gulf veteran from getting a war pension. A war pension can be paid for any disablement provided that a causal link to Service is accepted. Over 1,200 war pensions have been awarded to Gulf veterans by the Veterans Agency.

  HMS Triumph
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons HMS Triumph is being put into extended readiness in 2004; and how many fleet submarines will be operational in 2004. [102577]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy operates its nuclear submarine fleet under stringent safety regulations. It is planned to place HMS Triumph in a state of Extended Readiness when her reactor reaches its maximum length of service, prior to entering a refit and overhaul period

  Roal Navy

  Training Establishment

  Military Medical Officer Establishment

  Military Medical Officer Manning

  Civilian Medical Practitioner Establishment

  Civilian Medical Practitioner Manning

  Other Medical Personnel (Military/Civilian) Establishment

  Other Medical Personnel (Military/Civilian) Manning

  Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth

  1

  1

  0

  0

  7

  6

  HMS Raleigh

  2

  2

  1

  1

  16

  16

  HMS Collingwood

  2

  2

  1

  1

  11

  11

  HMS Dryad

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3.5

  2.5

  HMS Sultan

  1

  1

  1

  1

  8

  8

  Army

  Training Establishment

  Military Medical Officer Establishment

  Military Medical Officer Manning

  Civilian Medical Practitioner Establishment

  Civilian Medical Practitioner Manning

  Other Medical Personnel (Military/Civilian) Establishment

  Other Medical Personnel (Military/Civilian) Manning

  Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

  3

  3

  0

  0

  18

  18

  Arm Training Regiment Bassingbourne

  1

  1

  2

  2

  18

  11

  Arm Training Regiment Lichfield

  1

  1

  2

  2

  15

  10

  Arm Training Regiment Winchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  15

  Arm Foundation College Harrogate

  1

  1

  2

  1

  4

  3

  Arm Technical Foundation College Arborfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  628W
  that will include refuelling. It is planned that a minimum of five fleet submarines should be available in 2004 for operational tasking.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months, by each Minister in his Department to outside interest groups, broken down to(a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99501]

  (2) what criteria Ministers in his Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if he will make a statement; [99500]

  (3) how often Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups in the last 12 months. [99576]

  Dr. Moonie
  All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted fully in accordance with the guidance set out in the Ministerial Code and Guidance on Contacts with Outside Interest Groups including Lobbyists. The detailed information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Training Establishments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) requirement is of (i) medical officers and (ii) other medical staff in military training establishments in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [100174]

  Dr. Moonie
  Current establishment and manning figures for military medical officers, civilian medical practitioners, and other medical personnel at training establishments in each of the Services are as follows:
  629W

  Army

  Training Establishment

  Military Medical Officer Establishment

  Military Medical Officer Manning

  Civilian Medical Practitioner Establishment

  Civilian Medical Practitioner Manning

  Other Medical Personnel (Military/Civilian) Establishment

  Other Medical Personnel (Military/Civilian) Manning

  HQ Armour Centre

  1

  1

  2

  2

  10

  10

  Royal School of Artiller/14 Regt RA

  1

  1

  1

  1

  8

  7

  Combat Engineering School Minley

  0

  0

  1

  1

  6

  5

  Combat Engineering School Chatham

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  4

  HQ Royal School of Signals

  2

  1

  2

  1

  21

  7

  Infantry Training Centre/School of Infantry Catterick

  1

  1

  3.5

  3.5

  27

  23

  Infantry Training Centre (Wales)/Infantry Battle School Brecon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17.5

  17.5

  HQ School of Army Aviation

  2

  2

  1

  1

  14

  7

  HQ Defence Logistic Support Training Group

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Defence School of Transport Leconfield

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  4

  HQ REME Training Group

  0

  0

  4

  4

  13.5

  13.5

  School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Bordon

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  4

  Adjutant Generals Corps Training Group

  0

  0

  1

  1

  6

  4

  Royal Military School of Music

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  RAF

  Training Establishment

  Military Medical Officer Establishment

  Military Medical Officer Manning

  Civilian Medical Practitioner Establishment

  Civilian Medical Practitioner Manning

  Other Medical Personnel (Military/Civilian) Establishment

  Other Medical Personnel (Military/Civilian) Manning

  RAF Cranwell

  3

  1

  3

  3

  23

  21

  RAF Cosford

  2

  1

  2

  2

  20

  19

  RAF Brize Norton

  5

  3

  3

  2

  31

  31

  RAF Halton

  1

  1

  2

  2

  18

  18

  RAF Digby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  7

  RAF Boulmer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  8

  RAF St. Athan

  2

  0

  2

  2

  13

  13

  RAF Linton on Ouse

  2

  2

  0

  0

  19

  16

  RAF Valley

  2

  2

  0

  0

  13

  11

  RAF Honington

  1

  1

  1

  1

  17

  16

  RAF Shawbury

  2

  2

  0

  0

  13

  11

  RAF Northolt

  2

  2

  0

  0

  10

  9

  Notes:

  1. Civilian posts may be part-time or filled on a job-share basis. In calculating these figures, part&-time posts have been counted as a half; job-share arrangements have been counted a one.

  2. Figures for other medical personnel include practice manager/receptionist posts.

  3. HQ Defence Logistic Support Training Group, School of Logistics and 25 Training Support Regt are covered by Deepcut Garrison medical centre, and it is these figures which appear in the table.

  4. The following Army training establishments do not have medical staff on their establishment, but are covered by medical centres at local units:

  Royal Logistic Corps (RLC) Training Centre and Army School of Physical Training—covered by Aldershot Garrison medical centre.

  Army School of Ammunition—covered by the medical centre at Defence Munitions at Kineton.

  School of Petroleum—covered by the medical centre at West Moors Station.

  Port and Maritime Wing—covered by the medical centre at 17 Port and Maritime Regiment RLC.

  Construction Engineering School, Defence Explosives Ordnance School and HQ

  Royal School of Military Engineering—covered by medical centre at Combat Engineer School at Chatham.

  5. There are no medical staff on the strength of the Joint Services Mountain Training Centre.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the reasons for the reduction in the permitted weight of parcels being sent to BFPO 660; and if he will make a statement. [103171]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2003, Official Report, column 387W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham).

  Research Contracts
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice his Department provides to universities and 630W
  other academic research centres regarding (a) the management of defence research contracts and (b) the sharing of intellectual property. [102210]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's approach to contracting for research is the same as that used for the other goods and services it purchases and there is no specific additional guidance on the management of defence research contracts. The MOD's general advice is freely available at http://www.dgcom.mod.uk

  The MOD fully supports the HM Treasury report "Creating Knowledge, Creating Wealth" (The Baker Report, 1999). In line with the recommendations of that

  631W
  report, it has negotiated a new contracting standard, DEFCON 705, which vests ownership of IP with the contractor. This standard has been used for the vast majority of research contracts let b the MOD over the past 12 months.

  The MOD has actively contributed to "A guide to Managing IP:—Strategic Decision Making in Universities" available at http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/bakergroup.htm and is also about to publish "Guideline for Industry No 10—The Intellectual Property Defence Conditions".

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how man research contracts were placed b his Department with UK universities and other academic research centres in each of the last five ears; and what their values were. [102211]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence recognises the strong science and technology capability of United Kingdom universities as a source of innovation and knowledge of relevant research in the wider non-defence community. It is for this reason that MOD encourages universities to participate in the Defence Technology Centre Scheme.

  The MOD has placed almost all of its research work over the past five ears with DERA and, since Jul 2001, with DSTL and QinetiQ. In turn these organisations have sub-contracted with academia in a manner which ensures that the Department's needs are met in an integrated and cost effective manner. MOD does not hold centrally information about the numbers of subcontracts placed b our contractors with either academia or industry and this could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information is available, however, for contracts placed directly by the Department with academia for the past four years since the decision was made to increase the level of competition for research work. To date three universities have been awarded contracts valued at £591,000. In addition 10 UK universities have received £2.619 million for their role in successful consortia bidding into the research programme. A breakdown of these figures is given in the following table.

  £000

  Prime contractor

  As part of a consortium

  1999

  n/a

  n/a

  2000

  266

  1,200

  2001

  295

  213

  2002

  0

  1,100

  2003 to date

  30

  106

  The MOD also seeks to further academic research by funding research jointly with the Research Councils through the Joint Grants Scheme. Details of the number of grants are given in the following table.
  632W

  £000

  Number of grants

  Value of grants

  1999

  43

  5,100

  2000

  61

  4,600

  2001

  41

  4,650

  2002

  34

  4,780

  2003

  31

  5,600

  Royal Marines
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the additional funding recently made available to the Royal Marines. [102921]

  Mr. Ingram
  Additional funding was made available to the Royal Marines to meet the additional costs necessarily incurred on Contingency Planning for possible operations against Iraq. This was contained within the £1 billion added to RfR2 Conflict Prevention at Spring Supplementary Estimates 2002–03

  Satellite Centre/Institute for Security Studies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the EU's plan for strengthening the impact of the work being done b(a) the Satellite Centre and (b) the Institute for Security Studies; and if he will make a statement. [102673]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK wants to see both the Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) make an effective contribution to the EU. We will consider an particular proposals put forward for the Satellite Centre. The Political and Security Committee has tasked the ISS with a work programme for 2003, reflecting the Council's priorities in external relations.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the extent is of UK military deployment to Sierra Leone and the surrounding region during 2003; what estimate he has made of the costs of this deployment; and if he will make a statement. [102942]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom has maintained a twin track strategy in Sierra Leone, supporting the UN mission and providing training, advice and assistance to the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) and the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone. A United Kingdom-led International Military Advisory and Training Team (IMATT) continues to help build the RSLAF into an effective, professional and democratically accountable force. The HVLATT currently involves some 120 personnel, comprising 108 United Kingdom personnel plus a number of internationals. The annual cost of the IMATT is approximately £15 million.

  To display our continued commitment to the settlement process in Sierra Leone on 21 February we deployed a Company Group from 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles plus HQ and supporting elements (eg logistics and medical). HMS Iron Duke and RFA Black Rover have also deployed to Sierra Leone

  633W
  as a further demonstration of United Kingdom commitment. The provisional costs of this deployment are in the order of £1.8 million.

  There are no other United Kingdom deployments in the region, although the United Kingdom also provides the Chief Of Staff, six HQ staff officers and 15 Military Observers to the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL).

  Training Exercises
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training exercises have been cancelled as a result of Operation Fresco and Operation Telic. [102571]

  Mr. Ingram
  Some 70 training exercises listed in the Ministry of Defence's Defence Exercise Programme (which lists some 350 exercises each year) have been cancelled as a result of Operation Fresco and Operation Telic. Information on tactical training exercises organised by the Front Line Commands, the Permanent Joint HQ, the Defence Logistic Organisation HQ and individual units is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  US Bases
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the US Government asked for permission for the US National Guard to be based at(a) RAF Mildenhall, (b) RAF Lakenheath and (c) JAC Molesworth; who gave permission; and how many US National Guard are based at each of the bases. [101689]

  Mr. Ingram
  The US formally advised us on 3 March of their plans to augment military guard forces at RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, RAF Croughton and RAF Molesworth with US Army National Guardsmen. The Guardsmen arrived on 10 March, around 230 have been deployed. About 100 have been deployed to RAF Lakenheath, 60 to RAF Mildenhall, 40 to RAF Croughton and 30 to RAF Molesworth. The National Guardsmen will carry out routine access control and other guarding duties under supervision, to `backfill' permanent security personnel who have been deployed to other duties.

  Vaccines
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 517W, on vaccines, if he will break down the figures and the percentages they represent by unit. [102806]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am withholding the information requested under Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Illegally Imported Meat
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much illegally imported meat has been seized at UK ports and airports in each of the last three years, broken down by(a) type and (b) location. [102158]
  634W
  Mr. Morley
  A central database of illegal animal product seizures notified to Defra was set up in August 2001, with detailed data going back to April 2001. Little or no data is held centrally for 2000.

  The numbers and weights of meat seizures at UK ports and airports reported to us in each of the last three years is shown below. A detailed breakdown of locations of seizures is not provided in order to protect operational details of targeted checks.

  Number of seizures

  Weight of seizures (kg)

  Ports

  2001

  404

  60,544

  2002

  301

  6,091

  Airports

  2001

  739

  14,254

  2002

  1953

  18,593

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements there are with(a) Customs and Excise and (b) the Food Standards Agency (i) to prevent and (ii) to detect illegally imported meat entering the UK. [102159]

  Mr. Morley
  Currently the Port Health Authorities, Local Authorities and the State Veterinary Service lead on enforcement of controls for detecting smuggled meat. They are supported in this by Customs, who deployed extra resources in this role in 2002. Defra has been funding additional enforcement activity this financial year through temporary Local Authority staff and overtime.

  Following the Cabinet Office review of enforcement structures, responsibility for all anti-smuggling activity is to be transferred to HM Customs as soon as practicable, and we are working on a Service Level Agreement. Defra has been leading on implementing the Government's action plan, including a risk assessment, detector dog pilot and design of publicity material. Customs have been providing support. A comprehensive centralised database of seizures has been set up to share information and inform decisions on the targeting of resources.

  The Food Standards Agency is an independent agency accountable to an independent board, with responsibility for food safety matters. It co-ordinates the activities of Local Authorities, including Port Health Authorities, on food safety matters and has lead policy responsibility for controls at the border on products of non-animal origin and fish. The Agency is concerned with checks to verify compliance with food safety standards, and has produced a 10-point plan in relation to imported food, including illegal food imports. The Agency is also working closely with Defra on the action plan.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what resources she is committing(a) to prevent and (b) detect illegally imported meat entering the UK; [102160]

  (2) what resources she is committing (a) to prevent and (b) to detect illegally imported meat entering the UK. [102161]
  635W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government have made available a total of £25 million over the next three financial years to tackle illegal imports from outside the European Union of any meat, other animal products and plant products. Final decisions on the allocation of this money in 2003–04 will be made shortly.

  In the current financial year, additional measures have been introduced at ports and airports to tackle illegal imports. Temporary agency staff, funded by Defra, have been recruited to carry out checks to detect smuggled goods—teams of six are based at our major airports and teams of two at major seaports. We are also paying for additional checks through overtime elsewhere. Further inspection resources have also been provided through the detector dog pilot, and a publicity campaign which has targeted ports, airports and points of departure.

  We expect to lay the legislation shortly, under which HM Customs will take over responsibility for detection, intelligence and enforcement with regard to illegal food imports.

  Animal By-Products Regulations
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the Animal By-Products Regulation with regard to the burial of(a) domestic animals in pet cemeteries and (b) livestock in domestic locations. [102651]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: No specific assessment has been made of the burial of domestic animals in pet cemeteries and of livestock in domestic locations.

  However, under a Derogation the Regulation permits the burial of any animal belonging to species normally nourished and kept, but not consumed, by humans for purposes other than farming.

  The burial of livestock is not permitted.

  Avian Influenza
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps farmers can take to improve biosecurity to prevent Avian Influenza. [102368]

  Mr. Morley
  In view of the current outbreak of Avian Influenza in the Netherlands, Defra is advising producers to take all reasonable precautions to prevent their flocks coming into contact with wild birds. The producers most at risk are those close to where wild birds congregate, such as surface water.

  The poultry industry is being reminded of the need for stringent biosecurity at the present time. This includes advice on:
  minimising the risk of introducing disease into their birds through faecal contamination of boots, clothing, equipment and food stores by the prudent use of disinfectants on clothing, footwear and vehicles;
  ensuring that the number of staff with access to the birds is kept to a minimum and not allowing non-essential visitors in or near poultry houses;
  clearing up external feed spillages quickly and preventing wild birds from gaining access to poultry areas and food.
  636W
  Such advice will be kept under review in the light of developments.

  Biofuels
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role biofuels will play in Government plans to address fuel poverty. [100215]

  Mr. Morley
  During 2002, the Department commissioned a scoping study to consider the use of alternative technologies, including biofuels, in helping to tackle fuel poverty. The findings of that report, and the possibility of establishing pilot trials, are currently being considered by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what analysis her Department has made of the work of the CBD bushmeat working group. [101329]

  Mr. Morley
  A liaison group to be convened under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to consider inter alia non-timber forest products, including bushmeat, has yet to meet. Therefore, no analysis of this work has been made.

  Chewing Gum
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to apply the principles of producer responsibility to those who manufacture and retail chewing gum; what contribution the manufacturers of chewing gum provide to the cost of cleaning up pavements and public places of discarded chewing gum; and what plans she has to apply the pollutor pays principle to the manufacturers of chewing gum. [102595]

  Alun Michael
  We encourage manufacturers and retailers to participate in a voluntary scheme to use the international Tidyman logo on products. The environmental charity, Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS), which undertakes work on behalf of the Government, owns a logo which includes the Tidyman logo and draws up voluntary agreements with willing participants.

  I am not aware of any gum manufacturers providing funding for the cost of cleaning gum from pavements but Defra officials have had meetings with the industry and I recently had a constructive meeting with Wrigley's, which is Britain's largest producer of chewing gum, to discuss these issues.

  Defra's consultation document Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities, includes an option to include discarded chewing gum as litter to which existing litter duties and powers apply. This option would impact on anyone irresponsibly discarding chewing gum as they would then be committing a litter offence.
  637W
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the manufacturers of chewing gum regarding the public nuisance of their discarded product. [102596]

  Alun Michael
  Officials at Defra have been involved in discussions with gum manufacturers since last summer with a view to finding an acceptable solution to the problems surrounding chewing gum litter. Recently, I met Wrigley's, as the largest UK producer of chewing gum, to discuss this issue.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has commissioned to develop techniques for removing chewing gum from footpaths, pavements and other public places; and what steps her Department has taken to encourage effective methods of removing discarded chewing gum from footpaths, pavements and other public places. [102597]

  Alun Michael
  The environmental charity Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS), which is grant funded by Defra, has produced advice and guidance on prevention and cleansing for local authorities under the banner "Become an Authority on Gum"

  Defra's consultation document Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities, included several options relating to chewing gum. We are currently evaluating responses to that consultation exercise, which closed on 14 February, and will then consider how to take matters forward.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the local authority associations concerning chewing gum. [102599]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has not had specific discussions with the Local Government Association concerning the cleaning up of chewing gum. The environmental charity, Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS), which is grant funded by Defra, has been working with gum manufacturers and local authorities over many years to develop best practice on prevention through education and cleansing affected areas. Our consultation document 'Living Places' refers to the problem of dealing with chewing gum and we are currently considering the responses from a variety of sources including local government.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost of cleaning chewing gum from pavements and other public areas in the last 12 months. [102600]

  Alun Michael
  We have made no estimates of the cost of chewing gum removal in the last 12 months.

  Chickens/Eggs (Imports)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how man(a) chickens and (b) eggs were imported from 2002(i)Holland, (ii) German and (iii) Ital in the last year for which figures are available. [102370]
  638W
  Mr. Morley
  2002 is the latest year for which figures are available on the imports of chickens and eggs from Germany, Holland and Italy. The provisional figures are as follows:

  Number of live chicks and chickens (of the species Gallus Domesticus) imported to the UK in 2002 (thousand head)

  From

  Number

  Netherlands

  92.6

  German

  1,236.6

  Ital

  nil

  Number of eggs imported to the UK in 2002 (million dozen)1

  From

  Number

  Netherlands

  22.4

  German

  14.3

  Ital

  0.2

  1 Estimates based on the value and volume of trade and the average weight per dozen eggs.

  Dangerous Dogs Act
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dogs have been detained in the UK under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in 2003. [102917]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no centrally held records of dogs held under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in the UK. However, the Metropolitan police, who hold the largest number of dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended) currently hold 19.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost has been to public funds of dogs detained under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in 2003. [102918]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no centralised records of figures or costs of dogs held, by all police forces, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended). However, the Metropolitan police who hold the largest number of dogs under the 1991 Act, have informed us that the total cost within the Metropolitan police area of dogs currently held in 2003 under the 1991 Act is £63,937.

  Dolphins
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dolphin bodies have been washed up on UK beaches(a) since the beginning of January and (b) in the last five years. [102760]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the beginning of January to 12 March 2003, 168 dolphins (out of a total of 265 cetaceans) have been reported as having stranded in the UK. In the last five years, the numbers of reported stranded dolphins are as follows:

  Dolphins

  Total number of cetaceans

  2002

  199

  649

  2001

  155

  549

  2000

  88

  421

  639W

  Dolphins

  Total number of cetaceans

  1999

  57

  386

  1998

  59

  369

  It should be noted that these figures include stranded, dead cetaceans, live strandings, carcases seen floating at sea, reported cetacean bycatch and cases of unconfirmed or suspected cetacean bycatch. The data was obtained under the Defra-funded Cetacean and Turtle Strandings Scheme, carried out by the Natural History Museum in partnership with the Institute of Zoology and Scottish Agricultural College.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets are being set for energy efficiency and renewable energy; and if she will make a statement. [102506]

  Mr. Morley
  In January 2000 the Government announced their aim for renewables to supply 10 per cent. of UK electricity in 2010, subject to the costs being acceptable to the consumer. We believe that renewable sources of energy will increasingly demonstrate that they can meet our energy needs at both an economically acceptable cost and in a carbon free way. On that basis, our aspiration is by 2020 to double renewables' share of electricity from our 2010 target and we will pursue policies to achieve this.

  More than half the emissions reductions in our Climate Change Programme—around 10 million tones of carbon per annum—is expected to come from energy efficiency. Further ahead, we believe that energy efficiency can contribute around half of the additional 15–25 million tonnes of annual carbon savings we are likely to need by 2020. A strategy for achieving these savings is set out in the Energy White Paper.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many area based sustainable energy projects and partnerships incorporating a Home Health Programme there are; where they are located; what areas they cover; and what their annual budgets are. [103169]

  Mr. Morley
  Despite a detailed search, my officials can find no record of a Home Health Programme. Turning to sustainable energy projects in general, the majority operate on a national basis, providing assistance to households and communities across the country.

  To encourage sustainable energy projects:
  We are spending £50 million over two years on the UK wide Community Energy programme which promotes community heating. So far £8.5million of grants have been approved. Two of these grants have been for innovative energy from waste schemes.
  The Energy Crops Scheme has allocated £650,000 of grants to promote the establishment of energy crops in England.
  We fund the Countryside Agency's Community Renewables Initiative, which promotes the establishment of local renewable energy schemes in England.
  The DTI fund both the UK wide Bio Energy Capital Grants Scheme and the UK wide £10 million Clear Skies initiative. Both are relatively new initiatives. The Bio Energy Capital Grants scheme aims to ensure the development of 100MW
  640W
  biomass heating provision at all scales, while Clear Skies provides advice and support for the installation of household and renewable community renewable schemes.

  To encourage domestic energy savings and health initiatives:
  We fund the Warm Front grant scheme which assisted over 500,000 households living in Fuel Poverty by installing energy efficiency measures. This indicates that the Government are making good progress toward meeting its target of assisting 600,000 homes by 2004.
  The Government have established the Energy Efficiency Commitment. The Commitment requires electricity and gas suppliers to achieve targets for the promotion of improvements in energy efficiency, with an emphasis on helping lower income customers. The overall target on all suppliers is a combined saving of 62 fuel-standardised terawatt hours.
  Defra and DTI are funding a pilot Warm Zones initiative in five areas in England. The zones attempt to identify all fuel poor households in an area, and ensure that existing schemes are used to improve the energy efficiency of those homes. The pilot is being evaluated at present and an interim report is expected shortly.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when boiler repairs and replacements were incorporated into measures funded by Warm Front for non-pensioner households; what amendments to the scheme regulations were needed to authorise these measures; what provision there is for service and maintenance of the boilers; and if central heating systems can be funded or part funded through the Warm Front scheme for non—pensioner households. [100162]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: Following a public consultation, the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme was launched in June 2000. The scheme, now marketed as Warm Front, introduced heating measures, boiler repairs and replacements. Only those over 60 on a qualifying benefit are eligible for central heating system installations, under Warm Front Plus.

  As a result, the grant maximum increased from £315 to £1,000 in 2000 and to £1,500 in 2001 for under 60s households. The grant maximum for over 60s households is £2,500. Revised regulations were issued to enable these amendments.

  All installations under Warm Front are guaranteed for a year by Eaga Partnership and TXU Warm Front Ltd. who manage the scheme. All materials used are guaranteed by the manufacturer for a year, with the exception of storage heaters which are guaranteed for two years.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department have discussed with TXU Warm Front the use of promotional literature for the Warm Front scheme as a means of selling other goods and services. [100163]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: The Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector in England is the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), now marketed as `The Warm Front Team'. Warm Front provides

  641W
  insulation and heating measures depending upon the needs of the householder and the property type to eligible households.

  TXU Warm Front Ltd. is one of the two scheme managers appointed to administer the scheme.

  The literature used b TXU outlines measures offered by Warm Front and is not used as a vehicle for selling an other goods or services.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the total expenditure on warm front grants made in England and Wales in the financial years ending 2001 and 2002 were represented by(a) loft and (b) cavity wall insulation measures. [90811]

  Mr. Morley
  Expenditure requested as a percentage of total grant expenditure for the warm front scheme in England was as follows:

  Percentage

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Cavity wall insulation

  29

  22

  Loft insulation

  16

  15

  The drop in the proportion of expenditure on cavity wall insulation in the second year of the scheme reflects increased activity in the installation of heating measures, which have a higher average cost per household.

  The New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the average administrative cost associated with each household that benefited under the warm front scheme, as a percentage of the cost of the measures installed in 2001–02. [90808]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2001–02, approximately 23 per cent. of total expenditure on the scheme related to administration costs, covering surveying, inspections, marketing, energy efficiency advice, installer management and customer support services including the Scheme Managers' call centres.

  English Nature
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the administrative cost was of English Nature for each Government Office of the regions in each year since 1999–2000. [102683]

  Mr. Morley
  English Nature's grant in aid has been £44.68 million (1999–2000), £49.924 million (2000–01), £58.010 million (2001–02), £66.855 million (2002–03). Of this, insofar as spending in the Government Regions, the following has been spent:

  Total £000

  Government Regional Office

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  East Midlands

  979

  928

  1,110

  1,120

  East of England

  1,517

  1,749

  1,988

  2,002

  London

  197

  198

  223

  225

  North East

  764

  635

  719

  729

  North West

  1,293

  1,410

  1,608

  1,602

  642W

  Total £000

  Government Regional Office

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  South East

  1,851

  2,153

  2,334

  2,310

  West Midlands

  985

  1,068

  1,165

  1,169

  South West

  2,388

  2,618

  3,199

  3,244

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  1,013

  1,027

  1,281

  1,287

  Total

  10,987

  11,786

  13,627

  13,688

  National (amount spent in EN HQ on the regions

  10,618

  11,771

  14,253

  14,681

  Overall total

  21,605

  23,557

  27,880

  28,369

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89945]

  Alun Michael
  Defra predominantly banks with the Bank of England and there have been no other relevant contracts concluded.

  EU Environment Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Environment Council on 4 March 2003; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting records; and if she will make a statement. [101747]

  Margaret Beckett
  I represented the UK at Environment Council on 4 March 2003, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. The Council reached a political agreement on one legislative measure, and also considered a number of other important issues.

  The Council reached a political agreement on the Forest Focus Regulation, which concerns forest monitoring, with the UK among its supporters. Italy, Spain, and Portugal would have preferred greater support for fire prevention measures, and therefore abstained. The Commission also withheld its support.

  We debated the Commission's proposals to revise the Bathing Water Directive, which would raise the required bathing water quality standards across the EU. There was general support for high standards where this would benefit the public, but widespread concern that the measures should be proportionate to the public health benefits sought, and flexible in their application. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Environment expressed concern over the soundness of the Commission's cost benefit analysis, and explained that, in the UK, illness related to bathing in sea waters is not a problem serious enough to feature in the public health surveillance system. Most bathing waters in the UK would already meet the higher standards proposed, but there would be high costs involved in ensuring compliance at all times for about 15 per cent. of beaches in England and Wales. There was a risk therefore that the proposals as currently drafted would incur disproportionate costs of compliance for comparatively little benefit. Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, Germany, France and Austria all expressed similar concerns. There was wide support for more flexibility in the use of management measures to

  643W
  implement the Directive. Most states also asked for greater clarity of definitions. There was no support for extending the scope of the Directive to waters used for other recreational purposes, and this was accepted by the Commission. The Presidency concluded that Council had given a sufficient steer for further progress to be achieved by the next Council, in June.

  Council also debated the proposed Environmental Liability Directive, and in particular the issues of financial security and biodiversity. I made it clear that the UK insurance industry did not support compulsory financial security. It would make little sense to make financial security compulsory if the, market is unable to provide the necessary cover. There was support for this line of reasoning from Ireland, France, Italy, Netherlands, the Commission and Germany. There was also some support for a compromise proposed by the Greek Presidency, that compulsory financial security should be phased in. This was not an option I was able to support. On biodiversity, I put forward the view, also supported by France and Germany, that to be insurable and provide certainty, the scope of the Directive should be site-based. The remaining Members favoured extending the scope of the directive to cover all EU-protected biodiversity wherever it may, with an option to include nationally protected species too. The Presidency concluded that progress had been made towards reaching political agreement in June.

  We agreed Council Conclusions calling for a community strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment. The Commission reported on action taken in relation to the Prestige incident, and will present a full report to the European Council later this month. Council accepted a Spanish request asking the Commission to consider liability and sanctions in relation to the safety of marine transport. France and Spain also reported on the progress of clean-up operations.

  We also discussed the Council's contribution on Sustainable Development for the Spring European Council, and agreed a lengthy set of Conclusions, which included an emphasis on the need for implementation of the commitments made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg last September, and on the importance of encouraging the development of environmental technologies.

  Council also adopted Conclusions on the Fifth Pan-European Ministerial Conference "Environment for Europe", to be held in Kiev in May.

  The Commission gave an update on approvals of Genetically Modified Organisms, and their co-existence with conventional crops. It was announced that an option paper on co-existence by Commissioner Fischler would be released on 5 March, and a Round Table discussion would follow at the end of April.

  On approvals, Commissioner Walstrom noted that there are currently 19 applications in the process, which should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I supported the position of the Commission, along with Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and Ireland, that existing legislation is adequate for an orderly return to decision making. A number of other member states continued to argue against proceeding with authorisations until the
  644W
  new traceability and labelling rules come into force. The Commissioner explained that it was unlikely that any authorisation would complete the process before the traceability and labelling rules came into force in any event. She emphasised the need to move the process forward, and that there is no justification for further delay.

  Denmark sought clarification from the Commission concerning its guidelines on the presence of metabolites in groundwater. The Commission confirmed that these are not legally binding, and that the expected groundwater directive will look into this issue.

  The Commission reported that it was on track with its long-awaited chemicals package, with an early interim consultation, followed by adoption by the Commission in early summer. It also formally presented its proposals on ozone depleting substances, a monitoring mechanism for greenhouse gases and volatile organic compounds in paints.

  Over lunch we discussed progress towards ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

  Fairtrade
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made and representations she has received regarding the application of Fairtrade status to British farmers; and if she will make a statement. [102441]

  Mr. Morley
  We have seen a report that the Soil Association and the Fairtrade Foundation were planning to announce an extension of the Fairtrade mark to British produce but I am unaware of any representations to government on this matter. For its part the Government are striving to rid agriculture of the constraints of price protection and production-related subsidies and to reconnect farmers with their markets. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food launched last December aims to help deliver this objective and sets out how Government, industry and others can work together to secure a more positive future for the food and farming industries. It contains a number of measures to help farmers reconnect with their customers and the rest of the food chain, to improve co-operation and performance, and to enhance training and opportunities to learn from best practice. The Government also remain determined to secure market-oriented reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy and through the WTO.

  Fallen Livestock
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to provide guidance to farmers on the disposal of dead livestock after 3 April. [103454]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: Guidance on the disposal of fallen stock is available from local Animal Health offices and on the Defra website. In addition, the Department will shortly be writing to livestock farmers explaining the changes to the legislation, and to provide advice as to what disposal routes are available.
  645W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that alternatives are in place for all farmers to deal with fallen stock when on-farm burial is banned. [103011]

  Mr. Morley
  The situation regarding Government funding in other member states is complicated. Based on data provided by each member state, the European Commission issued a paper on 20 November 2001. It showed that the level of Government support varies across the Community, with farmers in some countries paying the full cost of disposal while in others the Government or local authority provides support.

  The collection and disposal industries for fallen stock have stated that there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure to deal with the estimated additional quantities of fallen stock when the ban on burial comes into effect.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she collates in respect of the policy in other EU member states concerning financial support for farmers to deal with fallen stock. [103012]

  Mr. Morley
  The situation regarding Government funding in other member states is complicated. Based on data provided by each member state, the European Commission issued a paper on 20 November 2001. It showed that the level of Government support varies across the Community, with farmers in some countries paying the full cost of disposal while in others the Government or local authority provides support.

  The collection and disposal industries for fallen stock have stated that there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure to deal with the estimated additional quantities of fallen stock when the ban on burial comes into effect.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fishing vessels in each EU country have been deemed by the European Commission to be economically viable; and what assessment has been made of the costs of paying off vessels and crews from these countries. [103696]

  Mr. Morley
  The Commission has made no authoritative estimates in these areas. Indicative figures provided by the Commission last May, of the scale of decommissioning implied by their proposals for recovery plans, have been challenged by a number of member states.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has appraised the testing methodology obliged in the Processed Animal Protein (England) Regulations 2001 against the currently best available methodologies for the same tasks. [102836]
  646W
  Mr. Morley
  The Processed Animal Protein (England) Regulations 2001, all except the international trade provisions of that legislation, were replaced by and incorporated into the TSE (England) Regulations 2002 on 19 April 2002.

  The development of effective detection methods to distinguish the species content of meal intended for feed is a priority for Defra. The Commission has indicated that they are prepared to re-consider the current ban on fishmeal in ruminant feed once such a test has been validated. Full validation of a new test technique, however, is likely to take some time to achieve. In addition to the on-going development work, there are assessments being made both in the European context and in the UK to examine the currently available technology. A paper summarising the current position was prepared by Defra for a recent meeting of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs, and can be found at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acaf0237.pdf

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has appraised the testing methodology obliged in the Animal By-Products Order 1999 against the currently best available methodologies for the same tasks. [102837]

  Mr. Morley
  Testing under the Animal By-Products Order 1999 may be carried out under the methodology set out in the Order, or by a method which conforms with the relevant British or International Standards.

  Hampshire Avon Catchment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a copy of the first annual report under the operating agreement signed by Ofwat, the Environment Agency, English Nature and Wessex Water on restoring sustainable flows to the Hampshire Avon Catchment. [103540]

  Mr. Morley
  I am pleased to inform the hon. Member that the 'First Annual Report to the Minister on Progress in Restoring Flows in the Malmesbury Avon, River Wyle and River Piddle' was placed in the House Library at the end of February.

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many nitrate vulnerable zones have been designated; and what percentage of the land area of England and Wales is designated as nitrate vulnerable zones. [102984]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is only responsible for implementing the Nitrates Directive in England.

  In 1996, the Government designated 66 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) covering 8 per cent. of England's land area.

  In October 2002, the Government designated NVZs covering an addition al 47 per cent. of England's land area. This brings total coverage of England to around 55 per cent. The Government have not made an assessment of the total number of discrete NVZs in England.
  647W
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her assessment is of the effect on land values of the introduction of nitrate vulnerable zones. [103020]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have not made an assessment of the effect on land values of the introduction of nitrate vulnerable zones.

  The Government have published a Regulatory Impact Assessment paper which sets out the costs to the agricultural industry of complying with the Action Programme measures in England. This publication is available in the Defra Library and via the Defra NVZ web pages (www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/nitrate/library.htm).

  Radioactive Contamination
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been commissioned from consultants to assess the(a) need for and (b) prospective benefits of industry profiles for radioactively contaminated land. [103115]

  Mr. Meacher
  Consultants are currently carrying out work to assess the need for and benefits of industry profiles for radioactively contaminated land. They are to report in early April. If the results of this are positive, industry profile(s) for operations using radioactive material outside nuclear sites will be produced. They will provide information on the processes, materials and wastes associated with individual industries and advise on how best to identify, assess and tackle the problems of land contamination. This will provide useful supporting guidance for the introduction of a regime to deal with radioactively contaminated land (excluding that on nuclear licensed sites).

  Rural Proofing
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on the rural proofing of housing policy of the withdrawal of local authority social housing grant. [102337]

  Margaret Beckett
  The decision to abolish local authority social housing grant was taken in light of the increased provision for investment in existing and new affordable housing announced in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future". LASHG was a funding mechanism used by many rural authorities, among others, but they should not lose out under the new arrangements. By 2006, the money available for housing will be nearly 50 per cent. higher than this year. The new regional housing boards will recommend how these resources should be spent and will be required to ensure that their regional housing strategies are rural proofed.

  Safeways
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent(a) representations she has received and (b) discussions she has had regarding the sale of Safeways; and if she will make a statement. [102652]
  648W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: Ministers and officials in Defra have been sent information or views on the sale of Safeway by some of the companies who have expressed an interest in bidding and by the National Consumer Council.

  Officials have met separately with ASDA, Morrison, Safeway, Sainsbury and Tesco, at the companies' request, to listen to points that they wished to make about the sale of Safeway. Ministers have not been involved in these discussions.

  Soft Drink Consumption
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many litres of soft drinks were, on average, consumed by each British consumer in the last year for which figures are available. [102255]

  Mr. Morley
  It is estimated that 75 litres of soft drinks were consumed per person in the UK in the 12 month period starting in April 2001. Soft drinks are defined to exclude mineral water and fruit juices. The equivalent consumption of mineral water was 13 litres and of fruit juices was 18 litres. These estimates are based upon records of consumer purchases from the Expenditure and Food Survey.

  State Veterinary Service
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary surgeons were employed by the State Veterinary Service on(a) 20 February 2001, (b) 20 February 2002 and (c) 20 February 2003. [103013]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of Veterinary Surgeons employed by the State Veterinary Service is as follows:

  As at 20 February 2001–263

  As at 20 February 2002–299

  As at February 2003–335

  The figures are calculated on a head count basis and include permanent, casual and fixed term appointments. The figures do not include HQ Veterinary Surgeons responsible for policy development in the Animal Health & Welfare Directorate General.

  Sustainability Fund
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to use the Sustainability Fund to compensate operators for revoking the most damaging old mineral permissions in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. [102693]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following two full consultation exercises, the core objectives of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) were set to support work in three main categories: minimising demand for primary aggregates; promoting environmentally friendly aggregates extraction and transportation; and reducing the local effects of aggregates extraction. Using the fund as a mechanism for compensating operators for revoking permissions was not raised in either consultation and does not, therefore, feature in the scheme.
  649W
  English Nature has been designated as the distributing body for projects aimed at addressing the effects of old mineral planning permissions, increasing biodiversity and conserving geological features and the Countryside Agency distributes funds for projects that conserve and enhance the countryside. For both cases, the ALSF operates as a project based scheme and does not provide a mechanism for compensating operators for revoked permissions.

  Veterinary Surgeons (Assaults)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many assaults on veterinary surgeons by farmers have occurred on farms in each year since 1997. [101146]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been two reported physical assaults on State Veterinary Service Veterinarians, since 1997. These are listed as follows:

  17 May 199—Veterinary Officer threatened and prodded in ribs by farmer

  25 February 2003—Veterinary Officer pushed into slurry pit

  We take any such assaults on staff seriously and we expect appropriate action to be taken against anyone responsible for such acts.

  Welsh Farming
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the effect of the proposed reform of the common agricultural policy on Welsh farming. [100735]

  Mr. Morley
  We have undertaken various economic and impact assessments of the Commission's reform proposals, which conclude that overall the reforms would have a positive effect on farmers and farm incomes in the UK. Results of the main analysis will be published later this month. The likely effects of the proposed reforms in Wales are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education (Northampton)
  Mr. Ton Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how man children per 1,000 are issued with a statement of special needs in(a) Northamptonshire and (b) Northampton. [100806]

  Mr. Miliband
  The latest information available is shown in the table.

  All schools: Pupils with statements of special educational needs January 2002

  Number on roll

  Number of pupils with a statement of special educational needs

  Number of pupils in every 1,000 with a statement of special educational needs1

  Northampton, North

  17,557

  827

  47

  Northampton, South

  18,387

  418

  23

  650W

  All schools: Pupils with statements of special educational needs January 2002

  Number on roll

  Number of pupils with a statement of special educational needs

  Number of pupils in ever 1,000 with a statement of special educational needs1

  Northamptonshire LEA

  113,366

  3,299

  29

  England

  8,369,081

  248,982

  30

  1 The number of pupils with statements expressed as a proportion of the number of pupils on roll.

  Milk Vouchers
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for the disbandment of the milk voucher system for school children. [102400]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to end the supply of free milk to children in nursery or day care under the welfare food scheme. The consultation document, "Healthy Start", included a proposal to broaden the nutritional scope of the scheme by offering children in nursery or day care a choice of milk or fruit.

  The nursery element of the scheme does not involve the use of vouchers.

  Sikhs
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support and materials he is making available in schools to increase awareness of Sikhs and their religion. [103034]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The current policy regarding religious education is set out in the Department for Education and Skills circular 1/94. All RE syllabuses in schools should seek to develop pupils' knowledge, understanding and awareness, not only of Christianity, but also the other principal religions represented in the country, including Sikhism.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to make unfair discrimination on grounds of age unlawful in Northern Ireland and to ensure equality of access and opportunity for older people. [96852]

  Mr. Browne
  We plan to issue our proposals for legislation to tackle age discrimination for consultation in the summer. We intend that legislation will be made before the deadline of 2006 imposed by the European Directive.

  The consultation in 2001 on the general content and scope of a single Equality Bill asked some general questions about age discrimination. There are many complex issues to be addressed and we want to ensure that we take account of expert advice and comments in taking forward this work.
  651W
  In addition to new legislation, Departments have a duty under section 75(i) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between persons o f different age.

  We have also established a Working Group under the Promoting Social Inclusion initiative to look at factors which cause older people to be at risk of social exclusion. The Working Group will present Ministers with a draft policy and strategy document for public consultation, setting out clearly defined recommendations as to what preventative and other measures are required.

  Education System
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what system for transfer of pupils between primary schools and secondary schools will operate after the planned abolition of the 11 plus examination. [103248]

  Jane Kennedy
  No decisions have been taken about new transfer arrangements. I am considering carefully the views expressed in meetings with political parties, the education sector and parents, along with the responses to all the strands of the consultation, before determining the next stages of the review of post-primary education. My aim is to maintain the current high levels of achievement and build a modern and fair education system that enables all children in Northern Ireland to fulfil their potential.

  Football
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the decision was made to provide funding for soccer in Northern Ireland; and who made that decision. [103187]

  Angela Smith
  Funding has been provided to soccer for many years. However on 7 February 2003, following advice from the Soccer Strategy Advisory Panel, I announced that the IFA's proposed Development Plan offered a sufficient basis for moving forward on the development of Soccer in Northern Ireland. I also made it clear that, before funding relating to the plan can be provided, I would require assurances that:

  the IFA's proposals are ratified at its Annual General Meeting;

  the governing body's new executive and accountability arrangements are in place; and

  accountability requirements for Government funding, including implementation, monitoring and evaluation, are satisfied.

  Hares
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hare courses took place at the Dungannon Coursing Club meet on 2 November 2002. [102906]

  Angela Smith
  The number of courses that take place in any organised coursing event on the island of Ireland is subject to the policy and rules of the Irish Coursing Club. The policy for coursing in Northern Ireland is set by the Department for Social Development in conjunction with the ICC. Environment and Heritage Service of the DOE issue permits to allow the netting of hares for use in coursing events. Under the conditions of these permits, EHS officials monitor the catching of 652W
  hares before the event and the return of the hares to the wild after the event. The officials have no role in coursing events, consequently I am unable to answer the hon. Member's question.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the recent research of the Northern Irish Hare Survey; and what actions he proposes to implement its recommendations on the hare's status as a quarry species. [102905]

  Angela Smith
  Professor Montgomery's report, entitled "The Northern Ireland Irish Hare Survey 2002", was received by my Department on 14 February 2003.

  The report provides a current population estimate and compares these results with data collected in a 1997 survey. It also assesses the merits of two survey techniques and makes recommendations for future Irish hare monitoring. Professor Montgomery's team concludes that a method of survey known as 'Night Driven Transect Survey' allows a reliable estimate of hare abundance to be calculated.

  The 2002 Night Driven Transect Survey produced an average density estimate of one hare per square kilometre in Northern Ireland, an estimate similar to that reported in 1997. The present report concludes that hares are widespread and are found most frequently in upland areas. Hares were more frequently recorded in County Antrim during the survey and were less frequent in County Tyrone. The survey technique is not a census and so the sample survey gives an estimate of 14,000 hares for Northern Ireland, with lower 95 per cent. confidence limit of 7,000 and an upper confidence limit of 25,200.

  Professor Montgomery concludes, "That the population of Irish hares appears to be stable, albeit at a low density."

  The contract also required the Queen's University Team to make recommendations for practical measures which could improve the status of the Irish Hare in the medium to long term. One of the recommendations was as follows: "Removal of the Irish Hare from the quarry list and protection given under the Wildlife Order."

  In the Irish Hare Species Action Plan, published by DOE in October 2000, a number of actions are listed for consideration. Section 5 deals with Policy and Legislation and Action 5.1.3 recommends that DOE "Review, and if necessary, increase the level of protection given to the Irish Hare in the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985". My Department has appointed consultants to consider the implications of local Biodiversity Action Plan recommendations on the legal status of species, including the Irish hare, and recommend changes where appropriate. I will ensure that the consultants give very careful consideration to Professor Montgomery's recommendation to remove the Irish Hare from the quarry list. The report resulting from this contract is due in June 2003.

  My Department will consider carefully any changes which are proposed to the Wildlife (NI) Order 1985 Schedules or to the Game Preservation Act (NI) 1928 (as amended by the Game Law Amendment Act 1951

  653W
  and The Game Preservation (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002) and will bring forward any amendments considered necessary in the usual way.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received a copy of Professor Montgomery's report commissioned by his Department on the hare population in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [101575]

  Angela Smith
  Professor Montgomery's report, entitled "The Northern Ireland Irish Hare Survey 2002", was received by my Department on 14 February 2003. I welcome the opportunity to make a statement to The House on the results of the survey.

  The Irish hare, Lepus timidus hibernicus, is an endemic sub-species, confined to Ireland, of the mountain hare, which has a widespread distribution across northern Europe.

  The best evidence available suggests a major decline in Irish hare numbers in Northern Ireland during the latter half of the 20th century. This decline has been largely attributed to a loss of suitable habitat brought about mainly by agricultural intensification and changing patterns of grassland management.

  A comprehensive estimate of the population density of Irish hares throughout Northern Ireland was published in 1997. That survey reported that the Irish hare had a widespread distribution and occurred at low densities.

  The Environment and Heritage Service responded to the findings of the report by publishing a Species Action Plan in 2000 that listed a number of specific measures geared "to maintain the existing range and to demonstrate a population increase by 2005; and to double the present population by 2010 over as much of the range as possible."

  To assess achievement of the Species Action Plan targets, and to have current information on the distribution and abundance of Irish hares, requires a system of regular and effective monitoring of population density and distribution.

  Professor Montgomery's report provides a current population estimate and compares these results with data collected in the 1997 survey. It also assesses the merits of two survey techniques and makes recommendations for future Irish hare monitoring. Professor Montgomery's team concludes that a method of survey known as 'Night Driven Transect Survey', allows a reliable estimate of hare abundance to be calculated.

  The 2002 Night Driven Transect Survey produced an average density estimate of one hare per square kilometre in Northern Ireland, an estimate similar to that reported in 1997. The present report concludes that hares are widespread and are found most frequently in upland areas. Hares were more frequently recorded in County Antrim during the survey and were less frequent in County Tyrone. The survey technique is not a census and so the sample survey gives an estimate of 14,000 hares for Northern Ireland, with a lower 95 per cent. confidence limit of 7,000 and an upper confidence limit of 25,200.
  654W
  The report advances a number of recommendations aimed at improving the status of the Irish Hare, these include:

  The provision of hare refuge sites.

  Hare friendly agricultural practices in agri-environment schemes.

  Removal of the Irish hare from the quarry list and protection given under the Wildlife (NI) Order 1985

  Increase in awareness of the plight of the Irish Hare by liaison with farming groups, the rural community and DARD.

  My Department will give these recommendations active consideration and will act on them in an appropriate manner.

  Professor Mongomery concludes, "That the population of Irish hares appears to be stable, albeit at a low density".

  This assessment of the current status of the Irish hare in Northern Ireland is welcome, although the success of the Species Action Plan will be judged ultimately on a sustainable increase in the population of this special creature.

  Skills Task Force
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Skills Task Force will complete its investigation into labour supply and demand in the construction industry in Northern Ireland. [100434]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Skills Taskforce (NISTF) contracts its skills forecasting exercises to the Priority Skills Unit of the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre (NIERC). Work on the labour supply and demand situations in the construction industry started in February 2003 and is due to be published in November 2003.

HEALTH

  Healthcare-acquired Infections
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress his Department has made in reducing the number of healthcare-acquired infections. [103210]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have introduced a mandatory surveillance system for healthcare associated infection and since April 2001 all acute national health service trusts have reported methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus blood stream infections. The first year's data show that rates tend to be higher in special trusts and in the south and east of the country. An MRSA improvement score will be a performance indicator from July. Surveillance will be extended to other micro-organisms and incidents such as outbreaks of gastro-enteritis later this year.

  Kent and Canterbury Hospital
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Kent and Canterbury Hospital. [103211]
  655W
  Ms Blears
  A decision on the reconfiguration of acute services in east Kent could not be made while the judicial review of the consultation process was under consideration. This has now been completed and Ministers are considering the recommendation made by Kent and Medway Strategic Health Authority.

  Capitation Funding (Bedfordshire)
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about capitation funding in Bedfordshire. [103212]

  Mr. Lammy
  I understand that the Chairman of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority has written on 10 February to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regarding national health service investment in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire in 2003–06.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the Office of Fair Trading report on community pharmacies. [103213]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) earlier today.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis. [103214]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are committed to improving care and treatment for people with multiple sclerosis. Around 4,600 patients are receiving treatment with a disease modifying drug. A National Institute for Clinical Excellence guideline will be published shortly. This and the forthcoming National Service Framework for Long Term Conditions will help to improve services for people with MS.

  First Aid
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Skills on teaching basic first aid to children in schools. [103215]

  Ms Blears
  Department for Education and Skills and Department of Health officials have always worked closely together on this issue—most recently in the development of the Safety Education Guidance for schools.

  First aid training is included in the revised National Curriculum, introduced into schools in September 2000. This includes a non-statutory framework for Personal, Social and Health Education in both primary and secondary schools.

  Hospital Reconfigurations
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on hospital reconfigurations. [103217]
  656W
  Mr. Hutton
  New guidance, "Keeping the NHS Local: A New Direction of Travel" was published on 14 February. It challenges the view that 'biggest is best', and puts patients and the public at the centre of the process. The core principles must be applied by the NHS with immediate effect.

  Acute Trusts
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases primary care trusts are withholding money from acute trusts; and what the(a) individual and (b) total value is of the amounts being disputed. [103216]

  Mr. Hutton
  In line with this Government's policy of shifting the balance of power, discussions about such issues take place between the national health service trust and the relevant commissioner and, if required, the managing Strategic Health Authority.

  Autism and Asperger Syndrome
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding he has allocated into the(a) causes, (b) care and (c) treatment of (i) autism and (ii) Asperger Syndrome in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [102930]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives most of its income via grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is the main government agency that funds research into medical conditions. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support for research into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. The MRC funds a large amount of work on the causes and treatment of autism, and to increase the knowledge base of issues surrounding autism. The amounts the MRC has spent on autism research in recent years are shown in Table 1.

  Table 1: MRC spend on autism research

  Year

  Amount(£)

  1997–98

  905,000

  1998–99

  1,041,000

  1999–2000

  1,114,000

  2000–01

  1,182,000

  (an figures for 2001–02)

  2001–02

  1,257,000

  I announced on 14 February 2002 that the Government have allocated an extra £2.5 million to the MRC to help them to take forward recommendations on further research contained in their report of their review of the epidemiology and causes of autism. The additional funds provide the opportunity for the MRC to accelerate research on autism, building on existing strengths and addressing gaps, which were identified in the report. It will complement and add to the MRCs current support for research in this field.

  Under the section 64 General Scheme of Grants to Voluntary Organisations, the Department of Health issues funds to further its objectives in the health and

  657W
  social care fields in England. National Autistic Society projects, which have received funding in the last five years, are shown in Table 2.

  Table 2: Section 64 Grants to the National Autistic Society

  Year

  Project

  Amount (£)

  1998–99

  Regional Advice Service

  40,000

  1999–2000

  Regional Advice Service

  45,000

  1999–2000

  Asperger's Syndrome

  40,000

  2000–01

  Asperger's Syndrome

  40,000

  2001–02

  Asperger's Syndrome

  40,000

  2001–02

  Parental Training

  46,000

  2002–03

  Parental Training

  48,000

  2002–03

  Independence and Autism

  49,000

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding he has allocated to social service departments to support those with autism and Asperger Syndrome and their carers in each of the last five years. [102931]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our increased investment in personal social services in England in recent years will benefit people with autism as well as everyone else who needs them. Details are set out in the table. Amounts for specific conditions are not separately identified within allocations to social services departments. Health bodies and local authorities should ensure that the particular health and social care needs of each person with autism and Asperger's Syndrome are met with genuine choices for both clients and families, through the most appropriate community based services, in a cost—effective way.

  In 1999–2000, we introduced the new children's services grant, whose purpose is to help local authorities implement the Quality Protects programme and in particular to improve the life chances of looked after children and children in need. Disabled children, including those with autism, have been made a priority area in the programme.

  Since the carers grant was introduced in 1999, it has provided an extra £225 million over four years to increase the number of breaks for carers. In recognition of the importance placed on supporting carers, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, announced in July 2002 that the grant has been extended for a further three years to 2005–06. During this time it will provide extended care and 130,000 further breaks to carers.

  Details of the past and proposed future amounts of both grants are shown in the table.

  Children's services grant

  Financial year

  Total social services expenditure (£ billion)

  Overall expenditure (£ million)

  Disabled children's element (£ million)

  Carer's grant (£ million)

  1997–98

  10.0

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  10.8

  —

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  12.0

  75

  —

  20

  2000–01

  12.8

  120

  —

  50

  2001–02

  13.6

  180

  15

  70

  2002–03

  220

  15

  85

  2003–04

  290

  30

  100

  2004–05

  125

  2005–06

  185

  Barnet Chase Farm Trust
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish diagnostic and treatment centres at(a) Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital and (b) Barnet and Chase Farm Trust; when he expects such centres to become operational; and if he will make a statement. [98937]

  Mr. Hutton
  The need for additional capacity was identified in north central London and this was included in the December procurement exercise for independent sector Diagnosis Treatment Centres (DTCs).

  A DTC at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital was also included in the December procurement exercise for independent sector DTCs.

  The two DTCs are intended to be operational as soon after contract close as the independent sector can mobilise and in any event by March 2005.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on planning for the event of deliberate release of biological weapons. [103203]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service has made contingency plans For the deliberate use of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. These plans are kept under careful and continuous review. Overall responsibility for CBRN planning rests with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Child Care, Allowances (Trainee Nurses)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to pay a child care allowance for trainee nurses entitled to an NHS bursary. [103138]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have already made a commitment to introduce help with the costs of child care for all nation al health service—funded students, including trainee nurses, with children aged up to five years, by 2004.

  Children's Diets
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion c f overall funding to improve the nation's eating habits is allocated to improving children's diets. [101386]

  Ms Blears
  During the year 2002–03, 93.5 per cent, of the cost of Department of Health and Food Standards Agency (FSA) led initiatives to improve the nation's eating habits was allocated specifically to improving children's diets.

  Funding for Department-led programmes aimed at improving children's diets totals £140.98 million, including the National School Fruit Scheme, with funding from the New Opportunities Fund, Food in Schools, in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills, Welfare Foods and support for breastfeeding. The FSA has provided funding of £0.58 million as part of its nutrition action plan to support initiatives aimed at improving the diet and nutrition of children.
  659W
  Funding not specific to children totals £9.83 million, including five-a-day community initiatives, with funding from the New Opportunities Fund, other FSA activities and grants to charities.

  In addition to the above, local nutrition initiatives are funded through health action zones, sure start, healthy living centres and through general funding allocations to health authorities and primary care trusts, on which information is not collected centrally.

  Children's Hospices
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which children's hospices have been visited by(a) him and (b) Ministers in his Department since May 2001. [95996]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had the opportunity to visit any hospice whose sole remit is the care of terminally ill children. Should an opportunity arise to undertake such a visit he would give it his full consideration.

  Richard House Children's Hospice in East London was visited in March 2002 by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

  Clinical Consultants (Salisbury)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the clinical consultant caseload in Salisbury is(a) ward—based and (b) home-based; and if he will make a statement. [103079]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not held centrally. Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) only holds data for admitted patient care in England's National Health Service hospitals and therefore data is not available for home care. Collection of data at ward level is not mandatory and therefore is not available.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the National Priorities Guidance target to reduce the per capita rate of growth in emergency admissions of people aged 75 or over to an annual average of 3 per cent. up to 2002–03. [102523]

  Jacqui Smith
  Comparing emergency admissions data for the first three quarters of 2002–03 with the first three quarters of 2001–02 suggests a growth in emergency admissions of 1.1 per cent.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to charge the importers of non-animal foodstuffs from outside the EU for the testing of their imports into the United Kingdom under the proposals in the EU document of 10 February I EC Draft 6090/03). [102848]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has lead responsibility for this proposal on official feed and food controls. I am advised by the FSA that the proposal is for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council and as such, once adopted, its 660W
  provisions will be directly applicable in all the Member States. This includes the provisions on imports from outside the European Union of foodstuffs of non-animal origin. The FSA's understanding of these provisions is that Member States will be required to collect fees for the costs incurred by the competent authorities from the importer or his customs agent. Clarification will be needed during the negotiations, which have not yet started. The FSA commenced a full public consultation on 12 March so that the views of all stakeholders may be taken into account in assessing the implications of the provisions and in developing the United Kingdom policy position on this and other issues arising from the proposal.

  Food Standards Agency
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Sir John Krebs will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) dated 9 January 2003 concerning the Food Standards Agency's Annual Report. [102614]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 13 March 2003.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his definition is of the term 'subsidiary' as used in the EU document of 10 February (EC Draft 6090/03). [102844]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has lead responsibility for this proposal on official feed and food controls. I am advised by the FSA that it will seek to ensure that the proposal takes account of the principles of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. In practice this means ensuring that Community action will not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty and that decisions are taken at the lowest level consistent with effective action.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned by his Department into the costs and implications for product characteristics of the reformulation of food supplements in those cases where nutrient sources in use in the United Kingdom are not included in the lists of permitted nutrients set out in the annexes to the food supplements directive. [103003]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have not commissioned any research into the costs and implications for product characteristics of reformulation of food supplements in those cases where nutrient sources currently used are not on the list of permitted sources. Information gathered by the Food Standards Agency in preparing the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the draft Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 provides estimates of the costs of reformulation up to £3,000 per product.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the potential costs involved in the production of dossiers for submission to the European Food Safety Authority in connection with nutrients for which manufacturers are
  661W
  seeking inclusion in the lists of permitted ingredients set out in the annexes to the Food Supplements Directive. [103004]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have not made its own assessment of the potential costs involved in the production of dossiers for submission to the European Food Safety Authority. Industry cost estimates, provided to the Food Standards Agency during consultation, suggest that they might be £80,000 to £250,000 per dossier where significant safety data are not already available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from(a) individual companies, (b) trade organisations and (c) consumer bodies about nutrients which are permitted for use in food supplements in the United Kingdom, but which are omitted from the lists of permitted nutrients set out in annexes 1 and 2 of the Food Supplements Directive. [103005]

  Ms Blears
  A number of individual companies, trade organisations and lobby groups have recently suggested that the Government should seek an amendment to the Food Supplements Directive to allow the continued sale in the United Kingdom of safe and appropriately labelled food supplements even if they lie outside the technical restrictions of the Directive.

  During negotiations, the Government fought hard to secure the provisions in Article 4 of the Directive, which enable member states to allow the continued sale of products that do not comply with the compositional requirements up to 31 December 2009, provided certain criteria are met. The Government are taking advantage of these provisions and have no plans to seek a further amendment to the Directive. Negotiations were finished some time ago and it is not likely either that the Commission would be willing to reopen them now or that there would be support from a majority of other member states for such an amendment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department and the Food Standards Agency intend to take to address technical difficulties and financial costs associated with the production of dossiers for consideration by the European Food Safety Authority in relation to nutrients which are not included in the list of permitted ingredients for use in food supplements set out in Schedules 2 and 3 of the proposed Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003; [103007]

  (2) whether his Department and the Food Standards Agency have made representations to (a) the European Commission and (b) the EU Scientific Committee for Foods in relation to the technical difficulties and financial costs associated with the production of dossiers for consideration by the European Food Safety Authority of nutrients which are not included in the list of permitted ingredients for use in food supplements set out in Annexes 1 and 2 of the Food Supplements Directive. [103006]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are not able to address the financial issues associated with the production of safety dossiers for consideration by the European Food Safety Authority. The Food Standards Agency has written to the European Commission with the aim of 662W
  facilitating a meeting between United Kingdom stakeholders and representatives of the European Union Scientific Committee on Food to discuss the technical content of such dossiers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number and value of food supplement products on the UK market which contain nutrients omitted from Annexel of the Food Supplements Directive and for which no nutrient sources are listed in Annexe 2 of the Directive. [103008]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have not made an assessment of the number of products on the United Kingdom market which contain nutrients and nutrient sources omitted from Annexes 1 and 2 of the Food Supplements Directive. In the UK, the retail market for vitamins, minerals a rid other supplements was valued at £335 million in 2000. Industry estimates suggest that up to 5 per cent. of the market may be affected, indicating a value in the region of £16.75 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what nutrients are on the market in the United Kingdom as ingredients in food supplements but are not listed in Schedules 2 and 3 of the proposed Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 recently published by the Food Standards Agency; how long each of them have been on sale in the UK; and whether representations are under preparation by manufacturers for submission to European Food Safety Authority for consideration as possible additions to those annexes. [103009]

  Ms Blears
  According to information provided by industry, the nutrients boron, cobalt, nickel, silicon, tin and vanadium are used as ingredients of food supplements currently on the market in the United Kingdom and are not listed in Schedules 2 and 3 of the draft Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 issued for consultation in October 2002. The most recent information received by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) from industry indicates that manufacturers are not preparing safety dossiers for any of these nutrients. The FSA does not hold information on how long each of these nutrients has been on the UK market as ingredients of food supplements.

  Foundation Trusts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the acute NHS trusts which have expressed interest in applying for foundation trust status. [102207]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my right horn. Friend, the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) on 6 March 2003,Official Report, columns 1207–1208W.

  Hillcroft Site, Lymington
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS secured from the disposal of the Hillcroft site in Lymington; and if he will make a statement. [103482]
  663W
  Ms Blears
  An agreement between the New Forest primary care trust and the commercial buyer of the Hillcroft site means that it is not possible to publicly divulge the sum. However, the District Auditor, the District Valuer and NHS Estates are satisfied that the sum received by the PCT for the sale of the Hillcroft site is good value for money.

  Irradiation (Foodstuffs)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the foods tuffs for which an irradiation process has been permitted. [102669]

  Ms Blears
  The Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations 1990, as amended, permits the irradiation of seven categories of food in the United Kingdom:

  Fruit

  Vegetables

  Cereals

  Bulbs and tubers

  Spices and condiments

  Fish and shellfish

  Poultry

  Food that falls within one of the above categories may only be irradiated in a facility that has been granted an Irradiation Licence. Only one UK licence has been granted, which permits the irradiation of a range of dried herbs and spices.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests are available to establish whether foodstuffs have been subject to irradiation; how many such checks were carried out in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage of those checks identified that illegal irradiation had occurred. [102670]

  Ms Blears
  There are nine tests that have been standardised by European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) of these thermoluminescence and photostimulated luminescence techniques are the most useful. More specific tests include analysis for alkyl cyclobutanones and electron spin resonance analysis.

  The nine standardised detection, tests for irradiated foods are:
  EN 1784:1996: Detection of irradiated food containing fatߞGas chromatographic analysis of hydrocarbons.
  EN 1785:1996: Detection of irradiated food containing fatߞGas chromatographic/mass spectrometric analysis of 2— alkylcyclobutanones
  EN 1786:1996: Detection of irradiated food containing boneߞMethod by ESR spectroscopy
  EN 1787:2000: Detection of irradiated food containing cellulose by ESR spectroscopy
  EN 1788:2001: Detection of irradiated food from which silicate minerals can be isolatedߞMethod by thermoluminescence
  EN 13708:2001: Detection of irradiated food containing crystalline sugar by ESR spectroscopy
  EN 13783:2001: Detection of irradiated food using Direct Epifluorescent Filter Technique/Aerobic Plate Count (DEFT/ APC)ߞScreening method
  664W
  EN 13784:2001: DNA comet assay for the detection of irradiated foodstuffsߞScreening method
  EN 13751:2002: Detection of irradiated food using photostimulated luminescence.

  In June 2002, the Food Standards Agency published the results of a survey for irradiated foods. A total of 543 food samples were analysed. Of these, 58 were found to be illegal irradiated products and six were irradiated but not labelled as such.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) with reference to the NHS Ombudsman's report `NHS funding for long term care', if he will ensure that new guidance on HSC 2001/15 contains model eligibility criteria, with appropriate use of case studies and examples so that they may be understood by patients as well as professionals, which are consistent with(a) R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte of Coughlan of 1999 and the ruling that where a person's primary need is owing to health needs or disabilities, their care is a continuing NHS responsibility, and (b) the consequence of the Appeal Court's decision on the circumstances in which it is unlawful to transfer responsibility for a patient's general nursing care to the local authority; [103148]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the comments of the NHS Ombudsman relating to the clarity of HSC 2001/ 15 in the report 'NHS funding for long term care' with particular reference to the Ombudsman's observation that HSC 2001/015 is weaker than guidance previously declared to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan of 1999; [103149]

  (3) what steps he is taking to address the comments in the Health Service Ombudsman's report 'NHS funding for long term care' on the clarity of HSC 2001/ 015. [103152]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government will consider the recommendation to review national guidance on continuing care carefully. Once this process is complete, we will consider if any further action is necessary.

  From 1 April 2003 and the commencement of Section 49 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, local authorities will no longer be able to provide nursing care directly.

  The Court of Appeal in Coughlan said previous guidance issued by the Department of Health was lawful. The Department of Health is satisfied that the guidance issued in 1999 and 2001was compatible with the Court of Appeal judgement in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan of 1999.

  Mental Health (Salisbury)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Service Trust have to sell Century House in Salisbury; and if he will make a statement. [103078]

  Ms Blears
  Century House, which is currently the base for most community mental health services in South Wiltshire, is likely to be sold in 2003–04 for the following reasons:
  665W
  The building cannot be made compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act
  It has health and safety problems
  It is not particularly user friendly for many mental health service users

  I am advised, however, that sale of the building will not affect the level of service provision but, on the contrary, will increase accessibility for disabled service users.

  The Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership National Health Service Trust has already considered alternative options for service delivery. The majority of services will continue to be delivered in service users' homes and community settings, and existing service teams will move in to the new and refurbished buildings at the Old Manor Hospital, where individual consultations and group sessions will take place.

  NHS (International Recruitment)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to introduce legislation to prevent NHS organisations from entering into a contract with a recruitment agency that has not signed up to his Department's code of practice on the international recruitment of health care professionals. [103073]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: There are no immediate plans to introduce legislation to prevent national health service organisations from entering into contracts with agencies who are not adhering to the code of practice. The Department has not been made aware of any trusts that have contravened the code. Monitoring procedures are in place and regular communications issued reminding trusts to only recruit from agencies adhering to the code of practice.

  Nursing Student Bursaries
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 354W, on nursing student bursaries, whether the 4,600 curricular hours include work placements; and what minimum number of work placement hours a nursing student is required to complete in order to obtain a diploma. [102892]

  Mr. Hutton
  A nursing student is required to complete 4,600 curricular hours to qualify for a diploma award and achieve professional registration. Of these 4,600 curricular hours, a minimum of 50 per cent. will be designated for learning within practice. These may include simulation of practice learning.

  Patient Numbers (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were registered with national health services in each of the last five years in the area covered by North Yorkshire area health authority. [103136]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  666W

  Patients of Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1 for North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority as at 1 October 1997–99 and 30 September 2000–01

  Number (headcount)

  England-Patients of UPEs

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire StHA

  1997

  50,904,322

  1,655,197

  1998

  51,110,352

  1,631,540

  1999

  50,894,064

  1,653,512

  2000

  51,332,917

  1,648,770

  2001

  51,249,672

  1,639,945

  UPEs include CMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Note:

  Data has been converted to match Strategic Health Authority structures for 2002.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Primary Care Trusts (Prisons)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from primary care trusts about the impact on their budgets of providing healthcare services in prisons. [103383]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have received no recent representations front primary care trusts (PCTs) on this issue. Funding responsibility for health services in prisons will not be Fully devolved to PCTs until April 2006.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allowance he has made in budget allocations to primary care trusts for the number of prisons in the area they cover. [103384]

  Jacqui Smith
  Allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs) for 2003–04 include an element to fund National Health Service secondary care services for prisoners, and take into account the population of each prison in a PCT area. Allocations also include funding for the continuation of existing prison mental health in-reach services.

  Prisons
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prison health care centres are categorised as(a) red, (b) amber and (c) green under the traffic lights performance monitoring system; and what the criteria are on which prison healthcare centres are rated under the traffic lights system. [103071]

  Jacqui Smith
  The current criteria for rating prison health care centres are as follows.Red—The totality of the problems faced by the health care centre are such that decisive short-term or long-term action is needed to ensure a minimally acceptable and safe service.
  Amber—the problems faced need to be resolved quickly and could or would get worse if left unattended, but are not as urgent as those in the Red category.
  Green—the problems faced are manageable and on the whole the service provided is acceptable in the short to medium term.

  The latest traffic lights ratings show that, on 31 December 2002, there were no red, 28 amber and 110 green prison health care centres.
  667W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of cost implications for future NHS budgets of trends in the prison population. [103388]

  Jacqui Smith
  Overall financial responsibility for prison health services will transfer from the Home Office to the Department of Health from 1 April 2003. Any subsequent funding identified to support increased prison capacity will contain an element for health care, which will be transferred to the Department of Health.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) sentenced and (b) unsentenced prisoners are receiving treatment for mental health problems; and how many of these are being treated as in—patients (i) in the prison health care centre and (ii) in an NHS setting. [103070]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available in exactly the form requested. From 1 January to 31 December 2002, there were 39,000 admissions to prison health care centres. We estimate that around 30 per cent. of these, approximately 11,800, were for mental health reasons.

  In the national health service setting, the latest available statistics show that in 2001, 3,002 restricted patients were detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. In this period, 595 prisoners had, by order of the Home Secretary under sections 47 and 48 of the Act, been transferred from prison service establishments to secure places funded by the NHS.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the budgets for mental health in-reach services in prisons. [103386]

  Jacqui Smith
  Funding for in-reach services established before the end of 2002–03 was included in the baseline resource level allocations that were issued to primary care trusts in December 2002. Further allocations, in respect of new in-reach services to be developed in 2003–04 and addition al support for some existing services will be made shortly.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progess he has made in drawing up guidelines for the use of vouchers for providing respite care. [103296]

  Jacqui Smith
  We plan to lay the regulations for the short breaks voucher scheme before the House by the end of April, with the guidance to follow thereafter.

  Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Winchester
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether emergency surgery facilities will remain at the Royal Hampshire county hospital in Winchester to support a consultant—led accident and emergency service. [102890]

  Ms Blears
  Our policy of "Shifting the Balance of Power" means that the configuration of local services is a matter for the local national health service, working in partnership with its local community.
  668W
  The future of services across Hampshire is currently under discussion in a local consultative process called "Healthfit" As this is a matter for the local community it would be inappropriate for Ministers to comment further at this time.

  Sexual Assault
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protocols are in place in Accident and Emergency departments to adopt a fast track system for referrals from(a) sexual assault referral centres and (b) police stations for victims of sexual assault and rape. [101336]

  Ms Blears
  This is a matter for local determination. However, we would expect all Accident and Emergency departments to have a protocol in place to deal sensitively with victims of sexual assault. This includes medical treatment if needed and support and advice on referral to appropriate local services, including sexual assault referral centres and the police.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require Accident and Emergency departments and primary care trusts to ask patients attending for emergency contraception whether the intercourse was consensual. [101335]

  Ms Blears
  It is a matter for professional bodies to issue guidance on the supply of emergency hormonal contraception (EHC). All health professionals supplying EHC receive training, which should address issues around sexual history taking, partners and consent. If during a consultation for EHC, disclosure of a sexual assault occurs the health professional should provide support and advise on accessing appropriate local services including counselling, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and, if the woman wishes, reporting the matter to the police.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of 11 to 15—year-olds smoke; and what progress his Department is making towards its objective relating to the incidence of smoking in this age group by 2005. [102567]

  Ms Blears
  In 2001, 10 per cent. of 11 to 15—year-olds smoked regularly.

  The Government White Paper: "Smoking Kills", published in December 1998, included the following target: "To reduce smoking among children from 13 per cent. to 9 per cent. or less by the year 2010; with a fall to 11 per cent. by the year 2005."

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislation to ban smoking in public places. [98491]

  Ms Blears
  Although the Government do not support legislation to ban smoking in all public places, existing health and safety legislation under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places responsibility on employers to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees.

  We consider that if we are to ensure protection against passive smoking in public places and workplaces, we need action nationally and locally both

  669W
  to raise awareness of the risks associated with passive smoking and to increase the prevalence of smoke free environments. The Department will continue to encourage the development of smoke-free policies, working with employers and communities.

  Locally, the Department is funding tobacco control alliances across England to work in communities to raise awareness and to increase the number of smoke-free environments. Findings from these projects will inform future development of the Department's work in this area.

  The Department will, in addition to action already under way, develop education and information resources to raise awareness and understanding of the risks associated with passive smoking.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions have been taken since the Approved Code of Practice on passive smoking was published. [98640]

  Ms Blears
  The Government consider that if we are to ensure protection against passive smoking in public places, we need action nationally and locally both to raise awareness of the risks associated with passive smoking and to increase the prevalence of smoke free environments. The Department of Health will continue to encourage the development of smoke-free policies, working with employers and communities.

  At a national level the Department of Health has, since 1998, worked with the hospitality industry to reduce the problem of exposure to passive smoking through the development of a Public Places Charter. An independent evaluation of the Charter is being commissioned, and further work will be considered on the basis of the findings.

  The Government are giving careful consideration to the Health and Safety Commission's proposals for an approved code of practice (AcoP). We encourage all employers to introduce smoke-free workplaces, but are particularly concerned about the implications such a code would have for the hospitality sector and small businesses. While consideration of the AcoP continues, other action is being taken to encourage the provision of smoke-free areas in public and workplaces. We recognise that making places entirely smoke free is not always going to be possible and encourage in these circumstances other measures to be taken to reduce people's exposure to smoke.

  Locally, the Department is funding tobacco control alliances across England to work in communities to raise awareness and to increase the number of smoke—free environments. Findings from these projects will inform future development of the Department's work in this area.

  The Department of Health will, in addition to action already under way, develop education and information resources to raise awareness and understanding of the risks associated with passive smoking.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been successful in giving up smoking as a result of the "Together" programme; how many people have participated in the programme;670W
  how much the programme has cost since it was established; and what assessment he has made of its success rate. [100784]

  Ms Blears
  The "Together" programme is a six-month pilot study launched on 9 January to determine the effectiveness of long-term support for smokers wishing to give up.

  As at 28 February, a total of 4,072 smokers had registered to participate in the programme. 2,387 of these participants are known to have given up smoking but it is too early to make any estimate of long-term success.

  £537,000 has been allocated to the programme.

  Carers
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of the quality of services available to the parent carers of children with physical and learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement; [102282]

  (2) what support is available to the parent carers of children with physical and learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement; [102281]

  (3) what recent discussions he has had with representatives of parent carers of children with physical and learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement. [102283]

  Jacqui Smith
  Disabled children receive a range of care and support from the national health service and social services departments. This includes: medical and nursing support; family support, including short—term breaks and domiciliary care; advice and guidance; residential provision; self—care and independent skills training; drop—in clubs and groups; activities at family centres and transition support services.

  As part of the Government's £885 million "Quality Protects" programme, we set national objectives for children's social services. Through inspections monitoring and annual reviews, the Department's social services inspectorate monitors progress by individual authorities towards the achievement of these objectives. They include specific sub-objectives for disabled children, which are a priority area in the "Quality Protects" programme.

  Last year's "Quality Protects" management action plans (MAPS) show that local authorities are beginning to improve the services they provide to disabled children, including the provision of more family support services, such as home—based respite care and sitting services, and better planning and delivery of services jointly with health and education. There has also been an increase in the number of families being supported. In late 2001, the children in need survey found that social services were supporting 29,700 disabled children: a 2 per cent. increase on the position in 2000. The introduction of direct payments for parents with disabled children is enabling greater choice and greater control over the way services are delivered. Next year, in 2003–04, the "Quality Protects" money earmarked for disabled children will double: from £15 million to £30 million.
  671W
  We are also increasing the provision of short-term breaks through the carers' grant, which was first introduced in 1999 in order to provide breaks for carers, including parents of disabled children. Last year children's social services provided 52,400 carers with short-term breaks funded by this grant: an increase of 21,400 from the previous year. The majority of those receiving a short-term break were parents of disabled children. The grant is increasing on a yearly basis. This year the grant is £85 million. Next year it will rise to £100 million, and by 2005–06 it will have risen to £185 million.

  The Government are providing funding to Contact a Family, of £500,00 per annum, to run a national information centre for parents of disabled children. The free 0808 national telephone help and advice line has been widely used. In the year ending 31 March 2002, it had received nearly 9,000 calls. By the end of 2004, it is estimated that this figure will have risen to 21,000 a year.

  Ministers and officials hold regular discussions with groups representing parents of disabled children about the development and implementation of policy including the implementation of the "Quality Protects" programme and the development of the children's national service framework (NSF). We have set up an external working group to develop NSF standards for disabled children. This includes two parents of disabled children and representatives from the Council for Disabled Children, Contact a Family, SCOPE, MENCAP and the Association of Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus.

  Untoward Incidents (Health Trusts)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS hospital trusts have an action plan to reduce the number of elderly people who fall in hospital; and whether these action plans include introducing bed guards or fall monitors for high-risk patients; [1005141]

  (2) what action he is taking to reduce the number of elderly people who fall in hospital wards; [100512]

  (3) how many elderly people were delayed from hospital discharge in the last quarter because of a fall within a hospital. [100513]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect information centrally on the number of older people affected by falls during a hospital stay. In-patient central records monitor why a patient has entered a hospital but do not necessarily record subsequent changes to the reason they are being cared for in hospital.

  The national service framework for older people, published in 2001, requires all hospitals to recognise, assess and minimise the risks that hospital admission can pose for older people, as part of good management.

  The Government have established the national patient safety agency to improve the safety of national Health service patient care by introducing a national reporting and learning system for adverse events and by promoting an open and fair culture.

  NHS Estates is also developing guidance for hospital facilities for older people and this will include reference to patient safety, including falls.

TREASURY

  Unemployment Benefit
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unemployed people in the City of York parliamentary constituency claimed unemployment benefit in each year since 1979. [102636]

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

  Letter from Office for National Statistics to Hugh Bayley dated 18 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about how many unemployed people in the City of York Parliamentary Constituency claimed unemployment benefit in each year since 1979.
  Information on the claimant count, that is the numbers claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or previous unemployment benefits by Parliamentary Constituency are available monthly, but only from June 1983 onwards. The data are not fully comparable over time. Figures for parliamentary constituencies from January 1996 were based on the ward boundaries of the 1991 census. Data before were based on the 1981 ward boundaries.
  The attached table shows the annual average claimant level in the City of York Parliamentary constituency for the year 1983 to 2002.

  Annual average levels of claimant count in the City of York Parliamentary Constituency

  Year

  Number

  1983

  14,391

  1984

  5,133

  1985

  5,712

  1986

  5,994

  1987

  5,526

  1988

  4,538

  1989

  3,521

  1990

  2,991

  1991

  3,645

  1992

  4,281

  1993

  4,614

  1994

  4,582

  1995

  4,403

  1996

  4,053

  1997

  3,002

  1998

  2,495

  1999

  2,190

  2000

  1,895

  2001

  1,676

  2002

  1,480

  1 Average of the seven months June to December 1983.

  Advertising Costs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Inland Revenue spent on advertising in 2001–02. [102869]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For figures for 2001–02 I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 36W.
  674W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Valuation Office Agency spent on advertising in 2002–03. [102868]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which the Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1061W—1063W.

  Budget Statement
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps will be taken to ensure that official support for the Budget statement will be in accordance with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments. [103666]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Holding the Budget announcement on 9 April is fully consistent with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments. The guidance emphasises that care should be taken during the election period to ensure that Government resources are not used, or seen to be used, for party political purposes. This will be the case in the context of the Budget.

  Compliance Costs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the compliance costs of a Budget date beyond the end of the 2002–03 financial year; and if he will make a statement. [102880]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any costs will be negligible.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Siôn Simon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Birmingham. Erdington of 4 February 2003, concerning regulations under section 42 of the Tax Credits Act 2002. [103175]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have done so.

  Council Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of income households in each income decile pay in council tax(a) net of council tax benefit and (b) gross; what assumptions on take—up were made in coming to the estimate; and if he will make a statement. [102867]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 18 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the proportion of income that households pay in council tax within each income decile. (102867)
  Estimates for council taxes are based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2000–01"

  675W
  produced by the ONS and published on the National Statistics website on April 19th 2002 and in Economic Trends in the May 2002 edition. The analysis can be obtained from the House of Commons library. This includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey.
  The attached table shows the estimated gross and net council tax for all households in Great Britain and for each income decile where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income.

  Council tax as a percentage of gross income, 2000–01—Great Britain

  Percentages

  Decile groups of all households ranked b equivalised disposable income

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  5th

  6th

  7th

  8th

  9th

  Top

  All households

  Gross council tax

  8.8

  5.8

  4.7

  3.9

  3.2

  2.8

  2.4

  2.1

  1.9

  1.3

  2.6

  1 Net council taxes rates after deducting discounts.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income,' published on the ONS website and in Economic Trends No. 582 May 2002

  Dormant Accounts
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue next intends to calculate the total amount held in dormant bank accounts. [102938]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Inland Revenue has no plans to undertake an exercise to estimate the total amount held on deposit in dormant bank accounts.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what method was employed by the Inland Revenue in its 1997 study to calculate the total amount held in dormant bank accounts. [102939]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Inland Revenue conducted a desk review of publicly available information.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special tests relating to matching assets and liabilities were made in the case of Equitable Life in the last 10 years. [103479]

  Ruth Kelly
  None. Equitable Life is subject to the same standard of prudential supervision as other regulated firms.

  Exports
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are being taken to improve and protect the world market share of exports of merchandise of the United Kingdom, with particular reference to exports to the Eurozone. [101971]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government promote open trade globally through a range of policies including its support for the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations and the European Single Market. Through Trade Partners UK, the Government aim to enhance the competitiveness of companies in the UK through overseas sales and investment.
  676W
  As council tax does not exist in Northern Ireland, the figures shown relate to Great Britain only. The net council tax figures are gross council tax less benefits and discounts.
  Council tax benefit is available to low income households to help them meet their local tax liability. The Family Expenditure Survey collects data on the amount of council tax benefit received b households who take up their entitlement. Where a household reports taking up their council tax benefit entitlement, this has been deducted from the council tax liability to produce the net figures.

  TPUK is currently providing support to more than 1,500 companies under its flagship "TPUKߞyour passport to export success" initiative to develop new and novice exporters.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income is paid in tax by those earning(a) the lowest 20 per cent. and (b) the top 5 per cent. in earnings; and if he will make a statement. [102505]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated from the New Earnings Survey that the 20th percentile point and the 95th percentile point are £14,350 and £53,600 respectively.

  Estimates are in the following table.

  Total income range

  Income tax as a percentage of total income

  Less than £14,350

  6

  £53,600 and over

  31

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2002 pre—Budget report.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Inland Revenue has spent on its internet tax return system since its inception; what the estimated(a) manning and (b) set—up costs were; what estimate he has made of the percentage of tax payers that will use the system; and if he will make a statement. [102507]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has spent a total of £34.5 million on its internet service for Self Assessment since it's inception. This includes the full
  677W
  range of costs, including the costs of IT Infrastructure, Development and staff costs as well as other associated costs such as postage and marketing.

  (a) The estimated costs are as follows:

  April 2000-April 2001: £1,056,000

  April 2001-April 2002: £1,588,000

  April 2002-April 2003: £2,065,000

  (b) As my answer of 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 382W, set out, the estimated cost of implementing the Internet service for Self Assessment for years one and two was just under £10 million.

  The Inland Revenue has estimated that 25 per cent. of taxpayers will file electronically by 2005–06.

  Insurance
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with insurance companies about the effect on the(a) quarrying and (b) construction industries of increases in insurance premiums; and if he will make a statement. [103480]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers and officials from HM Treasury and other Government departments have regular discussions with the insurance industry on a range of issues, including the cost of insurance premiums.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he plans to introduce to mitigate the effects of high insurance premiums on(a) companies and (b) self-employed people. [103481]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government is aware of the recent increase in insurance premiums and the problems faced by some businesses in obtaining affordable insurance cover. The Department for Work and Pensions is currently reviewing the operation of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance. The review will report to Ministers in spring.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he will respond to the report from the Financial Services Authority on the regulation of the sale of travel insurance by tour operators and travel agents; [103748]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding regulation of the sale of travel insurance; [103749]

  (3) what proportion of complaints about travel insurance were from customers whose policies were sold to them by (a) tour operators, (b) travel agents and (c) insurance companies; [103752]

  (4) what plans he has to ensure that all companies involved in the sale of travel insurance are regulated by the Financial Services Authority; [103750]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the benefits to consumers of a different system of regulation for the sale of travel insurance by tour operators and travel agents to that which applies to insurance companies; [103753]
  678W
  (6) if he will require companies selling travel insurance to itemise charges made to the customer and the cover purchased at the time of purchase. [103751]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) on 27 February 2003,Official Report, column 388.

  Mapeley
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Grimsby of 29 January 2003,Official Report, columns 300-01W, on Mapeley, if the Inland Revenue has access to Mapel ey's accounts. [99135]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under the terms of the STEPS contract, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have access to the accounts of Mapeley STEPS Contractors Ltd. only.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of mortgages were re-mortgages of the same property, and if he will estimate the size of mortgage equity withdrawal, in each year since 1997. [103424]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Council for mortgage lenders reported that 51 per cent. of mortgages were re-mortgages in January 2003. Bank of England publish figures for mortgage equity withdrawal in terms of both the level and as a percentage of disposable income on their website at: www.bankofengland.co.uk/mew.xls.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of(a) working age adults and (b) adults in work whose National Insurance contributions were (i) incomplete and (ii) incorrectly recorded in each of the last 10 years. [102607]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We estimate there are around 43 million NI accounts relating to people of working age. Information about the number of adults in work whose NI contributions were incomplete or incorrectly recorded in each of the last 10 years is not held.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the accuracy of records of National Insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement; [102609]

  (2) what safeguards are in place to ensure that gaps recorded within individual National Insurance contribution records do not arise from (a) error and (b) fraud. [102606]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The accuracy of National Insurance records depends primarily on information that has been received and processed from employers, Pensions Providers, other Government Departments and individual contributors. The Inland Revenue has a number of systems and operational processes in place to continually validate and review the accuracy of each National Insurance record. The Government's plans to encourage more employers to submit payroll data
  679W
  electronically should also help to improve the accuracy of National Insurance records. In addition to the routine validation checks, the Inland Revenue visit employers to check the accuracy of their records, guard against fraud and to provide support to help them get things right.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what documents were signed by married women remaining on the married women's stamp in 1977 to 1979; how many such documents were issued; and if he will place a copy of the documents in the Library. [103709]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Married women who wanted to continue to pay the Married Women's Reduced rate of National Insurance did not have to sign any documents. However, women who wanted to pay the full rate of National Insurance contributions had to complete the declaration (Form CF9) in the back of leaflet N1. A copy of this leaflet is held in the House Library.

  National Savings and Investments
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many successful traces have been concluded by National Savings and Investments on dormant savings and investments in each month since November 2001; [102935]

  (2) what progress has been made by the tracing service for dormant savings and investments by National Savings and Investments since its introduction. [102936]

  Ruth Kelly
  National Savings arid Investments' new Tracing Service was launched in November 2001. Information is available on a monthly basis from February 2002, with the results for the first three months (November 2001 to January 2002) only available on a consolidated basis. To date, about 35 per cent. of all requests have resulted in successful traces. The number and value of successful traces are as follows:

  Successful traces of dormant savings and investments

  Number

  Value (£)

  November 2001 to January 2002

  876

  904,303

  February 2002

  475

  441,684

  March 2002

  504

  745,443

  April 2002

  89

  303,042

  Ma 2002

  652

  1,132,539

  June 2002

  189

  483,025

  Jul 2002

  409

  264,485

  August 2002

  323

  105,322

  September 2002

  253

  168,943

  October 2002

  151

  163,007

  November 2002

  244

  74,235

  December 2002

  307

  189,401

  January 2003

  412

  291,578

  February 2003

  560

  408,031

  Total

  5,444

  5,675,038

  Net Investment Statistics
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1222W, on public sector net investment statistics, if he will make it his policy to publish net investment statistics by Department monthly; and if he will make a statement. [102889]

  Ruth Kelly
  No.

  Personal Income
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) gross and (b) taxable income of individuals in (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland in the latest year for which data is available; and if he will make a statement. [102876]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of(a) gross and (b) taxable income of taxpayers in (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland in 2001ߞ01 are set out in the following table.

  £ million

  Government region

  Gross income

  Taxable income

  England

  513,300

  380,700

  Wales

  21,900

  15,000

  Scotland

  45,400

  32,300

  Northen Ireland

  11,500

  8,100

  Estimates are based on Survey of Personal Incomes in 2000–01.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Howard Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of his Department's rules on public spending; and what plans he has to revise these guidelines. [102689]

  Mr. Boateng
  The 1998 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report set out the Government's new framework for the planning and controlling of public expenditure. This framework was implemented with the plans set out in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. Further modernisation of the regime has taken place through the implementation in two stages of resource accounting and budgeting in the 2000 and 2002 Spending Reviews.

  Self-assessment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what target the Inland Revenue has set for the number of individual taxpayers filing self-assessment tax returns by 2005; and if he will make a statement. [102877]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Revenue do not have targets for the number of individual taxpayers who are required to file SA returns. The target for the percentage of 2001–02 returns issued by 31 October 2002 and filed by the January 2003 filing date was 90.5 per cent. This target was reached.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) filing and (b) other costs of the self-assessment tax system in each year since 1998; and if he will make a statement. [102878]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The costs of collecting income tax and other taxes are set out each year in the Inland Revenue Annual Reports, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. The costs of administering and collecting income tax cover a variety of integrated tax regimes and systems of which Self Assessment is one. Some significant costs are shared across these regimes
  681W
  and cannot be meaningfully apportioned to particular regimes or systems. No figures are available for the total costs of Self Assessment in isolation.

  Student Debts
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt parents from the tax implications of paying off the higher education debts of their children. [103681]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no such plans.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates his Department has made of the costs of the promotional campaign for the new tax credits, broken down by(a) design, print and production of promotional materials, (b) television and radio advertisements, (c) press advertising, (d) online design related website costs and (e) the provision of faxback facilities. [102416]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The spend on the promotional campaign for the new tax credit is currently estimated as follows:

  £000

  (a) design, print and production of promotional materials

  95

  (b) media costs for:

  television advertisements

  8,016

  radio advertisements

  876

  (c) press advertising

  2,224

  (d) online advertising

  400

  (e) the provision of faxback facilities

  15

  Note:

  All estimated costs include VAT

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the child care tax credit to grandparents caring for their grandchildren. [102799]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plans to make the childcare element of Working Tax Credit available in respect of grandparents caring for their grandchildren under informal arrangements or while acting as a home childcarer. But if grandparents are registered childcare providers, and provide childcare for their grandchildren outside the children's home, then the cost of their services will count as eligible childcare for the purposes of claiming the childcare element of the Working Tax Credit, which will be introduced from April.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the component costs were of each tax credit which contributes to the 2003–04 tax credit lines of(a) table B12 of page 197, (b) table B17 of page 205 and (c) table B9 of page 193 of the November 2002 Pre-Budget Report (Cm 5664); and if he will make a statement. [99394]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The following table shows a breakdown of the tax credit lines of the 2002 Pre-Budget Report Tables B12 and B9 for 2003–04.
  682W

  £ billion

  Table B12, Row 3

  Table B12, Row 33

  1Table B9

  Children's Tax Credit and negative tax element of new tax credits2

  -4.3

  N/a

  -2.2

  Reduced liability corporal ion tax, tax credits

  -0.5

  0.5

  0.1

  Other3

  -0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  Total

  -4.9

  0.6

  -2.1

  1 These figures are the change between Budget 2002 and PBR 2002

  2 New tax credits consist of the Child Tax Credit and the Working Tax Credit, which will be introduced from April 2003. The will replace the Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC), the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC), the Children's Tax Credit and the New Deal Employment credit for the over 50s and income related elements of support for children in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance.

  3 Consists of the negative tax elements of LAPRAS (life assurance premium relief), WFTC and DPTC.

  Between Budget 2002 and the 2002 Pre-Budget Report, the estimated split of total tax credits between that scored as tax and that scored as public expenditure was revised, with the negative tax element now about £2 billion a year higher from 2003–04 onwards. This accounts for almost all of the change seen in Table B9. These revisions are balanced by changes in the public expenditure element of tax credits, and have no overall impact on the current balance or net borrowing. In 2003–04, the tax credit line in Table B17 (£11.7 billion) mainly consists of the public expenditure elements of the new tax credits (£7.6 billion) and child allowances in Income Support and Jobseekers' Allowance (£3.7 billion). The remaining £0.4 billion consists of the tax credits accruals adjustments, charities transitional relief, stakeholder pensions and the public expenditure elements of WFTC, DPTC and LAPRAS.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) the average amount of tax evaded and (b) the total amount of tax evaded was in cases pursued by the Inland Revenue's special compliance office which have resulted in convictions, in each year since 1997. [102004]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total amount of tax that was the subject of criminal offences successfully prosecuted by the Inland Revenue since 1997 is:

  £

  2001–02

  6,201,945

  2000–01

  6,599,539

  1999–2000

  16,108,650

  1998–99

  9,575,906

  1997–98

  16,721,002

  Values in particular cases range from less than £1,000 to over £5 million. These variations can cause significant fluctuations from year to year. Given this range of values we believe that average figures are unrepresentative.

  Unclaimed Assets
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much has been donated to charities by the Unclaimed Assets Register donations scheme
  683W
  from dormant accounts in each year since its introduction (a) in total and (b) from (i) banks and (ii) building societies; [102910]

  (2) how many successful traces have been concluded on dormant accounts in each month since May 2001 by (a) the British Banking Association and (b) the Building Societies Association; [102908]

  (3) how many charities have benefited in each year from the Unclaimed Assets Register donations scheme since its introduction; [102911]

  (4) how many claims have been received in relation to dormant accounts in each month since May 2001 by (a) the British Banking Association and (b) the Building Societies Association; [102909]

  (5) how much total assets have been successfully reunited with owners of dormant accounts in each month since May 2001 by (a) the British Banking Association and (b) the Building Societies Association. [102937]

  Ruth Kelly
  These are matters for the bodies involved.

  VAT Registrations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the stock of VAT registrations was in each city and district within the county of Tyne and Wear in 1996; what the(a) gross and (b) net alterations to that stock were in each subsequent year; what the net alterations to the stock were as a percentage of the 1996 stock; and what the stock of VAT registrations was in 2002. [103732]

  John Healey
  The information requested on districts can be found on the Small Business Service website: www.sbs.goyuk.

  Data on cities are not available. Figures for 2002 will be available in October 2003.

  Water Sprinklers
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove the VAT on the purchase and fitting of water sprinklers in domestic properties. [103673]

  John Healey
  When installed during the construction of a house, water sprinkler systems benefit from the general VAT zero rate that applies to the construction of new houses. Under the long-standing formal agreements with our European partners, the UK may keep its existing zero rates but may not extend their scope or introduce new ones. There is therefore no scope to remove VAT on the installation of water sprinkler systems in existing homes.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the results of the WFTC/DPTC evaluation programme will be released. [100793]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The results of the WFTC/DPTC evaluation programme will be published in due course.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for miscalculation of working families' tax credit by the Inland Revenue; how many people were affected; what 684W
  steps have been taken to correct the miscalculations; how much it has cost to correct the miscalculations; and if he will make a statement. [102508]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The small percentage of miscalculations in assessing applications for Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) arise for a variety of reasons, most commonly problems with the accuracy of the calculation of weekly or monthly earnings in the period leading up to the application. For the new Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which supersede WFTC, entitlement is not based on earnings for a specified period immediately before the claim. Therefore, the reason for miscalculation within WFTC should be eliminated in future.

  For the 2001–02 financial year, the latest full year for which figures are available, over 90 per cent. of all WFTC applications were correctly assessed to the nearest penny. In those cases where a miscalculation is detected, action is taken to correct all underpayments and any overpayments that exceed one pound per week. No information is available on the cost of correcting these mistakes. As confirmed by the National Audit Office, the level of errors made in assessing WFTC applications is low in proportion to the aggregate amount paid.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish figures for working families tax credit take-up in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [102993]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No reliable estimate of the take-up rate of the working families' tax credit in 2001–02 can be attempted until the Family Resources Survey for that year is analysed.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Department for Work and Pensions concerning the potential for increased claims against the Social Fund, with particular reference to meeting the costs of additional alignment payments, during the introduction of the new tax credits. [102994]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Department for Work and Pensions is working with the Inland Revenue to ensure that there is a seamless transition to the new tax credits system and that there is good liaison between the two organisations to ensure that awards of both tax credits and social security benefits are made promptly to people in the most urgent need. We do not expect to see increased claims for Social Fund alignment payments under the new tax credits.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Miners' Pension Funds
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the funds allocated to her Department from the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme and the Mineworkers Pension Schemes which remain unpaid will be removed from the pension funds and paid into the consolidated fund. [102763]
  685W
  Mr. Wilson
  The income streams from the Guarantor's Funds already created from valuation surpluses of each Scheme are payable to the Consolidated Fund in instalments over 10 year periods, the last of which will end in 2010–11.

  Releases from the Investment Reserves are determined by the Schemes' actuary following completion of each actuarial valuation. As part of the Guarantee discussions with the Trustees last year, it was agreed in principle to extend the lifetime of the Investment Reserve beyond the 25 years agreed in 1994.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the entitlement of Her Majesty's Treasury is to sums from(a) the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme and (b) the Mineworkers Pension Scheme that have accrued but are yet to be paid. [102771]

  Mr. Wilson
  The actual amounts received by the Government will depend on future investment returns and any amounts applied in support of the pension guarantee as determined by the Schemes' periodic valuations.

  Brazilian Sugar Industry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the level of public subsidy involved in the expansion of the Brazilian sugar industry. [100630]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am told the DTI has no knowledge of public subsidy being applied to the expansion of the Brazilian sugar industry.

  British Energy
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether public funding to British Energy is being used to provide financial support in the cost of installing flue gas de-sulphurisation at British Energy's coal-fired Eggboro ugh Power Station. [101921]

  Mr. Wilson
  The credit facility was provided to British Energy in respect of its working capital requirements and cash collateral for its trading activities. Details of individual payments are commercially confidential. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told the House on 7 March 2003,Official Report, column 89WS, BE have repaid all outstanding amounts under the credit facility.

  Coal Mine Methane Energy
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent research has been conducted by her Department into the technology for coal mine methane capture; and what representations she has received on it. [102066]

  Mr. Wilson
  Technology for coal mine methane capture is considered a relatively mature technology, employed and proven at several mine sites in the UK, and therefore no recent research has been conducted into the technology.
  686W
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many coal mine methane capture and generation plants she expects private companies to develop in the next three years. [102067]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of coal mine methane capture and generation plants which could be developed by private companies in the next three years is a decision for industry to make in the light of market conditions, and not a decision for government.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons coal mine methane capture and electricity generation from disused coalmines receives no form of incentive through Government programmes. [102068]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government recognise and value the benefits the coal mine methane industry provides by tapping the methane emissions from disused coal mines and putting them to good use for generation of electricity. We have already demonstrated this support through our securing exemption from the Climate Change Levy for electricity generated from CMM in last year's budget, and this is currently being cleared with the European Commission. In addition, we concluded from our investigations that the environmental benefits of CMM-use can also be rewarded using the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and hence we support the study DEFRA has commissioned to determine a baseline for CMM emissions that could enable it to qualify for this Scheme.

  Electricity Suppliers
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to reduce the barriers to entry faced by potential small suppliers of electricity to the national grid.[103037]

  Mr. Wilson
  We recognise that smaller generators have concerns about the NETA market that operates in England and Wales. Significant improvements have been made since the start of NETA, particularly to improve cost reflectivity of imbalance prices and reduce imbalance price risk, which should particularly help smaller generators. There have also been improvements to reduce barriers to the consolidation of the output of smaller generators.

  The Government recently announced its intention to bring forward the Electricity (Trading and Transmission) Bill as soon as Parliamentary time allows in order to implement a GB market. The draft Bill is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny. The improvements above and any future improvements will be carried across to the wider GM market.

  As part of this project, the DTI, jointly with Ofgem, will shortly be issuing a consultation document on the treatment of smaller generators under BETTA. This will look specifically at any barriers to entry that may be faced by smaller generators who are connecting to the transmission system in Scotland.

  Gulf States
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of bilateral trade was with(a) Bahrain, (b) Abu Dhabi and (c) Yemen in the last 12 months for which figures are available.[103221]
  687W
  Nigel Griffiths
  According to information published by HM Customs and Excise, UK trade in goods for 2002 was as follows:

  £ million

  UK imports

  UK exports

  Bahrain

  77.7

  132.4

  Abu Dhabi

  160.1

  213.4

  Yemen

  39.8

  74.0

  Source

  OTSI: UK trade with Countries Outside the European Community, December 2002

  Licence Boundaries (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many responses to the DTI consultation on licence boundaries were received regarding Wales; and how many expressed support for licence boundaries to include areas totally within the boundaries of the devolved Administration. 103456]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: 19 responses were received to the consultation. Two of these expressed support for a licence boundary following the border of Wales—those from MLL, a telecoms provider, and the Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria were used by the Government to decide the allocation of regions for the auction of 3.4GHz wireless broadband licences; and if she will make a statement about the proposal to disregard the geographical Welsh border. 103458]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: The 3.4GHz licence packaging was designed to increase competition and availability of broadband services across the UK. The licence regions were drawn up following market and economic studies to be as economically viable and inclusive as possible, maximising the potential development of sustainable wireless services and the broadband market throughout the UK.

  Dividing up spectrum at 3.4GHz along the lines of funded regions, as suggested by the Welsh National Assembly, would produce more areas of the UK with no coverage. It would also lead to a lower capacity—that is, fewer broadband customers in Wales who can be supported, given the spectrum available.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations her Department received from the National Assembly for Wales on allocating regions for the forthcoming auction of 3.4GHz wireless broadband licences; and if she will make a statement; [103459]

  (2) what representations the Secretary of State has received from the National Assembly for Wales and (b) others in Wales on the proposed licence boundaries for the forthcoming auction of 3.4GHz wireless broadband licence. [103457]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: Consultation on the allocation of 3.4GHz public fixed wireless access (PFWA) licences began on 19 December 2000, when the Radiocommunications Agency ("RA"),
  688W
  on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, published a consultative document entitled "3.4 and 10 GHz: Scenarios for Spectrum Packaging and Delivery". This consultation document presented a number of scenarios for packaging and delivering licences to establish and use stations and apparatus for wireless telegraphy in the 3.4 and 10GHz bands for the provision of Fixed Wireless Access services ("FWA").

  Following a detailed review of the responses to the December consultation document and the completion of further technical studies in the 3.4GHz and 10GHz bands a further consultation document, "PFWA: Proposal by the RA to package and deliver licences at 3.4GHz", published in April 2002, set out the proposal to award spectrum licences for the 3.4GHz band.

  Both consultations were carried out nationally and all Government Departments and devolved Administrations were invited, along with industry and the public, to be involved and comment on the proposals. Among the many comments received and meetings held, RA received input and held discussions with officials of the National Assembly for Wales on numerous occasions. This included a proposal from the Welsh Assembly Government for two licences to match EU objective funding areas in Wales. This proposal was included in the public consultation process alongside those of the Scottish Administration and RA.

  Of the responses to the consultation, only one industry response expressed support for the proposals from the devolved Administrations, MLL, a telecoms provider with operations in Wales. One industry response to Government's consultation commented "creating two purely Welsh regions could result in insufficient market potential in viable geographic coverage spreads to justify serious bidding". The Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications, part of the Welsh National Assembly, also expressed support.

  Since the timetable of the award was announced there have been representations from Welsh National Assembly members about licence areas. Further consideration has been given to this issue but I believe the packaging, which has been accepted by the majority of industry, will produce the best outcome both for Wales and for the UK as a whole.

  In particular, it will enable a larger number of users to be supported in Wales, given the spectrum available, than the alternative proposal.

  LINK Programme
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance she has issued to the assessors of applications for funding to the LINK Programme in respect of the provision of feedback to unsuccessful applicants. [101877]

  Ms Hewitt
  LINK is a pan-government scheme for the support of collaborative research between UK companies and the science base. It consists of a number of individual programmes which have their own management and feedback procedures agreed by the sponsoring Departments in line with overall LINK Scheme guidelines which aim to ensure that constructive and unambiguous feedback is provided. Each programme funds a number of projects.
  689W
  I believe that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the LINK Basic Technologies for Industrial Applications programme. Within this programme, all projects are assessed by an independent panel against the criteria for support for the programme, which are included in the guidance notes to applicants and published on the programme website at www.basictechnologies.gov.uk. Aspects considered in assessing project proposals include: the level of innovation including the potential for a step-change in industrial capability; the risks and likely rewards in using the new technology; the feasibility of the proposed approach; the quality, relevant expertise and resources of the consortium; the range of potential beneficiaries; the strength of the UK science base in the technical areas involved; the potential for lasting benefit to UK capability beyond the life of the project; and the level of wider industrial interest.

  The programme coordinator provides feedback on the panel's recommendations to all applicants and has been asked to point out both the strengths and weaknesses in the proposal in line with the assessment criteria above. Where possible, guidance is also provided to the unsuccessful applicants on other possible sources of funding where these can be identified. As 140 outline proposals were received under the current call, it was not possible to provide immediate detailed written feedback to all applicants. However, applicants could telephone or e-mail the coordinator for further feedback on the panel's recommendation and over 50 consortia did. With funds available to offer support to less than 20 projects, only the projects which best met all the criteria were invited to come forward as full proposals and inevitably some good projects were rejected.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for funding have been made to the LINK Programme in the current financial year; and what the(a) name, (b) subject and (c) cost is of each application which has been approved. [101878]

  Ms Hewitt
  LINK is a pan-government scheme for the support of collaborative research between UK companies and the science base. It consists of a number of individual programmes which run their own calls for proposals. There are currently 25 programmes open for applications. Each programme funds a number of projects.

  I believe that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the LINK Basic Technologies for Industrial Applications programme. In the case of this programme, a call for proposals was announced by my noble Friend, the Minister for Science and Innovation on 26 July 2002, with a closing date of 7 November 2002. 140 outline applications were received, of which 20 were invited to come forward as full proposals to the second stage of the appraisal process. 19 full proposals were received by the closing date of 20 February 2003 and are now being assessed by an independent panel of industrial and academic experts. Therefore, at this stage, no projects have been approved for funding under the programme.
  690W
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what management arrangements she has established for processing applications under the LINK Programme; and if she will make a statement. [101879]

  Ms Hewitt
  LINK is a pan-government scheme for the support of collaborative research between UK companies and the science base. It consists of a number of individual programmes which have their own management procedures agreed by the sponsoring Departments in line with overall LINK Scheme guidelines. Each programme funds a number of projects.

  I believe that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the LINK Basic Technologies for Industrial Applications programme. In the case of this programme, my Department is the primary sponsor and has established a 2-stage process for assessing applications to minimise unnecessary work for applicants whose projects may not be strong candidates for support.

  Initial outline proposals, consisting of a 3-page project description with a covering application form, are submitted to the programme co-ordinators by the advertised closing date. These proposals are then circulated to an appraisal panel of independent industrial and academic experts, who assess the proposals against the programme's criteria for support, in particular, the degree of innovation and the potential long-term wider benefit for UK productivity. The panel, which has an independent chairman from industry, meets to review the proposals and recommends those which it considers should come forward as full proposals, bearing in mind the funds available for commitment. The project applicants are then informed of the panel's recommendation by e-mail. A telephone contact number and e-mail address are provided for applicants who wish to seek further feedback or discuss the panel's recommendation. The target for the process from closing date to notification is 30 working days, which was achieved in the call currently under way which involved 140 applications. With such a large number of applications, it is not possible to give detailed feedback to all the applicants within the stated target times for processing.

  The projects invited to submit full proposals are given a closing date for submission about two months after notification. They are provided with feedback from the appraisal panel and visited by the programme co-ordinators or officials to provide advice on preparing a full application. The full application consists of a 10-page project description with technical annexes plus a LINK summary application form and application forms from each of the consortium members summarising company and financial information. The full proposals are again circulated to the appraisal panel and additional input is sought from other experts where appropriate. The panel meets to review all the proposals and recommends to DTI those which should be supported. The proposals are ranked to enable the available funds to be assigned to the strongest proposals. The applicants are notified of the recommendations of the panel which indicate that, subject to satisfactory financial arrangements being

  691W
  completed, the project will be offered grant support. The target to complete the process from closing date to notification is 40 working days.

  Information on the programme, including application forms and guidance notes for applicants, are available on the programme website at www.basictechnologies.gov.uk, which is maintained by the programme co-ordinators.

  Miners' Compensation
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid since 31 December 2002 in respect of(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger to former miners; how much has been paid to (i) solicitors and (ii) handling agents; and how much has been paid for medical assessments. [102850]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: The information is as follows:

  £ million

  COPD

  VWF

  Total

  Total damages paid (1 January 2003 to 9 March 2003)

  94

  46.1

  140.1

  Total solicitor costs (1 January 2003 to 9 March 2003)

  26.4

  4

  30.4

  Other costs which include payments to contractors* (1 January 2003 to 28 February 2003)

  —

  —

  14.3

  * Due to commercial confidentiality, the Department is unable to provide a breakdown of the figures paid to individual contractors.

  Motor Fuel
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many motor fuel retailers were trading in(a) 1997 and (b) the most recent year for which figures are available. [103047]

  Mr Wilson
  The Institute of Petroleum's (IP) annual "Retail Survey 2002" provides the following data on the number of retail petrol filling stations in the UK.

  End of 1997—14,824

  End of 2002—12,201

  Nuclear Industry
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes she plans to make in the security regulations covering the civil nuclear industry; what costs will be incurred in the proposed changes; what additional resources she is making available to the Office of Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) to implement the regulations; and when she expects to receive the next annual report of the OCNS. [103089]

  Mr. Wilson
  On 26 February I made the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations which will update and consolidate the regulation of security in the UK's civil nuclear industry. The regulations carry forward the main substance of the current regulatory regime, but bring the existing requirements together to provide a single, comprehensive legislative basis for regulation. They set requirements for the protection of nuclear and radiological material, whether on sites or in transit, against the risks of theft or sabotage, and for the 692W
  protection of sensitive nuclear information, such as site security arrangements and proliferation-sensitive information.

  The regulations were laid before Parliament on 28 February and most of the provisions are due to come into force on 22 March.

  It is likely that the regulations will lead to minor additional one-off compliance costs to industry as a whole of around £190,000, and annually recurring costs to industry as a whole of around £115,000. There are also likely to be minor additional one-off costs to Government. The likely costs and benefits of the regulations are set out in a Regulatory Impact Assessment. Copies of this were placed in the Libraries of the House when the regulations were laid before Parliament.

  Seven additional posts were made available in the Office for Civil Nuclear Security from 2002–03, to increase capacity in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States in September 2001 and in anticipation of the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003 coming into force.

  The Director of Civil Nuclear Security intends to submit his next annual report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in May.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to engage stakeholders in discussion of proposals to create a nuclear decommissioning agency (NDA); what funds are available to defray the costs of participation in discussion forums by stakeholders of the NDA; and if she will make a statement. [103090]

  Mr. Wilson
  My officials are actively engaging with interested stakeholders, in particular through a planned rolling series of meetings at regional level. The first round of these meetings is focusing on explaining progress to date and identifying the issues which stakeholders wish to discuss. The second round, in the summer, will focus on how the NDA might work with stakeholders with a view to developing a draft stakeholder engagement framework which the NDA can build on once it is in place. This programme of regional events supplements existing arrangements for bilateral dialogue with stakeholders through the BNFL Stakeholder Dialogue and regular meetings with the nuclear regulators, trade unions, BNFL and UKAEA staff, Interested local authorities, environmental groups and the local liaison committees for individual sites.

  I recognise that some stakeholders incur costs through their participation in such meetings. We have previously reimbursed any reasonable costs on a case by case basis and will continue to do so.

  Nuclear Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much has been levied in fines by the Nuclear Inspectorate against(a) companies, (b) local authorities and (c) individuals, with regard to incidences of pollution, broken down by the type of pollution incidence (i) in total, (ii) in each region and (iii) per fine, in each year since 1995; [99210]
  693W
  (2) what assessment has been made or is planned of the effectiveness of fines levied by the Nuclear Inspectorate on polluters preventing (a) further incidences of pollution by the polluters and (b) incidences of pollution from others who have not previously polluted; what changes are planned; and if she will make a statement; [99211]

  (3) how many (a) complaints, (b) court actions and (c) fines against the nuclear industry for problems related to (i) odours, (ii) water pollution, (iii) air pollution and (iv) human health impact, (A) in total, (B) in each region and (C) per site there have been in each year since 1995. [99212]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI does not hold information broken down according to the categories set out in these questions with respect to complaints or court actions arising from instances or alleged instances of pollution and any ascribed effects on health.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she plans to advertise for the positions of chairman and board members to replace the Director General of Fair Trading; and if she will make a statement. [102784]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) was advised in his appointment letter dated 13 July 2000 that he would be appointed chairman if the Enterprise Bill was enacted. He was formally appointed chairman (and therefore executive member of the Office of Fair Trading) from 6 January 2003, following royal assent to the Enterprise Act 2002, under section 13 of the Interpretation Act 1978. This appointment ends on 30 September 2005.

  Advertisements for the non-executive members appeared in June 2002, with a closing date of 26 July 2002. Following the interview process, and then consultation with the chairman, four selected appointees were announced in a press notice P/2003/32 dated 21 January 2003 available in the Libraries of the House. These roles will commence under the Enterprise Act 2002 with the new Office of Fair Trading and the end of their appointment terms are staggered between 2007 and 2008.

  The current deputy of the DGFT is also being appointed as an executive member from 1 April 2003 for four years (in same press notice).

  The department will consult the new board on plans for the appointments of separate Chair and Chief Executive when John Vickers leaves in 2005, but no further action is required this year.

  Pressure Equipment Directive
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the difficulties of professional copper boiler makers in complying with the Pressure Equipment Directive. [102759]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department is aware of the problems of small businesses operating in the heritage sphere that need to comply with CE marking directives. Arrangements were put in place last year offering help to them with the start up costs they incur in respect of 694W
  third party verification and inspection services required to CE mark some of their products. In the case of copper boilermakers and the Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999, the Department also engaged the services through much of last year of an independent consultant, at public expense to assist them in their compliance efforts. The Department continues to offer advice as appropriate.

  Self-employment Pensions
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from what date the Department of Trade and Industry ensured that life offices that offered Guaranteed Annual Returns for self-employed pensions were matching assets against guarantees given. [103478]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no specific requirements relating to pensions for self-employed people. Life insurers offering personal and stakeholder pensions are subject to the same prudential supervision as other regulated firms.

  Spectrum Access
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received on the recognised spectrum access scheme proposed in the Communications Bill; and how many of them were(a) in support of and (b) in opposition to the scheme. [101611]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: Eight representations have been received by the Department supporting recognised spectrum access and 26 opposing the principle of the scheme or its proposed application to satellite services.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Ministers from her Department have met representatives of the UK satellite industry to discuss the impact of recognised spectrum access on the satellite industry. [101612]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: I agreed last month to meet representatives of UK and European satellite operators to discuss recognised spectrum access. The meeting has been arranged for 8 April.

  Staff Redundancies
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance she gives on whether firms, when making staff redundant without allowing staff to work their notice period, have to take into account lost pay and benefits pension rights when making payment in lieu of notice. [103395]

  Alan Johnson
  Employees entitled to notice of dismissal are entitled, where no notice is given, to pay in lieu for the period of notice required. They are also entitled to other benefits, such as pension rights, that would have accrued in respect of that period. This is the position whatever the reason for dismissal except in cases where the employer is justified in dismissing the employee summarily.
  695W
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions her Department has been notified of significant redundancies planned by(a) AMP, (b) Pearl Assurance and (c) NPI; how many jobs were affected; and in what locations. [103399]

  Alan Johnson
  I regret it is not possible to disclose details of the number of notifications of proposed redundancies received by the Department. Such information is a confidential matter between the employer and the Department, under Exemption 13, Third Party's commercial confidences, of the Code of Practice on access to Government information.

  UK Steel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Corus regarding the UK steel industry; and what support and assistance she can provide to the UK steel sector. [103859]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had a number of discussions with senior management of Corus to discuss its current difficulties. She met Corus board members on 18 March when she again stressed the need for them to develop a workable solution which will return the company to profitability. We must await the outcome of commercial discussions.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact she estimates the present difficulties in the UK steel industry will have on production for military contracts. [103860]

  Alan Johnson
  It is considered that the UK steel industry will not have any difficulty fulfilling contracts.

  Your Guide Project
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the total cost of the Your Guide project in post offices. [103541]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 5 November 2002,Official Report, column 157W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101557]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Appeals
  Mr. Peter Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he last reviewed provision under the Reviews of Sentencing Orders of 1994, 1995 and 2000; when his Department will next review this; and if he will make a statement; [100207]
  696W
  (2) what representations he has received to extend the range of cases over which the Attorney General has power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal where it appears that sentencing has been unduly lenient; and if he will make a statement; [100209]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the Attorney General and the Courts regarding the current provision under Sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Reviews of Sentencing Orders of 1994, 1995 and 2000 to refer certain types of case to the Court of Appeal to further review sentencing orders to include further offences; and if he will make a statement. [100210]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no formal review system in operation for the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. New requests to extend the Attorney General's powers to refer unduly lenient sentences are considered by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General and Lord Chancellor, as and when they are received.

  The Home Secretary is sympathetically considering a request from the Attorney General (which has the support of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice) to add certain racially aggravated offences to the scheme. This request followed a specific recommendation in a report of a thematic inspection of casework with an ethnic minority dimension, conducted by Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate.

  An amendment was tabled during the Committee Stage of the Courts Bill in another place, to add burglary to the scheme, but this was defeated on 18 February.

  The Home Secretary will continue to consider whether any additional offences should be added, and will liaise fully with the Attorney General, Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice in such deliberations.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications have been outstanding for(a) more than three months and (b) more than 6 months. [102438]

  Beverley Hughes
  As at the end of December 2002 the number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision for more than three months is estimated to be 25,800, of which 21,400 cases were outstanding after more than six months. This includes cases that are currently under consideration and compares with 27,300 and 22,100 such applications as at the end of December 2001, and 72,000 and 60,600 applications as at the end of December 2000.

  Provisional data show that 60 per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and third country cases) received in 2001–02 had initial decisions reached and served within two months, 78 per cent. within four months and 84 per cent. within six months. 76 per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and third country cases) received in the period April to September 2002 had initial decisions reached and served within two months.
  697W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it is taking to process(a) straightforward and (b) non-straightforward cases for (i) asylum and (ii) British citizenship. [102463]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records. Each asylum claim is assessed on its individual merits, and it is not clear on what criteria an asylum case would be classified as being straightforward or not straightforward. An asylum case, which appears straightforward at the outset, can become more complex later in the asylum process. 76 per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and third country cases) received in the period April to September 2002 had initial decisions reached and served within two months.

  The average time between application and initial decision was six months for initial decisions made in 2002. This has been calculated using all cases for which data are available, including older cases decided as part of the reduction of the backlog, as well as new cases. This compares to 20 months in 1997.

  Applications for British citizenship are dealt with upon receipt and are not subdivided into straightforward and non-straightforward applications.

  The most recently published data on average processing times for British citizenship relate to applications lodged prior to 31 March 2001, when the average waiting time was 11.6 months.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding arrangements are in place to enable the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to meet the target to halve the number of asylum applicants by September. [102469]

  Beverley Hughes
  The budget for 2003–04 will be published in the Home Office's main estimates (in the usual way).

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) guidelines and (b) rules the National Asylum Advisory Service gives to contracted companies as to where each asylum seeker can be housed in a cluster. [103182]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) identified areas suitable for the provision of accommodation to asylum seekers. NASS contracted companies were told where these areas were and that accommodation must be located within the defined areas. All accommodation had to meet a strict specification laid down by NASS. Providers were responsible for ensuring that all necessary planning regulations were met, including local requirements relating to houses in multiple occupation. Additionally, where it is proposed that a single address will have over six bedspaces, there is a requirement that NASS should formally consult the local authority.

  Asylum Support Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of(a) fraud and (b) overpayment in respect of claims by landlords for accommodation provided under the NASS asylum
  698W
  support programme has been in each year since the establishment of NASS; how many investigations have been undertaken in each year; what the outcomes were; and if he will make a statement. [102778]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has entered into contracts with both the private and public sector to provide accommodation for asylum seekers. Under the terms of the contract a set price is paid for the accommodation provided but contractors are required to meet key performance indicators. There have been no investigations into suspected cases of fraud or overpayment.

  The method of payment used by NASS to pay its contractors may, on occasions, result in a technical overpayment. This is caused by the need to make deductions from the contract price where there has been a failure to meet key performance indicators but the system is self correcting in subsequent months.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by his Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102052]

  Beverley Hughes

  The Queen's Golden Jubilee Award

  From November 2002, the Home Department has been responsible for The Queen's Golden Jubilee Award (for voluntary service by groups in the community). This new, annual Award, which was launched in April 2002, is for outstanding voluntary groups of two or more people who have been operating in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, normally for a period of three years or more. Winning groups and the individuals who nominated them for consideration will be informed in confidence shortly before the public announcement on 2 June 2003.

  The Philip Lawrence Awards

  The Philip Lawrence Awards were established in 1996. They celebrate annually outstanding citizenship in their communities by young people. They are awarded in November or December of each year.

  Home Office Police Research Award Scheme

  The Home Office Police Research Awards have been granted every year since 1987. The Awards provide Home Office funding and support for police staff to carry out research and/or development projects. All individuals submitting an application are provided with feedback. Those who are successful undergo an induction training event whilst those who are unsuccessful are given suggestions, if and when appropriate, on how to improve their proposals for a future application.

  Host police force areas are notified together with the candidates.
  699W
  The Ferrers Trophy

  The Ferrers Trophy is awarded annually to the `National Special of the Year'. The re are also awards for Highly Commended and Team entries. They are open to all special constables and teams of special constables in England and Wales. The awards ceremony is held in June of each year.

  The Tilley Award

  The Tilley Award is open to all United Kingdom police forces for excellence in problem oriented policing. It was established in 1999. Winners and runners up are notified of the results in July with a formal announcement in September of each year.

  The Prison Service has several award schemes for staff and prisoners. For staff they are as follows:

  Butler Trust—Greening award

  A new award for staff who have contributed towards improving the Prison Service's environmental performance was announced in August 2002 and the first winners will be presented with their awards in late March.

  Staff Ideas Themed Competition "Making Prisons Greener"

  In September 2001, the Prison Service launched its second central staff ideas themed competition "Making Prisons Greener". All the ideas have been featured in more detail in the Greening Operations Team's quarterly newsletter and in its annual environmental report published in July 2002.

  Design a poster competition

  The Prison Service, as part of its campaign to promote awareness of environmental matters among staff, launched a design a poster competition in 2001. This was aimed at staff and their families who were asked to submit designs for greening and energy efficiency posters to be used across the Service. The winning designs were used to produce posters that have been distributed to every prison and Service Headquarters.

  The Elton Trophy Competition

  The Elton Trophy Competition is an annual award scheme rewarding highly creditable performance in prison workshops. Eligibility for nomination was restricted to industrial workshops until 2002 when the scope was expanded to allow nominations from craft, charity and vocational training workshops.

  Commendation awards are also made to individual members of staff directly linked to workshops who have contributed significantly to a workshop's success.

  The Prison Service introduced performance arrangements in April 2001. These provide practical guidance on approaches to recognising individual performance outside the staff appraisal system. The arrangements encourage managers to recognise and acknowledge good performance by their staff. The methods suggested vary from a simple "thank you", to
  700W
  the award of vouchers to one-off financial rewards. There are a number of strands to the arrangements and consist of the following:

  Prison Officer of the Year Award

  This is an annual event introduced in 2002 as a method of "recognising, rewarding and celebrating the outstanding achievements of prison officers throughout the Service".

  Butler Trust Award

  The Trust was established as a registered charity in 1985 to promote and encourage positive prison regimes. An independent annual award scheme was set up to recognise exceptionally dedicated and often creative work undertaken by any person working in the Prison Service. The Service's performance recognition arrangements encourage nominations for the award.

  Staff Ideas Scheme

  Staff are encouraged to contribute to the Ideas Scheme which has been extant for a number of years. The scheme exists on two tiers. Firstly, there is local consideration of ideas specific to the local working environment. Secondly, there is national consideration of service-wide ideas that would have implications for policy or regular working practice. The objective of the scheme is to improve policy developments and make practices and procedures more effective and cost-efficient. Ideas are recognised with monetary awards from £25 up to £3,000, or with a small encouragement gift such as a pen.

  Prisoner award schemes for prisoners consist of the following:

  Bricklaying Competition

  The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit (PLSU) based in the Department for Education and Skills contributes towards annual bricklaying competitions for prisoners. These competitions, which are recognised by UK Skills, are administered using National Skills Competition guidelines and judged independently by the Guild of Bricklayers. The winning team from the Scottish Prison Service Competition is invited to compete in the final for prisons in England and Wales.

  Koestler Award Trust

  PLSU also supports the Koestler Award Trust, which runs an annual competition in a wide range of creative arts for those in prisons, young offender institutions, high security psychiatric hospitals and secure units. 64 judges, working for free, send critical comments to the entrants which encourages communication between the artist, the Trust and the Education Co-ordinator and tutors in establishments. The work is judged in May and June and certificates sent to the award-winners in July. Award cheques are sent to Governors to be credited to the prisoner's private cash.

  Koestler's annual exhibition of award-winning work is held in September.

  Windlesham Trophy

  The Windlesham Trophy is awarded every year to the prison judged to have the best kept gardens. The scheme includes individual commendation awards. These recognise exceptional talent, or an outstanding contribution to a garden's success, or input into prisoner training or rehabilitation. The competition is open to all prison establishments in England and Wales. The results

  701W
  are published throughout the Prison Service in the first week of August each year. The Royal Horticultural Society provides a panel of three experts to judge the final round. There is press interest local to the winning establishment, and occasional interest from national and specialist gardening press.

  Cap Le Hague Nuclear Reactor
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place for the protection of the Isle of Wight in the event of an attack on the Cap Le Hague nuclear reactor in France. [102839]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the event of any overseas nuclear incident (arising from an accident or a deliberate act) the Government's National Response Plan for Overseas Nuclear Accidents and RIMNET would be activated. A copy of this plan is available in the Library.

  The UK Government would expect to receive notification of such an incident via the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), European Commission Urgent Radiological Information Exchange (ECURIE), bilateral agreements between Governments for exchange of information (France, Denmark, Holland, Norway and Russia are signatories) or an alert from one or more of the 93 gamma dose rate monitoring sites that comprise the UK's national radiation monitoring network (RIMNET).

  An assessment of the likely impact of any release of radioactivity on the UK would be made immediately using all available information together with dispersion prediction modelling provided by the Meteorological Office. Using global weather information the current and forecast meteorological scenario would provide early estimates of the trajectory and the time of impact in the UK. This information when combined with environmental monitoring will allow the Government to assess projected levels of contamination and likely coverage.

  A Technical Co-ordination Centre would be set up in the purpose-built Defra emergency room in London, from where a team of officials experienced in dealing with emergencies would co-ordinate the response to the incident. Public information and advice based on this information would be prepared and distributed from the Technical Co-ordination Centre to all the authorities and organisations with responsibilities for protecting the public and the environment including those on the Isle of Wight if the island was likely to be affected.

  Terrorism
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what emergency planning has been undertaken in preparation for a chemical or biological attack in the UK; and if he will make a statement about the state of preparedness of the(a) emergency services and (b) local authority services. [102518]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Statement on Terrorism (Civil Contingency Planning) that I made on 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 72WS.
  702W
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation has been made of the impact of the detonation of a dirty radiological bomb in a city centre; what assessment has been made of the ways in which decontamination needed can be carried out; and what calculation has been made of the likely consequential costs of such a dirty bomb being used. [101994]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The United Kingdom has well tried and tested contingency plans—developed over many years—for responding to a wide range of terrorist threats, including those which might involve the threatened or actual use of radiological materials.

  At a national level, existing contingency plans for dealing with the aftermath of radiological emergencies arising from nuclear and other incidents have been reviewed and adapted to cater for the deliberate release of radioactivity, or 'dirty bombs' into the environment. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) takes the lead in maintaining these plans.

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (John Denham), published the Strategic National Guidance for the Decontamination of People Exposed To Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) Substances or Material on 3 February 2003 which contains ways in which the decontamination of people is carried out. This is an approach which provides simple but effective decontamination for chemical, biological or radiological contaminants.

  The consequential costs of such an incident would of course depend on a number of factors, including the size of the device, the weather conditions and the area affected.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to prevent illegal immigrants being used by terrorists to introduce dangerous pathogens into the UK. [102301]

  Beverley Hughes
  Clandestine illegal entrants detected in Kent are transferred to the Dover Asylum Screening Centre and they and their baggage are searched thoroughly as part of the screening process.

  Clandestine illegal entrants detected elsewhere in the country, are normally taken to the nearest police station where they would be searched before being taken into the custody area.

  The terrorist threat remains real, and serious. As recent events have shown, no country is immune from attack, and it simply is not possible to guarantee against more attacks in the future. However, this Government are resolute in their determination to defeat terrorism regardless of its source.

  The average time between application and initial decision was six months for initial decisions made in 2002. This has been calculated using all cases for which data are available, including older cases decided as part of the reduction of the backlog, as well as new cases. This compares to 20 months in 1997.

  Applications for British citizenship are dealt with upon receipt and are not subdivided into straightforward and non-straightforward applications.
  703W
  The most recently published data on average processing times for British citizenship relate to applications lodged prior to 31 March 2001, when the average waiting time was 11.6 months.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the pathogens which could be used in a terrorist attack against which there is vaccine available. [102302]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Our defence against bioterrorism takes account of the possibility of terrorists seeking to use a wide range of pathogens and toxins. Schedule 5 to the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 lists 47 such agents for which security arrangements must be made.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the detection technologies available to each of the emergency services for use in incidents where terrorist threat surveillance may be appropriate. [102303]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Fire Service has access to radiological survey meters and, in appropriate circumstances, personal radiation dosimeters. In addition, all brigades have access to explosive atmosphere monitors and local scientific advice.

  The Police Service has access to chemical monitors and radiation dosimeters. They also have access to specialist national chemical, biological and radiological advice.

  The Ambulance Service use the detection technologies of Police and Fire Services. It would not be appropriate, on security grounds, to give more specific information.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to protect the parliamentary estate against potential terrorist attacks. [102455]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Operational responsibility for security within the parliamentary estate rests with the Serjeant-at-Arms. Outside the estate's boundaries, operational responsibility falls to the Metropolitan Police Service. For security reasons, I cannot comment on the detail of the measures in place to protect against potential terrorist or other forms of attack.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of preparedness amongst voluntary organisations of the United Kingdom to respond to a major terrorist attack; and if he will make a statement. [96250]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The degree of preparedness of any voluntary organisation judged competent to work with the statutory agencies in handling the consequences of any civil emergency is a matter for assessment by the local authority and/or emergency service through which the voluntary organisation is registered and operates. The Government have published clear guidance on the use and training of volunteers and voluntary organisations in the following core guidance publications: 'Dealing With Disaster' (3rd edition), England and Wales (chapter 6); 'Dealing With Disaster Together', Scottish Executive (chapter 7); 'A Guide to Emergency Planning in Northern Ireland' (annex C).

  Contingent Liabilities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which contingent liabilities for which his Department has responsibility have matured in each of the last five financial years; and if he will make a statement. [101767]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My Department carries out an exercise each year to identify the contingent and actual liabilities of the Home Department and reports the findings to Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Information relating to 1997–98 is not readily available.

  Between 1998–99 and 2001–02, payments were made against only one contingent liability. This arose from section 27 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It related to the cost of re-funding charges for travel documents issued between January 1994 and February 1999. By the end of the year 2001–02, the liability had reduced to below the £100,000 reporting threshold.

  Correspondence
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will reply to letters from the hon. Member for Vauxhall dated 25 March 2002, 19 June 2002, 21 October 2002 and 16 December 2002 about a constituent, reference number M61644. [101833]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 17 March 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 3 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. B. Padya. [103746]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 14 March 2003.

  Court Judgment (Howard League)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings have been held between Home Office and Department of Health officials following the judgment in R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. [103157]

  Hilary Benn
  Following the High Court judgement, Prison Service Officials have had a series of three meetings so far with Department of Health and Youth Justice Board officials to consider the implications of Justice Munby's judgement. The meetings are looking at the possible need for further guidance.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of children and young people who will be sentenced annually under each of the new proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to(a) detention for life, (b) detention for public protection and (c) extended sentences. [103077]
  705W
  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Justice Bill provides new mandatory sentences for offenders who commit a specified violent or sexual offence and who, in the opinion of the court, present a serious risk to members of the public of serious harm commissioned by the offender of further specified offences.

  Relevant juveniles convicted of an offence which carries a maximum penalty of detention for life under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, will receive detention for life under section 91.

  Those convicted of a serious specified offence which does not fall within this category, will receive either a sentence of detention for public protection or an extended sentence.

  Those convicted of a specified offence which is not a serious offence, will be given an extended sentence.

  The provisions aim to protect the public from the very small minority of juveniles who present a serious risk and to enable those offenders to be detained until their risk has been reduced. We anticipate their being used infrequently. We estimate that under them around 30 juveniles a year are likely to receive detention for life, around 10 the extended sentence and one or two detention for public protection.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, under what circumstances individuals' fingerprints will be retained by the CRB; how long after they are taken will they be destroyed; and if he will make a statement. [101018]

  Hilary Benn
  There are already arrangements in place for fingerprints to be used in circumstances where the applicant's identity cannot be confirmed by any other means. Under the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002, fingerprints, and any copies, taken for this purpose must be destroyed as soon as is practicable after the identity of the applicant is established to the satisfaction of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). Any applicant who asks to be allowed to witness the destruction of his fingerprints or copies of them has the right to do so.

  As we have made clear, we shall undertake a further study, in consultation with interested parties, on the recommendation that fingerprints be taken to confirm the identity of applicants for particularly sensitive positions. If, in the light of this consultation, it is decided to proceed, the detailed arrangements for the retention and destruction of applicants' fingerprints will be drawn up.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties will be applied if registered bodies fail to correctly identify individuals applying for disclosure by the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [102524]

  Hilary Benn
  Under the Code of Practice, Registered Bodies are under an obligation to follow all Criminal 706W
  Records Bureau (CRB) published guidance. This includes literature ensuring that false or fraudulent applications are not submitted. If a Registered Body fails to comply with the Code of Practice, the Secretary of State has the option to refuse to issue it with further Criminal Record Certificates. It is a criminal offence to knowingly make a false statement for the purpose of enabling another person to obtain a Criminal Record Certificate.

  As part of the Independent Review Team's recommendations, the critical role of Registered Bodies in the CRB process is to be upgraded. To ensure that Registered Bodies discharge their responsibilities effectively, we will take powers to attach conditions to a registration and to revoke a registration where such conditions are breached.

  Experience Corps
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the purpose of the Experience Corps to recruit volunteers new to significant involvement with voluntary organisations; and what monitoring procedures are in place to assess whether recruits represent an additional resource for the voluntary sector. [101866]

  Beverley Hughes
  The establishment of The Experience Corps was informed by an Experts Group drawn together to advise on a blue print for a National Experience Corps following agreement from the Ad Hoc ministerial group. In developing their plans the Experts Group were informed by Ministers that:

  The scheme should not exclude existing volunteers in the target age group and must avoid double counting.

  The Experience Corps monitor all information on existing volunteers through their database and state that they aim to 'increase, widen and sustain their volunteering contribution'. The performance of the Experience Corps is currently being reviewed by the Home Office.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employers in the UK were found to have employed illegal immigrants in the last year for which figures are available; how many have been successfully prosecuted; and if he will make a statement. [102526]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on the number of employers in the United Kingdom who are found to have employed illegal immigrants is not collected centrally and therefore not available.

  Information on persons proceeded against for employing a person subject to immigration control is contained in the attached table and published annually in the Command publication "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom", which is available in the Library and from the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  We recognised in our White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" that section 8 of the Immigration and

  707W
  Asylum Act 1996 had not proved to be an effective deterrent in the prevention of illegal migrant working. We also outlined in our White Paper a new and comprehensive strategy for tackling the damaging consequences of illegal working which addressed the root of the problem. Work is on-going in three areas: strengthening present enforcement arrangements; facilitating effective joint working across Government; and working with business and trade unions to improve compliance.

  Persons proceeded against for offences under Immigration Acts 1971 to 1999 in England and Wales, 1997–2001

  Number of persons

  Act and section

  Offence1 description

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20012

  Proceeded against

  Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 section 8

  Employing a person subject to immigration control

  —

  1

  23

  32

  65

  Found guilt

  Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 section 8

  Employing a person subject to immigration control

  —

  1

  9

  23

  1

  1 Data are based on the principal immigration offence only. The exclude an persons proceeded against for section 8 offences where these were not that persons principle immigration offence.

  2 Provisional

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's budget for(a) staff and (b) IT in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02; and what the planned budget is for (A) 2002–03 and (B) 2003–04. [102454]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Staff Pay budget is set out as follows:

  £ million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  227

  267

  343

  The associated IT budget cannot be easily separated from other administrative costs.

  The budget for 2003–04 will be published in the Home Office's main estimates (in the usual way).

  Nurses (International Recruitment)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of visa granted by Work Permits UK to overseas nurses seeking employment in the UK was in each of the last three years for which figures are available; whether it is possible for such a visa to be extended at the request of the applicant; and how many overseas nurses, having successfully been granted a working visa for the UK, have sought to extend this visa in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [103075]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: Figures for the average length of work permits granted to overseas nurses in each of the last three calendar years are unavailable due to the nature of the information recorded on the Work Permits (UK) Management Information system.

  A work permit for an overseas nurse can be extended at the request of the UK-based employer that originally recruited the nurse.
  708W
  In November 2002, I established an Illegal Working Steering Group, which includes representatives from a range of business sectors, the Trades Union's Congress and Commission for Racial Equality. The group has the potential to become a key player in the prevention of illegal working, by ensuring that there is greater awareness of the problems that this form of illegality creates. The group will also be involved in ensuring that the guidance for complying with the amended legislation will be clear, concise and practical.

  The figures for the number of overseas nurses who have received an extension on their original work permit in each of the last three calendar years are given as follows:

  2002: 6,228

  2001: 3,036

  2000: 1,529

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications Work Permits UK received from overseas nurses wishing to work in the UK in each of the last five years, broken down by nationality. [103076]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: Applications for work permits are made by UK-based employers on behalf of overseas nationals.

  The figures for the number of applications received from UK-based employers to recruit overseas nurses in each of the last five calendar years, broken down by the top 10 nationalities are given in the following tables:

  2002

  Nationality

  Number of work permits approved

  Philippines

  11,921

  India

  4,957

  South Africa

  4,039

  Zimbabwe

  2,994

  Nigeria

  1,875

  Ghana

  700

  Australia

  691

  Pakistan

  606

  Zambia

  465

  Kenya

  444

  Others

  3,992

  2001

  Nationality

  Number of work permits approved

  Philippines

  10,887

  India

  3,416

  South Africa

  3,185

  709W

  2001

  Nationality

  Number of work permits approved

  Zimbabwe

  2,068

  Nigeria

  1,289

  Australia

  760

  Ghana

  564

  Pakistan

  532

  Trinidad and Tobago

  410

  Zambia

  368

  Others

  3,559

  2000

  Nationality

  Number of work permits approved

  Philippines

  6,973

  South Africa

  1,997

  Zimbabwe

  1,223

  India

  1,195

  Nigeria

  1,027

  Australia

  571

  Trinidad and Tobago

  475

  Jamaica

  338

  Ghana

  334

  New Zealand

  278

  Others

  2,198

  1999

  Nationality

  Number of work permits approved

  Philippines

  1,103

  South Africa

  974

  Nigeria

  542

  Zimbabwe

  529

  Trinidad and Tobago

  394

  Australia

  371

  India

  219

  Mauritius

  184

  New Zealand

  158

  Jamaica

  157

  Others

  1,019

  1998

  Nationality

  Number of work permits approved

  Nigeria

  284

  South Africa

  221

  Mauritius

  216

  Trinidad and Tobago

  210

  Zimbabwe

  210

  Australia

  207

  New Zealand

  100

  Ghana

  66

  Malaysia

  58

  Canada

  46

  Others

  351

  Prison Healthcare
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of providing healthcare in each(a) publicly and (b) privately administered prison in each of the last four ears; and what the per prison costs were in each prison. [102667]

  Hilary Benn
  Information is not available in the form requested, as costs of health care have not been identified separately in the past. A report b the Joint Prison Service and National Health Service Executive Working Group "The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care" in 1999, estimated that that Prison Service establishments spent about £85 million on prisoners'710W
  health care in 1997–98. A questionnaire completed by establishments in 2002–03 estimated that the cost of healthcare in English prison establishments in 2002–03 was about £113 million, although these two figures are not directly comparable. The following is a breakdown of questionnaire returns by prison establishment. For private prisons, payments are made for the contracted service and the health care element is not separately identified.

  Prison health care costs for 2002–03 (six month actual and six months projected)

  Establishment

  £000

  Acklington

  461

  Albany

  *0

  Ashwell

  258

  Askham Grange

  285

  Alesbury

  583

  Bedford

  764

  Belmarsh

  2,963

  Birmingham

  1,761

  Blakenhurst

  1,372

  Blantyre House

  75

  Blundeston

  326

  Brinsford

  525

  Brinsford YJB

  522

  Bristol

  1,949

  Brixton

  4,153

  Brockhill

  612

  Brockhill YJB

  108

  Buckle Hall

  858

  Bullingdon

  1,380

  Bullwood Hall

  522

  Bulwood YJB

  126

  Camp Hill

  *0

  Canterbury

  573

  Castington

  207

  Castington YJB

  482

  Channings Wood

  434

  Chelmsford

  1,359

  Coldingley

  193

  Cookham Wood

  458

  Dartmoor

  859

  Deerbolt

  511

  Dorchester

  607

  Dover

  171

  Downview

  397

  Drake Hall

  334

  Durham

  1,972

  East Sutton Park

  99

  Eastwood Park

  1,260

  Eastwood Park YJB

  39

  Elmle

  1,249

  Erlestoke

  174

  Everthorpe

  284

  Exeter

  1,242

  Featherstone

  282

  Feltham

  1,928

  Feltham YJB

  1,779

  Ford

  308

  Foston Hall

  550

  Frankland

  1,339

  Full Sutton

  737

  Garth

  1,001

  Gartree

  649

  Glen Parva

  2,206

  Gloucester

  769

  Grendon

  519

  Guys Marsh

  432

  Haslar

  135

  711W

  Prison health care costs for 2002–03 (six month actual and six months projected)

  Establishment

  £000

  Hatfield

  **0

  Haverigg

  437

  Hewell Grange

  65

  Highdown

  1,905

  Highpoint

  466

  Highpoint—female estate

  1,198

  Hindley

  682

  Hindley YJB

  358

  Hollesle Bay Colony

  184

  Hollesle YJB

  211

  Holloway

  4,931

  Holme House

  1,449

  Hull

  1,408

  Huntercombe YJB

  319

  Kingston

  157

  Kirkham

  276

  Kirklevington Grange

  100

  Lancaster Castle

  192

  Lancaster Farms

  487

  Lanes Farm YJB

  265

  Latchmere House

  103

  Leeds

  2,221

  Leicester

  726

  Lewes

  1,049

  Leyhill

  267

  Lincoln

  1,138

  Lindholme

  610

  Littlehey

  679

  Liverpool

  2,559

  Long Lartin

  1,069

  Low Newton

  637

  Maidstone

  480

  Manchester

  1,850

  Moorland

  1,029

  Morton Hall

  422

  Mount, The

  549

  New Hall

  1,076

  New Hall YJB

  201

  North Sea Camp

  131

  Northallerton

  427

  .Norwich

  1,631

  Nottingham

  824

  Onley

  372

  Onley YJB

  407

  Parkhurst

  1,888

  Pentonville

  3,577

  Portland

  442

  Preston

  1,133

  Ranby

  528

  Reading

  452

  Risley

  1,058

  Rochester

  593

  Send

  342

  Shepton Mallet

  246

  Shrewsbury

  533

  Stafford

  508

  Standford Hill

  226

  Stocken

  307

  Stoke Heath

  388

  Stoke Heath YJB

  248

  Styal

  1,425

  Sudbury

  224

  Swaleside

  924

  Swinfen Hall

  267

  Thorn Cross

  106

  Thorn Cross YJB

  83

  Verne, The

  430

  Wakefield

  1,202

  712W

  Prison health care costs for 2002–03 (six month actual and six months projected)

  Establishment

  £000

  Wandsworth

  3,086

  Waland

  450

  Wealstun

  430

  Weare, The

  422

  Wellingborough

  319

  Werrington YJB

  362

  Wetherby YJB

  532

  Whatton

  153

  Whitemoor

  1,037

  Winchester

  1,280

  Woodhill

  2,895

  Wormwood Scrubs

  3,339

  Wmott

  590

  Total establishments

  112,715

  * included with Parkhurst prison

  ** included with Moorland prison

  YJB=Youth Justice Board

  Totals exclude security and bed watch costs within prisons and external escort costs

  Prisoners (Drug Treatment)
  Mr. Nick Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of criminal offenders required immediate detoxification on entering prison in each year since 1995. [98503]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not available in the form requested. Prison Service establishments have reported that between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002 41,916 drug and alcohol detoxifications have been carried out.

  Private Sector Businesses (Forms)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the forms that his Department requires private sector businesses to complete and return. [98087]

  Mr. Wills
  Those forms which private sector organisations are required to complete and return are listed. Forms are completed and returned as and when necessary, and therefore on an occasional basis, unless a specific frequency is mentioned.

  Forms concerned with the licensing of the production, trade or export of controlled drugs and associated substances.

  The following forms are required to be completed by private sector businesses:

  Category 1 Precursor chemicals licence application to trade within the EU.

  Category 1 Precursor chemicals licence application to export outside the EU

  Category 2 Precursor chemicals registration application for trading within the EU

  Category 2 Precursor chemicals registration application to export outside the EU

  Category 3 Precursor chemicals registration application to export outside the EU

  713W

  Application for Individual Export Authorisation to export precursor chemicals outside the EU

  Application for a Licence/Authority under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

  Application to renew a Licence/Authority under the Misuse of.Drugs Act 1971

  Remittance form to accompany payment for licences issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

  Application for Import Licence and corresponding import certificate under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

  Application for Export Licence

  Annual statistical return form for precursor chemicals

  Annual statistical return form for controlled psychotropics

  Annual statistical return form for controlled narcotics.

  Forms related to employment, either with the Home Office or in other places.

  Forms sent to private sector firms (in their capacity as previous employers) for completion for purposes of:

  obtaining references on staff applying for employment with the Home Office

  obtaining security clearance, in the case of successful applicants

  In the case of an organisation (private sector or otherwise) working with children or vulnerable adults there are three forms used by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB):

  Registration form to be completed and sent to (CRB) for purpose of registering the organisation. This form will include the nomination of a principal countersignatory (person within, the firm authorised to ask for disclosure of records pertaining to an prospective employee)

  Application form in respect of any additional countersignatories the firm might require.

  Prospective employees must complete and return (with countersignature) a form authorising CRB to release relevant information about him or her.

  Purchase order forms contain an attachment, which the Home Office asks the supplier to complete and return as acceptance of our terms and conditions.

  Annual statistical return from commercial firms who have licences to perform scientific procedures on animals.

  Monthly return form for collecting information on "tagged" offenders from contractors who supply and service electronic monitoring devices.

  Report form (shortly to be introduced) for private sector firms within the regulated financial sector to file with National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) if they suspect a transaction has involved criminal proceeds.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how well equipped the National Probation Agency is to provide a drug-rehabilitation service to offenders on leaving prison, with specific reference to those offenders whose sentence length prevents them from attending drug rehabilitation courses while in prison; how much money has been allocated to provide this service; and if he will make a statement. [102446]

  Hilary Benn
  When an offender with drugs problems leaves prison into supervision by the National Probation Service, the service will arrange with partner agencies for drugs rehabilitation treatment to be provided as part of a supervision plan. For offenders 714W
  serving short sentences in prison, Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare (CARAT) services represent the main drug intervention and can include initial throughcare links into the community for up to eight weeks. The Government have made available £1 billion this year, rising to £1.483 billion by 2005–06, to meet the commitments to provide drug treatment and to tackle drug related offending outlined in the Updated Drugs Strategy.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the introduction of OASIS by probation services. [101174]

  Hilary Benn
  The National Probation Service is making good progress with the implementation of the Offenders Assessment System (OASys). By the beginning of April 2003 every probation area will either have completed implementation or be in the process of implementation.

  Public Services
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce co-payments for the public services for which he is responsible. [102199]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Department aims to meet its public service responsibilities in the most cost effective and efficient manner. To achieve this, consideration is given to Private Finance Initiatives (PFI), and Public Private Partnerships (PPP) to minimise financial risk and maximise benefit to the Public. The Home Department currently has a number of PFI Schemes in operation providing new Police Headquarters, Police Air Support Services, and Police Communications, and is negotiating a number of similar funding partnerships for public services in both the Police Service and the National Probation Service.

  Sex Offenders
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in trialing the vicious and sex offenders register. [100834]

  Hilary Benn
  The Violent and Sex Offenders Register (ViSOR) will enable the Police and Probations services to register offenders and maintain a national, up-to-date, shared store of information on offenders, their risk assessments and, critcally, their movements.

  The register will be piloted at two sites in November 2003. Subject to their successful completion, national implementation will start in January 2004.

  In the meantime, forces have had the capability since August 2002 to search a database for information on offenders within their force area. This will help forces to track offenders, rationalise their business processes and ease the implementation of the full national solution, particularly in putting past records onto the new database.

  UK Passport
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason UK passports specify identification details in French in addition to English; and whether he plans to replace French with an alternative language. [102737]

  Beverley Hughes
  The British Passport includes French on the personal details page to facilitate international travel and to comply with International Civil Aviational Organisation standards and European Union resolutions. All passports of European Union countries include English and French on the personal details page in addition to their own language. We have no plans to seek to change this.

  Women Prisoners (Babies)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many babies(a) under nine months and (b) under 18 months are in British prisons. [102884]

  Hilary Benn
  On 10 March 2003 there were 31 babies under nine months and 19 babies under 18 months in prisons in England and Wales. Information about prisons in Scotland and Northern Ireland should be sought from the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Young Offender Institutions operate a personal officer scheme. [103159]

  Hilary Benn
  All Young Offender Institutions operate a personal officer scheme.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what child protection procedures are in place in young offender institutions for juveniles considered to be at risk. [103166]

  Hilary Benn
  In line with Prison Service Order 4950, each young offender institution has a child protection policy. The policy is based upon well-established inter-agency arrangements for promoting the welfare of young people and safeguarding them from harm. Establishments are instructed to appoint a Child Protection Coordinator and establish a Child Protection Committee. Local Child Protection arrangements are approved by the Area Child Protection Committee and complement existing procedures for safeguarding young people such as the anti-bullying strategy and the pastoral care arrangements.

  Youth Justice
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 17 year olds have been(a) questioned, (b) arrested and (c) charged in the past 12 months. [101728]

  Hilary Benn
  The available information relates to 17 year olds proceeded against, and of those, the number who were brought to court following arrest, and those given reprimands or final warnings. 54,590 were proceeded against in England and Wales in 2001, of 716W
  whom 40,057 had been arrested and charged. In addition, 15,203 were given reprimands or final warnings.

  Information on persons questioned is not collected centrally, and the information collected on total arrests is limited to those arrested for notifiable offences and then only by age group rather than individual age.

  Statistics on persons proceeded against and cautioned in 2002 will be published in the autumn.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the administrative costs were of the(a) New Deal 50 Plus training grant, (b) job grant, (c) funeral payments grant, (d) Sure Start maternity grant, (e) community care grants and (f) access to work grants in the last financial year. [101648]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 29 January 2003,Official Report, column 945W.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of lone parents(a) are unable to work due to child care commitments and (b) have had to give up work because of a lack of available child care in the last six months. [101048]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The extent to which childcare commitments contribute directly to ability to work is a complex issue. Lone parents who work, as well as those who do not, report child care as a barrier to work. In a recent survey 52 per cent. of non-working lone parents reported a lack of child care in their area, compared to 45 per cent. of working lone parents; and 53 per cent. of non&-working lone parents did not want to leave their child with anyone else, compared to 44 per cent. of working lone parents.

  Information on the percentage of lone parents who have to give up work due to lack of available child care is not available. The most common reasons given for giving up work are health (27 per cent.), a personal decision to leave (15 per cent.) and being made redundant (12 per cent.). 6 per cent. of lone parents gave the breakdown of their child care arrangements as the reason for leaving work, but this does not mean necessarily that there was no child care available.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) is providing specialist advice and support, including help with child care, to help lone parents make the move into work. Recent evaluation has shown that participation in NDLP more than doubles lone parents chances of moving into work. We are making work possible for lone parents by providing available affordable childcare through initiatives such as the National Childcare Strategy and our new Tax Credits are making sure that that work pays.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 18 December 2002, 16 January, 14 February and 13 March relating to the adoption of the approved code of practice on passive smoking at work. [103688]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have written to the hon. Member today.

  Ethnic Minority Unemployment
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what organisations have been awarded the contract announced by the Department of Work and Pensions in July 2002 to narrow the 17 per cent. gap between the overall employment rate and that of ethnic minority people; and what timescale has been set for delivering the contracts. [98017]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Minority Ethnic Outreach initiative is part of our strategy to tackle the gap between the overall employment rate and the minority ethnic employment rate. Introduced in April 2002, the initiative aims to strengthen the support available to minority ethnic jobless people within five areas of the country with large minority ethnic populations. 45 organisations (through a total of 51 contracts) are contracted to deliver the service until the end of March 2004. The organisations are as follows:

  Greater London providers

  GoldenStool Communications

  The Training Network (Five different projects in different areas of London)

  Pro-Diverse (UK) Ltd.

  Talent

  Reed in Partnership

  Breakfree—RPS Rainer

  Employment Cafe

  Ergon Enosis (Two different projects in different areas of London)

  SELTO

  Shaw Trust

  In-volve

  New Beginnings

  London Action Trust (Crossroads project for Lewisham)

  London Action Trust (Asset for Lambeth)

  Tomorrow's People Trust

  East Midlands providers

  Age Concern Training

  Belgrave Development and Enterprise

  Business2Business

  Ex-DSS spend on external consultancy and professional services

  Tax year

  Benefits Agency

  Child Support Agency

  Contributions Agency

  Corporate and ISBs

  ITSA

  War pensions Agency

  Total (£ million)

  Present value (£ million 2002–03 prices)

  1995–96

  19.23

  1.71

  2.82

  3.77

  89.00

  0.22

  116.81

  139.92

  1996–97

  29.96

  0.91

  2.77

  4.67

  61.55

  0.42

  100.28

  116.43

  1997–98

  28.62

  0.82

  2.65

  4.91

  47.86

  0.38

  85.24

  96.00

  1998–99

  21.17

  0.51

  1.76

  11.38

  36.79

  0.73

  72.34

  79.30

  1999–2000

  26.05

  3.15

  —

  13.71

  39.66

  0.43

  83.00

  88.83

  2000–01

  11.44

  18.06

  —

  74.75

  —

  0.48

  104.73

  109.66

  Notes:

  1. Contributions Agency transferred to Inland Revenue from April 1999

  2. Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA) function moved to corporate centre from April 2000
  718W
  Greater Manchester providers

  Bolton Racial Equality Council

  Bolton Metro's Ethnic Minorities Business Service

  SITU Ltd.

  Early Years and Play (Manchester Education Department)

  North Area College

  Moss-side and Hulme Community Development Trust

  Family Housing Association (Manchester) Ltd.

  Rochdale Racial Equality Council

  The Oldham College

  West Yorkshire providers

  Bradford Cathedral Centre

  Talent Resourcing

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Indian Muslim Welfare Society

  Halifax Opportunities Trust

  West Midlands providers

  Platinum Employment, Advice and Training

  Coventry Solihull Warwickshire Partnership Ltd.

  Steps to Work

  Colleges in the Black Country (Two different projects in different areas of the West Midlands)

  Birmingham Partnership for Change

  Windrush Employment and Training Consortium Ltd.

  SACDA

  H & 0 Training

  Lynton Marketing Ltd.

  TLC College

  UK Asian Women's Centre

  Workable Ltd. (Initiative Ltd.)

  Chinese Community Centre

  External Consultancy
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body spent on external consultancy an each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [92254]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The total cost to DWP of the use of external consultants and professional services in the 2001–02 financial year was £ 169.494 million.

  Details of DWP external spend are recorded centrally for client group and corporate centre expenditure, and not by agency. Figures for the former DSS are available by agency, as follows.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish targets for the reduction of housing benefit fraud. [102915]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government have set a challenging target to reduce fraud and error in housing benefit for working age people. We are working with local authorities to achieve a 25 per cent. reduction by March 2006.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what action he is taking to review(a) the starting point and (b) the tapered relief for set-off of occupational pension income against incapacity benefit; [101722]

  (2) how many individuals who would otherwise qualify for incapacity benefit are affected by (a) whole and (b) partial withdrawal of benefit owing to their receipt of an occupational pension; and what the total annual benefit foregone from this clawback was in each of the last three years. [101723]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Incapacity benefit (IB) is intended to provide a measure of income replacement for sick and disabled people of working age. We believe it is therefore right to take some account of their occupational or personal pensions as they provide income replacements.

  If a person claiming IB receives an occupational pension, personal pension or payments through a permanent health insurance scheme of £85 per week or more, their IB is reduced by half the amount which exceeds £85. These rules came into force for new claims after April 2001.

  While we have no plans at present to change the threshold at which income from an occupational and personal pension is taken into account in assessing IB, we keep all social security rules under review.

  We estimate that the reduction in expenditure on IB due to the rules on offsetting personal and occupational pensions was £10 million in the year to March 2002.

  Note:

  The estimate is rounded to the nearest £10 million and excludes the impact of offsetting reductions in the income-related benefits.

  Source:

  5 per cent, sample of the incapacity benefit computer system, which exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  The available information is in the table.

  The number of new awards of IB since April 2001 which are reduced or stopped due to a personal or occupational pension

  New awards from 6 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  New awards from 1 April 2002 to 31 August 2002

  Number

  Average amount of reduction1

  Number

  Average amount of reduction1

  Reduced

  13,300

  24.42

  4,400

  21.58

  Stopped

  4,400

  62.97

  1,500

  56.61

  Total

  17,600

  33.96

  5,800

  30.46

  1 Amount of reduction current at either the end of the spell or 31 August 2002 for spells continuing.

  720W
  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are based on 5 per cent. samples and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  5 per cent. samples of the incapacity benefit computer system, which excludes a small number of cases held clerically.

  Innovation Fund
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when the review of the Innovation Fund is expected to be completed and published; [98018]

  (2) what organisations have received monies from the Innovation Fund; for what purposes they have received funding; and how much funding they have received. [98019]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The New Deal Innovation Fund was launched in 1999 to test innovative ideas for enhancing the New Deals and the way we help people move from benefit into sustained jobs. In 2001 we introduced the Lone Parent Innovation Fund to test new ways of helping people on the New Deal for Lone Parents find and remain in work. These two funds were merged last year.

  The Innovation Funds have supported 92 projects so far and a further 16 are in development. Information on the funding received by individual organisations is commercial in confidence and cannot be published. There have been four rounds of projects under the New Deal Innovation Fund, and two under the Lone Parents Fund. Total expenditure on the first two rounds of the New Deal Innovation Fund and round one of the Lone Parent Fund was £1.78 million. Expenditure figures for rounds three and four of the New Deal Fund and round two of the Loan Parent Fund are not available as the projects are ongoing or in their development phase.

  We have also allocated £1.4 million (for 2002–03) from the Innovation Fund to support the Ambition initiative which aims to help unemployed and disadvantaged people gain the right skills to meet the needs of employers in key sectors. Funds are also being used to co-sponsor the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion's (CESI) website, to facilitate the spread of innovation and good practice. Information on the funding received by CESI is commercial in confidence. In addition, innovation funding has been made available to Jobcentre Plus Districts to deliver a series of Innovation Laboratories' to stimulate innovation and creativity at a local level. One event has already been delivered at a cost of £45,000 and two more are planned for late March.

  Information on the organisations receiving support under each round of the Funds, the focus of each round and expenditure on each round, has been placed in the Library.

  The review of the Innovation Fund is scheduled for completion in May 2003. The results will then be published on the CESI website.

  New Deal
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many businesses were established under
  721W
  the new deal self-employment model for 50 plus in each year since its creation; and how many of those businesses were still trading after (a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years and (e) five years and above. [93410]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The New Deal 50 Plus does not include specific assistance for people going into self-employment. However, through the New Deal 50 plus, the Employment Credit of £60 per week for up to a year is available to eligible customers whose estimated income is £15,000 or less, this includes people going in to self-employment. From the 6 April 2003, the Employment Credit will be replaced by an over 50s supplement to the Working Tax Credit.

  In addition, people going into self employment through New Deal 50 plus have access to a Training Grant, of up to £1,500, in the first two years of trading.

  Information on the number of people who have received the Employment Credit for self-employment is in the table.

  New Deal 50 Plus

  April to December 2000

  January to December 2001

  January to November 2002

  Total

  Employment Credit—Self Employment

  2,960

  4,250

  3,750

  10,960

  Training Grant—Self Employment

  270

  750

  750

  1,780

  Note:

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

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many young people in the City of York council area have been helped into jobs under the New Deal. [102635]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  From its launch in January 1998 to the end of December 2002 the New Deal had helped over 400,000 young people into work, including 820 people in the City of York Local Authority area.

  Pensioners (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners there are in(a) Essex and (b) the West Chelmsford constituency. [103123]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Burns, dated 18 March 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number of pensioners living in Essex and the West Chelmsford constituency.
  The Office for National Statistics does not produce mid-year population estimates on parliamentary constituency boundaries. Results from the 2001 Census have not yet been published at this geographic level.
  722W
  The lowest geography mid-year population estimates are published at is local authority area. In view of this, the population of pensionable age (60 and over for females, 65 and over for males) in mid-2001 for Chelmsford borough council area was 26,900. The population of persons of pensionable age in Essex was 253,800 in mid-2001.

  Statutory Money Purchase Illustration Regulations
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will extend the scope of the Statutory Money Purchase Illustration Regulations that come into force on 6 April to include pensions sold to the public after that date. [103544]

  Mr. McCartney
  The regulations apply equally to any member of a money purchase pension scheme, regardless of when they became a member of the scheme. This includes anyone who joins such a scheme after the regulations come into force on 6 April.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the UK Government is in regular contact with the Iraqi opposition group known as SCIRI and the militia forces under its control. [103734]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are in regular contact with Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), both in London and Tehran. SCIRI have also met FCO ministers as part of an Iraqi opposition delegation. We have no contact with the militia forces attached to SCIRI.

  Goa (Portuguese Passports)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had discussions with the Indian Government on applications to the Portuguese consulate in Goa for Portuguese passports from Indian residents, and the use of such passports subsequently to facilitate entry to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [102515]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have had no discussions with the Government of India on this issue. We have discussed the matter with the Portuguese Consulate in Goa. We understand that some residents of the former Portuguese enclaves in India (Goa, Daman and Diu) are eligible to apply for a Portuguese passport. Holders of Portuguese passports are entitled to enter the UK freely as citizens of an EU member state.

  Bahrain
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Lord Avebury 's recent visit to Bahrain, with particular reference to(a) his plea to King Hamed bin Isa Al Khalifa to pardon Richard Mechan, a British citizen and (b) the evidence of judicial irregularities presented to the King. [101203]
  723W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 10 January 2003 Lord Avebury wrote to my noble Friend Baroness Amos, informing her of his recent visit to Bahrain and his meeting with the Ruler, King Ha med. Lord Avebury handed the King a dossier compiled by Terry Mechan, about the case of his son, Richard Meehan, imprisoned for manslaughter. Lord Avebury has told us that the King agreed to review the case. In a further letter to Baroness Amos on 7 March, Lord Avebury asked if our Embassy in Bahrain could make inquiries with the King's Private Office as to what progress had been made. Our Embassy has been pursing this matter.

  Bangladesh
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of human rights in Bangladesh; and if he will make a statement. [103236]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our High Commission in Dhaka monitors closely the regrettably frequent reports of human rights abuses in Bangladesh. We were concerned by reports of mistreatment of detainees, including deaths following detention, associated with the recent law and order drive, "Operation Clean Heart", and urged the Bangladesh Government to follow the due process of law in all cases. We regularly take up human rights issues with the Bangladesh Government, calling for all allegations of human rights abuses to be fully investigated and for perpetrators to be brought to justice.

  Burma
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ban new investment by UK companies in Burma. [103312]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As I made clear in the House of Commons on 10 December 2002,Official Report, column 154, the UK does not encourage trade or investment in Burma. Companies wishing to trade or invest in Burma receive no assistance at all from the UK Government. Companies inquiring about trade or investment are told of our policy and advised of the appalling human rights situation and the economic incompetence and corruption of the Burmese regime. A combination of international opinion and the regime's economic incompetence means that there is hardly any new investment in Burma and that established companies, such as Premier Oil, have pulled out.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Burmese military against the Karen, Karenni and Shan civilians in Burma. [103314]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We receive numerous reports of very serious cases of human rights abuse in Burma. However, war crimes and crimes against humanity are carefully defined under law and these are not phrases that have been used by the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma to describe the situation.
  724W
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about human rights abuses by the Government of Burma of the Karen, Karenni and Shan peoples. [103315]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We receive a regular flow of credible reports from non-governmental organisations and the United Nations—including the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights—that re-affirm our grave concern over the human rights situation in Burma, including abuses directed at the Shan, Karen and Karenni. The reports confirm that very little progress has been made by the Burmese regime to improve its human rights record.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he and his European Union partners have made to the Government of Burma about that government's treatment of the Karen, Karenni and Shan people. [103319]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A core aspect of UK and EU policy is action to press for an end to human rights abuses. Burmese ethnic minority groups, including the Shan, Karen and Karenni suffer the effects of this abuse disproportionately. The EU co-sponsored a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in November 2002 that condemned the regime's human rights record. We are currently preparing a further resolution for presentation at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April. This is in addition to regular EU statements and demarches to the Burmese regime about the situation.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to help broker a ceasefire between the Burmese military government and Karen, Karenni and Shan resistance groups. [103321]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been encouraged by reports that some of the insurgent groups fighting the Burmese regime are prepared to consider negotiating a ceasefire. The EU has called for the peaceful end to the conflicts in Burma in resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly. We strongly support the idea in principle and stand ready to help assist the process in the most effective way.

  Family Visitor Visas
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the reasons are for the change in the overall rate of refusal of family visitor visa applications; and what the reasons are for the changes in rates of refusal of family visitor visa applications made at entry clearance posts(a) in the Middle East, (b) in South Asia, (c) in Western Europe and (d) in Central Europe since 1 August 2002. [103143]

  Mr. Rammell
  The number of refusals in Islamabad has increased with the resumption of interviews of family visit applicants on 2 December 2002. Previously these applications were being decided on the papers alone: many applications that would normally have resulted in an interview were therefore returned to the applicants unresolved.
  725W
  These figures do not show any undue deviation from what would normally be expected for Islamabad. The very low pre-November 2002 figures were rather unusual, reflecting the limited service then being offered.

  Otherwise, the figures set out in the tables, which have been placed in the Library, show no significant increase in the refusal rate of family visit applications since August. The variations in the rate of refusal seen are not unusual. Each application is decided on the balance of probabilities and their individual merits in accordance with the Immigration Rules.

  Iran
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from interest groups in Britain regarding the abuse of human rights in Iran; and what discussions he has had with the Iranian authorities on the matter. [103350]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly receives a wide range of representations about the human rights situation in Iran. My right hon. Friend and I make a point of raising human rights whenever we see our Iranian counterparts including at the recent meeting between my right hon. Friend and the Iranian Foreign Minister on 6 February.

  Iraq
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to ensure that resolution 57/232 of the United Nations General Assembly on human rights in Iraq is fully implemented. [103322]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not possible to work with the current Iraqi regime to ensure that resolutions such as this one are fully implemented. As and when this situation changes we will work with the international community to ensure that the human rights situation in Iraq is properly addressed.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1191W, on UN Resolution 57/232, whether the UK Government is supporting the deployment of human rights monitors throughout Iraq. [103377]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UN Resolution 57/232 calls for the deployment of human rights monitors throughout Iraq. As a co-sponsor of this resolution, the UK supports this.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Iran about the possibility of a war between the US, UK and Iraq. [103532]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have a regular dialogue with the Iranian Government on this and other regional issues. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the situation in Iraq with the Iranian Foreign Minister on a number of occasions, most recently on 6 February.
  726W
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many interviews the inspectors appointed under UNSCR 1441 have conducted with Iraqi scientists in locations outside of Iraq in conditions assuring confidentiality and safety for the scientists and their families. [103546]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There have been no interviews conducted outside Iraq.

  Ivory Coast
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the Liberian Government on instability in the Ivory Coast. [102940]

  Mr. Rammell
  Liberian involvement in Cote d'Ivoire has contributed significantly to instability in the west of the country. The nature of Liberian involvement is complex, with reports of Liberians fighting for both sides. Liberia is used as a base by rebels fighting in the West of Cote d'Ivoire, and there are large numbers of Liberian mercenaries fighting for both sides. We remain concerned at the ease with which armed groups move between the two countries. We are also concerned about the plight of over 40,000 Liberian refugees in the region.

  While we do not have a full picture of the role played by the Liberian Government in Cote d'Ivoire it is clear that it continues to ignore UN Security Council demands by sponsoring armed groups in the region. Our objective remains to contain these activities by maintaining effective UN sanctions against Liberia.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what figures his Department has on the volume of heroin trafficked through Kosovo which was received in the United Kingdom in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; and how many arrests have been made in Kosovo in respect of such trafficking. [103460]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Analysis of drug movement in Europe suggests that about 80 per cent. of the heroin reaching the United Kingdom is trafficked through the Balkans from its source in Afghanistan. We do not have figures on the volume of heroin trafficked through Kosovo to the UK.

  United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) Police set up its central Drugs Squad in 2002. Last year it made 434 arrests in Kosovo for possession and trafficking of drugs.

  Liberia
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of UN sanctions against Liberia in the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [102941]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UN imposed sanctions on Liberia as a result of the Liberian Government's complicity in fuelling the conflict in Sierra Leone. Liberia remains a serious threat to the stability of the sub-region. It has been involved in incursions into Guinea and is now
  727W
  being used as a base by rebels in Cote d'Ivoire. The sanctions are focused specifically on President Taylor and his ministers. We believe that they should be maintained until Liberia ends its efforts to destabilise the region.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps have been taken to implement the programme of action for nuclear disarmament that was signed up to in 2000; [103380]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to restate the Government's commitment to the programme of action for nuclear disarmament that was signed in 2000 at the Non-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom in April 2003. [103379]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK remains fully committed to the Final Document adopted at the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference in 2000.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence explained in answer to my hon. Friend's question of 5 March 2003, Official Report, column 1041W, the Government has taken substantial steps in fulfilment of its nuclear disarmament obligations under the NPT. Since 2000 we have continued to make significant progress, including dismantling the UK's last Chevaline warhead in April 2002. We have supported Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones in Central Asia, South East Asia, and the Middle East. We also continue to press for negotiations to begin on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

  The United Kingdom supports moves towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. We have always made clear that when we were satisfied with verifiable progress towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, we would ensure that our nuclear weapons were included in any negotiations.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government has taken to encourage(a) Israel, (b) India and (c) Pakistan to sign the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty; and if he will make a statement. [103381]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have regular dialogue on non-proliferation issues with all three states. The issue of their non-signature of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) forms an integral part of that dialogue.

  The United Kingdom supports the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1172 which calls, among other things, for India and Pakistan to sign and ratify NPT.

  We also take all opportunities to urge Israel to resolve international concerns about its nuclear status by acceding to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state and have consistently supported resolutions in the United Nations calling for the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

  OPCW
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the US administration has paid its budgetary contributions to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on time. [103378]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United States is the largest financial contributor to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). It usually pays its assessed contributions in two instalments, the first in April and the second in June. This amounts to a total of 14 million Euros, approximately 22 per cent. of the overall budget of the OPCW. Furthermore, towards the end of 2002 the US gave an additional voluntary contribution to the OPCW of US$2 million.

  Translation and Interpreting Services
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's expenditure on(a) translation and (b) interpreting services was in 2002; and how many companies were asked to tender for such work. [103535]

  Mr. Rammell
  The FCO runs an in-house translation and interpreting service to meet the high level needs of the FCO, No. 10 and other Government Departments. It comprises a small number of in-house translators exercising quality control who supervise a large pool of experienced and trusted on-call translators and interpreters. For security reasons, this unit does not invite tenders for work in the open market. However, the pool translators and interpreters are self-employed, many operating as sole trader companies. Entry to the in-house team is via open competition, advertised periodically.

  The expenditure through the in-house service in 2002 was:

  translation—£497,311

  interpreting—£258,456

  Internal departments in the FCO and missions overseas are free to purchase all or any of their translation and interpreting requirements either from the in-house service or in the wider external market. No separate information is available regarding the expenditure on such services not purchased through the in-house service.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101856]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department entered into a nine year PFI contract with Liberata UK Ltd. (formerly CSL Group Ltd.) in January 1998. This contract covers a wide range of services including providing accounting systems, making payments, receipting and accounts production. The cost of accountancy services provided to the Department by Liberata under the contract, and from other external firms of accountants or their
  729W
  management consultancy arms where the assignment was connected with financial matters, in 2002–03 (to February 2003) was £5.7 million.

  Court Rooms (Chorley)
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the wage rates were for court rooms in Chorley in each of the last three years. [100838]

  Yvette Cooper
  The costs of running Chorley Magistrates Courts are as follows:

  £

  Employee costs (Salaries)

  Other costs of running the court—eg accommodation, security, office equipment

  2000–01

  445,667

  159,588

  2001–02

  481,072

  176,180

  2002–031

  426,000

  177,155

  1 Projected

  Courts Administration Councils
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultation the Lord Chancellor's Department has conducted regarding the appointment of individuals to courts administration councils. [102654]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government conducted a consultation exercise following publication of Sir Robin Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts. This informed the White Paper "Justice for All" published in July 2002 in which the Government said it wanted the unified courts administration to be developed by those closest to the business. As a result, the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts' Committees and the Association of Justices' Chief Executives both sit on the steering group overseeing the development of the new organisation.

  Local consultation is a key part of the overall consultation process. A series of one-day discussion groups across the country is being run by my Department. Court users, the local magistracy, the judiciary and court staff are represented on these groups. They are considering, amongst other things, include how the size and membership of court administration councils might vary across the country according to local circumstances, and how these members should be appointed. The results from these groups will be fed into the development of the court administration councils and will also be reported to Parliament during the parliamentary passage of the Courts Bill.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Advertising Expenditure (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Department 730W
  spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on (a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (e) sporting events. [102391]

  Clare Short
  It is not possible for DFID to show the "Scottish" proportion of our advertising spend in UK national newspapers/magazines, to the level of detail requested, because these national newspapers/magazines do not publish separate editions for Scotland.

  However, details of available DFID expenditure for advertising in newspapers/magazines which are specifically Scottish, for the calendar years 2000 to 2002 inclusive, are as follows:

  Calendar year

  Advertising spend in Scottish Newspapers (£)

  2000

  16,816.95

  2001

  37,614.24

  2002

  18,430.02

  DFID has not incurred expenditure on television, radio, billboard or sporting event advertising.

  Antiretroviral Drugs
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of giving antiretroviral drugs to key workers in developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [103109]

  Clare Short
  The fight against the epidemic has to incorporate effective public health responses that engage in education, prevention, treatment, care, support, impact mitigation and related development concurrently. For any of these programmes to be successfully implemented, broad multi-sectoral approaches are crucial.

  We are supporting national governments, within the context of their national HIV/AIDS plans, to consider the priorities and practicalities of implementing and scaling-up treatment for HIV/AIDS. The choices facing poor countries, particularly around equity of access to treatment are difficult. In our view an open debate in countries, involving all sectors of society, will be critical in determining those priorities and responses. It is for each country to determine their own priorities within national HIV/AIDS plans.

  To assist countries in this process, we are funding research to support the introduction of anti-retroviral therapy in resource poor settings. This research will provide vital knowledge and evidence to better inform key policy decisions about access to treatment. We are carefully monitoring and sharing lessons on important issues including pro-poor impact, scaling-up, costs and systems to support HIV treatment.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the levels of food shortages in the Democratic Republic of Congo, broken down by
  731W
  region; and what food aid her Department has provided to the Democratic Republic of Congo, broken down by region. [102745]

  Clare Short
  No specific assessment of the levels of food shortages broken down by region has been made. The economic devastation resulting from the conflict has led to high malnutrition rates among internally displaced persons, refugees, children and the elderly. It is estimated that some 1.4 million people require urgent food aid.

  My department is providing substantial help to efforts directed at reducing the suffering of civilians with urgent humanitarian needs in the DRC. This includes nutritional support to communities where high levels of malnutrition are being experienced. We have committed over £9 million in humanitarian support so far this financial year.

  DFID are also providing support to the World Food Programme through its core funding to an agreed work plan.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the number of internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of Congo, broken down by region; and what support she gives internally displaced people in the country, broken down by region. [102746]

  Clare Short
  According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA), over 500,000 people have been displaced in the Democratic Republic of Congo since the beginning of 2002, due mainly to intensified violence in the north-eastern Ituri and eastern South Kivu regions Despite the ceasefire and withdrawal of foreign troops, over 2.5 million of about 50 million Congolese are now displaced. Main causes have been fighting between rebel groups, attacks on civilians and resource plundering. Current UN OCHA statistics as at August 2002 show the following breakdown of internally displaced people (IDPs): Equateur: 85,000 IDPs; Orientale: 250,000 IDPs; North Kivu: 760,000 IDPs; South Kivu: 435,000 IDPs; Katanga: 415,000 IDPs; Man iema: 160,000 IDPs; Eastern Kasai & Western Kasai: 130,000 IDPs; Kinshasa: 40,000 IDPs. This does not take into account the more recent displacements since then including those as a result of the recent fighting in Ituri and in Bunia.

  My department's humanitarian support is channelled through the UN agencies, Red Cross and international NGOs. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of assistance by region as we deliberately support agencies with national reach and perspective.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo as a result of the fighting. [102810]

  Clare Short
  UN and other relief agency reporting shows that there are very serious humanitarian consequences to the fighting in DRC. DFID is providing substantial help to efforts directed at reducing the suffering of civilians with urgent humanitarian needs 732W
  in the DRC. Assistance provided this financial year has been provided through the UN agencies and the ICRC in response to their emergency appeals and through international NGOs in the following areas: health, nutrition, refugees. We have committed over £9 million in humanitarian support so far this financial year.

  We stand ready to provide further humanitarian assistance to those in need.

  Great Lakes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has for an integrated regional policy in the Great Lakes area; whether her Department will make a regional statement of intent to work on such a policy; and if she will make a statement. [103093]

  Clare Short
  My Department is actively engaged, in close collaboration with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in promoting an end to the conflict in the Great Lakes region and in preparing for regional post-conflict reconstruction and development. We are at present reviewing our strategies for post-conflict engagement in Rwanda, the DRC and Burundi in the light of recent regional developments. These documents will be made publicly available. Last week DFID hosted a roundtable discussion with a range of UK NGOs and academics to help define our approach to meeting development challenges in the DRC.

  Each of these country strategies aims to set out the regional perspective of our policies and demonstrate our objectives for the region as a whole: the ending of conflict and the laying of the foundations for sustained development across the whole Great Lakes region with a consequent significant reduction in poverty

  HIPC Initiative
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many countries have qualified for debt relief under the HIPC initiative; how much relief has been granted to those countries; and if she will make a statement on the prospects for qualification of other countries. [103022]

  Clare Short
  So far, 26 countries out of a total of 37 eligible countries have qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, and will receive over US$62 billion in debt relief. Of these, seven countries (Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda) have reached Completion Point and have received irrevocable debt relief. The remaining 19 (Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Zambia) are receiving interim relief on their debt repayments. We expect the bulk of these countries to reach Completion Point within the next two years when they, too, will receive full debt relief. It is difficult to predict when the other 11 countries will qualify for HIPC relief, as many are still affected by conflict and governance problems. We expect the Democratic Republic of the Congo to reach its Decision Point in the coming months, and the Central African Republic, Comoros and Cote d'Ivoire
  733W
  to do so later this year but, in some cases, this will depend on progress towards peace. The remaining countries (Burundi, Congo Republic, Liberia, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Togo) are a long way from qualifying, as they are affected by conflict or have serious governance concerns.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether social and environmental criteria are used in addition to economic data in determining whether countries qualify for debt relief under the HIPC initiative. [103024]

  Clare Short
  The enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative is based on a set of clear and transparent rules, which countries entering the Initiative must meet. The IMF and the World bank work jointly with the governments of eligible countries on a debt sustainability analysis to determine their levels of debt. To qualify for relief, a country must have a debt sustainability ratio above one or other of the following HIPC thresholds: a debt stock of more than 150 per cent. of exports or of more than 250 per cent. of government revenue. Relief is provided to bring debt ratios down to these levels. This analysis is based on actual data on average exports over the previous three years and on central government revenues over the most recent year. Debt ratios reflect the impact of HIV/AIDS, droughts, and external shocks, such as changes in commodity prices, on a country's economy. Under the HIPC Initiative, additional relief—so called 'topping up'—can, when appropriate, be provided at Completion Point to ensure that countries exit the HIPC process with sustainable levels of debt. The UK is pressing for greater flexibility to ensure that this is provided wherever it is needed.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department gave in 2002–03(a) to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS and (b) to treat people with AIDS; and if she will make a statement. [103095]

  Clare Short
  My Department's HIV/AIDS effort is focused on several key areas. Bilaterally our funds are aimed primarily at supporting national policies and strategies through multisectoral HIV/AIDS plans. These strategies cover the continuum from prevention, treatment, care to impact mitigation. It is therefore not possible to aggregate the funding in the manner requested. The total of our spending on HIV/AIDS-related bilateral work for 2002–03 is not yet available. In 2001–02 our bilateral expenditure in this area was over £200 million.

  Since 1997, we have committed £1.5 billion to help developing countries put in place and strengthen effective health care systems which will enable the poor to benefit from lower priced and better drugs to treat HIV/AIDS.

  The Government's support for initiatives such as the Access to Medicines Working Group and Global Fund against AIDS, TB and Malaria is also facilitating increased access for poor people to HIV/AIDS treatment.
  734W
  Mr. Robert Key
  : To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate her Department has made of the income support needed by HIV and AIDS households in(a) Zambia, (b) Lesotho, (c) Malawi, (d) Mozambique, (e) Swaziland and (f) Zimbabwe, and if she will make a statement. [103094]

  Clare Short
  Zambia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zimbabwe have been deeply affected by a food security crisis brought about in part by an HIV/AIDS epidemic in the region. This crisis has increased the number of people in poverty and deepened the poverty of those already poor. There are significant challenges in establishing and targeting households that are infected or affected by HIV/AIDS, not least because of the stigma attached to the disease. There is also significant variation of need and general agreement that income support per se would therefore not be the most effective assistance.

  Vulnerability assessments for all six countries show that HIV/AIDS affected households suffer from depletion of assets, reduced income, and increased expenditure on health and funerals, and that the presence of orphans decreases food security and other resources in already stressed households. HIV/AIDS affected households need support to counteract these impacts. This could be provided through home-based care that included community support, basic health care, sufficient food, help with income generation and assistance with access to education. DFID is working with governments in the region to reduce the vulnerability of poor households by improving rural livelihoods, strengthening community safety nets and delivering more and better basic services, taking particular account of the needs of households affected by HIV/AIDS.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to meet the targets adopted in the Declaration of Commitment signed at the UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV and AIDS in June 2001; what progress is being made in meeting the targets; and if she will make a statement. [103110]

  Clare Short
  My Department's entire HIV/AIDS programme is aimed at helping to achieve the targets agreed in the United Nations' Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS.

  UNAIDS is the agency tasked with measuring progress against the targets in the Declaration of Commitment. The United Nations Secretary-General will report annually based on national reports and other data collated by the United Nations. The Secretary-General's report for 2003 will be particularly important as many of the strategies for national action are due to be in place by the end of this year.

  In his report on progress towards implementation of the Declaration of Commitment presented to the 57th Session of the General Assembly in 2002, the Secretary-General noted that while political commitment had increased and additional resources were devoted to HIV/AIDS, the scale of country level activities did not yet match the epidemic. In addition, while most countries had developed national AIDS strategies,

  735W
  implementation had been slow. Also, nearly one in two countries lacked a strategy for care and support of children orphaned or made vulnerable by the epidemic.

  Future reports are expected to highlight progress made, identify gaps in knowledge and action, and will emphasise strategies for tackling the epidemic in the future.

  Malnutrition (Eritrea and Malawi)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on levels of malnutrition in(a) Eritrea and (b) Malawi. [102747]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  Eritrea

  In a joint UN/Eritrean Relief and Refugee Commission (ERREC) briefing on 20 February global acute malnutrition rates in children under five were quoted as between 15 and 28 per cent. in the later half of 2002. The prevalence rate of severe acute malnutrition among children in Northern and Southern Red Sea Zones was quoted as 4 per cent.

  Malawi

  The next round of nutritional surveys will be in April. Those conducted in November 2002 showed global acute malnutrition rates ranging from 1.5 per cent. to 4.8 per cent. These are relatively low and within the normal rates for developing countries. However, chronic malnutrition (a combination of the effect of food shortages, recurrent infections and poor care practices) remains serious. A comprehensive analysis of underlying causes is being conducted.

  New Partnership for Africa's Development
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the strength of the peer review mechanism of the New Partnership for Africa's Development. [102749]

  Clare Short
  At the Abuja meeting of the NEPAD implementation committee in November 2002, 13 countries signed up for peer review. There has been considerable debate since then clarifying the objectives of peer review; and on 9 March 2003 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed agreeing the mechanisms. The Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) will be launched in April 2003. A group of Eminent Persons will oversee reviews carried out by technical experts. The UNECA will be involved in the technical reviews of economic governance and has had a series of useful exchanges on the process of peer review with the OECD DAC. The APRM should develop into a good mechanism for long-term sharing of best practice; African ownership will be key to its success.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of indigenous staple crops in Southern Africa; and what programmes there are for the re-introduction of such crops. [103082]
  736W
  Clare Short
  My Department has provided £12.5 million for research into indigenous staples (sorghum and millet) in Southern African countries over the last 10 years. We have supported the inclusion of sorghum and millet in seed packs distributed during the humanitarian crisis.

  While sorghum and millet are more drought resistant than maize there is a problem of sustainability due to a general preference for maize. This affects the marketability of sorghum and millet and the extent to which they can become a part of a country's longer-term food strategy. We are following closely a joint CARE/FAO study in Zambia, which is assessing future market opportunities for sorghum and millet.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the development of root and tuber assessments in Southern Africa on(a) a national scale and (b) a regional scale; and if she will make a statement. [103083]

  Clare Short
  My Department has provided £2.8 million for research into roots and tubers in Southern Africa countries in the last 10 years. We have not supported an assessment at the regional scale.

  The potential of roots and tubers to produce in poor soils is well recognised. As part of our response to the humanitarian situation in Southern Africa, my Department is supporting a number of food recovery programmes, some of which include cassava and sweet potato multiplication components that are aimed at increasing their availability in drought prone areas.

  Sudan
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has received from(a) the World bank and (b) the IMF with regard to their assessment of the impact on development of Sudan of the purchase of an air traffic control system; and if she will place copies in the Library. [102885]

  Clare Short
  We have received no reports from the World bank or the IMF about the purchase of an air traffic control system by Sudan.

  Ugandan Presidential Peace Team
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Ugandan Presidential Peace Team. [102983]

  Clare Short
  Although the Peace Commission was established late last year, it is only recently that it has become engaged in attempting to negotiate with the LRA. It is too early in that process to judge the effectiveness of their activities but my officials in Kampala continue to carefully monitor events.

  United Nations (Humanitarian Activities)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what additional donations have been made by the United Kingdom to the
  737W
  United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Activities Hypothecated in Support of' Iraqi Citizens. [103132]

  Clare Short
  We are providing OCHA with £150,000 to support their contingency planning for Iraq. We are also providing an information management specialist to OCHA's Humanitarian Information Centre, which is being established in Larnaca, Cprus.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Architects Registration Board
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how man architects have been referred to the disciplinary committee of the Architects Registration Board(a) before being taken to court and (b) after court proceedings in each of the last five ears. [103313]

  Mr. Leslie
  The number of architects referred to the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the Architects Registration Board (ARB) in each of the last five ears is as follows:

  Number of cases

  Remarks

  1999

  4

  —

  2000

  6

  —

  2001

  9

  —

  2002

  5

  —

  2003

  6

  To date

  Data are not held centrally, and may not have been disclosed to ARB, on whether legal proceedings have been taken after a finding of fault b the PCC. Data on whether legal proceedings material to the case have preceded a hearing b the PCC would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Council Tax (Armed Forces)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will instruct local authorities to exempt members of the armed forces from paying council tax while serving in the Gulf. [103126]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to change the primary or secondary legislation concerning council tax exemptions, discounts and disregards other than those set out in the Local Government Bill currently before Parliament.

  Departmental Energy Policy
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what capacity of electricity used in his Department's buildings is generated in a combined heat and power plant; and what plans he has to increase that capacity. [103228]

  Mr. Leslie
  Two of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 's HQ buildings have combined heat and power plant, the total capacity of this equipment is 960kWhe.

  The Office presently has no plans to install equipment to further extend this capacity, but reviews the situation on an annual basis.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on support for victims of domestic violence. [102541]

  Mrs. Roche
  Tackling domestic violence, and supporting those who are victims of domestic violence, is a priority for the Government.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in partnership with Comic Relief, have each allocated £1 million funding to set up a national freephone helpline for victims of domestic violence, underpinned b a 'refuges on line' database. This will bring together the advice services currently provided b Refuge and the Women's Aid Federation of England and will offer instant access to information on refuge accommodation and specialist services. It is anticipated that the full system will be full operational towards the end of 2003.

  In Jul 2002, the main homelessness provisions of the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002 were brought into force. These required local housing authorities to take a more strategic approach to preventing and tackling homelessness, placed stronger duties on authorities to help homeless people, and extended the groups of homeless applicants who have a priority need for accommodation, including, among others, people vulnerable as a result of fleeing their home because of violence. The Homelessness Directorate will be allocating £70 million in 2003–04 to local authorities to help them address homelessness. This will include some support for domestic violence schemes where local authorities have identified this as a priority.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also announced at the end of last ear a £7 million capital investment programme through the Housing Corporation to extend and renovate the national network of women's refuges in England. Initial allocations are being agreed with the Housing Corporation for 2003-04 and it is hoped that further schemes will be supported in the following two years.

  The Supporting People programme, which begins on 1 April, will put in place a new integrated policy and funding framework for housing-related support services, including those for people experiencing domestic violence. Current annual expenditure is £34 million for a total of 5,000 places. Local authorities have now submitted their shadow Supporting People strategies. These are currently being analysed and will provide valuable data on the supply of refuge and support services for people experiencing domestic violence, so helping to inform and direct future action.

  Supporting People guides have also been issued on addressing the accommodation and support needs of households experiencing domestic violence; and two dedicated co-ordinators are working with providers and local authorities to ensure that the sector is prepared for the new programme.

  E-Mail Addresses
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister b what e-mail address members of the public ma contact
  739W
  (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. [97470]

  Contact

  Published e-mail address

  Activation date

  Deputy Prime Minister

  john.prescott@odpm.gsi.gov.uk

  10 June 2002

  Departmental Minister

  nick.ransford@odpm.gsi.gov.uk

  10 June 2002

  Departmental Minister

  jeff.rooker@odpm.gsi.gov.uk

  10 June 2002

  Departmental Minister

  ton.mcnult@odpm.gsi.gov.uk

  10 June 2002

  Departmental Minister

  chris.leslie@odpm.gsi.gov.uk

  10 June 2002

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  odpm.ministers@odpm.gsi.gov.uk

  11 September 2002

  EU Regional Policy
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to support the Declaration b Mayors and Leaders of Urban Areas for an ambitious European Union Regional Policy; and if he will make a statement. [103406]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government's preferred approach to EU regional policy is set out in the consultation paper "A modern regional policy for the United Kingdom", which was published on 6 March.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the recognition given b the mayors and leaders of urban areas, in their declaration, of the importance of urban areas, not least to the deliver of the Lisbon objectives.

  The launch of the Government's paper on 6 March marked the beginning of a period of consultation in the UK on the future of the European Structural Funds, which will conclude on 4 Jul. We are actively seeking the views of all stakeholders, including the mayors and leaders of urban areas, during this process.

  The Government is committed to an active regional policy that reduces regional disparities and helps all nations and regions.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress he has made in developing the role of the fire and rescue service in respect of(a) mass decontamination and (b) national search and rescue under the fire new dimension project. [103295]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The procurement of mass decontamination equipment (in England and Wales) under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's £56 million New Dimension programme is nearing completion. It will deliver 80 new vehicles and 190 purpose built decontamination units each capable of decontaminating some 200 people an hour; a range of new fire service equipment for detection and monitoring of radiation and hazardous substances at incidents; and 4,000 new gas tight suits-a doubling of present capacity-to enable fire-fighters to operate safely.
  740W
  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested on e-mail addresses and they dates the became active are in the following table. The information on the number of e-mails received in each month since activation is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Training for this enhanced role is planned to start in April, with deployment of the equipment to follow soon thereafter.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also taking urgent steps to enhance the fire service's capability in urban search and rescue. We have made available £3 million for the training of trainers and responders in structural collapse techniques, the purchase of technical search and rescue and heavy rescue equipment, and the provision of training rigs at the Fire Service College. We have also made available some £2 million for the need of the capital. We are seeking to secure the funding for a major national investment next financial year to complete deliver of the investment.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what statutory remedies are available to local authority staff who are victims of workplace bullying; [103536]

  (2) what statutory remedies there are to deal with unreasonable behaviour by local authority senior management against council employees. [103537]

  Mr. Leslie
  The main acts of parliament that are in place to deal with unreasonable behaviour or workplace bulling are as follows:

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  Race Relations Act 1976

  Sex Discrimination Act 1975

  Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice the Government have received from the Health and Safety Commission on options for action to make a significant impact on preventing assaults, verbal threats and abuse in the workplace for employees of local authorities. [103538]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) is committed to tackling the problem of work-related violence. In March 2000 the HSC agreed a three-ear programme to help employers tackle the problem of work-related violence. The programme builds on current and past initiatives and includes proposals for

  741W
  awareness raising, guidance and new research. It is particularly targeted at sectors that are most at risk of violence.

  HSE has published general guidance for employers to help them tackle work-related violence, and sector-specific guidance covering health services and education.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish proposals under Section 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 for a code of conduct to protect employees of local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [103539]

  Mr. Leslie
  Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 provides for the Secretary of State to issue model codes of conduct as regards the members (section 50) and employees (section 82) of local authorities. Codes of conduct under section 50 were laid before Parliament in November 2002. These codes place obligations on members to treat others with respect and not to do anything which compromises the impartiality of those who work for the local authority.

  Local Authority Spending (Torbay)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the standard spending assessments and formula spending share was for each year for Torbay Unitary Authority; what the percentage change in each ear from the previous ear has been; and what the aggregate external finance was for each year. [103284]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 1 April 1998, when Torbay Unitary Authority was first created, there have been man changes in the functions and funding of services to Local Government. To enable a like-for-like comparison between ears, we calculate adjusted Standard Spending Assessment's and grants. The percentage change figures have been calculated on the basis of these like-for-like comparisons.

  Until the introduction of Central Support Protection Grant in 1999–2000, there was no need to calculate grant on a like-for-like basis, and for this reason grant comparisons in the ears 1997–98 and 1998–99 are not available. There were no changes in funding and function between 1998–99 and 1999-2000 that needed reflecting in adjusted grants for 1998–99 to allow a like-for-like comparison; the actual 1998–99 values have therefore been used in this case.

  In 2003–04, SSAs were replaced with Formula Spending Shares (FSSs). The 2003–04 total FSS figure has been compared to the FSS comparitor for 2002–03 in order to give a like-for-like comparison. The FSS comparitor for 2002–03 is similar to the adjusted 2002–03 SSA but with the increased resource equalisation also applied.

  The adjusted 1997–98 total SSA figure for Torbay was calculated using the same formulae as for other education authorities, but assuming that the 1 April 1998 Local government reorganisations occurred a year earlier.
  742W

  Year

  Total SSA/FSS (£ million)

  Percentage increase in SSA/FSS ear-on-ear

  Formula Grant (ie RSG + NNDR)(£ million)

  Percentage increase in Formula Grant

  Adjusted

  1997–98

  96.653

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  100.804

  4.3

  74.576

  —

  1999–2000

  105.691

  4.8

  78.066

  4.7

  Adjusted

  1999–2000

  105.691

  —

  78.066

  —

  2000–01

  110.821

  4.9

  81.625

  4.6

  Adjusted

  2000–01

  110.385

  —

  81.198

  —

  2001–02

  114.470

  3.7

  83.796

  3.2

  Adjusted

  2001–02

  108.859

  —

  78.192

  —

  2002–03

  115.509

  6.1

  82.418

  5.4

  Adjusted

  2002–03

  125.005

  —

  85.210

  —

  2003–04

  134.760

  7.8

  90.139

  5.8

  Planning
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what conditions planning applications for housing development will be exempted from his policy that all new developments should have densities of 30 dwellings per hectare or above. [82458]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 Housing (PPG3) sets out national policy for making the best use of land in housing developments. Local authorities are expected to avoid developments which make inefficient use of land (those of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net). Housing proposals will be considered within the framework provided b the development plan as well as tested against the policies in PPG3. If there were local circumstances which justified a departure from national policy these should be set out in the plan.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to allow councillors on planning committees to make public statements on planning applications. [82714]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Local Government Act 2000 introduced a comprehensive ethical framework to local government. The framework required all authorities to adopt a local code of conduct, based on a national Model Code of Conduct, which members must give a written undertaking to observe. Ultimately it is for individual members to decide how the conduct themselves in carrying out official duties, including whether to make public statements, but if it is alleged that their conduct breaches the local code then they will be open to investigation by the Standards Board of England.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Edward Dave
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how man properties were compulsorily purchased by regional development agencies in each year since 1999. [102684]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table shows which Regional Development Agencies have purchased properties b compulsory purchase order, and how many in each of the relevant financial years.
  743W

  Regional development agencies

  1999–2001

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Advantage West Midlands

  0

  0

  16

  North West Development Agency

  0

  0

  24

  South East of England Development Agency

  0

  9

  0

  Regional Governance
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the reasons were for his Department's decision to publish the summary of the comments and enquiries received following the publication of the White Paper on Regional Governance. [103261]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's White Paper `our Region, our Choice' included a formal consultation on the involvement of stakeholders in the work of elected regional assemblies. It also invited views on the proposals set out in the White Paper generally.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published on 24 February an analysis of the views received in response to the consultation on stakeholder involvement, as is our usual practice.

  Given the interest in our regional policy proposals both within and outside Parliament we concluded that it would be helpful and informative to publish a summary of the more general responses as well.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to propose legislation setting out the powers of the proposed elected regional assemblies. [103267]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill now before Parliament makes provision for referendums on elected regional assemblies and for the associated local government reviews. Once at least one region has voted for an elected assembly, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intend, when parliamentary time allows, to introduce a further Bill providing for the establishment of elected regional assemblies. This would make the necessary legislative provision for their constitutions, elections, powers and responsibilities. The Government's proposals on these matters are set out in the White Paper `our Region, our Choice' (Cm 5511). The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will also consider whether a Bill might be published in draft before the first referendum.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses were received by his Department to the consultation on the interest in holding a referendum on regional government in the north-east. [103142]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked for responses by 3 March on the level of regional interest in each English region in holding a referendum for an elected regional assembly. We have received over 4,500 responses to date, of which just over 3,000 have been logged. Of those logged so far, approximately 300 are from the north-east.
  744W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is continuing to log responses and are beginning to evaluate them. We will announce our decisions after the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Ring-fenced Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the Ring-Fenced grants available to local authorities in each year since 1997. [96909]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is as follows:

  List of Ring-Fenced and Special Grants available in each Financial year

  The definition of ring-fencing used was updated last year to reflect the types of grant we now have. Some grants previously classified as ring-fenced are no longer classified in this way. The key distinction we make is that ring-fenced grants restrict local authority spending. For completeness the following list includes all special grants inside Aggregate External Finance. Those marked with an asterisk are not ring-fenced. Further details of classifications are in an annex to the freedoms and flexibilities announcement of 26 November.

  1997–98

  Education

  Education Support and Training

  Travellers' Children

  Ethnic Minorities

  Specialist Schools

  PSS1

  Community Care special grants

  AIDS/HIV

  Social Services Training

  Mental Illness

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse

  Guardians ad Litem

  Ethnic Minorities

  Secure Accommodation

  Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children

  EPCS2

  Council Tax Benefit Administration*

  Ethnic Minorities

  Civil Defence

  Sheltered Employment

  Magistrates Courts

  Probation

  Metropolitan Railways Passenger Services

  National Parks*

  Housing Benefit Administration*

  1 Personal and Social Services

  2 Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services

  1998–99

  Education

  Standards Fund

  Education of Travellers and Displaced Persons

  Ethnic Minorities

  Specialist Schools

  Under 5 Education

  745W
  PSS

  Community Care special grants

  AIDS/HIV

  Social Services Training

  Mental Illness

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse

  Ethnic Minorities

  Secure Accommodation

  Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children

  EPCS

  Council Tax Benefit Administration*

  London Organised Fraud Investigation Team

  Civil Defence

  Supported Employment

  Magistrates Courts

  Probation

  National Parks and Broads*

  Housing Benefit Administration*

  Metropolitan Railways Passenger Services

  Other

  Private Finance Initiative

  1999–2000

  Education

  Class Size Reductions

  Provision for under 5's

  3-year-olds

  Ethnic Minorities

  Standards Fund and Other

  PSS

  Promoting Independence

  Mental Health

  Children's Services

  Training Support Programme AIDS Support

  Drugs and Alcohol Misusers

  EPCS

  Council Tax Benefit Administration*

  Offender Programmes

  Magistrates Courts

  Rural Bus Services

  Employment Service Programmes

  Civil Defence

  National Parks and Broads*

  Housing Benefit Admin*

  Metropolitan Railways Passenger Services

  Other

  Private Finance Initiative*

  2000–01 Education

  Standards Fund

  Class Size Reductions

  Provision for under 5's

  3-year-olds

  Teachers' Green Paper Special Grant

  746W
  PSS

  Partnership Grant

  Mental Health

  Children's Services

  Carers' Grant

  Social Services Training

  Prevention Grant

  HIV/AIDS

  Alcohol and Drugs Misuse

  Secure Accommodation

  EPCS

  Council Tax Benefit Administration*

  Offender Programmes

  Magistrates Courts

  Rural Bus Services

  Employment Service Programme

  Civil Defence

  National Parks and Broads*

  Housing Benefit Administration*

  Metropolitan Passenger Services

  Other

  Private Finance Initiative*

  2001–02 Education

  Class Size Reductions

  3-year-olds

  Standards Fund and Other

  Teacher's Green Paper

  Post Consultation Special

  PSS

  Training

  AIDS/HIV

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse

  Mental Health

  Secure Accommodation

  Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children

  Children's Services Grant

  Carers Grant

  Police

  Rural Policing

  Airwaves Communication Project

  Crime Fighting Fund

  EPCS

  Housing Benefit Administration*

  Community Charge Benefit Administration*

  Rural Bus Services

  National Parks Grant*

  Civil Defence

  Magistrates Courts

  Other

  Private Finance Initiative*

  747W
  2002–03 Education

  Standards Fund

  School Standards Grant*

  Teachers' Pay Reform Grant

  Education Maintenance Allowance

  Childcare Grant

  Nursery Education Grant

  Post-16 Budget Support Grant

  PSS

  Carers Grant

  Training Support Programme

  Promoting Independence Grant

  Residential Allowance Grant

  Building Care Capacity Grant

  Performance Fund

  Children's Services Grant

  Care Direct

  Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

  young People's Substance Misuse Planning Grant

  Teenage Pregnancy Local Implementation Grant

  Secure Accommodation

  Deferred Payment Grant

  Mental Health Grant

  AIDS Support Grant

  Police

  Rural Policing

  Airwaves Communication Project

  Crime Fighting Fund

  Metropolitan Police Special Payment

  Transitional Grant

  EPCS

  Council Tax Benefit Administration*

  Magistrates Courts

  Rural Bus Subsidy

  Rural Bus Challenge

  Urban Bus Challenge

  National Parks and Broads*

  Housing Benefit Administration*

  Other

  Private Finance Initiative*

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund*

  2003–04 Education

  Standards Fund

  Excellence in Cities*

  School Standards Grant

  Teachers' Pay Reform

  Childcare

  Leadership Incentive

  Intervention in Failing LEAs

  748W
  PSS

  Carers

  Training Support

  National Training Strategy

  Preserved Rights*

  Performance

  Children's Services

  Human Resources Development Strategy

  Access and Systems Capacity

  Care Direct

  Children and Adolescent Mental Health

  young People's Substance Misuse Planning

  Teenage Pregnancy Local Implementation

  Deferred Payment

  Mental Health

  AIDS Support

  Police

  Crime Fighting Fund

  Outer London Pay Read

  Rural Policing Fund

  Police Negotiating Board

  DNA

  Basic Command Units

  London and South East Allowance

  London Travel

  Community Support Officers

  Officer Retention Over 30 ears

  Special Constables

  Occupational Health

  Street Crime Initiative

  Reform Deal

  Non Emergency Number

  National Intelligence Model

  Counter Terrorism

  Airwaves Communication Project

  EPS

  Council Tax Benefit Administration*

  Housing Benefit Administration*

  Civil Defence

  Fridges*

  Waste Re-Cycling Challenge

  Personalised Travel Pilot

  Travel Plan Bursaries

  Probation Loan Charges

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  Planning Development*

  Magistrates Courts

  Rural Bus Subsidy

  Rural Bus Challenge

  Urban Bus Challenge

  National Parks and Broads*

  Supporting People

  Other

  Private Finance Initiative*

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund*

  GLA General Grant*

  LPSA Reward Grant*

  Shared Home Ownership Schemes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evaluation has taken place of the effectiveness of shared home ownership schemes. [102653]

  Mr. McNulty
  Independent research "The Evaluation of the Low Cost Home Ownership Programme" commissioned by the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (now the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) and the Welsh Assembly Government was published in September 2002. Shared ownership was one of the components of the stud, and the main messages from the research were that consumer satisfaction with low cost home ownership schemes was high and that schemes represented good value for money.

  The issues will now be taken forward by the Home Ownership Task Force announced in "Sustainable communities: building for the future" on 5 February. The terms of reference for the task force will be announced shortly.

  Shire Counties (Government Grants)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money per head of population has been given in

  Grant per head (£)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Avon

  424

  427

  398

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire1

  513

  520

  479

  494

  461

  485

  Berkshire

  450

  454

  430

  439

  431

  —

  Buckinghamshire1

  477

  486

  436

  445

  410

  419

  Cambridgeshire3

  430

  440

  417

  438

  432

  401

  Cheshire3

  436

  448

  423

  443

  446

  438

  Cleveland

  585

  590

  549

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  440

  455

  439

  461

  464

  481

  Cumbria

  466

  475

  441

  467

  465

  490

  Derbyshire1

  431

  444

  416

  443

  424

  441

  Devon3

  420

  430

  415

  440

  446

  432

  Dorset2

  378

  384

  370

  388

  372

  381

  Durham2

  477

  503

  469

  494

  494

  514

  East Sussex2

  419

  427

  410

  429

  427

  445

  Essex3

  454

  472

  435

  453

  452

  462

  Gloucestershire

  413

  414

  397

  414

  415

  430

  Hampshire2

  418

  428

  397

  413

  381

  392

  Hereford and Worcester

  395

  403

  375

  392

  401

  —

  Hertfordshire

  435

  453

  439

  456

  452

  476

  Humberside

  510

  512

  478

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  454

  477

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent3

  474

  490

  464

  482

  486

  497

  Lancashire3

  486

  496

  464

  488

  489

  510

  Leicestershire2

  485

  481

  452

  473

  409

  421

  Lincolnshire

  460

  468

  437

  465

  467

  482

  Norfolk

  418

  430

  403

  421

  433

  440

  North yorkshire1

  393

  402

  391

  429

  429

  443

  Northamptonshire

  479

  474

  447

  470

  470

  493

  Northumberland

  447

  473

  482

  509

  513

  521

  Nottinghamshire3

  476

  477

  446

  472

  474

  459

  Oxfordshire

  389

  400

  378

  389

  389

  397

  Shropshire3

  441

  450

  430

  453

  453

  436

  Somerset

  414

  422

  392

  413

  411

  427

  Staffordshire2

  439

  448

  421

  442

  429

  454

  Suffolk

  417

  427

  409

  432

  434

  445

  Surrey

  342

  356

  334

  346

  347

  355

  Warwickshire

  398

  404

  377

  397

  394

  416

  West Sussex

  383

  404

  381

  394

  394

  402

  Wiltshire2

  410

  412

  382

  398

  394

  399

  750W
  government grant to each of the shire counties in each of the last 10 ears; and what the real terms changes were in each of those years. [103116]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The available information is in the following tables. The figures given are for formula grant, which comprises revenue support grant, redistributed business rates and Standard Service Assessment reduction grants (where appropriate).

  There have been many changes to the functions and funding of local government services over the last ten years, and like-for-like comparisons of grants between ears cannot be made for years when changes have taken place unless figures are adjusted to take account of the changes.

  For years from 1999–2000, adjusted figures for individual shire county councils exist because the were needed to allow like-for-like comparisons as part of the floors and ceilings calculations.

  For years before 1999–2000, adjusted grant figures for individual shire count councils do not exist. A like-for-like comparison between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 can, however, be made using unadjusted figures. This is because there were no changes in function or funding between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 that needed reflecting by adjusting the grant figures for 1998–99.
  751W

  Grant per head (£)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  409

  Grant per head figures have been calculated by dividing the total grant by the resident

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grant per head (£)

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire1

  496

  545

  537

  522

  588

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire1

  433

  478

  475

  456

  520

  Cambridgeshire3

  414

  440

  436

  438

  521

  Cheshire3

  460

  491

  492

  480

  542

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  508

  546

  542

  542

  596

  Cumbria

  515

  554

  555

  549

  602

  Derbyshire1

  468

  511

  509

  510

  582

  Devon3

  453

  487

  483

  482

  529

  Dorset2

  399

  433

  431

  417

  463

  Durham2

  549

  587

  587

  593

  675

  East Sussex2

  458

  506

  501

  507

  560

  Essex3

  485

  536

  531

  530

  580

  Gloucestershire

  451

  492

  487

  482

  547

  Hampshire2

  405

  445

  441

  455

  506

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  490

  541

  536

  524

  577

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent3

  515

  567

  562

  551

  610

  Lancashire3

  530

  567

  567

  570

  627

  Leicestershire3

  441

  483

  477

  462

  521

  Lincolnshire

  506

  552

  548

  544

  595

  Norfolk

  463

  500

  496

  498

  559

  North Yorkshire1

  460

  500

  496

  486

  543

  Northamptonshire

  517

  550

  545

  535

  603

  Northumberland

  546

  586

  585

  567

  624

  Nottinghamshire3

  486

  529

  526

  524

  587

  Oxfordshire

  403

  447

  440

  439

  512

  Shropshire3

  461

  499

  495

  505

  560

  Somerset

  444

  485

  481

  492

  550

  Staffordshire2

  476

  504

  504

  496

  561

  Suffolk

  465

  502

  499

  488

  554

  Surrey

  366

  406

  400

  399

  454

  Warwickshire

  436

  465

  464

  459

  528

  West Sussex

  410

  451

  446

  450

  503

  Wiltshire2

  419

  456

  452

  445

  514

  Worcestershire

  427

  458

  457

  452

  503

  Grant per head figures have been calculated by dividing the total grant by the resident

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 The area covered by the county changed on 1 April 1996 due to local government re-organisation.

  2 The area covered by the county changed on 1 April 1997 due to local government re-organisation.

  3 The area covered by the county changed on 1 April 1998 due to local government re-organisation.

  The area covered by the county changed on 1 April 1996 due to local government re-organisation.

  Note:

  Grant per head figures have been calculated by dividing the total grant by the resident population in the ear for which figures were used in the local government finance settlement (e.g. mid-2001 populations were used when calculating figures for 2003–04).

  Real terms change in grant per head

  Percentage

  1998–99 to 1999–2000

  1999–2000 to 2000–01

  2000–01 to 2001–02

  2001–02 to 2002–03

  2002–03 to 2003–04

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  0

  7

  2

  4

  5

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  8

  3

  4

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  4

  1

  2

  10

  Cheshire

  3

  4

  1

  2

  5

  Cleveland

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Cornwall

  3

  5

  1

  2

  3

  752W 753W

  Real terms change in grant per head

  Percentage

  1998–99 to 1999–2000

  1999–2000 to 2000–01

  2000–01 to 2001–02

  2001–02 to 2002–03

  2002–03 to 2003–04

  Cumbria

  3

  5

  2

  3

  3

  Derbyshire

  3

  7

  2

  3

  6

  Devon

  2

  5

  1

  3

  2

  Dorset

  2

  6

  1

  3

  2

  Durham

  4

  5

  1

  3

  7

  East Sussex

  1

  8

  3

  3

  3

  Essex

  2

  8

  3

  3

  2

  Gloucestershire

  2

  7

  1

  4

  5

  Hampshire

  1

  7

  2

  2

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Hertfordshire

  1

  8

  3

  4

  3

  Humberside

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Isle of Wight

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Kent

  1

  8

  2

  3

  3

  Lancashire

  1

  5

  1

  1

  3

  Leicestershire

  2

  7

  1

  4

  4

  Lincolnshire

  3

  7

  2

  4

  2

  Norfolk

  3

  6

  1

  3

  5

  North Yorkshire

  1

  6

  2

  3

  4

  Northamptonshire

  2

  4

  0

  2

  5

  Northumberland

  2

  5

  2

  3

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  6

  1

  3

  5

  Oxfordshire

  -1

  8

  2

  4

  8

  Shropshire

  3

  6

  2

  3

  4

  Somerset

  2

  7

  1

  3

  4

  Staffordshire

  2

  4

  1

  3

  5

  Suffolk

  2

  5

  1

  3

  5

  Surrey

  1

  9

  2

  3

  5

  Warwickshire

  2

  4

  1

  3

  7

  West Sussex

  0

  8

  3

  4

  3

  Wiltshire

  2

  6

  1

  3

  6

  Worcestershire

  2

  5

  1

  3

  4

  Note:

  Real terms figures have been calculated using the GDP deflator
  754W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Pakistan (Poverty Reduction Strategy)
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)
  We are committed to supporting Pakistan's economic and social reforms. The ambition is to eliminate poverty in Pakistan that currently condemns over 40 million of its people to live on less than $1 per day.

  In October 2001, I pledged £105 million to Pakistan over three years (to December 2004) to support Pakistan's Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). Payments under this pledge are linked to the IMF reviews under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) and to the Government of Pakistan's commitment to poverty reduction.

  The first tranche of £20 million against this pledge was disbursed in March 2002, as notified to Parliament. Following Pakistan's elections, and in view of continued progress against the PRGF, we plan to disburse a further £85 million between now and March 2005, including a second tranche of £20 million to be disbursed this month. Up to £55 million will be provided as support to the PRGF, and £30 million will be for the National Health Facility (NHF). Disbursements will be conditional on continued and concerted progress with the PRS and with the implementation of the NHF.

  UK financial aid supports additional spending on poverty reduction in Pakistan, particularly in health and education. The Government of Pakistan, which is committed to sustained reforms in the health and education sectors, has agreed to increase public spending in those sectors by 20 per cent. in 2002–03 as against a general increase in public spending of 8 per cent. UK financial support underpins this trend.

  PRS support will be disbursed against Pakistan's debt payments to the IMF, World Bank and the ADB, as this is the most efficient method of disbursing our financial aid.

TRANSPORT

  Light Dues
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  I am pleased to announce that there will be no changes to the light dues rates for 2003–04. Current rates were set last year, when the rate was reduced to 40 pence per ton and a 40,000 tonnage ceiling was introduced to reduce the burden of light dues falling on the largest vessels. Rates were last increased in 1993. Efficiency savings have funded two replacement ships and met the costs of redeveloping the Oban depot. Rates were reduced in 1997 and 2002. We 38WS
  shall continue to work closely with the General Lighthouse Authorities to secure cost effective provision of GLA services and to keep future requirements for marine aids to navigation under review.

  Additional investment is required to further reduce running costs. A review of the operation and management of the GLAs' 5 ships will be completed shortly. The replacement of two vessels over the next four years will reduce costs. Trinity House has already announced a depot rationalisation scheme. The Northern Lighthouse Board will close the Stromness depot in 2004. We are considering options to redevelop the Commissioners of Irish Lights depot at Dun Laoghaire. We believe that this work can be carried out within the existing income levels.

  The Government remain committed to a cost recovery system. Taxpayers generally should not meet the costs of providing aids to navigation for shipping. It was disappointing that only 160 responses were received to our consultation exercise on the review of light dues. The results were inconclusive with no consensus on the way forward.

  I therefore propose to carry out further work on a number of key areas. These include:
  an economic study on arrangements for funding aids to navigation and the possible economic effect on commercial trading patterns, in consultation with the shipping and ports industry;
  development of an electronic collection system to come into operation during 2004 which will remove some of the practical restrictions on charging patterns and would, for example, permit the introduction of a flatter charging structure;
  working with the GLAs to review the future requirements for marine aids to navigation;
  further work on the use of navigational aids by each sector—commercial, fishing and pleasure craft; and
  seeking further discussions with the Irish Government to negotiate the full costs of provision of navigational aids in Ireland.

  We will also publish a fuller response to the consultation exercise as soon as possible.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Home Ownership Taskforce
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  The Home Ownership taskforce, which I announced to the House on 5 February, will meet for the first time today, chaired by the right hon. the Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. It will consider schemes currently available to potential homeowners on low or modest incomes and identify the most effective ways of promoting home ownership.

  The terms of reference for the Task Force are as follows:
  Sustainable Communities: building for the future marks a step change in housing. Resources have been increased substantially to deliver sustainable communities but more needs to be done to help tenants and those on waiting lists to move into home ownership, without the loss of social housing. New ideas and a new approach is vital in helping people on low or modest incomes into home ownership.

  39WS
  The taskforce is to examine the routes and methods by which those in housing need can be helped to meet their home ownership aspirations in a way that ensures the sustainability of that ownership and is cost effective. It will examine who is being helped through current initiatives, to what extent these initiatives free up social tenancies for other occupants, and the scope for better targeting and design. It will also take account of the work being undertaken by Government Departments and others to review issues in relation to existing homeowners.
  The taskforce will develop a more rational and straightforward suite of programmes to allow social tenants and those on waiting lists to purchase either their own home or another home, whilst recognising the many different circumstances of aspiring homeowners.
  The taskforce will build on 'Evaluation of the low cost home ownership programme' and other recent ODPM research, consider a wide range of innovative funding proposals and take into account proposals on single tenure, commonhold, flexible tenure, equity shares and new forms of public and private low cost home ownership schemes.
  Throughout its work the taskforce will take into account the difficulties faced by traditionally disadvantaged groups such as disabled people, and BME communities, in accessing home ownership and look at the different problems faced by people wishing to access home ownership in areas of low demand and the growth areas.
  The existing programmes that will be considered are:

  Right to Buy

  Rent to Mortgage

  Right to Acquire

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  Voluntary Purchase Grant

  Shared Ownership

  Do-it-yourself Shared Ownership

  Homebuy

  Self Build

  The taskforce will report with recommendations on how the above home ownership objectives can be most effectively delivered.'

  The Home Ownership task force is due to report in the Autumn.

  We are also publishing today the report, "Equity Shares for Social Housing". in fulfilment of our 2001 manifesto commitment to consider equity shares. Equity shares are one way to deliver our objectives to promote home ownership, increase asset ownership, and improve the image of social housing. The report concludes that the costs of introducing equity shares are likely to be substantial, while the scale of benefits is highly uncertain. We will continue to keep this issue under review.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Welfare of Laying Hens
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  We have recently completed a public consultation exercise on whether to ban enriched cages for laying hens in England at the same time as conventional barren cages are banned in 2012. I am pleased that some 1,000 people responded to this consultation.
  40WS
  After a thorough consideration of the comments received and the available scientific and other evidence, I have concluded that as there is a lack of definitive evidence currently available there are insufficient grounds at present to justify a unilateral ban on enriched cages from 2012.

  Because there are a range of issues to consider, not least the current stocking density set by the directive, I consider that a better approach would be to review the future of enriched cages on an EU basis, when the welfare of laying hens directive is next considered by the Agriculture Council in 2005.

  By then it is hoped we will be in a stronger position to address some of the questions on the welfare concerns of enriched cages, as research programmes are completed. It is clear however, that it would be premature for producers to consider that existing cages could be adapted to meet the standards of enriched ones.

  Quality Parish and Town Council Initiative
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael)
  In November 2001 the Government issued a consultation paper on their proposals to develop the concept of quality town and parish councils first outlined in the Rural White Paper in November 2000. The proposals aimed to develop a framework for partnership working and equip local councils to take on a stronger role for the benefit of the local community.

  I am pleased to announce the details of the quality parish initiative which the Government have developed in the light of the responses to consultation. The scheme has been developed jointly by DEFRA and ODPM with the collaboration of key stakeholders such as the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the Countryside Agency.

  The scheme sets some straightforward tests that parish and town councils have to pass before they are awarded quality parish or town council status. These tests for accreditation require a quality council to (a) have initially at least 80 per cent. of its seats filled by candidates who stood for election (rising to 100 per cent. for re-accreditation), (b) have a suitably qualified clerk (c) hold at least six council meetings each year, (d) publish annual reports (e) provide regular information to residents on parish activities; and (f) produce properly prepared and audited accounts. Applications will be assessed by county panels including people with experience of both principal authorities and town and parish councils.

  The scheme also includes a model charter where all parish councils are encouraged to negotiate with principal authorities to set out how these tiers of local government can promote partnership working. Once granted quality status, local councils will be in a position to give their communities a better deal on local services and a stronger voice in decisions affecting peoples day to day lives.

  Copies of the summary will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Agriculture in the UK 2002
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2002 has been published today. Copies of this report are available from the Libraries of the House. It is also available in electronic form from DEFRA'S website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/esq/m_publications.htm.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  British Sign Language
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The Government recognise that British Sign Language (BSL) is a language in its own right regularly used by a significant number of people. For an estimated 70,000 deaf people it is their preferred language for participation in everyday life. BSL is a visual-gestural language with its own vocabulary, grammar and syntax.

  The Government understand that people who use BSL want their language to be protected and promoted in the same way some minority languages are by the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The Council is considering how that might be achieved for indigenous sign languages. The Government will give careful consideration to any proposals which the Council might make.

  The Government have already taken action to improve access to BSL, for example by identifying situations where it might be reasonable for employers and service providers to engage the services of a BSL/ English interpreter.

  The Government will be funding a discrete programme of initiatives to support this statement.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I have today published a public consultation document seeking comments on some 42WS
  practical issues surrounding the implementation of new powers in sections 134 to 139 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The provisions in question will enable the immigration authorities to require employers and financial institutions to supply information in respect of specified individuals who we reasonably suspect have committed certain immigration offences, including fraud against the national asylum support arrangements. The deadline for responses to the consultation document is 9 June 2003. I have arranged for copies of the document to be placed in the Library and on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website.

  Asylum Claims
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  A new fast track pilot scheme to be introduced in April will radically reduce the time taken to process asylum claims from arrival to removal.

  The pilot will operate at the Harmondsworth Removal Centre and will build upon the reforms in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the success of the Oakington fast track process. This new pilot will enable us to deal rapidly with straightforward asylum claimants and to remove those with unfounded claims within four weeks of their arrival.

  The new Fast Track Procedure Rules to be laid before Parliament later this week will enable us to pilot fast-track decisions and appeals based upon co-location of key elements of the asylum process. For this to work effectively, we will be detaining at Harmondsworth Removal Centre asylum seekers whose claims appear to be straightforward, pending a decision on their claim. Detention will initially be for about two to five days to enable claimants to be interviewed and an initial decision made. This new process will have bulletin access to legal advice. Detention of asylum seekers for a short period of time for the purposes of making a speedy decision on their claim was upheld last October as lawful by the House of Lords. If the claim is refused or for any reason cannot be dealt with in accordance with the pilot timescales, a decision about further detention will be made in accordance with existing detention criteria. Detention in this category of cases will therefore normally be where it has become apparent that the person would be likely to fail to keep in contact with the Immigration Service or to effect removal.

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

Illegal Meat Imports
Lord Geraint Lord Geraint asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the estimated tonnage of illegal meat imported into this country last year and what was the corresponding figure for 1992.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the forthcoming risk assessment will give a broad estimate of the total weight of meat illegally imported into the United Kingdom on average each year. It is due to be published in the next few weeks, following the completion of final quality assurance and peer review processes. No earlier estimates are available.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he confirm or deny that the £1 billion = worth of illegal meat entering this country annually contains human flesh?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not recognise the figure of £1 billion. Allegations have been made that some meat has contained human flesh, but those are matters for the police rather than Customs and Excise or our own inspectors. There is no proof that such imports have been made. Although there are serious problems related to the meat trade, ones that the Government are attempting to address, the allegations are probably something of a diversion from the main problem.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am sorry that no figures can be made available to the House and hope that that will be quickly remedied. Would it be possible for the Government to render illegal the importation of meat from countries which allow the use of banned substances that may not be used in this country? Will the Government address this issue since obviously it has huge implications for UK farming?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, cases involving poultry imports have recently received wide publicity. Those imports are illegal and such meat should not be brought into this country. Of course differing treatment regimes apply in different countries and are still allowed under trade agreements. However, the recent high-profile issues relating to certain imported poultry meat are illegal and that meat should never have been allowed to come into this country.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that most illegally imported meat finds
126
its way into the rather more dubious take-away and fast food outlets? What efforts are being made by his department and other departments to prevent this criminal trade, given the impact it may have on human and animal health? We could face very serious consequences.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is obviously more familiar with dodgy fast food and take-away outlets than I. I am not aware that those outlets necessarily provide the main route into livestock or public health problems. A number of potential routes exist. However, when the risk assessment comes to be published, I think it will show that although there is a significant problem with regard to the importation of illegal meat, only a relatively small proportion of that meat is likely to be diseased, and again only a small proportion of that is likely to contaminate livestock or pose a threat to human health. The problems with regard to monitoring, control and enforcement therefore lie with identifying all routes. But it is a difficult job to pick out what may pose an actual threat to human or animal health.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House about the partnership work presently being undertaken between the various departments concerned to deal with the importation of illegal meat? How does he see those partnerships moving forward and progressing in the future?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one of the main problems identified in this area was the fact that a multiplicity of agencies have been involved in the control of meat and other food imports. The Cabinet Office undertook a major study, from which the main recommendation made was that Customs and Excise should take over the illegal importation enforcement side, thus dealing with meat smuggling as a whole. The handover to Customs and Excise should take place sometime in April.
In addition, primary control of the legal trade in meat imports is currently the responsibility of local authorities working under the direction of the Food Standards Agency, although other bodies are also involved. A further recommendation has been made that co-ordination should be stepped up and, if necessary, we should consider the creation of a new agency to deliver the improvements being sought.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister shed any more light on the trade in so-called bushmeat? What are the Government doing in terms of establishing relations with those countries supplying such meat to this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, what is generally known as bushmeat accounts for only a relatively small proportion of the total trade. Certainly as regards seizures of illegally imported meat, it accounts for under 2.5 per cent of those seizures. Furthermore, only a very small proportion of bushmeat derives from endangered species. The main enforcement arm

127
internationally is CITES, the relevant convention in relation to international trade in endangered species. Under that convention, we have stepped up inspectorate controls and checking procedures at the points of origin, in particular at the most likely points, largely in Africa.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how his dogs are doing? Have they caught anyone smuggling meat? Is he training any more dogs for this purpose?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the dogs are fine. Both of them are getting on very well. The pilot study will finish in a month or two, at which point Customs and Excise will take over and assess whether or not to extend the experiment. The dogs have indeed found a significant number of people smuggling illegal meat. That meat has been confiscated as a result of the efforts of these two stalwart dogs.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, how many seizures were made last year? How many prosecutions were made? What is the heaviest fine that can be imposed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the highest fine that can be imposed is £5,000. Some 2,900 people were stopped and searched and approximately 2,000 seizures—amounting to 27,000 kilogrammes of illegal meat—were made. Most of the seizures were made in ports and airports through the passenger trade, although some were made through commercial channels when checks were carried out—as they are fairly efficiently—on container loads. Local authorities carry out prosecutions and, as far as I am aware, there were three last year.

Post Office Underground Railway
2.45 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What future they envisage for the Post Office underground railway in London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, decisions on the future use of MailRail are a commercial matter for the Royal Mail board. The Government understand that the decision to discontinue the service has been reached because the system costs today more than four times as much to operate as using road transport. The Government understand that the company is actively seeking and considering alternative uses for MailRail from outside sources. No decisions have yet been taken by the company on this matter.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. A number of Members of this House and another place visited Mail Rail at the invitation of the Post Office two weeks ago. Every member of our party was greatly impressed with the quality of the track and tunnels and of the infrastructure generally. Does my noble friend agree that it would be regrettable if this unique facility were to be closed permanently given the fact that it is capable of transporting significant quantities of freight under the streets of London in an entirely environmentally friendly way? Are the Government prepared to support the attempt, which I understand the Post Office will shortly be making, to change the legislation—particularly the Post Office (London) Railway Act 1913—to allow freight other than mail to be carried on the railway?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Royal Mail has agreed to pursue a legislative route to widen the scope of usage for the system. If it decides to seek an appropriate order under the transport and works legislation, my department would support such a move.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Post Office railway is beneficial from a congestion point of view? Would it be practical to extend the line to Willesden, where the main Post Office sorting centre is located?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as regards transport it makes very little difference. The company envisages using only a handful of extra vehicles after MailRail is taken out of service because a huge proportion of the mail it now carries will be transported on existing vehicle routes. As regards extension, MailRail used to connect nine different stations but, with the movement of sorting offices to new areas of population, it now covers only four. Extending it would make no economic sense at all.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a moment for proactivity on behalf of his department? It is not for your Lordships' House to come up with ideas following the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but, for example, would not this be a perfect avenue for use by the retail distribution trade within London? Alternatively, what possibilities does it offer for CrossRail?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is not for the House or the Government to look for opportunities. The situation requires the Royal Mail to take a commercial decision. A consortium called Metrofreight was established to look at a proposal for using MailRail tunnels to deliver goods underground to retailers in Oxford Street. It became clear that this would cost in the region of £100 million, without a proper commercial return. It looks unlikely therefore that that scheme will go ahead. But there are other commercial possibilities and it is for the Royal Mail. which is seized of the issue, to consider them.

Health Visitors
2.50 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What future they plan for the health visitors' profession.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as the noble Lord will understand, for many reasons I wish that my noble friend Lord Hunt were here to answer the Question this afternoon. In my view, he was an outstanding Minister.
Health visitors will continue to play an important part in our measures to improve the nation's health and to tackle health inequalities. They have a crucial role in helping to deliver the Government's health priorities, including cancer and coronary heart disease prevention, improving older people's health and, of course, promoting the health of children and families.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the Minister in her reference to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I should like to express the sadness on these Benches at the very principled resignation of the noble Lord. He is held in universal high regard in this House and we will miss him greatly, even at starred Question Time.
Health visitors feel that they have been led up the garden path by the Government. When the nursing and midwives order was put through this House and another place, successive Ministers assured health visitors that their profession would be able to develop and expand. But is it not the case that despite massive support from the public consultation, the NMC has not been able to choose the name of the third register or the educational qualifications that it would wish to choose? In the light of the importance of family support and child development, is it not time that the Government had a rethink?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord will want me to make a robust response in place of my noble friend Lord Hunt. I cannot agree with him. We took the line that we did on the order to ensure that rather than have health visitors in the title of the third part of the register there should be a broader commitment to developing the public health nursing profession. As the noble Lord in particular will know, entry into the profession is a matter for the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and another element of consultation will start very shortly.
Lord Laming: My Lords, during this period of change and uncertainty for health visitors, will the Minister do as much as she can to ensure that the liaison role that health visitors fulfil between hospitals and general practice is given proper priority by primary care trusts?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, that is a very important point. Health visitors are in a unique position to promote proper connections between parts
130
of the health service. We have in the past few years made a commitment to the health visitor profession by developing plans and resources which I am sure will help to promote what the noble Lord wants to see.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, am I right in believing that it is the Government's policy to build on the confidence that parents have in health visitors and extend their role to give parenting and family support? How can this possibly tie in with requiring health visitors to spend four years qualifying if and when a suitable three-year course can be designed by them?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. In programmes such as Sure Start and in the development of the national service framework for children, the role of health visitors will be crucial, and we have every intention of giving them support and encouragement to enable them to play as full a role as possible.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, because of the huge caseload that health visitors have, does the Minister agree that they largely have to ignore the promotion of the health of vulnerable elderly people in their area, as priority—rightly, in many ways—is given to children? Does she agree that health visitors can only undertake certain work for which, in many cases, they are overqualified and undervalued?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the provision of health services is a matter for the primary care trust and the Workforce Development Confederations. I hope that any clash of priorities would be managed properly at local level. We would not want the health of elderly people to be sacrificed to any other part of the population, and I am sure that good management would prevent that happening.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, how many health visitors are currently in practice? With the rolling out of Sure Start and the implementation of the national service framework, can the Minister indicate how many more health visitors will be required and how she intends to meet the shortfall?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I may be wrong, but I understand there are between 10,000 and 13,000 health visitors in post. In terms of what we are doing to increase that number, which is I think the crucial question, we are delighted that we have been able to recruit an additional 40,000 nurses since 1997. That will give us scope to develop the profession. The increase in the headcount among health visitors is 5.2 per cent since 1997, and there is a planned increase in health visitors in training for the next two years. We are optimistic that by giving them a higher profile, we will be able to recruit the numbers we need.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, regarding the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from the Government, and express the high regard in which he is held on these Benches.

131
Is the Minister aware that the health visiting profession, despite its growing importance, as she has rightly emphasised, is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit new members? Does she accept that the one way to inhibit recruitment is to insist that anyone wanting to be a health visitor has to have a nursing qualification as well?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, which is precisely why we are not very happy with the concept of direct recruitment. We are keen to keep the nursing element in the health visiting profession because it is so important for the range of work that health visitors so.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, were the Government aware that there would be no possibility of direct entry into health visiting at the time the order was put through? If so, why did they not inform health visitors? Are they now saying that it is impossible to qualify as a community practitioner by any route other than that of nursing?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I have said, it is for the NMC to decide how best to regulate the profession. It can only regulate nurses and midwives with appropriate qualifications. Direct entry would mean that health visitors would not have to hold a nursing or midwifery qualification. In terms of other routes that might lead to the Health Professions Council at some point, we will have to see how the profession develops.

Zimbabwe: British Pensioners
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to help British pensioners in Zimbabwe whose pensions are paid through the banks at the official exchange rate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, British pensioners in Zimbabwe, of whom there are 4,036, are not paid through the banks at the official rate of exchange. The Department for Work and Pensions pays British state pensioners in Zimbabwe in one of three ways, either through direct payments into a UK bank account, into an overseas bank in a country other than Zimbabwe or by payable order—in effect, a sterling cheque sent to the pensioner's home address. Pensioners are responsible for how pension payments made in sterling are converted into Zimbabwe dollars. Zimbabwe's independence constitution, agreed during the Lancaster House negotiations, made it clear that the UK Government would not protect Zimbabwe pension payments against the effects of fluctuating exchange rates.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which surprises me.
132
I understand from many quarters in Zimbabwe that pensioners are receiving pay through the banks at the official rate. The economy works on a parallel rate, and inflation is running at 200 per cent. The effect is that these people are destitute in many cases and in some cases they are starving. They cannot pay the costs of their old-age homes and are in despair. I ask the Government to consider doing something more effective to save the situation. There have been suicides, and the situation is desperate. I note that the Government have continued to charge for passports and visas at the parallel rate, which is the rate that applies there for everything affected. How is it that pensioners cannot be assured of a similar parallel rate?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Baroness's concerns about this matter and I have looked at it in detail. As I explained in my original Answer, British state pensioners in Zimbabwe are paid in sterling, not through a direct bank exchange, because there is no confidence in the banking system in Zimbabwe. Colonial service pensioners are appointed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and their pensions are paid by DfID. Again, they are paid in sterling and not through the bank.
The noble Baroness's concerns may relate to public service workers under the Government of Southern Rhodesia. I note that the noble Baroness shakes her head. In that case, I am unable to get to the bottom of her concerns. These were raised in a recent debate and I have examined the issue in detail. We have contacted the Department for Work and Pensions and I am assured that these payments are not made through the banks at the official rate of exchange.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if what the Minister says is the case, is she confident that the British High Commission in Harare has done everything it possibly can to explain how the pensions could be paid to the pensioners' advantage? Is she aware that the cost of obtaining a permanent residency stamp on a passport is 250,000 Zimbabwe dollars? At the official rate, that is nearly £3,000. How can it possibly be right for such a large sum to be required in payment for a government service?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am confident that our High Commission is doing everything that it can. As regards those pensioners who were locally engaged—and who are therefore in receipt of Zimbabwean pensions—the staff are sending, on average, three letters and six e-mails each week to the pensions authority in Zimbabwe. Indeed, they have had meetings with the authority. Noble Lords will know that we have a responsibility for full cost recovery for our services at our high commissions and embassies abroad. It is on that basis that our services operate at the parallel rate.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister seen articles in the South African newspapers in support of public service pensioners paid by the Zimbabwe Government who are either not receiving their

133
pensions at all, or who have been paid with dud cheques? Is not this matter important enough to draw to the attention of the Commonwealth Secretariat, with a view to having the examination of Zimbabwe's position brought forward and not delayed until December? Will the noble Baroness put at least as much effort into persuading other Commonwealth members to examine that matter as she did into persuading African countries to line up behind us in the Security Council?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was not aware of the issue of dud cheques. I am aware of the concerns that exist generally about some pensioners not receiving a pension at all; or indeed the value of their pensions having fallen so much that they are virtually worthless. I receive a number of letters on the issue, and we have raised it many times with the Government of Zimbabwe. Until the economy of Zimbabwe improves, I doubt whether those pensioners will receive the pension that they deserve.
As regards the Commonwealth, we have been working to ensure that Zimbabwe's suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth continues. That was announced by the Secretary-General on 16th March and will be discussed at the CHOGM in December.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Overseas Service Pensioners Association. When will the Government give help to those former colonial civil servants who worked in Southern Rhodesia before UDI and whose pensions were guaranteed under the independence constitution agreed at Lancaster House but have become almost valueless as a result of the decline in the Zimbabwean dollar? Is it not ridiculous that the Government should refuse to help them when they are affording help to all the colonial civil servants who served in other colonial territories?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may be mistaken. As I understand it, under the Zimbabwe independence constitution agreed during the Lancaster House negotiations there was no undertaking that the UK Government should assume responsibility for the pension payments of those who had worked for the Southern Rhodesia Civil Service. They worked on local terms; so the responsibility lies with the Government of Zimbabwe. That is why we have made every effort to ensure that their pensions are respected.
Lord Renton: My Lords, so that we can better understand the scale of this problem, will the Minister tell the House how many British pensioners there are in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are 4,036 British pensioners in Zimbabwe, and their money is not paid through the banks at the official exchange rates, as I explained in my original Answer.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is reassuring to hear that British expatriate pensioners are paid in
134
pounds, and can presumably obtain the parallel rate, thus having to face only the general problem of the Zimbabwean economic collapse. However, given what we have heard from my noble friend in the past few minutes, there seems to be some conflict of evidence as regards the position of other pensioners. I appreciate that the Minister has examined these matters very carefully. However, will she go over them with a tooth-comb to ensure that there is nothing more that we can do on this front—although there are plenty of things that we can do on other fronts to see that, at least, former British citizens who may have taken Zimbabwean citizenship are looked after as best we can—even if we cannot do more to help the brave people of Zimbabwe, such as the poor cricketers who are now being penalised and punished for declaring their pursuit of freedom and their objection to Mr Mugabe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am happy to agree to do that. Indeed, I will write to the noble Lord with the details that I have unearthed in regard to the different pension arrangements that currently exist. I will place a copy of my letter in the Library.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the treatment of British pensioners overseas is a matter of more general dissatisfaction, which has been expressed frequently from these Benches? Will she convey to her noble friend at the Department for Work and Pensions that this is regarded in some quarters as an extreme example of a general problem?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the wider issue. Indeed, I remember answering a Question on this matter on behalf of my noble friend, and then receiving what was by far my largest postbag. To increase the basic state pension by inflation for all overseas pensioners not protected by bilateral agreements would cost us some £400 million. The Government have made it clear that our priority is UK pensioners resident in the United Kingdom.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how many of the pensioners being paid, or not paid, by Zimbabwe are British citizens?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not have the figure available. I shall do all I can to find it and I shall write to the noble Lord.

Steel Industry
3.8 p.m.
Lord Brookman Lord Brookman asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to avoid the demise of the British steel industry, in view of the prospect of further plant closures by Corus.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government fully recognise how worrying the situation must be for the company and its employees. The

135
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met the company this morning and was assured that a significant and viable steel industry in the UK would feature strongly in Corus's long-term strategy. The Secretary of State urged the company to communicate its plans at the earliest opportunity. The Government have also met trade union representatives and are pleased that they have expressed a willingness to work with the Corus management to deliver a plan for the profitable future of the company and its employees. The company is currently in discussion with its bankers. We need to await the outcome of those commercial discussions, but I can assure the House that the DTI stands ready to assist.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. At Corus—once British Steel, a name I preferred—10,000 jobs have been lost in the past two years, and its share price is floating between 3p, 4p, 6p and, this morning, 8½p. The situation is very serious, as acknowledged by the Minister. What I, and the trade unions that I used to represent, want to see is a tripartite discussion between government, the company and the trade unions to try to ensure a viable future for the steel industry in this country. I want that message pressed home to the appropriate Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I made clear, the Secretary of State is keeping a close watch on the situation. Clearly, it is now for the management of Corus to come forward with its restructuring plans and its plans for the future. We will keep a close eye on the situation and stand ready to assist as much as we can.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government could do one practical thing in the 36 or 24 hours before the war in Iraq begins? They might use our influence with the United States and its President to do something about the imposition of tariffs against the steel industry, which was seriously criticised in this House—and has been criticised by the Government. The price of war may be heavy, but is this not an opportunity for the Government at least to ameliorate it in this regard?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government have applied significant pressure on behalf of UK companies, and we were more successful than any other country in achieving exclusions last time. We are still pressing for the sanctions to be lifted altogether, and we will continue to do so now and in future.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, does the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, mean that the Government will ensure that there is a viable steel industry in the UK?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government cannot possibly give that assurance. This is a commercial matter and it must be for the company and the steel industry to put forward plans on a
136
commercial and viable basis that will get the support of the shareholders and bankers. That is the major task. The Government can only create the right conditions for this and provide help if restructuring is necessary.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, when did the Secretary of State become aware of the possibility of a catastrophe for the steel industry in this country? Were the Government monitoring the share price of Corus? What steps are in place to ensure that a predator does not buy the company and sell off the pieces? Will the Government take all necessary steps to ensure that there is a viable steel industry in this country, and provide the financial basis for it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the department monitors carefully the position of the steel industry. In this case, the Government and the company were faced with a surprising change in the fortunes of the company, due to the position of the Dutch supervisory board. That created this crisis situation, which was not helped by the publication of the company's financial results. However, it is for the company to come forward with a viable strategy; we will do everything that we can to help in any restructuring task.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, some noble Lords may find it reassuring that the Secretary of State is considering the situation and may be pleased by the fact that the management of the company must come up with a new plan, which the Secretary of State is monitoring. However, manufacturing has declined in this country and there is less demand for steel, while at the same time there is an influx of cheap imported steel from east European countries and Asia, due to the fact that we have signed up to the Social Chapter. Is it not time to do something more than simply taking a look at the situation and telling the company to do something on its own?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are two issues here; one of them is EU enlargement. We understand the steel industry's concerns about EU accession terms, but state aid will mostly cease by accession. When that is not the case, as in Slovakia, there will continue to be a package of measures that ensure quantification and clarification of aid and impose strict monitoring, while restricting the market access benefits of accession. We are considering that situation.
Secondly, this is a tough time for manufacturing, which is why we have a manufacturing strategy to support manufacturing in this country.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords. I understand the Minister's comments on the commercial realities of the steel industry. However, does he recognise that in the past 30 years the productivity increase in the British steel industry has meant a reduction in jobs from about 267,000 to about 26,000 jobs? Does he recognise, too, that the difficulties facing the British

137
steel industry result from dumping on the world market and government subsidies in other countries? Should we not take measures to counter that kind of provision?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government recognise that there have been substantial increases in productivity and a decrease in jobs. When any cases of dumping are raised, we shall seriously pursue the matter and take action in an international forum.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the news from Corus strengthen the view that employment opportunities for men in South Wales are such that the New Deal is not a sufficient remedy for poverty? In some places, there are simply not enough jobs to go round.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if restructuring takes place and it leads to a reduction in jobs, the Government will take all possible steps to give help. As yet, we have had no details from the company of the number of jobs or locations; when we have those details, we will take action. The RDAs will take the lead as normal, working with government offices, Jobcentre Plus, the unions, local government and other agencies to pull together government action, including job shops and training.
Lord Paul: My Lords, the survival of Corus is important to the whole manufacturing industry in this country, because so many industries are dependent on it. Will the Minister consider what action the Government can take, apart from simply waiting for the commercial decisions to be taken?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the importance of Corus as a supplier to many parts of manufacturing. As I hope I made clear, the company assured the Secretary of State that a significant and viable steel industry would feature strongly in its long-term strategy. However, this is an area in which clear EU rules govern state aid to the steel industry. They forbid investment aid and rescue and restructuring aid, so any action we take must be within those rules.

Business of the House: Standing Orders 41 and 47
3.17 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It is proposed that the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill will take place tomorrow as the first business. The Public Bill Office is already open to receive amendments and will remain open until half an hour after the end of the Second Reading debate. The remaining stages of the Bill, including any amendments, will be taken
138
after the first of the two balloted debates. I am grateful to the usual channels for their agreement to this course of action.
Moved, That on Wednesday 19th March Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to allow the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Rendell of Babergh; and Standing Order 47 (No two stages to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Service (Disruption) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about today's debate on Iraq. It is not a timed debate, but it is sometimes helpful to the House if I do some arithmetic. Forty-three of your Lordships are down on the list to speak today. We are all aware that yesterday there was a very good three-hour timed debate on Iraq, on which speakers were limited to eight minutes, and speeches were not necessarily any the worse for that limit. The arithmetic is simple. If speeches were limited to eight minutes today, we would finish at around 10 p.m. Every minute added by each speaker would add 40 minutes to the finishing time. That is the simplest arithmetic that I can give.

Iraq
3.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That this House takes note of Her Majesty's Government's policy on Iraq.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is right that we are debating this issue again. That is the democracy that is our right.
I begin with a simple proposition. I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine. On this issue in particular honourable people can honourably disagree. Ours is a stark choice: we stand our troops down and turn back or we hold firm to the course that we have set. We must hold firm.
Why does it matter so much? The Government are facing their most serious test. Their majority is at risk. We have had the first Cabinet resignation on an issue of principle. The main parties stand divided.
The country and this Parliament each reflect the other. I think your Lordships will agree that as time has gone by the debate has become less bitter but not less grave. Why does it matter? It matters because the outcome of these issues which we are facing with such

139
imminence will determine more than the fate of the present regime in Iraq and more than the future of the unfortunate people of Iraq. It will actually determine the way that Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century. It will affect the development of the United Nations. It will affect profoundly the relationship between Europe and the United States of America. It will affect the way the United States is minded to engage with the rest of the world and it will affect the internal dynamic of the European Union.
In April 1991, after the Gulf War, Iraq was given 15 days to make a full and final declaration of all its weapons of mass destruction. The declaration, when it came, was false. The inspectors probed. In March the following year Iraq admitted that it had previously undeclared weapons of mass destruction but claimed that it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. In October 1994 Iraq stopped cooperating with UNSCOM altogether. Military action was threatened; inspections resumed. No one in this House will fail to detect the causal connection between those two.
In March 1995, a further full and final declaration of weapons of mass destruction was made. In July of the same year, just a few months later, Iraq was obliged to admit the falsity of that. In August 1995, there was yet another full and final declaration. A week or so later, the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, Hussein Kamal, defected. Your Lordships all know the revelations he made. Following that defection and those revelations, Iraq was obliged to release documents to show how extensive the constantly denied programmes had been. In November of that year, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles. In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made. That was false. In June the following year, inspectors were barred from specific sites. In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made. It was also false. The inspectors found VX nerve agent production equipment—something always denied by Iraq. In October 1997, the US and the UK threatened military action; obstruction continued.
Finally, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to oblige him to allow inspections to continue. For a moment or two they did. In August, co-operation was suspended. In December, the inspectors left. Their report is a devastating, withering indictment of lies, deception and obstruction. Much more to the point, large quantities of weapons of mass destruction were unaccounted for.
The United States of America and the United Kingdom in December 1998—that is, under this Government—launched Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as many of the facilities in Iraq as we could. In 1999 a new team was set up. Saddam refused it entry into Iraq. So it stayed in limbo from 1999 until November 2002 following Resolution 1441. What is the present claim of Saddam? Your Lordships know that another full and final declaration
140
awaits us just around the corner. Saddam claims that he has no weapons of mass destruction. Your Lordships will encounter no one anywhere in the world who believes a syllable of that.
When the inspectors left that unhappy country in 1998, unaccounted for were 10,000 litres of anthrax, a VX nerve agent programme, up to 6,500 chemical munitions, at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, but possibly 10 times that amount, unquantifiable amounts of biological poisons and a Scud missile programme.
Resolution 1441 is as clear as one could wish. It lays down a final opportunity for disarmament. It rehearses the fact that over the past years Saddam Hussein has been in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. Resolution 1441 says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step—I weary your Lordships—was a full and final declaration to be given on 8th December. The 8th December declaration was false. That is a material breach of Resolution 1441.
Iraq continues its denials. On 7th March of this year—your Lordships will have seen it—the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages of detailed matter. It lists 29 different areas where they cannot obtain information. It states on VX:
"Documentation…suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX … Mustard constituted an important part (about 70 per cent) of Iraq's CW arsenal … 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard tilled aerial bombs unaccounted for … Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres…Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist".
We had a debate about legalities yesterday with which I shall not trouble your Lordships; these are facts.
On that basis, if those who assented to and signed up to Resolution 1441 had honourably discharged their international obligations the Security Council could have convened and condemned Iraq as being in material breach. But the inspectors thought that there was some marginal co-operation. The world—our world—rightly hesitated. We then went towards a second resolution. We laid down an ultimatum—not an unreasonable proposition, I think we would all agree. Still some hesitated. I sympathise and honour that profound reluctance to engage in armed conflict.
So we worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and we drew up five tests based on the March 7th document. I underline that. The inspectors themselves added a further test; namely, that Hussein should publicly call on Iraqis to co-operate. So we constructed that framework; namely, that Saddam should be given a specific time to fulfil all six tests and that if he did so—this is very important—the inspectors could set out a further forward work programme. But if he failed to do so, action would follow. I repeat that these are the acts of reasonable men and reasonable nations.
Last Monday, we were getting somewhere. We very nearly had majority agreement. On behalf of the Government, I specifically thank the Chilean

141
president for the constructive way in which he approached the issue. There were debates about the length of the ultimatum, of course, but the basic construct was gaining support. Then we came to Monday night. France said that it would veto a second resolution —I underline the next three words—whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests, none of which could fairly or rationally be described as oppressive. Later that day—oh, what a surprise—Iraq rejected the six tests.
We continued to negotiate. Last Friday, France said that it would not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made further efforts to secure agreement, but it remained utterly opposed to anything which laid down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of noncompliance. What the French Government and the French president do is a matter for the French Government and the French president. What we do is a matter for our conscientious and considered judgment.
The present position proposed by some is that we should continue to want Saddam Hussein to disarm but refuse to will the means—a resolution authorising force in the event of non-compliance. On the history of the past 12 years, that is all that works. We must demand disarmament but relinquish any sanction. From December 1998 to December 2002—four years—no United Nations inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. What changed Saddam's mind? No one can doubt that it was the threat of force.
That fact is so obvious that I do not wish to weary noble Lords further. But that fact, that history, that perfect continuum still leads people to tell us that any resolution authorising force will be vetoed—not opposed, not subjected to reasoned argument and debate, but vetoed, blocked and destroyed. The way ahead was so clear; it had taken so much effort by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The United Nations could have passed a second resolution. It would have set out the benchmarks for compliance with an ultimatum. Noble Lords may not have had the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, yesterday. I respectfully suggest that reading his contribution to the debate is quite a fruitful exercise.
The way ahead was clear. The tragedy—it is a failure of diplomacy, imagination, conscience and honourable behaviour—is that if that resolution had been passed it is possible that Saddam might have complied. Over the past 12 years, we have been the victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason those who are deeply unreasonable.
Resolution 1441 was the final opportunity. The first test was the declaration of 8th December, and it was failed. Still we waited until 27th January. We waited beyond then, to 14th February and 28th February. Our true fault has therefore not been impatience. However unpalatable and bleak and implacable, the truth is that our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago. Even now, had the world united in responsible action and given the ultimatum to comply or face force, it was possible that diplomacy would have succeeded.
Indulgence has to stop. It is profoundly dangerous. One day our enemies will mistake our preference to avoid force for permanent incapacity of will, the first sign of terminal decline of any civilisation. Iraq is not the only regime with such weapons. We can back away now and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating to us all.
The threat today is not that of the 1930s. The ravages of fundamentalist political ideology of the 20th century have gone. The Cold War is finished. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically. However, our world is interdependent—that is not a matter of choice. The real threat is one of global chaos, and there are two begetters of such chaos: tyrannical regimes with weapons of mass destruction, and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam.
There are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons technology. There are companies, individuals and former scientists selling their equipment and expertise. Many countries are desperately trying to acquire such generic weapons. Terrorist cells are operating in most major countries. About 20 nations over the past two years— what a short span of time—have suffered serious outrages. Around the world as we wish and hope it to become, terrorism is poisoning the chances of progress—in the Middle East, Kashmir, Chechnya and large areas of Africa.
There is going to be a battle of will and of principle. We are fortunate indeed, beyond what we recognise, to be free, democratic and tolerant. The possibility of the two threats coming together—terrorist groups in possession of weapons of mass destruction—is a real and present danger. On 11th September, about 3,000 innocents were murdered. Had it been 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the rejoicing by the criminals who did it. Three kilos of VX from a rocket launcher will contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre of a city. Millions of lethal doses are to be found in one litre of anthrax, and we know that 10,000 litres are not accounted for.
It is required that the world should unite. The United Nations must be the focus of diplomacy and of action. That was the subtext of Resolution 1441. To go back to the lassitude of the past 12 years would be a gross dereliction. It is with infinite reluctance that Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the greatest danger to the United Nations is inaction. To pass Resolution 1441 and refuse to enforce it would do lethal damage to the future strength of the United Nations.
It is in the United Kingdom's interests that that organisation, with its manifest imperfections but its distinguished successes, should continue to flourish. The paralysis of the United Nations has been born out of division and a polar view of world geopolitics. There is resentment at the predominance of the United States and fear of its unilateralism. If we did not co-operate with the United States, with our reasoned and reasonable influence, is it to be imagined that it would not continue along a unilateralist path?
There is no issue capable of reuniting the world community more powerful than that of Israel and Palestine. The United States is now genuinely committed—I know the cynicism—to the road map for peace, which we hope will be presented today to the Palestinian prime minister. All are signed up to the idea of two independent states with the ability to live their own distinct lives.
With our United States allies, with whom we are infinitely more closely united than divided, we are now committed to further UN resolutions providing humanitarian help for the governance and administration of Iraq, the territorial integrity of Iraq and the necessity that the oil revenues be placed within a fund administered through the United Nations. The Prime Minister has never put as his justification for action regime change. But it is perfectly plain—is it not?—that if we act we can do so with a clear conscience and a strong heart.
In Iraq, capable of such wealth and such civilised peace and prosperity for its inhabitants, 60 per cent of the population are dependent on food aid. Thousands of children die unnecessarily for lack of food and medicine. Four million out of a population of 20 million are living in exile. No one needs any reminder of the brutality of the repression.
We all have to face the consequences of the conclusions that we come to. I, for one, am happy to do so. That means all the dangers of war. But for others, who are opposed to our course, let us remember that the long, deep darkness will return and be reinforced in Iraq. If that happens, who will celebrate and who will weep?
On our decisions in this Parliament of free people, to which we pay a full contribution in this House, although I appreciate that we shall not have a vote, hangs the fate of many things and many people. No one who has to deal with those decisions misunderstands that grave responsibility. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of Her Majesty's Government's policy on Iraq.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.41 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is a sombre occasion, but I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for making this debate possible today. As he remarked in his opening sentences, it is essential that Parliament is kept involved at every stage. No doubt, in answering, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will confirm that there will be further opportunities for debate as conflict unfolds and as we consider something equally crucial—plans for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.
I say at the outset that we on these Benches support military action against the tyranny of Saddam. We do so with no relish and no enthusiasm. War must always be the last resort. But few can say that the Government—and the US Government—have not gone the last mile to avoid it. And few can claim that
144
Saddam, in the final phase of a vicious and bloodthirsty career, has taken any more than token steps to prevent a conflict that he has had in his hands for months—indeed, years—to avoid. Even at this stage, he has the chance to save his people much suffering, but he has spurned it. No one should doubt that the storm about to fall on Iraq is a storm of Saddam's own making.
Nor—here I agree with the Prime Minister—should anyone doubt that, if Saddam succeeded in his defiance of the United Nations and in his successful tactics to play on and promote divisions among his opponents in the free world, it would be a giant blow to world peace and world order. For 12 years, Saddam has thumbed his nose at the United Nations. For 12 years, he has continued to nurture weapons of mass destruction, to support and finance terrorism, and to inflict violence and brutality on his own people. His way never did and never could offer any future for the Arab world. Our duty now is to look beyond him for a better future for Iraq and its peoples and for greater stability in a region where Saddam did so much to sow fear, terror and war.
The second thing to set out is the unequivocal support that we offer to our Armed Forces and their families at this time. They need to know that we endorse the cause in which they are being asked to risk their lives. We have been consistent in that position and will remain so. I have enormous respect for the wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and agree with her on many things. I look forward to her speech this afternoon. But, like many noble Lords, I find it hard to fathom the attitude of a party that denounces the legality of a war—right up to the last minute in the debate launched by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, last night—and then says that it supports the war when it is fought. With utmost respect, I say to the Liberal Democrats that they cannot campaign as an anti-war party on the doorsteps, then proclaim support in the television studios for the troops fighting that illegal war.
Unlike the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, I have no special knowledge of the legalities of the matter. For our part, we accept the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I am sorry that he was not present for the debate last night. I believe that his position would have been strengthened if he had been, and we would have supported him. But we are now past the point of cavilling. What counts now is the winning of a swift and decisive victory, if possible. What counts now is the use of the peace that we hope will follow.
But there is one other point—a disturbing one to some of us—that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will clear up in her reply. What, given the United Kingdom's adherence to the International Criminal Court, is the legal framework within which our forces are operating? Can it truly be the case, as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that at the elbow of every commander must sit a lawyer to validate the legality of military decisions? That would be an extraordinary position, which my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford will explore further

145
when he speaks this evening. However, I hope that the noble Baroness can set out the position unequivocally for the peace of mind of our troops. It would be intolerable if lives were to be put at risk or if the troops faced vexatious legal charges for actions taken to win this war.
Apocalyptic things have been said about the collapse of the United Nations. I do not entirely agree with that baleful view. The UN must play a major role in the reconstruction of Iraq. The United States Government have wisely acknowledged that. But, sadly, it is true that, in the time of trial, the Security Council did not meet the needs of the moment. Diplomacy failed. Yet Saddam's defiance and prevarication must be faced down or the authority of the UN, too, will be weakened further. Ultimately, even the most velvet glove must contain a fist.
I regret that some members of the Security Council did not share our view. But perhaps, in retrospect, it would have been wiser not to keep trying to breathe life into a diplomatic process that was failing. Sometimes, paradoxically, attempts to reach an unattainable agreement can actually accentuate divisions. They end by pleasing no one. But we must put an end to that recrimination and look to the future.
I think that there are grave illusions abroad about the scope for a common foreign and defence approach in the EU. Some of those should have been stripped aside by this crisis. I am one of those who regret some of the loose language thrown by the advocates of war at the President of France. Equally, I regret some of the loose language thrown by the opponents of war at the President of the United States, motivated often by anti-Americanism. But they have been striving, as have we on this side, to uphold what they see as their national interest. That is an international reality with which we have to live. Co-operation will be no less needed in the future than it has been in the past.
If there was a failure by the UN and by the advocates of veto, I would say that it was not to meet the US Government half way when they sought a UN solution to what was a UN problem. If we want this mighty country—the US—to embrace a multilateralist course, that was a profound mistake. And if we want to build a new Europe, we have to understand the outlook of countries of the old East bloc, which see America as a beacon of liberty and not as a tower of darkness. It is the ultimate expression of the relativist fallacy to condemn America for not having solved all the problems of the world and, by implication, to accept the survival of Saddam. That way, I fear, lies a road to a dark future indeed.
Of course, it is essential that we lay out and follow a road map to the difficult path to peace and justice in the Middle East. I hope that it will be firmly and consistently pursued. It is essential that we deal with the appalling threat posed by the bizarre regime in North Korea, and that we pursue unrelentingly to the end the war on Al'Qaeda and international terrorism. But the fact that those tasks remain undone does not mean that the job we are debating today should not be done. Is there anyone in this House who believes
146
Saddam was an aid to the cause of peace and justice in Israel and Palestine or that his fall will not be a major blow to the network of world terror?
What comes after the 'war in Iraq is of profound concern to the House. We hope that the noble Baroness will set out even more clearly her vision of that future when she winds up this debate. I hope also that the House will have an opportunity to debate that in detail in future. But the issue before us now is the question of peace and war. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has set out for us the dangers and the strategic issues at stake in this war. We on this side accept the analysis and the aims, however much we may wish they could have been spelt out clearly and perhaps even more consistently from the outset.
We accept strongly that our long-term national interest is involved here. Saddam has the means, mentality and motive to pose a direct threat to our country and our citizens abroad and has shown willingness to promote and finance the worst aspects of international terror. Defeating Saddam is one aspect of a wider and much more far-reaching struggle.
It is for that reason, and that reason alone—our national interest—that we support a Prime Minister who often, it appears, has failed on many other domestic issues. But on the core of this issue he has been firm and courageous. On this issue he and President Bush have been right.
I know that many disagree with our analysis. No doubt some are present in this House today. I respect their views even if I disagree with them because I believe profoundly that to turn about now would be to court incalculable future danger in the face of the greatest emerging threat to our future security—what my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford last night called the dark rendezvous between fanaticism and weapons of mass destruction. Our national interest and the interest of future generations cries out that we should not ignore that threat. That is why we support the Government today.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for introducing today's debate. I also thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House for the gracious way in which he presented his case and for his references to me, to which I shall certainly devote attention a little later in this speech.
Perhaps I may say on this very sombre day that war is always a catastrophe. Among its earliest casualties are two extremely distinguished former Members of the Government. I put on record my respect for the former Leader of the House of Commons, the right honourable Robin Cook, and for the huge effort he put into the reform and modernisation of this Parliament. I also pay him respect for his period as Foreign Secretary.
As regards the second casualty, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, those of us who have watched his performance in this House over many

147
years have been most impressed by his conscientiousness and his extreme care and concern. We all profoundly regret his departure from the Front Bench. We wish his successor well, when that time comes.
In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, clearly there is more than one set of opinions about how effective are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Those who were able to read the Statement by the former Leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook, only last night, would have seen that he said that in his view Iraq does not have any weapons of mass destruction in the normally understood sense of the word, which is that there are not any such weapons that can be effectively delivered.
As so often in this argument, we look at a profound ambiguity, which people interpret in somewhat different ways. Tomorrow night at about midnight thousands of young men and women will be called to the colours and will be asked to face whatever risks come towards them in a war against Iraq. Many of those young people will show the resolution and courage that has marked the Armed Forces. Before I respond to the perfectly fair criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, perhaps I may say that it is not enough for us simply to announce our support for the Armed Forces; it is important also that we recognise that unless we win the peace after military victory the purpose of their enlistment will be totally futile and besides the point. We owe it to them to win the peace and not just the war. None of us wants to see yet a third Gulf War because of the inadequate prosecution of the battle that we confront, which is both civil and military.
Certainly in this case diplomacy has failed. Despite titanic efforts—the whole House responds and respects the Prime Minister for that—the attempt to get a second Security Council resolution has failed. Much of the blame has been passed over to France. France has been seriously misinterpreted, not least by our own tabloid newspapers. France believes that it has been misrepresented. I am told by the French Embassy, which I consulted this morning, that France indicated it would veto a second resolution even if there were nine members of the Security Council supporting it, but made absolutely plain that this was a judgment about timelines, not about Iraq failing to comply with Security Council resolutions. In other words—surely, it is not too complex a thought for us to understand—France believes that timelines for the inspectors were unacceptably short. I was reassured this morning that France wants it to be known that it would have supported a resolution if in its view the inspectors indicated that there was no longer sufficient compliance with their work to enable them to complete it in a satisfactory manner. That is a distinction of considerable importance.
Without that second resolution the legitimacy of our actions will continue to be disputed. I do not base that on some Liberal Democrat policy paper but on what is
148
probably the most serious source one could find on this issue. Last night the Secretary-General of the UN stated:
"if the action is to take place without the support of the Council, its legitimacy will be questioned and the support for it will be diminished".
Unquestionably, our action without a second Security Council resolution is bound to be disputed by other parts of the world.
As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, it is perfectly possible—on many occasions it has happened—to distinguish between support for the men and women in the Armed Forces and the war in which they are being invited, indeed ordered, to take part. No one can question the loyalty of our Armed Forces to her Majesty the Queen and to the orders that they are bound to obey.
However, it does not take a long historical understanding to recall, for example, that Campbell-Bannerman consistently attacked the concentration camps used in the Boer War; that Mr Churchill attacked the handling of the early stages of the Second World War, on the correct ground that the Government were failing to prosecute their strategy with adequate determination; and, in a shorter time line, many in this House will recall Hugh Gaitskill, as leader of the Opposition, consistently attacking the Suez invasion. History proved him absolutely right. That turned out to be an immoral act by the United Kingdom, France and Israel against the state of Egypt. I do not want to hear that it is required to be utterly silent about strategy when one supports the Armed Forces in the duties that they have been told to carry out.
I turn from that to comment briefly about one of the great concerns surrounding this whole issue. Last night many noble Lords will have heard President Bush. He spoke, I thought, very movingly about the fact that the war would not be against the Iraqi people and about his wish for them to co-operate closely with the United States in building a better country. I think we all responded well to that. But, that set of arguments runs directly contrary to what we understand to be the strategy of the United States. That strategy does not meet the demands of what is known as ius in bello—the just war. It is far from proportionate.
I shall quote only once from the United States' proposal with regard to war. I do so because I believe it to be profoundly concerning. The United States said that its policy would be the,
"unleashing [of] 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours of a short air campaign, to be followed quickly by ground operations".
Those who are the authors of the so-called "Shock and Awe concept" added:
"You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2, 3, 4, 5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted".
This is a country, half of whose people are children, which has suffered hugely over the past 20 years and which has a ramshackle infrastructure Nevertheless it depends on that infrastructure to enable 60 per cent of

149
its population to be fed and its children to have clean water. If we destroy that infrastructure—and I have read the quotation from a Department of Defence unit of advisors—we shall see a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale that we cannot imagine. That is one reason why so many of us despair that we are now moving to military attack.
I say a few words about the reconstruction of Iraq, to which, rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred. It is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that the cost of the reconstruction of Iraq will fall into the range of 300 billion to 480 billion dollars. It reckons that the cost of occupation will be between 1 billion and 4 billion dollars per month. In addition, it reckons that the cost of maintaining the forces will be of the order of 6 billion to 7 billion dollars per month. Yet, when asked about how those funds would be found, Donald Rumsfeld responded in the news briefing of 11th March with the words:
"Now, what money would be used? You suggested US dollars. I think probably not".
My impression is that other donors will be found to assist with the funding. As to what the United States has put on one side, the Newsday article of 27th February states:
"The Pentagon's budget request for fiscal 2004, $399 billion, includes no money for a war or reconstruction in Iraq, nor did this year's budget. The Bush administration is already facing budget deficits. expected to exceed $300 billion this year".
I conclude by reminding the House that this year no money was set aside for Afghanistan. Following a reminder, the President set aside 232 million dollars. Afghanistan is sliding back into civil war and into the rule of the warlords. We need assurances from the Government about a resolution on a new administration; about the nature of the new administration; and about a parallel programme for humanitarian help; otherwise, we shall lose the peace in Iraq, despite the sacrifices that many will be called upon to make.
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for introducing the debate, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in expressing regret at the departure from the Government Front Bench of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose combination of professionalism and care was so peculiarly well-suited to that ministerial office.
Rarely can the world have been caught up in a series of such tragic paradoxes. The Prime Minister, rightly recognising that the world needs the United States to use its power in the service of international order, has kept close to the US Government in order to influence their policy, and has found himself hemmed in by their timetable for war. He has persuaded them to work through the UN, winning the battle against influential US policy-makers who wanted the United States to act unilaterally, only to find himself in the end going to war without a fresh resolution. A courageous man and a serious believer, whose instincts were absolutely right over Kosovo, he found himself in the
150
unprecedented situation of being opposed by the Churches. Acting for what are strategically the best of reasons, we now find ourselves in a truly tragic predicament.
The best option, of course, was for Saddam Hussein to divest himself of weapons of mass destruction without resort to actual force. The second best option, in my judgment, was to continue to explore other alternatives such as permanent UN monitors, surveillance planes, together with stepped-up No Fly Zones while not ruling out an ultimate resort to force. The third best option was to use force on the authority of a fresh mandate from the United Nations. The fourth best option was to use force without such a resolution. Yet, that is not perhaps the worst of all options, which is to allow Saddam Hussein, having divided international opinion, once again to flout the authority of the United Nations and to go on getting away with whatever he thought he could get away with.
So I can understand that, given where we are now, the Government feel they have no option but to choose the second worst option rather than the worst option of all. We should not be where we are now, but I recognise that the Government have had to choose between two unsatisfactory options. We wish of course our troops the very best in the campaign that is likely to lie before them.
What now? Some will continue to oppose the war insisting, "Not in my name". But there are others of us who until now have consistently opposed the war who will refocus our concerns. We have opposed the war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is not an imminent and serious threat and there are other ways of containing him and have judged that war was not yet strictly necessary; and it is only a strictly necessary war that can he regarded as just. But even with that background, we can and will unite with those who have always supported military action in a number of ways. We will of course pray that the conflict will be over as quickly as possible; that casualties are kept to a minimum; that humanitarian means will he put in place; and that a new better Iraq will emerge from the maelstrom.
From a moral point of view, our concern now will be the conduct of war—ius in bello, which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned. The main imperative here is that civilians—or, more accurately, those who are not directly contributing to the war effort—should never be the direct object of attack. Of course the political and military planners will bear that in mind, but the targeting policy in Serbia/Kosovo on occasion gave rise to concern. There, it seemed to be not so much directed against military targets as designed to work on the mind of Milosevic. Hence, bridges and other civilian installations in Belgrade were bombed.
Sadly, civilians will be killed in the conflict as a result of inaccurate missiles and the inevitable side-effects of missiles on military targets. Nor should we forget the poor Iraqi conscripts, who have so little choice in the matter. Having embarked on that perilous path, perhaps all that we can say is "Lord have mercy".

151
The Government have had to choose between the second worst and the worst of all options. We should not be where we are now. Of course Saddam Hussein, an evil tyrant of whom the world will be well rid, is primarily to blame. There is no doubt about that. But Western policy has been complicit for decades, supporting his murderous war against Iran, selling him weapons, undermining sanctions and failing to act when he gassed 5,000 Kurds and destroyed the habitat of the Shias.
As St Paul said, God is not fooled and we reap what we sow. Or, as an earlier writer put it, if we sow wind—purely short term, pragmatic policies—we will reap a whirlwind. The great American thinker, Reinhold Niebuhr, composed prayers during World War II that catch the right mood for this conflict, as for so many others:
"Look with mercy, O Lord, upon the peoples of the world, so full both of pride and confusion, so sure of their righteousness and so deeply involved in unrighteousness".
We should not be where we are now, but I believe that a power is at work making something better out of the mess that we have made of things, constructing even in our destruction, drawing some good even out of evil.
We should not be where we are now, but, given that at this point we only have two options, I understand and sympathise with the fact that the Government have chosen the second worst option, rather than the worst option of all. The prayers of all will be with those who have momentous decisions to make in the next days and weeks, with our servicemen and women and with the long-suffering people of Iraq—that they might emerge from the bombardment and invasion to a much better future.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, having now read the whole of last night's debate in Hansard this morning, I fear that the question of the legality of our position on Iraq is now virtually irrelevant. I shall briefly concentrate this afternoon, first, on how we reached a diplomatic situation where international and domestic support for the Government's action is as fragile as in any situation that I can recall since Suez; secondly, on what are the likely or possible results of an invasion of Iraq; and, thirdly, what comes after that?
The lack of international and domestic support for United States policies on Iraq relates primarily to the dishonest and inconsistent way in which they have been presented. To repeat a point that I have made in the House before, we were first told that an attack against Iraq was part of the widely supported war on terror, even though it was known that President Bush's senior advisers had been pressing for an attack long before September 11th.
We were then told that the aim was to pre-empt an imminent attack by Iraq, in collusion with Al'Qaeda— despite a total lack of convincing evidence on either point and without credible explanation of that new strategy of pre-emption. Then the policy was to use the
152
weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq of her weapons of mass destruction—despite constant and immediate rubbishing, on both sides of the Atlantic, of any evidence that the threat of force was at last producing some co-operation on the Iraqi side. Finally, the aim was to remove Saddam Hussein from power—despite assurances from British Ministers that it was not our policy to change other people's governments
In the face of all those inconsistencies, is it any wonder that the international coalition fell apart, or that so many have found it difficult to accept repeated assurances by Her Majesty's Government that our sole aim in Iraq is to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?
But it is clearly too late to question why we are going to war. Let me therefore ask the Minister some questions about our preparedness for what is likely to follow. Have sufficient precautions been taken to cope with the flood of refugees, who may well overwhelm the resources of Iraq's neighbours? Are the international agencies geared to cope with the massive humanitarian needs for food and water, given frequent statements by non-governmental organisations that they cannot operate in a combat situation?
Are we satisfied that public statements about the need to preserve the integrity of Iraq are sufficient, in the face of likely Kurdish ambitions to form at last their own state, and of Turkish attempts to prevent that? Are our troops sufficiently trained to prevent the revenge killings between Iraqis that could follow the removal of Saddam? Are they to be asked to fulfil the longer-term peacekeeping role that should normally fall to the international community? Finally, are we and the Americans agreed on how to deal with Saddam and his family if indeed we find them? Would they be brought before the International Criminal Court, which the Americans have refused to join?
Then there is the longer term. Can the Minister tell us more about subsequent American intentions? Can she clarify press reports that an intelligence-led war—whatever that means—against Iran is next on the American agenda? What about Syria and Saudi Arabia? Like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I hope that there will be a future opportunity to debate those matters.
Finally, and most crucially, there is the Palestinian problem. President Bush's promise to publish the road map is, I fear, seen by many as no more than a cynical attempt to help the Prime Minister. Can the Minister give us any assurance that the Americans are now seriously intent on changing their biased support of Israel; on stopping the appalling and continuing series of killings on both sides; and on getting the Israelis not just to freeze their settlement policy, but actually to start dismantling their illegal settlements?
Unless the Americans can urgently prove to the world—to the Muslim world in particular—that they have really changed their Middle East policies, I fear that our invasion of Iraq will inevitably be seen as an assault on Islam, with all the risks of further terrorist attacks that that implies.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as someone who has spoken frequently on Iraq since the House first had to deal with the problem, like many others I feel today we have reached a point that I had hoped we could avoid. No one wanted to have to use military force. But, in fact, everything that I knew about that dreadful regime and my experience of it during 1990–91, when I was in government service, meant that I always suspected that the use of force would be unavoidable. So it has proved, just as it did in 1991.
With a 48-hour ultimatum ticking away, this is not a time for a long intervention, but it may be a time for a personal declaration. As I have made clear previously in this House, I believe that action against Iraq is justified legally, politically and morally. I wholeheartedly support my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his principled and courageous policy.
Legally, I feel that the justification is clear from Resolutions 678 and 687 through to 1441—some 17 chapter 7 resolutions. We explored all that at length last night in the House. I have always believed in that legal justification and was pleased to have confirmation of that position in the opinion, made public yesterday, of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General.
It is politically justified because it is not possible, in my opinion, for responsible governments to allow this monstrous regime to continue to develop a capacity to threaten the region and, indeed, the world with weapons of mass destruction. It is fruitless now to question whether action should not have been taken earlier in the past 12 years, perhaps by continuation of the use of force in 1991, or perhaps at various other points such as 1998. But what must be true is that it is better late than never. I have no doubt at all that action is necessary.
Morally, it is a question on which there can be debate and different views. I speak as someone who, since my professional involvement with Iraq in 1990 and 1991, has kept a close and continuing interest in all that has happened in that unhappy country. It is difficult for those living in a democracy to begin to comprehend the reality of life in a society in the grip of a fearsomely efficient terror machine, where people know that they and their extended family will meet horrible deaths if they remotely look like they exhibit signs of dissidence. Even those who have reservations about military action acknowledge the terrible nature of the regime. In my opinion, to act to remove such a hideous regime to relieve the Iraqi people, the region and the rest of the world from its threat is a moral action.
I said in our debate on 26th February:
"War is always bad but it is not always the worst option".— [Official Report, 26/2/03; col. 265.]
I believe that the worst option now is to risk leaving this regime in place, with all that that means for the Iraqi people, the region and the world.
154
We are very fortunate in this country to have superbly dedicated and efficient Armed Forces and government servants. At this time, it is important to say that we must all be grateful to all of them for that, and we must wish them well in their difficult and dangerous tasks in the coining weeks.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, one of the more engaging courtesies of this House is that a former Law Officer is referred to, with undue respect, as "noble and learned". That might have led some to believe that I would take part in yesterday's debate rather than today's. But I do not feel learned at all, particularly when confronted by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. It is 31 years since I last wore a wig in anger. I therefore want to address the issues before the House today.
As people have begun to detect, it is not just the law that is decisive of what ought to happen in this matter. I respect absolutely the clarity with which the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, presented her case again today. We seem to follow each other day after day in this Session. But it is not just counsels' opinion that applies; as in any other jurisdiction, at the last resort, it is the conclusion of the jury. My worry is that, as this case has been presented so far, there is far too wide a disagreement among the jury around the world and in this country, challenging the case put. My concern is that that does not in any way represent a failure to understand the villainy of the accused—nobody can possibly doubt the wickedness of Saddam Hussein—but it follows, sadly, from how the case has been presented over the months, particularly by the United States.
The handling of matters of this kind in international affairs is much more difficult even than in a national jurisdiction. International law, so far as it has substance, must depend on a marriage between the rule-making, decision-taking institutions—the United Nations, most notably—and the leadership, above all, of the permanent members of that organisation. In that context, the most important is the United States, the world's single super power. As we have said many times, the world has been fortunate in its super power, through its leadership and support, for the great bulk of the half-century since the United Nations was founded.
The sadness is that, in this case, despite the eloquent, lucid presentation, for example, of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, we in this country in partnership with the United States have failed sufficiently to convince the international jury and our domestic audience. That has led the Prime Minister, understandably enough, to say that he would override an unreasonable veto, just as the trial judge in a case that went wrong at the hands of a jury would describe the jury's verdict as perverse. I am concerned about that. The way in which the United States has handled the diplomacy preceding this conflict, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, pointed out, has led us into this apparent impasse. Nobody has been more dismayed or challenged by that than the Prime

155
Minister, who deserves our sympathy in that regard and our respect for his formidable courage and tenacity.
The reason was well set out by an interesting source in an interview in the Financial Times on 4th March. The former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said about the dilemma:
"The concern I have is that our single-minded and, unfortunately, rather demagogic fixation on Iraq is undermining the credibility as well as the legitimacy of US leadership".
That legitimacy, he said,
"has been progressively undermined in the course of the past six or seven months… The world has moved from surprise at the unilateral raising of the Iraq issue to concern at a solitary war to general uneasiness at the priorities of the Bush administration".
That dilemma has landed us where we are.
I fear that the understandably enthusiastic welcome that the Prime Minister received during his visits to the United States in the tragic days following 11th September may have misled him to believe that our single-handed influence would be greater than it was on a more single-minded American Administration than he realised. Alas, that has not been the case. The sadness is that the concern that he has been trying to express in getting full, overwhelming United Nations authority and backing for the force proposed was not very different from the concern of countries such as France, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out. I do not now hold any brief for the defence of how France or any other country has conducted itself. But the tragedy is that there was, and should have been, common ground between us in trying to secure the right formulation of the case that must be presented.
The question is: where do we go from now on? I agree with those who in different ways have said that there can, and should, be no turning back. We look for a swift, successful and compassionate outcome to the conflict, with as few casualties as possible in our own forces, of course, and in Iraq. Our forces have our complete support.
We hope for as little turbulence and civil war in Iraq as we may dare. We invite the clearest possible guidance on the sustained programme for the rebuilding of a peaceful, prosperous Iraq. For that, we need what we do not have now—the widest and most effective international partnership, rebuilt through United Nations structures. That is essential.
I come back to my quotations from Mr Brzezinski. We shall need clearer, more specific, more modest and more limited objectives for our partners in the United States than those that have sometimes been suggested. As the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, pointed out, it is of particular concern that significant United States theorists hope and plan that regime change in Iraq will cause or pave the way for a dramatic collapse of almost the whole of the rest of the Middle East and a glorious upsurge of democracy. My fear is that more likely than that will be the surfacing not of democracies but of more intemperate and more extreme regimes. It is more important to have limited objectives and a clear commitment to the importance of the road plan for Israel and Palestine. That must be
156
supported by the leadership of the alliance that, I hope, will be rebuilt in the United Nations in a tone and style that is more acceptable to the rest of the world.
Although the scene now is bleak, we shall have to set about the task of reconstructing not just the collective authority of the United Nations but the transatlantic bridge between Europe and the United States that is of such fundamental importance, not least the European end. It is the threatened disintegration of that bridge—a fearful sight—that creates the daunting predicament described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. If we can be convinced that the leadership offered by the United States with support from this country can follow such an orderly, measured and sensible pattern, we shall be able not only to extinguish Saddam Hussein and his followers but to look forward with some confidence to the future.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, said that we had gone over the issue several times recently in many debates. Unfortunately, in debates up to this point, the caveat that war is not inevitable has always been expressed. Today, however, it seems that war is inevitable.
I was going to dwell on my doubts and concerns about the political process and how it led us to this position, but the clarity of the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, was such that I would simply repeat many of the views he expressed. I must say, however, that I had hoped there would be a second resolution. The fact that the French might have used their veto was no reason not to have a vote. That would have shown the level of support—or lack of it—in the international community.
With war so imminent, we do well to consider the future. A quarter of the British Army is about to launch itself across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border. On these Benches, we will support our soldiers. It is offensive political point scoring to suggest that they do not have our support. I have friends who will be in that force, and I wore the uniform as a TA soldier. If I were still in my unit, I would probably be going to war now. One takes that decision when one joins the military. The decision to launch a war today or in the next couple of days is a political decision. We owe it to our soldiers to have a clear, objective and realistic strategy. At this point, one of the most important things is not how we send our soldiers to war but how we bring them home.
One point has been raised in several debates: it was made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. The noble and gallant Lord said that if we went to war—it looks like we are going to war—we would need to know our exit strategy. That issue has not been considered. We said so often that war was not inevitable, but now we must think about how we will finish it. God willing, we will be in Baghdad soon; God willing, the regime will change. And, in a peaceful climate, we will be able to bring about the elimination of any weapons of mass destruction that can be found. However, we must face the fact that we might not have finished the war by the weekend. Civil war might break

157
out; the crisis might not be over by Christmas or in two, three or even 10 years' time. The American Administration have talked about keeping their soldiers there for a number of years. How long will British soldiers be in Iraq? It is an important point. The British Army is already overstretched. It is unlikely that we could maintain a large force in Iraq.
Even with regime change, there will be no simple solution. We will not be able to install a democratic government in the short term. Looking back to the previous Gulf War, there was enormous letting of blood, settling of scores and political upheaval. That will increase. We need only look to the past to see examples. I remember the debate led by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, on the Great Lakes and what could happen in Zaire. We are still living with the consequences of that crisis, and we must pick up the pieces.
We must consider the situation in the context of what has just happened in the United Nations. It could be ourselves and the Americans who have to pick up the pieces in Iraq in the short to medium term. Is it realistic to believe that, after what has happened in the United Nations, a United Nations force will conduct peacekeeping in Iraq in the short term? Is it realistic to believe that, without United Nations support or the support of the international community, there is not the prospect of a humanitarian disaster? Iraq has been crippled by the actions of an evil dictator. The country relies on food aid. If that aid is interrupted for a long time by military action, there will be real problems.
My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby spoke about Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan and got rid of the Taliban. What is the situation now? That country is falling into the same old situation. The same despotic warlords are taking over vast tracts of the country. The only area that is under control even marginally is Kabul. That is the same situation as the one that led to the formation of the Taliban in the first place, with all the implications for international security that that had.
We will support our soldiers in bringing about their objectives, but we should not say that there will be a military solution to the situation. The solution will be political, and we must face up to that fact.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond, I doubt that we have been in as big a muddle over our international relations since the Suez crisis, nearly half a century ago, which a few of us will remember only too well. Some of the circumstances may have been different, but much of the rhetoric and many of the deeply held concerns expressed in this country and further afield have an all too familiar ring to them.
One of the many troubles has been that, whatever explanations and carefully planned concessions have emanated from Baghdad—many of which have depended on the continued application of military pressure—there can be no guarantee that will satisfy the Americans that Saddam Hussein does not continue
158
to have some chemical and biological weapons somewhere in his grasp and is not, therefore, in breach of UN Resolution 1441. Only a lengthy and sustained effort by Dr Blix and his inspectors might achieve that, but it would have been way outside any time-frame that the Americans had in mind. It would not have addressed the question of regime change which the United States has always had as its primary aim.
Even if verbal contortions and inducements had produced a new resolution specifically authorising military action which, despite some of the often wildly impractical conditions incorporated in it, could have been successfully voted upon, it would have been virtually meaningless if China, Russia, France and Germany were clearly against it and prepared to demonstrate that in one way and another.
Therefore, the Prime Minister has now had to face up to the fact that because those substantial forces, which have been so essential in getting the United Nations this far, cannot be kept hanging around indefinitely, imminent American military action will now take place without the specific approval of the United Nations Security Council; although, as has been stressed, UNSCR 1441 threatened serious consequences if Saddam Hussein did not immediately, comprehensively and unconditionally comply—which he clearly has not.
It should also be borne in mind that if, after all the palaver that has been going on militarily, politically and diplomatically, military force was now to be suspended or delayed indefinitely, it would elevate Saddam Hussein into an intolerable position of invulnerability which would do no service to any of the Arab states in the area.
Military action by America, which for a long time has been inevitable, is, as of today, certain within a few days. The Prime Minister must be said to have had the anguished choice of either accepting the favoured United Nations' view that a longer haul with UN inspectors making slow but perhaps steady progress to achieve significant disarmament would have been the better course and letting the Americans get on with their military action on their own, or going forward shoulder to shoulder with our American allies and incurring the displeasure and enmity of the UN and perhaps of much of the rest of the world.
Both courses of action could have serious consequences for this country in the months and years ahead. That is why I and so many others have never been keen to go down this path of confrontation as distinct from containment in the first place. But now, although the paths of 21st century righteousness may point to the first option, I doubt whether on strict grounds of national interest the Prime Minister has had much choice but to go for the second.
Unlike France who after Suez considered that it was in her national interest to distance herself from the Americans, we have always considered the North Atlantic alliance fundamental to our defence policy and, indeed, we have depended heavily on America—although it should be recognised that 30-odd years ago a Labour Prime Minister kept British forces out of the

159
more remote Vietnam despite heavy American pressure. And only 20 years ago a Conservative Prime Minister distanced herself from America's much smaller military action in Grenada. Neither of those events harmed the alliance significantly and, in the latter case, did nothing to stop the very close relationship between President and Prime Minister—so very useful to our two countries.
In this case, after so much and so lengthy overt rhetoric and high profile support of the determination of President Bush to deal with Saddam Hussein by force if necessary, it is difficult to see how this Prime Minister could now withdraw that support and split that solidarity, without affecting national honour, the morale of our forces—and, indeed, much of our country—and, above all, and particularly in view of the attitude of the rest of Europe, without real danger to the NATO North Atlantic alliance and the benefits that go with it.
So shoulder to shoulder it must be and we can only hope and pray that the optimistic forecast of how long the war will last will prove accurate. I have similar misgivings to those of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. From our position as manifestly America's closest ally, we shall be able to influence the way in which the war develops—not least the end game, the exit strategy, taking full account of the traditions, the sensitivities and the aspirations of the people in the area, which is so vital for the future stability and peace of the world—even if for the time being, but it is to be hoped not for too long, the United Nations like Achilles is sulking in its tent.
The important matter now is that we give the fullest support to our sea, land and air forces, which will be going out to do their duty in an impeccably professional way. They will need maximum encouragement to feel that what they are doing is important for our country's future. They should be made to feel that while they are at war and risking their lives, we, too, are at war in a sense; that we are prepared to make financial sacrifices to ensure that they have all they need to finish the job and that we are not indulging in strikes and other selfish activities. The press, in keeping with a state of war, should behave in a responsible way, reporting matters as they are—not glorifying war, nor causing panic and certainly not trying to second-guess tactical plans and inadvertently telling the opposition what we are about to do next.
At the very least, our forces should be made to feel that they are obeying perfectly legal orders. To some extent, they are even enforcing the all-important United Nations authority for them. Above all, no one in his right mind would doubt that the Middle East and the world would be a safer place with Saddam Hussein gone and that a great tyranny would be lifted from the people of Iraq. Our hearts and our prayers go with our forces. We ask them, finally, to remember—and I believe that the Prime Minister would want to remember this too because his future may depend on it—that, whatever currents of disputes and criticisms
160
continue to be voiced abroad and at home, over the air, in the press and in Parliament, history has shown that nothing—I repeat, nothing—succeeds like success.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I agree with much of what he had to say about support for the Armed Forces. I have no problem with that. But let me be clear and unequivocal at the outset—I am against this war. Therefore, I think it is right that I should take this opportunity to say why I am against the war and why I have come to this conclusion. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that it is not, perhaps, a normal one for me to have reached throughout my political life.
What are we being asked to approve? What is it that the Government now want us to accept? In a sentence, it is that Britain, together with the United States, should invade another country. I do not see any point in beating about the bush on this and talking about interventions or serious consequences. We are being asked to authorise the invasion of one sovereign state by the British and the Americans.
Of course, there are circumstances in which the United Nations has accepted the use of force. However, I do not believe that invasion of one country by another, without the specific authorisation of the Security Council, is something that has occurred—at least, in any meaningful sense—since Suez. I should have thought that Suez would have settled that particular argument and I agree with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said.
Therefore, if that is what we are being asked, I next ask myself: is this legal? There is confusion and various opinions on this. I carefully read with interest the debate that took place yesterday. Whatever else one says about that debate, it was hardly conclusive in its views. I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord. Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in his place because I share the views he expressed in the debate. He said:
"Resolution 678 authorised the use of force in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait and its clear purpose was to compel Iraqi forces to withdraw. It is the only resolution which has ever referred to the use of force. It succeeded in its objective. I simply cannot read it. even by implication, as authorising the use of force 13 years later in the event of a failure by Iraq to disarm, especially when that earlier resolution is read in the light of Resolution 1441 which seems to negative any such implication".
The noble and learned Lord then went on to say, in words which I echo wholeheartedly:
"The debate no longer involves any difficult questions of international law. It is simply a question of the meaning of ordinary English words contained in the two resolutions".—[Official Report, 17/3/03; col. 108.]
I agree wholeheartedly with that. With respect, construing ordinary English words in an ordinary English way seems to point in the opposite direction from that indicated by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. However, let us be charitable and agree on one point: there is no clear and unambiguous view.

161
In that regard, perhaps I may make an observation. For the life of me, I do not understand how one can spend months arguing how important it is to secure a second resolution in the Security Council, and then to say, "Well, it doesn't really matter", and in order to justify that, one has to fall back on a strained interpretation and construction of previous Security Council resolutions.
I go on to ask another question: is there a direct and immediate threat to the United Kingdom? I have asked the question previously, but I have never received an answer. The usual response is a vague reference to intelligence sources. Of course I do not have access to intelligence sources, but my right honourable friend Robin Cook does. It is important to note his words in that regard. In the House of Commons last night he stated:
"Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/03; cols. 727–728.]
So we are being asked to go to war in questionable and doubtful circumstances to enforce a 12 year-old resolution which the Security Council clearly does not wish to be enforced and at a time when UN inspectors are still active and apparently prepared, if not actually anxious, to continue with what they believe is useful and helpful work and which in the past has proved to be fairly successful. I do not believe for an instant that, under normal circumstances, the Prime Minister, this party or anyone representing it would ever agree to that proposition. Indeed, to state it is almost to prove its fallacy. Practically everyone is uneasy about it and few are clear. Perhaps I may follow the forensic analogy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. The situation is like that of an advocate in front of a jury with an arguable but not very good case, advancing a proposition loudly and often because he knows that it is not that persuasive.
Why are we in this position? We are in this position because, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, we are supporting the United States of America. It is not possible to believe that we would do this on our own. I do not believe that the argument for that has been made. Frankly, the nature of the transatlantic relationship between ourselves and the United States has got out of balance. The position taken by the Prime Minister of unequivocal and almost unconditional support for United States policy is perhaps not the most fruitful way of proceeding.
That has not always been the case. Witness, for example, Prime Minister Attlee when he went to America to discuss tactics during the Korean War. Witness again, as was pointed out by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, Harold Wilson and
162
Vietnam. We did not participate in that war, but I do not think it caused any long-term harm to Anglo-United States relations.
Lest I be accused of being anti-American, perhaps I may make a point to establish my credentials; occasionally things may be said. One of my children is now an American citizen; my granddaughter is an American citizen; another of my children lives in Philadelphia; and for seven-and-a-half years I myself lived in that country. I hope that at least I have been able to establish the credentials.
However, it is a fact that we now have in the United States probably the most right-wing Administration since the end of the Second World War. I think we have associated ourselves too closely with that Administration. Having done so, therefore, it was in a sense inevitable that the Prime Minister would find himself between the rock and the hard place, and I can understand the reasons why he has worked so hard to try to avoid that position.
I see that I have used my eight minutes. In conclusion, I recognise that once the war is over—I do not believe it will take long, although perhaps it will take rather longer than many armchair generals think—there will be the task of reconstruction. Not only will it involve the reconstruction of Iraq—although that will be difficult enough—there will have to be some reconstruction of the United Nations. Frankly, the idea that, in these circumstances, the British and Americans are upholding the charter is fanciful. There will have to be a reconstruction of the Anglo-American relationship and serious consideration will have to be given to the way in which the transatlantic relationship between Europe and the United States of America is going.
I do not quite know how we got into this position, but my goodness, it is as difficult a position as this country has been in for years.
4.57 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I often follow the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in debates of this kind, of which today's is likely to be the last. Perhaps I may query one point he made. I would be surprised if Robin Cook, as Leader of the House in another place for the past two years, had actually been privy to the most secret intelligence documents. I may be wrong, but I noticed the great credence placed on that in the noble Lord's remarks. I am not sure of its accuracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, talked of the absolutely unprecedented nature of any possible invasion of another country as though we were starting from this point. We are talking about a country which invaded its neighbour. It became the subject of a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions telling it to get out, which it did not do until it was thrown out. It was told to disarm, which it has not done, even though a series of resolutions—all passed unanimously—required that. At the present time, far from being an ordinary country in the world, we have refused Iraq permission to fly in the northern no fly zone and we are currently bombing the southern

163
area to try to protect some of the population, namely, the Marsh Arabs, as well as to provide further protection in the area.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the contrast with the two wars in which I have been involved during my time in Parliament, namely, the Falklands and the Gulf War. Certainly there was a much clearer message. To that end I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, who complained that the messages seem muddled and the ground changed. If the Prime Minister had made earlier the speech he delivered so clearly today, it might have been very helpful. At the moment we can see the consequences of those muddled messages in the opinion polls, on the streets and in the worries and uncertainties among our Armed Forces where, for the first time, there is some uncertainty as to whether they have behind them the full confidence of the country. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that it is extremely important to ensure that when our forces go into action, they must know that they have our fullest support.
I feel a sense of responsibility in one respect. I was there when the first resolution was passed through the United Nations requiring the disarmament of Iraq—and we got some action. We got some action because it was a part of the ceasefire and because the credible military threat was all too evident. Saddam Hussein did not need to be told that there was a credible threat because three-quarters of a million allied forces were on his border at full readiness to respond to any attempt to re-invade Kuwait or any other action. That force backed up the resolution made at that time.
As the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister in another place made clear, we can almost correlate the progress on disarmament over the past 12 years against the periods when there was a credible military force. The moment that deterrent lapsed, there was inaction from Saddam Hussein and a determination to avoid fulfilling his responsibilities.
But there is no everlasting availability of a credible military threat. At the end of the Gulf War there were three-quarters of a million allied forces—more than half a million American—and 32 different countries involved. But we could not sustain that number. As the months and years went by, people were looking to leave and there was pressure to withdraw forces. Gradually, those forces shrank and the task of the inspectors became more difficult.
Periodically the process was kicked to life and there would be another full and final declaration. As has been said, we have had five full and final declarations from Saddam Hussein—and every one has been subsequently proved to be false. The reality is that unless we have a credible military threat we will not make the progress on disarmament that we need.
As disunity has grown among what was a unanimous coalition for Resolution 1441, one has seen Saddam Hussein reappear and behave in exactly the same way as he has over the past 12 years. He dribbles out the information and delays it. He then overloads the system with huge amounts of information which
164
take a long time to read. You then find that half of it is totally irrelevant and that the rest of it is wrong. We have watched him do it. Dr Blix says that he has been helpful to the inspectors. Wherever they ask to go, he makes arrangements to help them get there. But he does not provide the information about where they ought to go; about the places where they are required to go to find the information they are seeking. Contrary to what Mr Robin Cook said yesterday—and I support and pray in aid the Prime Minister who has claimed this—every intelligence agency of a reputable nature in the world profoundly believes that Saddam Hussein has the materials necessary for weapons of mass destruction and that he will continue to hide them. As defectors periodically emerge, previous assertions that he has no provision of that kind are proved false.
I believe that he does have such materials. I say that with the greatest respect to the inspectors because they have an impossible task. As I have said before, they were not sent to Iraq as detectives but to monitor the full co-operation of Saddam Hussein in the process of disarmament. In a country the size of Iraq, they will be very lucky indeed to find materials if Saddam Hussein is determined to hide them.
The latest report describes how some materials were hidden and that every single one of the people responsible for hiding them was shot on Saddam Hussein's instructions so that there should he no evidence and no risk of a defector. Whether or not that report is true, Iraq has the kind of regime within which that would not be an incredible act. That is the kind of difficulty faced by the inspectors.
The inspectors obviously say that they are willing and can do more. The reality is that everyone agrees and takes it as a given—including those who call for more time for inspections—that they can only do their job properly with the backing of a credible military threat. But, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, we cannot sustain that level of force, in that climate, in that environment for any significant amount of time.
It is against that background that we have come to where Resolution 1441 was bound in the end to bring us if Saddam Hussein did not comply. I still hope that, at the last minute, he will realise there is only one outcome for him if he decides not to choose exile. If he stays, obviously war will be with us.
I went through the worries of what it would be like when the battle started with my noble friend Lord Hurd, who is in his place. We had no real idea. It turned out to be extremely quick and casualties were blessedly low. We pray that it will be the same again. But there is no guarantee. This is a different matter. We are not kicking someone out of a country he should not have entered; we will be attacking a country which some people believe is their own.
It is against that background and the recognition that we are now where we are, with all the dangers we have discussed endlessly in this House, that I pray for the swift success of our forces; that there will be the minimum of casualties and the minimum of damage to

165
the environment, to the infrastructure and, above all, to the people of Iraq. I hope that there will be the most urgent engagement thereafter of the United Nations in the rebuilding of that terribly sad country.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, we are at an extraordinary moment and in an extraordinary situation, and both the moment and the situation are to be regretted. Despite the rhetoric of unity, the disturbing and dangerous reality is of disunity. We go to war without the authoritative sanction of the United Nations, without consensus in the European Union, without agreement within NATO and with both the nation and Parliament deeply divided. That we have arrived at this moment and this situation represents a tragic failure of diplomacy, as a number of noble Lords have already pointed out.
President Bush has used the metaphor of a poker game.
"It is a time for people to show their cards",
he has said. They have, and the result is a poker game that has gone badly wrong. There is no coalition such as the one his father built before the first Gulf War; there is no coalition such as existed after 9/11 and after NATO invoked Clause 5 in response to that attack. Instead there is division and recrimination.
But the moment has arrived and we must now hope and pray that our Armed Forces and those of the United States succeed swiftly and decisively, for the longer the war continues the higher will be the price for this failure of diplomacy. We on these Benches believe that as the Security Council authorised the United Nations inspectors we should have backed them. They asked for more time; they should have been given it.
War will not remove the political challenges we face. The courage and professionalism of the Armed Forces will contribute to a military resolution only of matters which can be dealt with militarily. They cannot be expected to resolve the political challenges we face. It is to these that I wish to turn.
Three weeks ago the sub-committee on Common Foreign and Security Policy of the Select Committee on the European Union of your Lordships' House visited Washington DC. In due course, the subcommittee's report will come for debate, but I should like to share with the House at this particular moment my personal sense of some of the things that were said to us.
It seemed to me that the tonality of much of what we heard from the Administration was isolationist, and so, too, was a significant part of the content. Figures in the Administration were pleased by Britain's loyalty, but they made it clear that on all the key issues it was for us to choose and not for them to change. We were either with them or against them and no third position was possible. Yes, the Administration would seek to help the Prime Minister by trying the UN route—for once the American pronunciation of that word as "rout" seems more appropriate—but they would do what was needed to effect regime change in Iraq whatever other nations said and no matter, in the
166
end, what the view of the United Nations. This was to be the exercise of US power in the defence of the American homeland. Compared with that imperative, all other considerations were marginal.
The fact that they had failed to persuade the rest of the world that the American homeland was definitely and now threatened by Saddam Hussein was not the point. In fact, the two considerations driving American policy appeared to be these. First,, the nightmare scenario post 9/11 that the President, God forbid, might be woken up one morning to be told that something terrible had happened to Los Angeles or Chicago. Americans had to see the President take action to have confidence that such a catastrophe could never occur.
The second consideration was a determination to reshape the Middle East, as once the United States had reshaped Europe and Japan. The difference, of course, is that in 1945, US power was used to shape a new international community. It was US hyper power at that time that made possible Bretton Woods, the founding of the United Nations and the beginnings of European integration. This was the "creation" at which so many leading Americans—politicians, civil servants, military leaders—were "present". But today there is no comparable vision. There may be a road map for peace in the Middle East but will an Administration so committed—perhaps understandably—to Israel have the stomach for it? Is it not the instinctive view of the Administration that peacekeeping, in contrast to peacemaking, is for wimps?
These attitudes express dramatically the gap that has opened between the United States and Europe. It is essential that we attempt to bridge it and restore some real commonality of view. How to do this? In Washington, Richard Perle, an unofficial spokesman, I suppose, for the Administration, said to me, "Remember that for us a counterweight cannot be a friend or ally". But a new and more equal relationship between the United States and Europe is in fact the only way forward.
In the past few weeks Europe has been ineffective in the United Nations, in the European Union and in NATO. The United Kingdom, because we have failed to persuade; France, because she has failed to prevent what she most opposes; all of us because Europe has remained marginal on this great issue which impacts our interests as much as those of the United States and at a time when terrorism threatens our cities as much as theirs.
The United States Administration will only rate and respect Europe if it has both coherence of policy and effectiveness of arms. We need more of France's determination to lay out and hold to distinctive policy positions when these reflect European interests and the views of European electorates, and to do so even when faced with great United States pressure. France and the rest of Europe need to learn from the British willingness and ability ultimately to deploy force where that is required by the values and interests of Europe.

167
In the meantime, we will all discover the costs of our disarray. Germany will plead its contribution to stability and security in eastern Europe. In Washington, this will be viewed as marginal. We will point to our commitment to military action but at the end of the day, for the United States, that, too, is marginal. The French have made their point but in the end that, too, has been pointless, for it has not altered US policy in any way.
Now it is beginning—perhaps tonight, perhaps tomorrow, almost certainly this week. We cannot know the outcome although we all hope that the courage and professionalism of British forces will contribute to a swift and successful conclusion. The military success, however, will not resolve the political crisis, only change it. Iraq will need to be reconstructed politically and socially as well as economically. The Arab world will look for a peace between Israel and Palestine and will expect a victorious America to deliver it.
The entire Middle East may be destabilised and the Bush Administration will want to move on, for there are other rogue states on the list—there is a wider "axis of evil" in their sights.
Will they welcome European advice? Will they wish to see a future common European defence capability and even a common European foreign policy? At present, certainly not. When visiting Washington, one was confronted with a very different agenda. Some who spoke for the Administration pushed aside America's historic support for European integration, insisting that any such development now would be inimical to the interests of the United States and that consequently the United States should cherry pick between European states, playing "the European keyboard" to frustrate any such development.
Yet Richard Perle and others who think like him are quite wrong to assume that a greater equality on the part of Europe is threatening to the United States. The US needs a more equal partnership, not a more unequal alliance. The re-establishment of European unity is an immediate priority and for this very specific reason: we must internationalise the occupation of Baghdad and the reconstruction of Iraq. A lengthy and independent occupation by the United States and the United Kingdom is far too perilous to entertain. Yet if this is to be avoided, there must be agreement in the Security Council, and that will only be possible if Britain, France and Germany can agree. Achieving that agreement and widening it to include Russia must become the first priority of our diplomacy to be pursued with a determination, professionalism and indeed courage to match that which British forces will now assuredly demonstrate in the weeks ahead. I would like the Minister's assurance that this is indeed the diplomatic priority of Her Majesty's Government.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I am in a dilemma about my qualifications to speak in this debate. I do so against a background of 28 years in another place, five
168
years' active service in World War II, and a knowledge of what war means not only to those directly involved but to their families. So I am naturally concerned to give my full support to our troops in Kuwait who are about to go into battle. I hope with all my heart that it will be a short and a victorious campaign and that the inevitable casualties among our troops and also among the civilian population will be light.
Earlier today I listened to the Prime Minister in another place. Looking down on those red lines on the carpet, symbolising the settlement of dispute by "parley" rather than by the sword, I confess that I had great doubts about the action we are about to take. It is certainly true, as one MP said, that France has disarmed the United Nations rather than Saddam Hussein. It has done more than that—it has made those of us who have doubts about going into the European Union even more doubtful and even more reluctant. Most important of all, it has neutered the United Nations and made it perhaps the first casualty of this war, as was the League of Nations after the First World War. I hope not.
There are many roads to God, and I say that having served for five years with Indian troops—Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. Muslims, in particular, hold their faith with great strength and probably more fervently than we who are Christians.
I am concerned that a bloody war in Iraq, without United Nations support, could unite Muslims around the world despite their dislike of Saddam Hussein and that our action could lead to more terrorism, not less.
Furthermore, is there not a danger that our action may be an example to others? What if—perish the thought—India were to take the view that its neighbour Pakistan posed a threat to its security? What about President Mugabe or the President of North Korea, who are quite as awful as Saddam Hussein? How will we deal with them?
On television this morning, an American lady was interviewed. She quoted the words of Martin Luther King:
"Wars are poor channels for carving out peaceful tomorrows".
With all my heart, I pray that the actions which we are about to take will not open a Pandora's box of unknown consequences. I hope it is not too theatrical in this debate to remind your Lordships of the words of Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy, Woodbine Willie of the First World War:

"Waste of muscle,

Waste of brain,

Waste of patience,

Waste of pain,

Waste of manhood,

Waste of health,

Waste of beauty,

Waste of wealth,

Waste of blood, and waste of tears,

Waste of youth's most precious years,

Waste of ways the saints have trod,

Waste of glory,

Waste of God,

War!"

169
Those words apply equally to the Armed Forces of war and to the innocent civilians who are the casualties of war. That is why I support so strongly our parliamentary tradition of the settlement of disputes by "parley" rather than by the sword. It is in that spirit that I approach the action that we are about to take.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I speak not only for myself, as does every noble Lord in this Chamber, but on behalf of the Green Movement world-wide. I spent last week-end at my party's spring conference, and this morning I was in touch with the Green Party of the United States.
We believe that the invasion of Iraq is illegal, and we are quite sure it is immoral. We believe that going to war is an action of last resort, and we were under the impression that that view was shared by all men and women of goodwill.
It is quite clear that the invasion of Iraq is not a last resort, and the world as a whole is aware of that. Indeed, for the Americans, it was high on the list of resorts. In addition to the immediate situation, it is also likely that this action will do immense damage to the United Nations.
In 1919 the United States destroyed the League of Nations. Now it is destroying the United Nations, having never ceased to treat it with contempt and to starve it of its dues. This time, I regret to say, my country is an accomplice, and of that I am deeply ashamed.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise not to ask the indulgence of the House for being unable to stay to the end of the debate, but to state that what I have been saying for a number of years still, in my view, has validity. To "take note of" what the Government have done is a rather tepid way of expressing cowardice.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I approach this debate with two overwhelming feelings. First, I have very serious doubts about current United States policy, and I feel concern about the new air of arrogance and aggression one finds in Washington, particularly in the Pentagon. Secondly, I am anxious because I am totally perplexed at the way in which our Government have been drawn in by the United States and led into supporting these policies like pet sheep.
I have spent a large part of my time in this House and in another place seeking to work for better relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. I ran the British-American parliamentary group for 14 years. Those who are familiar with the work that I did know that the United States has had no better friend.
But three weeks ago, with my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Watson of Richmond, I visited the United States with Sub-Committee C of this House. We met many old friends, and made new ones. I was very
170
disturbed to hear some—not all, thank heaven, but too many—who were either in or close to the Administration or to Congress speaking in a way that I had not heard previously, not only about Iraq but about other matters too. The gist of their conversation—the noble Lord, Lord Watson, made the point slightly differently—went rather like this: "We are going to do this, or that; if you want to come with us, OK. But if not, keep out of our way".
These new policies in the United States seem to be driven by the neo-conservatives who now have a stranglehold on the Pentagon and seem, as well, to have a compliant armlock on the President himself. As we now face war in Iraq, we look at the unnecessary casualties already left in the wake of the new regime in the United States, which seems uninterested in the old alliances. I remind your Lordships that those old alliances have, over the past 50 years, contributed significantly to what I believe has been a golden age. That is how future historians will describe the second half of the 20th century. The casualties to which I refer are NATO and the European Union—which are both severely shaken as a result of the events of the past year or so—and the United Nations, which is now at its lowest point since its foundation following World War Two.
The current crisis in the Middle East is not entirely due to the events of the last year or so. I cannot help feeling that it is in part due to decades of United States policies, which have helped to escalate the Israel-Palestine confrontation, following totally biased United States attitudes and policies in favour of Israel. Today, one feels that the United States is unconscious of the extent to which it is detested in large parts of the world, especially in the Islamic parts, leading to the events that culminated in the tragedies of 11th September.
It was Senator J. Rockefeller of West Virginia who said the other day that going to war with Iraq at this time was sowing the seeds of future terrorism. I believe that that is right. Entering this war in the way we are doing, without a broad international alliance, is bound to increase terrorism and the number of people who are prepared to die for their misguided beliefs.
However, the threat of terrorism should never petrify nations into failing to go to war to eliminate a real menace. I have no doubt in my mind that Saddam is a real menace and a monster, and sooner or later he must be disarmed. Almost certainly, according to his behaviour, that can be done only by war. But I see it as crucial that he is disarmed by a broad international coalition—not only because it is better done by United Nations authority. It may not always be possible to do that, but by having a broad international coalition we reduce significantly the danger of fomenting further anti-American or anti-western attitudes. It would also reduce the danger of escalating terrorism—although, however it is done, I suspect that that is a danger.
Here we are. We are committed to war. It seems inevitable. I just hope that the Americans have thought it out properly. I fervently hope, like others, that the war will be short. But how often over the years have we heard the phrase, "The boys will be home by

171
Christmas"? We were told in the United States, and I read it again in the Sunday press, that Saddam has supplied a large number of sophisticated rifles to civilians and has trained them: one Sunday newspaper said millions. If that is the case, it sounds as though some fairly bloody events are in prospect, particularly if Baghdad is to be occupied. I hope I am wrong.
The Americans speak of the post-Saddam period. I hope that they have thought through what they will do if they cannot find him. After all, he has had 12 years to prepare to go underground. I fear that they have definitely not thought through what must be done after the military phase. For so long people have been saying that the military phase would be relatively easier than what followed, but for months we have had a deafening silence on that subject. When we were in Washington, several people admitted that too little thought has been given, and too late, to what will happen afterwards.
An article appeared in the New York Times on 23rd February with regard to the Bush Administration's new office of post-war planning, which held a secret session that weekend,
"to assess the government's plans for securing and rebuilding Iraq if Saddam is overthrown".
Noble Lords should note that it is a new office and that that happened only three weeks ago. The office will be directed by a Mr Garner. The post had been refused by David Kay, a former chief nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq, who had considered taking it. He was quoted as complaining that promoting democracy had too little priority in the new office and that the mission itself was under-financed and poorly staffed. There is a serious black hole in that area.
I am dismayed by the way in which the United States has approached the crisis. I can only hope that those misguided members of the Republican party who dominate the Pentagon will not remain for long to pursue these policies.
I turn briefly to the attitude of our own Government. I am at a loss to understand how they have allowed themselves to be led haplessly into the present position—although I do not dissociate my Front Bench from that situation. The Prime Minister has allowed himself to be drawn into a position whereby drawing back now would lead to accusations that he is the grand old Duke of York. By going on, however, he demonstrates that he is incapable of leading a united party, which a Government should always have when preparing for war.
Our troops are poised to risk their lives and, of course, we must support them. There is no way that we should support efforts to pull back at this stage. I can think of nothing more disastrous than for us to ape the antics of the grand old Duke of York in marching the troops down the hill again. I pray that the campaign will be successful and that, although there are many horrors ahead of us, it will all be over very quickly.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, would we have believed it if, a year ago, a clairvoyant had told us that in 2003 the Government would be about to commit British troops to a war led by a Republican President, without international support, with the EU bitterly divided, with barely a reference to peace in the Middle East and with plans for Iraq's reconstruction almost non-existent? But that is where we are. Indeed, Saddam's regime is savage and he has not yet complied with international demands, but I have no doubt that there is widespread concern in the Government about the risks of taking action now; risks for the region, for the wider community and for the rule of international law. We must wait for the books to be published in years to come to see what was really happening.
The Government have a good record in international development, and they risk throwing that away. Iraq's infrastructure is at breaking point. Two-thirds of its population is dependent on food aid. The UN has reckoned that 30 per cent of children under five are at risk of death from malnutrition in the conflict. There will shortly be massive attacks on roads, bridges, ports, and railways. This will cut supply lines for the population and destroy what is left of water supplies and sanitation. Disease is likely to be the consequence. There is a serious risk of large-scale ethnic fighting, and a possibility that chemical and biological weapons may be used against the Iraqi people. There may well be floods of refugees across the borders into other countries. Iran already has more than 3 million refugees, which is the largest number in the world. Other countries have closed their borders.
The lack of international consensus on the issue, and the problem of the US ploughing ahead regardless, mean that dealing with the humanitarian consequences of war are dramatically worsened. There is little money, little coordination or knowledge of what needs to be done and who is doing what, and almost no detailed planning for the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said.
Mr Blair promised that much would be invested in Afghanistan and that we would not stand idly by. Not only has that not been delivered there, but it has not even been promised in the case of Iraq. Surely, the UN should lead in giving aid and reconstruction, but there is no mandate for it to do so. If we keep condemning other countries in the UN, how are we to get such international agreement in the future?
Clare Short argued on 13th March that the UN aid agencies must take the lead, but sadly I fear that she has already thrown away her leverage in the Government. The US is trying to administer aid in-house through its own agencies. Do the Government believe, even at this late stage, that they will have any leverage over the US in this matter? Were they consulted before the US declared that only certain. named, US companies were to be involved in Iraq's reconstruction?

173
There is little international support for aid at the moment. Evidence to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from the International Rescue Committee on 11th March, only a week ago, stated:
"Despite repeated pleas for the pre-positioning of emergency relief supplies",
there has been very little international assistance. UN appeals for more than 200 million dollars remain unfulfilled despite limited pledges by the US and a handful of other donors. As the Senate heard:
"The perception that the US government will act unilaterally against Iraq has greatly chilled humanitarian donations to the UN and to NGO relief agencies."
There is poor co-ordination. The Senate was told that,
"This is largely the result of US planning that has so imbedded humanitarian tasks and activities with the military war plan that vital information remains classified and meaningful dialogue is muffled and one-directional".
Last Thursday, Chris Patten, the European external affairs commissioner, was quoted as saying that it would be "very difficult" to convince states already facing budget problems that they should spend large sums of money repairing damage done by America in a conflict they opposed. He gave the china shop warning—"If you broke it, you own it". Yet the European Union is the largest donor in Afghanistan, so what hope is there for Iraq?
What of the long-term consequences, which my noble friend Lady Williams described as "winning the peace"? Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, is quoted in the Financial Times on 12th February as saying that he did not believe that Iraq's reconstruction should be a drain on US resources. He said:
"It's not as though [Iraq] is destitute".
Yet the immediate post-Saddam era must surely include security, political and judicial vacuums; it will be a lawless state. What is being done to identify those likely security vacuums and the populations at risk? What policing arrangements will be put in place? How will past abuses be dealt with? Above all, how will that be funded and who will do it?
The United States sends mixed messages. On the one hand, we hear that it wishes to be out as quickly as possible. And yet on the other we heard on 9th March that an American diplomat, Barbara Bodine, might well be put in as interim governor of Baghdad until a new government is set up. How do the Americans think that will go down—an American interim governor? Have they no awareness at all of how they are now viewed as an imperialist hyperpower?
Before the Government throw more mud at opponents on the Security Council and within the EU, even now our Government must do their best to ensure that rebuilding the Middle East is moved right back to the UN where it belongs. Multilateral support is surely needed for the reconstruction of Iraq and the evenhanded pursuit of peace in the Middle East. Dangerous and ill considered though this war seems to many of us on these Benches, we now must look beyond the pyrotechnics of the next few days to building a better future for those who may be left at its end.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I seem to be in a minority tonight. I wish to register my support for the Government's policy on Iraq as well as for the great effort the Prime Minister has made to persuade the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions. Resolutions without the will to enforce them are useless.
There are four straightforward questions to ask. Is military intervention lawful? Is it morally justified? Can it achieve its military objectives'? Is it likely to produce a better Iraq in a more peaceful Middle East? Despite the uncertainties of war, I answer each of those questions in the affirmative.
Last night we discussed the issue in terms of international law. I found the argument from the three UN Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 convincing, but I would myself have put more weight on the argument for humanitarian intervention. National sovereignty does not give any government a right to commit genocide, even if there is no UN resolution. That was the view taken over Kosovo, and it was then supported by authorities such as the French Government and Mr Robin Cook, the then Foreign Secretary. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly committed genocide and will continue to murder, torture and expel Iraqi citizens if he remains in power.
I am more moved by the moral pleas of the churchmen, by the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet they seem to me to give too little weight to the terrible facts of the Saddam Hussein regime. He is guilty of two aggressive wars in which millions have been killed. Further millions of Iraqis have had to flee their country. Saddam Hussein depends on torture and the fear of torture. He subsidises terrorists and suicide bombers abroad and sends assassins to kill opponents in exile. He has used poison gas against the Kurds and has massacred tens of thousands of Marsh Arabs. He is guilty of continued ethnic cleansing. All of those crimes against humanity are forbidden by the conventions on genocide and torture to which Britain is a signatory. Not only is it morally justifiable to free Iraq from this monstrous regime, I believe that it is a duty.
The war is highly likely to succeed because of the disparity of capacity and morale. I see no reason to expect the Iraqis to fight for this vile regime. They did not do so in 1991. Why should they do so now?
There is the outlook for the post-war settlement. The new constitution will be for the people of Iraq to decide. The Kurds seek a democratic provincial structure inside a unitary Iraq. That follows more or less the regional pattern before 1914 under the relatively benign Ottoman Empire. The Iraqi people have lived in fear ever since 1958 when the murderous Kassim seized power. With international help—which is necessary—I believe that they can now build a modern and democratic nation, and that they have the will to do so.

175
The Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the other opposition groups, the Iranians and the Kuwaitis all express similar opinions. There will be no peace in the Middle East without two prior conditions. One is the settlement of the issue of a Palestinian state. The second is the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime. They fear him now and they fear even more his development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The neighbours of Iraq and the peoples of Iraq have every reason to hope for the liberation of Iraq.
I also support the policy of the United States as a necessary policy. I would be much more concerned if the United States was not prepared to intervene to protect world peace. If Britain were to withdraw support now, we should be joining the neo-pacifist league—the moral successors of the Peace Pledge Union of the 1930s. We should lose all influence with the United States, and it might well withdraw into a new isolationism. That would be a disaster for the world. It would be a victory for Saddam Hussein, for dictatorship, torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing and the nuclear and biological threats.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, no one here today will feel other than anxious about the course of action upon which this nation is about to embark. As one who has spent the past 33 years—more than half my lifetime—enmeshed in a struggle for peace, both as soldier and politician, I know at first-hand the sound of gunfire and the reverberations of exploding bombs. Many others in your Lordships' House will too easily recall the tragedy of conflict and the daily burden of sending young men and women into danger.
Whatever one feels—and many, as I do, will consider that their position on tyranny and terrorism has been systematically misrepresented—one will recognise that our first responsibility is to our armed services. Can anyone who claims to support our forces leave them to face the enemy while casting doubt on what they are being asked to do? Only if this conflict were unlawful—and that matter has been examined by those with cleverer minds than I possess—would any further questioning of the United Kingdom's role be justified. Leadership, not equivocation, in the struggle to protect the weak and vulnerable is what has been ordained for our nation, and I am proud to associate myself with that position.
Much has been made of the opposition that exists in respect of the conflict that lies ahead. It has been expressed openly, emotionally and often provocatively on our streets, but in that respect I have to challenge something. Does anyone seriously believe that those of us who support the Government were ever likely to demonstrate our feelings in a similar manner? None of us was ever going to march for war. We wanted democratic and diplomatic means to succeed.
Perhaps it is a weakness in democracy that here in the United Kingdom we have no effective counter to a largely superficial news media. Television in particular, but not exclusively, seems unable or unwilling to make
176
any attempt to discern between the emotional spectacular on our streets and the reasoned case being dealt with by those who actually have to exercise responsibility and authority.
Virtually everyone, irrespective of one's opinion about the rights or wrongs of our Government's decision, will admit that Saddam Hussein is an evil despot who attacks his neighbours and murders his own people—indeed, his own family. They accept that he has shown himself willing to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and has ambitions to develop a nuclear capability. History shows that he would have no compunction about using such weapons. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal carefully catalogued for us the 12 years of broken promises and downright lies which are the despicable record of Saddam.
Yet those who oppose our Government's acceptance of their international obligation under the terms of Security Council Resolutions 678 and 1441 see no shame in ignoring those facts. How can anyone seek solace and vindication from the stance of France? Why am I reminded of Petain and Vichy? In the 1940s, France's dishonour arose out of defeat. Who can disbelieve that today it derives from economic greed and opportunism?
Again we hear people speak of the United Nations as though it was a union of honourable men and women representing honourable and upright nations. It is not. It is an attempt to draw nations into an acceptance that there must be minimum standards of international behaviour. The United Nations comprises, among others, nations such as North Korea, Indonesia, Burma, Libya—it chairs the UN's Human Rights Committee, God help us—and Iraq itself. It may not be politically correct to say it but I believe that, despite mistakes that our nation has made, we in the United Kingdom still represent the upper echelons of acceptable national and international behaviour.
If we ever allowed the United Kingdom to tend towards some lowest common denominator, our influence would be less than nothing. The United Nations would cease to have relevance and those component elements who represent the corrupt, the despotic and undemocratic nations would feel no compunction about behaving even worse than they do at present. This nation must not fail.
When we last debated the Government's position on the Saddam regime in your Lordships' House, I asked that we should not forget the lessons of,
"the bleached bones in Cambodia, the Balkans and Sierra Leone".—[Official Report, 26/2/03: col.330.]
I am no warmonger. War is and should be the last resort. But I believe in moral obligations and that war may be the only way to avert greater wars, greater aggression and greater oppression. My concluding thoughts and my prayers must be for our soldiers and their anxious families. I wish our armed services Godspeed and a safe return.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I want to congratulate the Government on the resolute approach that they have adopted in executing the policy on brinkmanship. It may not have worked in the way in which we wanted in the end; we perhaps underestimated the steely resolve of the Iraqi leadership. We also misjudged the scale of scepticism in the international press, and how Saddam Hussein was able to feed on that in devising his own strategy in response. However, the Government have made a notable effort in pursuing the course that they have taken.
My only criticism of the policy up to now has been that we have concentrated on the agenda set by the United Nations—the agenda on disarmament—in seeking to convince the British people of the merits of our case. In fact, a far more plausible interpretation of events would have been to concentrate on the humanitarian issues inside Iraq and the suffering of the Iraqi people.
I want to concentrate on the moral case that was raised by the Prime Minister some weeks ago. In my view, it was not fully understood or appreciated by the media. I wholeheartedly agree with the initiative that was taken. My support for the moral case goes back to a conversation between Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser under the Bush senior administration, and Bush himself during the course of an evening's fishing in August 1989. It was about an attempt by Woodrow Wilson at the end of the First World War to place new world order considerations on the international agenda.
At that time, Woodrow Wilson had had difficulty convincing Congress of the need to adopt that approach to international affairs, and it was later raised at the end of the Second World War by Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the time that the United Nations was being constructed following the collapse of the League of Nations, there were again deliberations in America on the question of the principle of the new world order. The problem is that the doctrine has been treated with scepticism, but that is not my position.
When the Soviet Union fell, the world and in particular the UN were given the first opportunity to sort out regional problems without triggering global conflict. A number of countries, particularly in the Arab world, unlocked from Cold War stalemate, felt that outstanding regional conflicts could be sorted out once and for all. That was all helped by the former Soviet Union's readiness to enter into global dialogue on a wide variety of interests, including Iraq. Noble Lords will recall the support given by the former Soviet Union at the time of the first Gulf War.
Bush—that is, Bush senior—recognised the potential opportunities for enhanced superpower co-operation. He told his colleagues in 1991 that his objective was to produce a,
"'new world order that a hundred generations have searched for in vain".
178
I understand from my researches that Bush made a further 42 references to "new world order" in that same year. He went on to define "new world order" on 11th September 1991 as a,
"new era…free from the threat of terror…stronger in pursuit of justice…and more secure in the quest for peace… An era in which the nature of the world, east and west, north and south can prosper and live in harmony, a world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle, where the strong…respect the rights of the weak".
Some people saw that as rhetoric. I did not; I believe in the doctrine. Opponents saw it as the imposition of a sort of pax Americana, but that is a very sceptical response to the whole proposition. The question is: how do we pursue it? The position of Bush senior on the new world order influenced his decision on the Gulf War. He was genuinely appalled by Saddam Hussein's actions in Iraq and subsequently in Kuwait. That had two interesting consequences. First, while in the euphoria of victory, Bush was able to tell Congress in 1992:
"Now we can see a new world order coming into view where the UN freed from Cold War stalemate is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its fathers. The Gulf War put this new world order to its first test. We passed that test".
On the other hand, it acted as a brake—a tool for restraint. Among the reasons for the US not going on to Baghdad in 1991 were new world order coalition considerations. Bush wanted to avoid offending the UN and the 28 nations that had supported the coalition.
However, the doctrine did not cede the ability of the US to take unilateral action. Why? Because Bush senior wisely foresaw conditions in which national interests—I refer to France—would be used to block further coalition initiatives in pursuit of the doctrine. Furthermore, the USA would more often than not have to promote new world order initiatives itself if they were to be taken forward. As Brent Scowcroft put it at the time,
"the truth is the US has to be leader. We had to be leader. No one else could be a focal point for dealing with aggression".
That is the basis for my support for the moral case. That is why I personally have no difficulty over "serious consequences". The problem is that the UN has lost—to put it bluntly—its bottle in exactly the way in which Bush senior foresaw in 1992. If we believe that the doctrine must be applied, we have no alternative but unilaterally to take the initiatives necessary and expose the deficiencies that still exist in the United Nations, whose membership appears to put national interests first. I refer, for example, to France and oil, to Russia and debt and, sadly, to the USA and its policy of protecting the occupation of the West Bank by Israel, under pressure from extremist lobbies in the US. The UN must be made to face up to its responsibilities and it must be exposed. Perhaps this conflict will be a watershed because a democratic Iraq will hang over the credibility of the UN for generations.
I imagine a world in 50 years' time in which an international authority will intervene wherever and whenever it is necessary or possible to stamp out repression, militarism and dictatorship. That

179
international authority will not rely on the right to authorise; it will have allocated to it its own forces for that purpose and not simply for humanitarian and peacekeeping duties.
The question is: how do we get from here to there? By pursuing that agenda now unilaterally and showing to the world that we are prepared to do today what the international community must do collectively tomorrow; that is, to stamp out the abuses that were, if I may say, so well put by a noble Lord in an earlier contribution.
Curiously, many of my views on these issues were formed during the course of the Falklands dispute in 1982. I have always been indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, curiously, for teaching me a lesson; that is, that sometimes one must go in and sort things out to give others freedom.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am not averse to this impending war on Saddam Hussein for the simple reason that he is an evil man who is capable of more evil. That is the verdict on him of a Muslim prince as well as my view. Yes, a war could have been avoided by continuing inspections, but at what cost, in view of his previous record, of which we were reminded by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater?
I saw some of the damage that Saddam inflicted on Kuwait because I was there a few months after the end of the Gulf War. He had set fire to the Kuwaiti oilfields, and I saw the last of the oil fires being extinguished. Someone said to me as we surveyed the scene of that terrible inferno, "If hell had a national park, this would be it". There were not only oil-well fires belching acrid smoke but lakes and pools of oil on fire and stagnant, glassy, black coagulations, which were ugly and menacing. The whole area was also mined. That was Saddam's legacy of gratuitous, wilful destruction, which could benefit no one.
That was not all. I saw the homes in Kuwait City draped with yellow banners where Saddam's soldiers had seized men, women and children haphazardly from house and mosque before retreating. No one knew months later what had happened to those hundreds of unfortunate people. We still do not know for sure, but they have certainly not returned to their homes.
Saddam has done terrible things to his own peoples—the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south—with chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. He is not a man who performs the odd evil deed; he is dedicated to evil, and that is why he must be got rid of. He threatens the civilised world and the world will not tolerate it. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are right in that.
Some weeks ago I asked the Government in this House how they proposed to end the war, which was then only a possibility. Arguably, we could have ended the last war differently. But after the devastation by
180
bombing of retreating Iraqi forces on the road from Kuwait to Baghdad, that great American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is reported to have said, "Americans don't do massacres", and a halt was called to the carnage. He was right: civilised people should never behave like barbarians.
But we are now faced with the "axis of evil" that President Bush described in his State of the Nation speech. It extends from Iraq to Iran and North Korea, with Al'Qaeda groups and cells in the Islamic world and elsewhere. All that must give us pause. We may know how to deal with recalcitrant states, but surely people sympathetic to their cause or fundamentally anti-American, anti-Western and anti what our civilisation stands for require a different strategy based on a far deeper understanding.
It is not simply a matter of moneyed humanitarianism and reconstruction. That is a material answer to a non-material problem. We must reconcile profoundly different approaches to life and society in our global village. I was somewhat alarmed by the account given of current American feelings by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and my noble friend Lord Jopling. The Americans must surely appreciate that they need friends as well as enemies, and they must remember Vietnam and its lessons.
I have this to say about Britain's conduct in international affairs to date. Some admire the Prime Minister's courage; others, even in his own Cabinet, have called it "reckless". Perhaps it was reckless to trust so blindly in President Bush's judgment, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested, and not to ensure that President Chirac was "on side" from November onwards, let alone the Labour Party in the House of Commons. Perhaps that was reckless.
Yet I am very critical of the entire effort to obtain the second—or 18th—resolution at the Security Council. I saw some of the early drafts of it. None was stronger than Resolution 1441; none contained the critical phrase "by all necessary means" to authorise war. The flurry of activity over the past few days to gain support for that resolution was surely to win support in the Labour Party and the country rather than support for the principle of United Nations authorisation, which is what really mattered. That surely lay, as we have heard, in earlier resolutions. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Americans were somewhat miffed by this dilatory display of diplomacy.
Still, we are now very much on the verge of war and are faced with the choice of "my country, right or wrong". I have no hesitation in saying that my country is right in its war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. But I reserve my judgment about the consequential actions that may follow in the medium to longer term. There are troublous times ahead and some awful possible scenarios, which the former Prime Minister, John Major, has anticipated with some foreboding. We must deal with those situations cautiously and step by step. The line between justifiable pre-emptive strikes and aggression can be very thin indeed.

181
Finally, it is not enough to walk about with the Koran in your hand and say that it is a peaceful document. So is the New Testament, but both have much blood from the past on their covers. Those of us who cherish these faiths and their best traditions must work together as never before to secure future peace in our land and elsewhere. And, of course, we must all give the strongest possible support to our forces when they go into action and pray for their safety and success.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the concept of the House's dinner bell is centuries old, but it seems to be my privilege today to baptise the concept of the House's gin and tonic. If so, I drink its health and continue with my business.
During the Suez crisis, Canon Claude Jenkins once preached to a group of Oxford undergraduates and began his sermon with the words:
"Probably few of you remember the rejoicings in the streets on Mafeking night".
It is now only six years less from Suez to the present day than it was from Mafeking I o Suez. I believe that I have followed with as much care as I might every international crisis from then until now, and I cannot recall a single one in which I have felt as complete confidence in my Front Bench, as I do now. That is why I have sat through, here and at party conferences, some 30 hours of debate without feeling the need to speak. I feel it now simply because I believe that my Front Bench is in a position where a little flank support might possibly be useful.
I want to illustrate the point made by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, who was able to devote to it only a single sentence: this is a civil as well as a military battle. In a civil battle, you fight by different rules. The first principle is that you must isolate your enemy. The second is that you must look across a wider canvass than the one where you expect the immediate military battle to take place.
The case for this war, powerfully deployed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, today, is centred in Baghdad. But the case against the war is on a very much wider canvass. It is from Gaza, Amman, Jerusalem and Quetta and perhaps even from Blackburn. It is a canvass in which we consider the effects on global relations as a whole. That has been insufficiently considered in our remarks thus far, and it is where the failure to isolate the enemy and the determination to act unilaterally are doing an amount of damage which has not been taken on board.
In particular, I believe that there is a degree of folly in giving Saddam Hussein the present, as it were, of an alliance with Al'Qaeda when he had never claimed that for himself. In dealing with a tin-pot dictator, who, thank God, with the worst weapons of mass destruction that he may have, does not even have a power equal to his malevolence, the alliance of an elemental force of the mind cannot be defeated by any military weapons that we are likely to be able to assemble. That does not strike me as prudent.
182
Among many other reasons, the map of the Middle East is still basically the map of 1919. The settlement of 1919 was the last to be made on the old-fashioned dynastic principle—that is, that one could draw frontiers putting people either side of them as if moving pieces on a chess board without taking any account of the wishes of the inhabitants. We have seen in western Europe and in Yugoslavia how bloody the breakdown of such a map can be. As a result of this war, I fear that we may see in the Middle East again how bloody the breakdown of such a map can be. And I do not believe that the situation will he improved by being imposed by overwhelming military might.
The second issue we shall have to face is the problem of perception, especially among the Muslim community world-wide. In all cases where there is progress towards equality there is a certain moment of cessation of consent to inequality. When I was an undergraduate people used to say things about women that they would not dare say now. I remember one undergraduate contemporary of mine moving in the Oxford Union the motion that the emancipation of women had exposed their political incapacity. But it was his wife who made the Cabinet.
I remember also, as a boy, listening to a neighbour in Cornwall, a former British Army officer, posted to Cairo who used to remember riding through Cairo market clearing his way with a horsewhip. He was not a bad man; he was one of the sons of Adam who sin out of weakness and fashion, with an uneasy sense that retribution will follow. The time has come when that kind of thing is gaining retribution. Pendulums always swing too far. There is a widespread perception, certainly among British Muslims and I believe among Muslims elsewhere, that what is being done to Iraq would not be done to a Jewish, Christian or maybe even a Buddhist state in the same position. The Government are aware of that danger and are trying to meet it. One of the most admirable speeches I have heard by a Minister was made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, at Islamic Awareness Week. But deeds matter as well as words. To get the deeds perceived in that light is a feat which may be beyond our power. That may cause trouble all the way from Bali to Blackburn.
Also, if one is faced with an overwhelming military might, with which you cannot conflict by any normal military means, the temptation to terrorism may become irresistible. I have just finished reading a new book by Robert Gildea on France during the occupation. It is obvious in that book that, faced by an overwhelming German military might which they could not meet in the field, many Frenchmen found the temptation to turn to terrorism irresistible. The use of terrorism generated retaliatory terror, which generated retaliatory terrorism, which generated retaliatory terror, and so it went on.
I fear very much that many people viewing this unilateral exercise of power, for unilateral it is, will think that the only weapon of retaliation open to them is terrorism. It is no good us standing here in at least the comparative safety of Westminster and crying foul. I think it is a foul, but one does not stop a foul by crying foul unless one has a referee with the capacity to

183
send the player off the field. As the field is the whole globe, and the perpetrator of the evil is usually undetectable, the attitude of the civilian population is vital.
In the phrase of Mao Tse-Tung, we do not want to create water for these fish to swim in. That is why, when the Government speak of morality, I judge morality by consequences. I fear that what the Government are doing may be more harm than good. Indeed, it may be remembered in Islam as the sack of Drogheda is in Ireland. That is an extreme comparison. I checked it this morning at a meeting of the British Academy with a colleague I thought most likely to be able to comment on it. To my great regret he said that the comparison was not excessive.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his profound remarks concerning the wider probable consequences of this war. He said that he judges morality by consequences; I judge it by arguments as well as consequences, and it is the arguments with which, briefly, I propose to deal.
I believe that this is the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. We have been told that it has to be fought because Saddam Hussein is a grave threat to us all. But why is he now a more immediate threat, for all the cheating described earlier by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, than he has been over the past 12 years, when he was not a threat at all?
We are told that he has weapons of mass destruction. But the weapons inspectors were sent in to determine how many of those weapons he still has and, even more importantly, how dangerous is any given stock of weapons. Mr El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Security Council on 7th March that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear arms programmes. Despite Mr Blix saying on 7th March that inspectors needed,
"not months, not days. but weeks"
to find out how much of his chemical and biological capacity remains, they have not been allowed to finish their work. Instead, we go to war on assertions, some of which have been disproved and some of which are plainly ludicrous.
Considering how much misinformation we have been fed all round—I agree, by Saddam Hussein as well as others—it is simply not good enough to say, as the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, did, that our Government have access to intelligence which they are not at liberty to divulge, but if they did we would all accept the case for war without a murmur.
So, what is the hurry? I can think of only one reason: that the military timetable demands war now rather than later—so the Germans said in 1914. I thought it was the politicians, not generals, who were supposed to call the shots in a democracy.
184
We are told that we are going to war because Saddam Hussein has not complied fully and immediately with the terms of UN resolutions. Certainly, that is true. But we are never told that his compliance, though not complete, has been substantial, and that even more disarmament and disclosure has been forced out of him over the past few weeks. We are told that we are going to war for humanitarian reasons, but human rights abuse is not a ground under international law for intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. We must distinguish between human rights abuses and a humanitarian crisis or disaster, as in Kosovo.
We are told that the war did not require a second UN resolution authorising the use of force. That sounds to me—I think it does to most people—like a legal fiction, a piece of casuistry produced by lawyers to justify whatever it is that their political masters want to do. Many lawyers disagree with the view that recourse to war did not require a second UN resolution, and most of the world disagrees. This war is not simply a continuation of the Gulf War. It is taking place 12 years later. It is a new war, which should have been mandated by a new resolution.
A second resolution authorising force is not just a legal requirement but a requirement of political legitimacy. Opinion polls in Britain show only a small minority in favour of war without such a second resolution. But war without a resolution and without majority support is the course on which the Government have embarked. I have a strong moral objection to sending our troops into battle on an occasion and in circumstances which appeal only to a minority of our fellow citizens. There are no issues on which the rights of the majority are so paramount as in the case of war.
We are told that a new authorising resolution was prevented only by the perfidious M. Chirac. Indeed, the denigration of France and of the French has reached a quite disgraceful level, both in our and in the American tabloid press, and even in the so-called "serious" press.
I do not doubt our Prime Minister's good motives. He has displayed courage and resolve in pursuing the course he believes to be right. Why deny those qualities to foreigners who disagree with him? Why blame vested interests on any opposition to the war and say that our motives are wholly principled? The quarrels between Britain and France are quarrels of principle and analysis. I have found the French arguments more persuasive than those of our own government, as have the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese and most other countries in the world. The reason for that was most succinctly stated by the former French Minister for Europe. On 6th March he was quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
"The catastrophic predictions of Washington are disproportionate to the actual threat posed by Iraq—now contained by military forces subject to close surveillance by the international community".
The French can rightly be criticised on two counts: first, for acknowledging too grudgingly that the American/British military build-up in the Gulf has

185
been crucial in persuading Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the inspectors; and, secondly, by not making it crystal clear that they would support the use of force if the inspectors reported failure. It was Chirac's,
"no ultimatum whatever the circumstances",
which undermined the Prime Minister's attempts to find a compromise even at the last minute.
Barring Saddam's overthrow or voluntary retirement, war is inevitable—in days, not weeks. There is nothing that speeches or demonstrations can do now to prevent it. So what position should we adopt? I can only give the House my own; I cannot speak for anyone else. Now the war is upon us, I shall give my support to the Prime Minister and our Armed Forces for two main reasons: first, I attach overwhelming importance, in our own national interest, to retaining some influence, however small, on American policy towards Iraq and the Middle East, not just for its own sake, but in order to preserve that marvellous supranational construction, the Atlantic Alliance. I do not want America to "go it alone". That would be dangerous for the world.
Secondly, as our troops go into battle they deserve our support. I think that the war will he short; I hope that our arms will he crowned with victory. The inquest will be sooner rather than later.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hunt. He has been a highly effective Member of the Government. He will be sorely missed. When someone of his character and calibre goes, we should all take heed.
Saddam Hussein and his regime must rate among the most sinister and systematically cruel in history. Weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical, biological—in the hands of such a regime, without doubt, pose a threat. It is therefore sad that the United Kingdom's past relationship with the regime and in the building-up of its arsenal has not been unblemished.
The argument is about how to deal effectively with the realities without generating greater dangers than the one we seek to tackle. I have great respect for the sincerity and the integrity of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, indeed for the Government as a whole. It is simply because of that respect that it would be wrong to remain silent when the road they have taken is I believe ill-judged. Having said that, I nevertheless want to put on record my recognition of their efforts to bring the Palestinian issue back on to the central stage, whatever my misgivings about whether the United States Administration are singing from the same hymn sheet.
Were I in another place today, I should be voting for the amendment. I would be doing so all the more convinced by the resignation speech of my right honourable friend Robin Cook.
Let me first deal with the United Nations. It is not an end in itself, it is an indispensable response to the reality of global interdependence. That interdependence
186
demands international rule of law. Like many others, throughout my life in Parliament and out of it I have endeavoured to work and stand for that cause—as indeed I have always believed did the party to which I have belonged for 52 years. The Security Council was a cornerstone of that global system. I have never imagined that a Labour government would be leading us into a major war, to which clearly the majority of the Security Council is opposed.
The legal arguments were well covered in the debate last night. For me, war is such a significant step that it is totally unconvincing to argue that it is authorised by implication in various past resolutions. The Government knew perfectly well last November that Resolution 1441 was adopted only because it did not specifically commit the United Nations to military action. Paragraph 14 spelled out clearly that it was,
"to remain seized of the matter".
Efforts now to make the French a scapegoat are, frankly, questionable. Strong arm tactics in the Security Council were not the monopoly of the French alone. The Government know, as do independent observers at the United Nations, that together with the United States they have simply failed to win the argument in the Security Council, let alone the battle for public opinion across the world.
There are complaints about the veto. I find them astonishing. When in the past some of us suggested that perhaps the time had arrived to re-evaluate a veto system seen as appropriate in 1945, the Government were unyielding in their determination to see the British veto preserved. The veto is still there, partly by their own commitment. It remains central to the global legal system as it has so far evolved. It cannot suddenly be selectively cast aside.
To spurn the Security Council is to jeopardise the entire concept of the international rule of law and to play directly into the hands of those who may wish in future to argue that might is right. It is no exaggeration to say that it could prove a treacherous step back towards global anarchy.
The tragedy is that there have always been alternatives. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred to some One—and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, touched on this issue tonight, as he has in previous debates—was to enable the inspectors, more adequately staffed and resourced, to complete their task, backed by the steadily increasing deployment of military muscle; for the Security Council to consider that report; and if the report justified it, or if the inspectors were blocked, for it to issue the final ultimatum with all the global authority that that would bring to military action should any ultimatum be defied.
The French have made it clear—for example, the French foreign minister on BBC2 last Thursday—that in these circumstances the French would be there beside us. To the cynic who argues that that would have to be seen to be believed, I reply that if in conscience the United Kingdom, the United States and others were unable to accept any outcome that failed to endorse the need for military action, which they believed was still

187
necessary, it would at least be in the context of a completed inspectors' report and a full examination in the Security Council. Lest it is argued that there is an immediate and overpowering threat which overrides all else, I must say that it is an immediacy that is yet to be convincingly demonstrated.
The truth is that we are up against our own self-imposed deadline. We now have virtually everything deployed. Temperatures of 40 degrees in the desert are rapidly approaching, not to mention sandstorms which can quickly cripple sophisticated equipment. Either we go or, for the time being, we climb down with all the credibility of the United States President at stake. Why are we in this self-made trap? We should have been convincingly and steadily ratcheting up the military pressure over a longer timescale. It is in that context that so many have concluded that the new fundamentalist and ideological right around President Bush was determined always go to war.
War is invariably a brutal business. The innocent always suffer. The words "collateral damage" are cynical. They can mean hunger and disease. Too often, they can mean the killing, maiming, orphaning and bereaving of the innocent. Children every bit as lovely and real as our own children and grandchildren die. Mothers every bit as real as our own mothers grieve. Decent men and women are cut down or blown to pieces. Cluster bombs and depleted uranium increase the hazards. People are terrorised as weapons against which they are powerless come relentlessly at their neighbourhoods. Children—but not only children—are traumatised, sometimes for life.
Whatever the honourable and determined efforts of military forces to minimise civilian casualties, all that I have described is always one inevitable consequence of war. That is why war must invariably be a last resort, when all else has been tried. The world is not yet convinced that. on Iraq, all else has been tried.
After war, there will be not just a colossal challenge of reconstruction but the need to build peace. For that successfully to be accomplished, the United Nations will be required more than ever. Peace-building will have to he seen as a task undertaken by the global community, not by those who, to be candid, will be regarded by many as the new imperialists. For our humanitarian non-governmental organisations, there is a crucial issue.
I here declare an interest as a former director of Oxfam and a member of the Oxfam Association. Its credibility depends on being seen to be free of involvement with the combatants. The world will be watching—as it has in the Balkans and Afghanistan—whether the gigantic resources required for the battle to win the peace are as readily available as are the resources for winning the war.
Today, we are all thinking of our courageous servicemen and women. I say that with some feeling. I have held a commission. I have been a defence Minister. We think of them and of their families as they undertake the task expected of them by their
188
Government. Would that it were a task expected of them by the international community and by a totally convinced nation. Sadly, it is not.
We must also think deeply of the people of Iraq. May any conflict be brief, disciplined and well-targeted. May the protection of the innocent be evident in all that is done. May it he quickly over. But would that it were not at all.
One law receives too little attention in politics: the law of counter-productivity. In some ways, the world is in a classic pre-revolutionary situation. Millions are economically and socially destitute and considerable numbers of the able, articulate and frustrated across the world burn with resentment at their political exclusion.
President Bush is right. There is a link between Iraq and global terrorism. The link is that in acting without having demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt the need for that action, and in defiance of world opinion, the United States and Britain may well play right into the hands of the extremists who threaten the security of us all. We may well go down in history as among their best recruiters ever.
In the end, hearts and minds are crucial. The course that the US and UK governments have chosen will. I fear, prove counter-productive in that context.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, in the summer of 1944, I took a trip from Normandy to Holland as an infantry soldier, so noble Lords will understand why I say that I have no liking for war. But sometimes war is the least bad solution. That is so in the situation in which we now find ourselves.
I am satisfied that this war will be legal. I say that having listened last night to an excellent, powerful and logical speech by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I congratulate him on that speech. He happened to take a very similar line to that of the present Attorney-General.
Robin Cook said in his resignation speech yesterday that the Government could not pretend that a second resolution was of no importance, after trying so hard to achieve one. I think that he misunderstood the point. He was talking about a second legal resolution; but I do not think that the Government sought a second resolution for legal reasons; they sought a second resolution to persuade the doubters that the Government were on the right line. I think that that is worth putting on record.

The Government were right not to accede to pleas for further delay. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that the inspectors should have been allowed to continue their task. If they had, they could have gone on for years without finding anything by way of evidence, even though the materials were there. We have only to consider the record to see that no discovery of biological weapons was made until 1995—I think—after four years of searches, and then only because Saddam Hussein's son-in-law revealed that there were biological weapons to he found. So I am not persuaded of that argument.

189
I have one comment to make about the record of the inspectors. I was puzzled by Hans Blix's statement on 7th March, when he reported to the Security Council but left out from his report the information about the pilotless aircraft capable of spraying biological and chemical weapons and the tanks that could be similarly used.
I have here a letter from my former colleague in another place, Sir Kenneth Warren, who was, during his career, an aeronautical engineer. He states:
"The Iraqi conversions and tests of unmanned aircraft as weapons have been a 'smoking gun' known widely in aeronautical engineering circles for at least a year".
For heaven's sake, how is it that the inspectors did not report those facts in their report to the Security Council? They appear only in the 173-page document, to which little attention was paid. If they had highlighted those facts, they might have been regarded as producing something like a smoking gun.
I agree with noble Lords who said that we should be considering the phase that we shall encounter after the war is over. The world will look entirely different in many ways. We shall face questions of vast importance about which many people have not yet begun to think.
The first, which has been discussed is: what is the future of the United Nations? Will the United States disengage from the United Nations because of what appears to be its lack of success?
I am an optimist about the United Nations. It has survived crises in the past. We have only to think of Suez, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. We should register the fact that the United Nations has been used all the way through by all contending parties. The solution was not what we wanted but, nevertheless, the United Nations was not abandoned, except to the extent that we have now decided that the time has come when we are justified in going to war for the legal reasons to which I have already referred. However, the United Nations will have a most important role in the reconstruction phase, after the war is over. It is difficult to overstate its importance at that time.
The United Nations has been criticised on the grounds that the decisions on the resolutions in the Security Council were largely in the hands of tiny states of little experience. The United Nations now has about 190 members; it started at the end of the war with 51. It is inevitable that many states that serve on the security council will be ill-informed and, as it were, beginners in that world. But we must accept that. If we were members of another place, many of our constituents whom we came across when canvassing for election were not well-informed, but they were not for that reason disbarred from having a vote. A similar principle applies in the case of members of the United Nations.
The second important point is this: will the United States remain involved with the world or will it retire into its shell? President Bush's comments on that question are encouraging and give the impression that he at least understands the need of the United States to
190
remain engaged. That is largely the result of 9/11, before when he spoke in isolationist terms. As I read him, that is no longer the case.
The United States will need allies but will not necessarily stick to the same ones that it has relied on until now. It is the only world power—the only country in the world able to be a world peacekeeper. We need only look at the problem of North Korea, which is becoming increasingly dangerous and difficult, to imagine what the problem would be like if the United States would not engage in helping to resolve it. To help to keep the United States engaged, it will need allies. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the results that he has achieved in persuading the United States to act through the United Nations and in other ways over the past months.
The next question is the future of NATO and the European Union. There are difficult problems there, which I do not have time to go into. But the viability of a common European foreign policy is very much in doubt as a result of recent events in the security council.
My last two points relate to the Middle East. The reconstruction of Iraq, and the effort put into that by the United States and Western countries, is vital. It will be taken by the Arab world and the whole Middle East as an indication of Western intentions towards the area. The United States has little conception of the hostility, indeed hatred, of many in that part of the world towards it. It is likely that a short-term result of the war will be an increase in terrorist activity.
But the most important point is the Israel/Palestine problem. It is the main cause of Arab hostility towards the West. The United States is perceived right across the Arab world as the main protector of Israel. It is a great pity that the United States delayed so much in producing the road map, leaving it until very recently, when it appeared to be a sop thrown to its critics. I hope that the United States and its colleagues will press forward vigorously and urgently with the road map and the production of a plan for Israel and Palestine that is fair to both sides.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, there is much public confusion in reconciling the legal, moral and political aspects of the Iraq crisis.En passant, I share the view of my noble friend Lady Williams of the scorn being heaped on the French. Apart from Germany, Russia and China, France represents a large swathe of world opinion, probably the majority of opinion in this country. To sweep that aside by saying that the French are insincere is a jibe that they could equally level at us and, in particular, the Americans, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, so pithily demonstrated.
Making war, particularly where the enemy is an individual, a grotesque tyrant whose people are in thrall to him, and where the disparity in arms is as overwhelming as it is here, requires clear legal and moral justification. They are the preconditions of the ultimate decision, which is political. Where the fate of

191
many thousands of innocent civilians is concerned, as here, the certainty of those legal judgments must be akin to a verdict in a capital punishment case—beyond reasonable doubt.
As regards the legality of an invasion of Iraq, the only thing that is clear is that the lawyers are unclear. We lawyers have a saying:
"He who comes to equity must come with clean hands".
It means that he who seeks a remedy must have a clear conscience—a fair maxim for the present impasse. We do not. We have too often treated Iraq and the region as pawns on our geo-political chessboard. Whether we think of the arms that the United States, France and ourselves gave to Saddam when he attacked Iran in 1980, including weapons of mass destruction, or whether we think now of the gross disparity of approach of the United States towards Israel on the one hand and Iraq on the other, the so-called road map notwithstanding, we are not seen before the bar of world opinion to be entirely with clean hands.
No doubt, it is partly because of that that our own Government have rightly and assiduously sought a second resolution, realising correctly that the aftermath of an Anglo-American invasion without the same is very likely to be counterproductive in terms of the longer war—the war of hearts and minds—and the effects on terrorism, about which many noble Lords have commented.
Even if I were convinced of the legality of the proposed joint invasion, which I am not; and if I were convinced of the immediate and pressing humanitarian need for instant invasion, which I am not; or if I were convinced that the US/UK invasion would render the world more secure from terrorism, which, certainly, I am not, I would still favour seeking a second Security Council resolution as a pre-condition of invasion. At least, I would favour that course until it was undeniable that its achievement was being blocked by had faith. But I do not think that it would get that far. As my noble friend Lady Williams clarified, France and the other countries would come into line if the inspectors decided that the process had stalled or if Saddam commenced any further internal bloodshed or external assault.
At a time of a more serious imbalance of power in the world than for a long time, with the United States striding the world like a military Colossus, it is commensurately vital to sustain and build the United Nations.
So, beyond the pre-conditions of legality and morality, the issue is whether it is right and wise to disarm Saddam Hussein now, other than through a United Nations force. On that, I have no doubt whatever. There would be inconvenience and some loss of face in having to withdraw troops. But the more important loss of face in the long term, let alone the loss of potential effectiveness of the United Nations, would derive from the Anglo-American decision to invade on their own now.
192
I only hope that this invasion, if it comes, is not the historic blunder that I fear it could be; that it will be swift and sparing of the lives of civilians and those of our gallant forces; that the United Nations is given and takes responsibility for reconstruction within Iraq; that relations within NATO and the European Union are soon restored; and that the United States will hereafter devote comparable energy and determination towards resolution of the Israel/Palestine tragedy, which continues to infect the whole region.
6.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, yesterday I visited the Colchester garrison, together with my Roman Catholic counterpart, Bishop Thomas McMahon—our dioceses, covering Essex and a major part of east London, are co-terminus. The visit arranged with the garrison commander, Colonel Tony Barton, attracted much major interest. Why, we were asked, would two bishops known to be opposed to military action in Iraq make this visit to a garrison that houses the largest brigade in Britain, the 16 Air Assault Brigade, with 2,500 troops already in the Gulf? Our reply was simple: "Yes, we have consistently opposed military action as the way of resolving this crisis. We are not persuaded that the case for action has been made. We particularly regret the marginalisation of the United Nations. We are mindful, too, that development agencies have repeatedly pointed out that the impact of even a limited war would only exacerbate the already seriously depleted Iraqi infrastructure. They have also warned of the possibility of a major refugee crisis. But, we want the garrison to know that, in the event of war, we will give our unequivocal support to the men and women of our armed services who are in the Gulf and to their families hack in this country".
We were impressed by the leadership and general morale in the garrison and by the crucial welfare support that is in place. The e-mail has helped to revolutionise communication for the serving soldiers and their families, although it will be seriously restricted when the offensive begins. We also met senior chaplains from Aldershot and Colchester and affirmed our support for the vital role that our service chaplains play in the Gulf. Sixty chaplains are already deployed among the services. Only today, we saw photographs in some of our newspapers of chaplains conducting services and times of reflection and quietness with those on the front line.
With other Church leaders, we also urge that all our churches be left open for part or all of each day for prayer and reflection and that spiritual and practical care be given to those who seek it in the coming days. Furthermore, in our multi-cultural, multi-faith society, we strongly urge sensitive solidarity with our Muslim and Jewish neighbours, for whom the crisis is a time of great uncertainty and anxiety.
In our shared humanity and our common duty, we all long for a world based on peace with justice, freedom and reconciliation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, however, I fear that, unless we win the peace—not just the war—the sacrifice of many could be in vain.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I have not spoken in this debate before for fear of being misinterpreted by the Islamophobic press as being anti-British or opposed to our Armed Forces. Now that the United States has chosen to use force over international law, I feel that I must say a few words about our concerns regarding an invasion of Iraq.
The invasion will set a dangerous precedent for preemptive attacks outside the United Nations route. It could open up many dangerous avenues. Many countries are waiting for such an opportunity: India can attack Pakistan over Kashmir; Israel can attack Lebanon and Syria; North Korea can attack South Korea; and there are many more. The United Nations weapons inspectors had reported progress and asked for more time. That is why more inspectors were trained, but, once again, they have been asked to leave Iraq by the United States, as in 1998. The war council in the Azores has damaged the authority of the United Nations and undermined it. How can only two permanent members of the Security Council hold a summit and decide to invade another country, without a meeting of the Security Council or its sanction?
Like me, many people have serious doubts about the true intentions behind the war. This morning, someone asked me. "Why, when the Americans can take out a Yemeni man in the desert and the Israelis can murder four senior Hamas leaders travelling in their car in Gaza, is there no way to take Saddam Hussein out, apart from invasion?". Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden escaped bombing and detection in Tora Bora, although it was promised that they would be hunted down, smoked out and brought to justice. We know that over 10,000 people were killed in Afghanistan, including 3,500 Taliban prisoners-of-war, shot in containers in front of US soldiers.
At that time, we were told that there were problems with drugs from Afghanistan that affected our lives and communities. Under the Northern Alliance, drug production has gone up nineteenfold. We were told that women would he liberated. Girls can now attend schools with basic facilities, but the fate of Muslim women in Afghanistan remains the same. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to the position in Afghanistan. My information is that Mr Karzai is the lord of Kabul, while our friends the warlords of the Northern Alliance fight for control of the rest of the territory.
There were also the notorious anthrax attacks and threats at that time in the United States, London and Karachi. We never found out who was behind those attacks. What happened to those who were caught? I understand that a man was arrested in connection with the anthrax attacks during the war in Afghanistan, but we never got to know whether he was a member of Al'Qaeda or the Taliban or what happened to him.
I do not believe that this is a clash of civilisations or an attack on Islam, but I do believe that there are double standards in the application of UN resolutions. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the perceptions of the Muslim communities in this country and abroad. He was
194
right: people question whether all UN resolutions are applied in the same way. There are UN resolutions on Kashmir and on Israel/Palestine that have never been implemented. In fact, the Americans have vetoed more resolutions—just on Israel—than France has done in the past 50 years. It seems that United Nations resolutions on East Timor are more important than those on Kashmir. United Nations resolutions on the massacre at Jenin have never been implemented and have been forgotten.
There is real fear about the war among the Muslim communities in this country. They fear attack by racists and by the media. Can my noble friend the Minister say what advice has been given to the police and the local authorities to protect minority communities during these difficult times? What advice has been given to the media regarding their attacks on Muslim communities? A report in the Observer on Sunday said, basically, that Muslims were being recruited when they were in Mecca. I cannot conceive of anything more offensive than showing a photograph of the holy Kaaba and suggesting that the Iraqi intelligence service was recruiting spies in Mecca to attack British interests. Such Islamophobic attacks increase day by day.
I understand that, according to UN documents about the planning of humanitarian relief, we can expect 500,000 civilian casualties. Two million people could be made homeless, and there will be 10 million people without enough food. Eighteen million people will be without access to clean water. I understand that more than one million children under the age of five are at risk of death from malnutrition.
Will the Minister say what consideration has been given to this report and the safety of children in Iraq'? What securities and long-term arrangements will be made to safeguard the interests of Kurdish people? How will the future wealth from oil be distributed? What role will the minorities play in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's regime?
Finally, I believe that this decision is outside the United Nations. It has been made by a few policymakers in Washington and not by the British people. While I admire the efforts of the Prime Minister in advising the American Administration to take the UN route last year, I am not convinced that the case for war has been made, even though we have been dragged into it. Our prayers and thoughts go out to our soldiers and we pray for their safe return home.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, coming late in the list of speakers inevitably puts one at risk of repeating remarks made by other noble Lords. In that context, I found the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, the noble Lords, Lord Wright and Lord Weatherill, and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe especially convincing.
A number of us in your Lordships' House were in the services throughout the last war, which went on for five years. The present situation brings memories flooding back. In 1939, I do not believe that we were universally aware of the dangers facing the world because of the aspirations of one man, Hitler, who was an appalling

195
tyrant. Now, things are vastly different. With instant television and the media generally, Saddam Hussein has been shown to be evil and dangerous.
Why should such emphasis be placed on Resolution 1441 when both Resolutions 678 and 687 were passed to allow the use of force to restore security and international peace? I entirely agree with the opinion of Attorney-General.
I fear that war is not an option in the present situation. But with hindsight—I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling—was not too little effort made on the diplomatic front months ago? Our servicemen and service women deserve no less than a united country behind them. My main concern, expressed by other noble Lords, is about what will happen following any conflict. Despite the pledges made by President Bush to help rebuild Iraq, will that really happen? Might it not be left to other nations to pick up the pieces, within or outside the United Nations, and, it is to be hoped, establish a democracy. There has never been a democracy in Iraq. Which countries in the United Nations are democracies as we understand it?
We face great trials ahead, but I feel that we have no choice but to do everything to remove Saddam Hussein. Finally, I, too, believe that we must do everything we can to give our forces our support and our prayers.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I support the Government and the Prime Minister in his work and his efforts during the past months. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone that Saddam Hussein is a thoroughly evil character. Everyone agrees on that. What I find enormously disturbing is that he is a man of no judgment. He thought that he could get away with an attack on Iran and seize some of its wealth. He failed: it cost the lives of a million people and the attack went on for years.
How anyone could think that Saddam Hussein, as a man of no judgment, would possibly get away with the seizure of Kuwait is impossible to say. He is in control of Iraq. It is a fact that terrorists need a base. The base for Al'Qaeda was the Taliban's Afghanistan. From there it planned, with meticulous care, a brilliant operation in America. It is quite appalling that it got away with it, but the danger still exists.
One of the main reasons for the removal of the regime in Iraq, and the liberation of the people, is the fact that it would probably and certainly be an excellent base for terrorists in the future. Of that there is no doubt. We know that Saddam Hussein gives money to the families of the poor, deluded suicide bombers. He gives every support of that kind. The efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein have gone on for years and years, and resolution after resolution, but there comes a time—and that is now—when he has to be threatened by force.
How long can that force stay there? How long can we persuade our troops to wait? How long can we persuade the Treasury to supply the money? I think
196
that the Prime Minister and President Bush are right that the time has come when this danger to the world must be removed.
I have listened with great care to my fellow Liberal Democrats. They have put forward very compelling arguments and given graphic examples of what may result from this war. What they say is true—the results of the war may be bad. However, one of the great achievements of the Prime Minister has been to persuade President Bush to promise—from his own lips—to publish the map, or proposals, for an independent Palestine and to give it his support. I agree with many speakers that that act could restore the respect of the Arab and Islamic worlds for the United States.
We all hope that the coming war will be short. Of course, I applaud our troops and wish for a swift victory. But our support for a swift victory is not enough. If we are supporting the war in Iraq to free Iraq and to remove the danger, we must support our troops if it turns out not to be so easy. That will be one of the main trials which we shall have to bear if we mean what we say in supporting our troops abroad.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I start, as did my noble friend Lord Rees-Mogg, with an unequivocal statement of support for the approach of the Government to this crisis. There is not much else I can say about the policy of the Government on Iraq which has not already been said. I offer a few brief comments.
Despite all that has been said about the United Nations, I wish first to advance the proposition that this is not a war about United Nations resolutions. Whether such-and-such a resolution provides the justification for war or whether we need yet another resolution are questions that are to a great extent irrelevant. The Security Council has already demonstrated satisfactorily that in matters affecting serious international security it is impotent and totally unable to enforce its will, even when it knows what its will really is.
The real questions we must ask are: is this war right and is it politically necessary? In my view the answer to both those questions is yes. If left to himself, Saddam Hussein no doubt could continue to stockpile chemical and probably biological weapons, as he has done in the past. Furthermore, we must contemplate the very real possibility that in future some of those weapons might fall into the hands of international terrorists and create appalling dangers of a kind which today, even after the events of September 2001, we can hardly imagine. The possibility of such weapons falling into the hands of Al'Qaeda or any other group of international terrorists does not bear thinking about.
So even if Saddam does not present an immediate danger to our national security, he certainly has the power to do so in the future. Therefore, to talk of a policy of containment in this case is completely to miss the point. If Saddam is left to his own devices behind a shield of containment, whatever that may mean, he

197
can still pose potentially appalling dangers. It is therefore right and necessary, in order to ensure our national security in the future, that we should take firm action now to ensure that this threat is never allowed to become a real and present danger. If that is called pre-emptive action, then so be it. There is nothing wrong with pre-emptive action in defence of one's own security and values.
The next thing I think we should put into perspective is the question of public opinion. In a situation like this, it is inevitable that there will be demonstrations and protests. No one wants war and it is not in any way surprising that the great weight of public opinion may be against it. But it is the function of political leadership to lead, not simply to follow the dictates of public opinion. So far the Prime Minister has shown courageous leadership in this regard, and he deserves great credit. As with the question of the United Nations resolution, it is what is right that matters. Our political leaders should continue to pursue what they believe to be right, even if for the moment they do not carry the weight of public opinion with them.
Perhaps I may express the hope that, now that the decision to go to war has been taken, everyone will take great care over what they say about the morality, legitimacy and wisdom of that decision, whatever strong views they may hold. A certain amount of the usual words have been spoken about how firmly we are behind our Armed Forces, and of course it is customary to make those remarks in a debate of this kind. But sometimes I wonder how much deep thinking and sincerity lies behind those sentiments. Thousands of men and women are now waiting in the desert to risk their lives over the next days, weeks and months. I know what it is like to be on the edge of going into battle and I have some idea of what might be going through the minds of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and their leaders as they wait to go into action.
In the course of the debate I heard a noble Lord remark—most disgracefully, I thought—something about what would happen after the "next few days of pyrotechnics". This is not going to be a firework display; it is a matter of life and death. Our soldiers are waiting, as they have waited before and undoubtedly as they will wait again, to lay down their lives if that is necessary.
The first thing to say is that many of those soldiers will be afraid. One of the great emotions felt when going into action is fear. Anyone who says that he is not afraid when going into action is lying. But even in the fear, isolation and loneliness of battle, what persuades young men and women to fight and risk their lives is their belief that their cause is right. If they hear people at home saying that the war is not legitimate or moral, or that it is not necessary and is being undertaken for no good reason, or that our allies are a bunch of warmongers, just imagine what goes on in the minds of those young people as they see on television that kind of stuff night after night.
I suppose that one must accept, in a parliamentary democracy such as ours, that there should be open debate about the rightness or wisdom of a cause before
198
decisions are taken—and I do not necessarily suppose that when those decisions have been taken, people will change their minds. But I would hope, at the least, before people express their doubts or demonstrate about the rightness of those decisions, that they would try to put themselves into the minds of those now waiting in the desert, knowing that over the next few days they will be asked to take on what has been called the "unlimited liability" of the soldier; that is, the readiness of a soldier, as a part of his profession, to lay down his life in pursuit of the security of his nation or its values. Incidentally, in pursuing the profession that leads soldiers to that unlimited liability, we should never forget that it is they who preserve the right of people, safely back at home, to make speeches and demonstrate in the streets.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the Government have my complete and wholehearted support. I have heard it said that there is no morality in what the Government are doing. If anyone wants to argue about the morality of this situation, they should look at Saddam Hussein's record and the dangers that lie presents to mankind. They will see that there is no balance in the argument.
The Government have tried to avoid a war. If it had been possible to bring together a coalition of the United Nations, not merely the small proportion allied to us, then perhaps Saddam Hussein might then have withdrawn. But he did not do so and, given that situation, I do not believe that there is any alternative. We cannot allow such a man to hold weapons of mass destruction. No doubt he does have them. As noble Lords have already pointed out, those weapons of mass destruction which the inspectors have looked at were presented to them by Saddam Hussein. He has not given them anything he did not want them to have, and they would not have been able to find anything except by the most enormous fluke—even if they had stayed in Iraq for many months while our soldiers stewed in the intolerable temperatures of the Gulf.
The Prime Minister has also had to cope with the voices of numbers of people, some of whom are represented in this House, who speak of diplomatic means alone without any threat of accompanying sanctions. Saddam Hussein must have found that quite delightful. He was not going to listen to diplomats unless behind the diplomacy stood the threat of meaningful sanctions. He probably thought that the will in the West was not there and that he would get away with it in the end, because he could rely on his friend Mr Chirac. I can only hope that Mr Chirac's position in this matter is such that it ensures that politicians in Europe do not afford him the leadership role in Europe which he so avidly wants. Indeed, if it could be demonstrated to him that he has made as big a mistake as Napoleon made by marching to Moscow in 1812, I would be delighted; it would be more than deserved.
The people who have been saying that we should rely on diplomacy are the same people who have been complaining about the pressure of sanctions. When

199
certain large elements of the sanctions were lifted so that Saddam Hussein could feed his people, hardly a squeak was heard from them about the fact that he used that money to buy things like 360 missile engines—while his people starved. The amount of money Iraq has received as a result of the relief of sanctions could have fed all the children who are starving. That is another reason for war. If we go in, we will enable the people of Iraq to be free and to be fed.
I can understand the deep reservations of my noble friend Lord Ahmed about the position of Muslims. But, directly or indirectly, Saddam Hussein has killed more Muslim people than anyone else in history. Millions died in the Iran/Iraq war; millions have been driven out of his country; millions—or at least hundreds of thousands—have been murdered and tortured to death in modern Iraq. I am amazed that the Muslim community in Britain has not spoken out more clearly about this evil man and his regime. It should do so. Muslims are serving in Her Majesty's Armed Forces. The Muslim community should be behind them.
Very high quality people hold the Muslim faith. It is a faith that Saddam Hussein pretends to hold but he treats it with the same contempt as that with which he treats the United Nations, the world and his own people. It is a contempt that the world can no longer tolerate.
In the 1991 war there were, fortunately, very few casualties. But some very dangerous jobs were carried out. The special forces were deployed miles and miles inside Iraq. RAF Tornados flew missions to deny Iraq the use of runways. When the ground forces were vulnerable on day one, if the Iraqi Air Force had flown with resolution it could have effected enormous damage. Those Tornado flights were dangerous and the aircrew risked their lives.
I wonder what they thought when they realised that a few months later, while the international forums were receiving reports about the triumph in the Gulf and western European and other politicians were congratulating themselves on that conflict, Saddam Hussein was killing Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north and anyone that he thought was politically unreliable. He is not the kind of man we should tolerate in the world of this century.
Our Armed Forces should have the overwhelming support of every thinking person—those who do not want to think should read the papers that tell them how to do so—and they are entitled to expect the wholehearted backing of our people.
Over the past two or three months I have read a large number of papers and watched a large number of programmes on television. The quality of reporting and balance in many of those programmes and in many of the articles leaves an enormous amount to be desired. As a result, a person who lives near me and who has two sons in the Gulf is distressed because she thinks that her sons are starving; she is distressed because she thinks that their weapons are not good enough.
200
I read only this week-end that there are two Nimrods on an aircraft carrier. When people in the press talk about the Challenger tank being no good, they are talking about the previous Challenger tank; when they talk about the rifle being inadequate, they are talking about, if I may say so without being too partisan, the Tory rifle rather than the Labour rifle; we have spent a lot of money making sure that it is a reasonable weapon.
We are entitled to expect a better quality of information from the media. I hope that someone will take note of my suggestion that when this conflict is over we should have not only the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme to educate parliamentarians—because, certainly in the other place, fewer and fewer people have military experience—but, because a lack of military experience is even more acute in Fleet Street and the television studios, we should require journalists to spend some time in the Armed Forces before they are allowed to regurgitate nonsense to the British people.
7.34 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I was going to end my speech with a quote from Gladstone. I shall now begin with it because it reflects almost exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, has said.
Your Lordships will remember the Bulgarian atrocities. In his famous pamphlet Lord Gladstone said:
"Let the Turks now carry away their abuses, in the only possible manner, namely, by carrying off themselves. Their Zaptiehs and their Mudirs, their Bimhashis and Yuzbashis, their Kaimakams and their Pashas, one and all, bag and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the province that they have desolated and profaned".
That is a view that we should all take of what has happened under Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That is the great Liberal Party speaking, not the "Oh, let's let the French muck it up" Liberal Party we have heard from today.
Last year I joined the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, partly because I wanted to see how much the Army had changed since I adorned D Squadron of the Life Guards some 45 years ago. D Squadron of the Life Guards is now the Air Portable Brigade's reconnaissance squadron. I am delighted to be able to say that the quality of our Armed Forces now is far, far better than when I was a young National Service officer. The only corollary I have is that they are not as smart, but that is another story.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, has pointed out the evil of this man. It is reasonable to say that there are four grounds on which we strongly object to him. He has weapons of mass destruction; he has disobeyed UN resolutions; he has indulged in international terror, but not necessarily close to Al'Qaeda; and he has indulged in the most foul internal oppression.
I had a tinge of amusement when I suddenly thought of Saddam Hussein in Downing Street. If Robin Cook had argued with him, he would have gone next door, there would have been a bang—and that would have been the end of Robin Cook; he would have been shot

201
personally by the Prime Minister. I suspect that the dear and blessed Clare Short would have been hung up by her hair outside, to the amusement of the gloating mob. That is the kind of man he is.
The internal terrorism he has carried out has been well documented by Ann Clwyd. In The Times today, there is a description of the use to which he puts a plastic shredding machine. People are put in feet first so that they die very slowly, with their feet being made into mincemeat. This is overseen by his gentle little son.
If he was guilty of only one of those four crimes we would not necessarily have to do something about him. But he is so awful, wrong and evil that, thank God, the better D Squadron than the one in which I served is out there, doing something to bring about his end and a change to his regime.
It is hard to quantify the damage that France has done, although it is not surprising when its Foreign Minister writes a book saying that it is a great pity that that earlier version of Adolf Hitler but with better taste, Napoleon Bonaparte, should have won the Battle of Waterloo. Throughout French history there has been a combination of intense intelligence in government and a complete lack of common sense.
Why was war declared in the Franco-Prussian war? Because the King of Prussia would not say, "Never again will there be a Hohenzollern candidature for the throne of Spain". The Germans said, "The matter is settled". France then said "a Berlin" and attacked Prussia. At the time, the Crown Prince of Prussia said, "In the past 200 years France has invaded Germany 30 times".
Since the war, France has not done what we did and honourably scuttle away from Empire but has fought two nasty wars—one in Indo-China, with all the problems that that left behind, and one in Algeria, a country in which it is still interfering. It has interfered in Rwanda. Some say that had it not been playing the games it was playing in central Africa, those massacres might not have happened. France has the cheek to ask Mugabe to Paris, and then they say we must be moral, France has this thing and we must therefore go through the United Nations. Mugabe has been asked to the Quai d'Orsay and his smell will mingle with the stench of Laval.
This action, in itself, may not matter. Where it does matter, and matters above all, is in the effect it will have on the European Union. If France thinks there is the faintest possibility of a common defence and foreign policy after her recent behaviour, I sincerely hope she has another thought coming. It is not only us, the Spaniards and the Italians; it is also the Poles, who have special forces and will go in with the Americans, the Czechs, the Slovaks and the people from eastern Europe. Those people support the Americans because they have a much more recent experience of tyranny than anyone else.
France has damaged Europe and has made it certain that we go to war. Had she not, she would not have given Saddam Hussein the chance to wriggle out. My Lords, I love France—I love going to France and I love
202
the French people. To say this makes me sick at heart, but I have read my history and know a little, think, about what I am saying. The damage that French diplomacy has done under a self-centred film star Napoleon-loving Foreign Minister is catastrophic. I hope that they read my speech—they will not, of course, but then, nobody does. Anyway, that is what I think.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who has resigned in response to the Government's policy on Iraq.
While thanking Her Majesty's Government for this opportunity to debate the impending military move into Iraq, I must declare that I am very disappointed by the manner in which we have been pressed into this situation by President Bush and President Chirac. It is particularly sad that our European neighbour has vetoed another appeal to the security council.
The diplomatic process has now been abandoned in favour of military action to depose an intransigent and evil tyrant who has mocked all previous attempts by the UN to remove his weapons of mass destruction in order to maintain peace in the Middle East. The time has come for us to support our Prime Minister and Government, and this I do, in the hope that the operations will be swift and successful. But this precedent of a small number of countries implementing by force the will of the UN without support from other members of the security council could lead to many more military interventions in other trouble spots of our divided world that have been identified by other noble Lords. The burden on our Armed Forces would no doubt grow if this scenario were to develop in the future.
Now that military intervention with ground troops appears inevitable, I join other noble Lords in wishing our brave men and women well, with the assurance that they have our wholehearted support, and a safe return home.
There is great support among most Iraqi people in the United Kingdom for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. I know Iraqi doctors working in the National Health Service who are in favour of this intervention as long as it results in a new administration and reconstruction of Iraq.
Like my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond, I wish to receive the Minister's assurance on humanitarian aid for the millions of women and children who are poorly nourished and vulnerable to any disruption caused by military conflict. Together with other civilians, these vulnerable people will be fleeing towns and cities.
For the past 12 years, after the 1991 Gulf war, the children of Iraq have been living in deteriorating conditions, with contaminated water supplies, limited food rations and lack of medicines and healthcare. They are very likely to suffer more in any military action even if the conflict is limited to a few weeks. Therefore, it is crucial that plans are laid for the reconstruction of Iraq. So I ask the Minister to share with us the Government's plan to supply basic food, water and medical care to Iraqi women and children. This should include vaccinations against common childhood infections.

203
Will the Minister confirm that United Nations organisations caring for refugees and children will also be assisting the civilian population of Iraq? If experience in developing countries is anything to go by, healthcare in the field is best organised by British teams, both governmental and NGOs. These developments are costly and will require funds from the United States and the United Nations, particularly European governments.
Finally, Her Majesty's Government must ensure that the US pursues the road map of establishing an independent Palestinian state, with secure borders, and economic aid to create jobs for a viable country. This will then be the start of a genuine opportunity for peace in the Middle East and the rest of the world.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we have heard some impassioned speeches this afternoon about the villainy and tyranny of Saddam Hussein. The implication has been that anybody who is against the ultimatum which has been issued and the war against Iraq which is to come must be in favour of this tyrant and supportive of him. That is a gross slander on people who take the view that I do. What is more, those atrocities took place largely while Saddam Hussein was being supported by the United States and this country in his war against Iran. That was the time to speak out, but I am afraid that very few people did, and so Saddam has remained in power for decades when he might have been removed a lot earlier.
I listened to President Bush's broadcast. It was hardly a truthful and unbiased litany of the history of events in Iraq. Certainly, there was no admission of the part of the United States in bringing Saddam Hussein to power and sustaining him in power so long as it suited their purposes. President Bush wrongly accused the United Nations of not being prepared to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction when what France and others on the Security Council actually asked was for more time to try to resolve the problem peacefully. The United States' impatience will cause many casualties. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, gave a graphic description of what those casualties would amount to; they will sour international arrangements for relationships for years to come.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the twin towers attack or that it poses a terrorist threat. Even the CIA has advised the President that Iraq was not involved.
The outlook for world co-operation and peace is very bleak indeed. The standing of the United Nations has been seriously damaged. Indeed, the message is that collective security is dead and imperialism is now acceptable; that the powerful can use their military might to achieve their objectives regardless of the views of the international community. This can only set a precedent for other powerful countries to act unilaterally when they conceive it to be in their own interests or in their perceived interests of the wider world or the people of the country they wish to invade or take over.
204
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, mentioned a number of countries that might have such interests. I mention China. Will it be all right for China to reclaim Taiwan? It certainly has an interest there, has it not? If we are to allow and condone this sort of behaviour, the world will be a very dangerous place.
What are the United States' aims following the conquest of Iraq? Is Syria the next country in President Bush's "axis of evil" to be dealt with? Or is to be Iran, which is near to completing a nuclear reactor? Or will it be North Korea, which either already has nuclear weapons or is close to producing them? Which is the next on the list? It would be very useful to know, so that we can prepare ourselves.
I ask the Government: will the United Kingdom, having committed itself to this policy on Iraq, be committed to supporting United States policy in any further wars to achieve regime change? There are many more tyrants in the world. Where do we stop? It looks to me as though that is the policy now: to bring about regime change if we do not like the regime. If that is the case, we shall be in a perpetual state of war. The Government, this House, and Parliament as a whole need to take that into account.
There is the question of the safety of our own people. I do not believe—nor does Robin Cook, who is, after all, a former Foreign Secretary—that our own security has been threatened up to now. When the war in Iraq starts, and when the repercussions begin to be felt, shall we be more or less at risk? The answer must be that we shall be more at risk from terrorist attack than we are now or we were a few weeks ago.
Those who accuse people like me who are concerned about this war of not wanting to support our Armed Forces are again guilty of slander. That is a downright lie. People like me were supporting British troops when some members of the present Cabinet were calling for them to he brought back from the Falklands when they were dealing with a real British interest. So I shall not take lessons from some members of the Cabinet, make no mistake about it. I, and all those I know who are concerned about the action in Iraq, do support our Armed Forces, and will support them. What we do not support is that they should have been put in a dangerous situation unnecessarily. I wish them well. I wish that they did not have to be there. I hope that they will all return safely.
7.55 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I rise to record again my support for the Government. I always thought that it made political sense to seek a further resolution in the United Nations Security Council. I shall not refer to it as a second resolution, because that is to detract from the very real issues before us. Another resolution, as we well know, would have been the 18th on this matter.
No one could have done more than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to keep diplomacy on track and to try to avoid conflict in the Gulf region; nor could anyone have done more to keep the United States on board for that policy.

205
Now, of course, we have people blaming the Government because diplomacy has failed—saying that somehow it is the fault of the UK Government that the majority of the United Nations Security Council could not be convinced of our policies.
How can anyone be quite so certain that we could not have had a majority of countries in the Security Council supporting us had it not been for the intervention of the French who promised to veto any resolution no matter what the circumstances. The French would veto any resolution that included a reference to military action. It is plain—or should be—that this left no scope whatever for diplomacy to succeed on anything which might have induced Saddam Hussein to co-operate in the terms of Resolution 1441—full, final and immediate cooperation in disarmament.
Why would Pakistan, in particular, or, to take another example, Mexico, put their heads above the proverbial parapet when it was clear that there was no realistic prospect of a vote in the Security Council on a further resolution? Realpolitik would, I suggest, dictate that those countries and of hers would not show their hand, but that did not mean that they would not have supported us had it come to a vote.
No doubt many harsh words are being said in private about our friends across the Channel. In public, the words will be more proportionate, not least because the sooner fences are mended the better.
I am a Europhile—probably a Francophile. I believe in a strong European voice and a strong European view of the world. I do not want a world where international politics and policies are driven by the one superpower without influence from us and from Europe. However, it clear to me that on this occasion the French with their "veto no matter what the circumstances" approach are the real cause of diplomatic failure. It is not possible to make progress in any negotiation when faced with such a stance.
Many will find it difficult to work out why the French should sign up to Resolution 1441 and then take the view that they have taken. I am no expert in these matters, but as an interested and concerned observer I can only assume that the French really believed that Saddam could be disarmed by the weapons inspectors in the absence of a threat of force. The alternative is that French foreign policy has become more redolent of the Gaullist era than of a modern Europe where countries can and must work together. There will never be disarmament of Saddam's regime in the absence of force.
How did the French think Saddam's regime dribbled out concessions every 10 days or so? Was it because of resolutions? Was it because of the inspectors' presence in Iraq? I suggest that it was not. It was because the British and American forces were on the borders of Iraq. Had there been French, Russian and Chinese forces on the borders of Iraq as well, and a further resolution in the United Nations Security Council, then there would have been no war at all. Saddam clearly thought that the poker game could continue, perhaps for another 12 years.
206
Dictators and psychopathic bullies everywhere are nasty, but their survival is not always based on their nastiness; it is sometimes based on their cleverness. I believe that Saddam correctly gauged, as my noble friend Lord Hardy said, that the French would ride to his rescue in the United Nations Security Council; and he hoped, therefore, that the British and American troops would be withdrawn. What message would that have sent to Saddam Hussein, to terrorists, to Korea, to Al'Qaeda and to other budding dictators? What message would it have sent to the people of this country, and not least to our Armed Forces? Withdrawal of our Armed Forces would have given Saddam—and every other tinpot dictator—every opportunity to do what they wanted.
The UNMOVIC working document, strangely little mentioned by Dr Blix in his report to the Security Council, is chilling. Together with the 12 years of duplicity and as many utterly false full and final declarations as there are extant United Nations resolutions on the matter, that document means that Saddam's poker game must now be at an end.
I am not approaching this as some amateur armchair warrior. Like all too many families, including all too many families in this House, I have lost relatives in world wars. To bring that closer to home, a member of my immediate family left home last night, kit packed and in uniform, to join his ship, which is in theatre in the Gulf.
These matters are not easy for any of us, but I support the Government and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, because I believe that he is right. Of course, it is easier when we do not have to make these decisions ourselves; the really difficult decisions are for leaders, and I believe that everyone on all sides of the House should support my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Of course, as all noble Lords have said today, we all support and pray for our troops at the theatre.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, for getting off the starting block a fraction early. That happens when one is keyed up for a debate—one is a little too eager to begin, perhaps.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that I have no intention of impugning his motives; I have always known his heart to be in the right place and it is in the right place now. He is mistaken on a number of points, but I am sure that he is a patriot—and an honest patriot, at that.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, takes note of what I have to say. I hoped that my comments would fall into the ears of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, but, quite understandably, she has just left for a breather before her reply. Many of my questions are addressed to her.
The war is going to take place, whatever we say, and the decision will be taken not here but at the other end of the Corridor. We all know what that decision is, although we do not know what the political fallout will

207
be. I do not intend to spend time discussing the legitimacy of the war, as that has been exhaustively discussed.
The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House made an exemplary speech. It was one of the best I have heard, for its purpose, in the Chamber. It brought me to the position taken by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. There are only two options, and they are both bad, but we have chosen the better of the two. From that point, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, it is up to us to back our troops and our policy to the hilt, so that it works. If the trumpet gives forth an uncertain sound, we shall not win what we seek.
My concern is for what happens after the war. If I have one criticism of the preparations that have brought us to this point, it is that we have not until far too late brought into play the need to redress the extraordinary bias of American policy in the Middle East in favour of Israel. I admire the Israeli people and have many friends who are engaged in charitable and religious support of that region. However, that does not mean that the hundreds of thousands living in prison camp conditions in the Gaza strip have no rights or that their conditions do not impel them into acts of terrorism, which to us who are not subject to those stresses are unthinkable. That question has been left very late, and a commitment to a balanced approach for two viable states must now be clear, irreversible and proactive. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg says, without it we shall not have peace in the Middle East, whatever the result of the present war.
I am also concerned about the people of Iraq. From time to time, we hear politicians say that we are there to liberate them, although that was not the original cause. Of course, the removal of the present government will be a liberation, provided it is replaced by something better. I would very much like to know what that something better is.
Yesterday afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, replied to my question as to whether she would be able to be more explicit today about establishing a coherent independence for Iraq and the well-being of its people. She gave me an answer that was a trailer for a document that I received only today, included among some others from the Foreign Secretary. No doubt your Lordships have copies of it.
I refer to the first of the two statements from the Atlantic summit, called A Vision for Iraq and the Iraqi People. I read the document with great interest, but it is aspirational rather than inspirational. I hope that we hear some commitments to some of the aspirations from the Minister.
The third paragraph of the statement states that,
"we would undertake a solemn obligation to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbours".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, I believe that that leaves us with a duty not only to the neighbours but to the population of Iraq.
208
The document states:
"The Iraqi people deserve to be lifted from insecurity and tyranny… We envisage a…territorial integrity… We will work to prevent and repair damage by Saddam Hussein's regime to the natural resources of Iraq and pledge to protect them as a national asset of and for the Iraqi people".
I wonder how that is to be achieved, what is to be the cost, and under what government. It took the Americans 12 years to get out of Japan after the last world war, and it took us 50 years to unite Germany. It troubles me that so little has been thought and said on this matter until so late in the programme.
What sort of organisation for a government of Iraq would be brought in under the aegis of the United Nations? As regards the commitment to support an international reconstruction programme, where is the budget for that? Indeed, where was the American budget for Afghanistan? It depressed me to note that the Azores statement mentioned Afghanistan as an example. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, it is not a very good example to mention, particularly as the Americans forgot until the last moment to include it in their budget at all for the current fiscal year. We need to do better than that.
I trust that the people of Iraq will not be subjected to the continuing damage which was done in previous wars not just by mines but also by cluster bombs. I thought that I had heard an undertaking from Her Majesty's Government that cluster bombs would not be used in future. But on television within the past 24 hours I have seen a huge thing being winched into an airplane and heard the commentator say, "This is a cluster bomb being loaded into an airplane for use in this war". That really must be stopped if we are not to have countless children—we should not forget that half the population of Iraq comprises children—walking around on one foot. That is unthinkable.
My remaining questions concern the resources for the enormous cost of rebuilding the fabric of Iraq once the new government are established. I notice that the Secretary-General is to be given authority on an interim basis to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people continue to be met through the oil-for-food programme. Is that indefinite? What other aid is proposed? The summit statement further states:
"Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary".
I should like to know how temporary. We have a government who are always setting themselves targets—they do not always meet them but they are always setting them—and trying to meet them. I should like to know what the target is for the exit from Iraq.
In war it is difficult not to build a shell around one to prevent oneself becoming too moved by what is happening. But we have to remember with compassion the people of Iraq who suffered horrors under tyranny. We must ensure that they do not suffer horrors after a war due to munitions being left behind or through internecine strife between the various cultures in that country which initially we helped to form.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I was unfortunately unable to be present in your Lordships' House for our previous debate on this subject. Indeed, had I been here I would have been more vigorous in my questioning of the Government's strategy than I intend to be this evening. What has changed since then is that we can no longer be in any doubt: our troops are indeed going to war.
As the events of the past few months have unfolded, I have become increasingly concerned about the British and American Governments' quickening march to conflict. Why now? Why, after 12 years of waiting, has the decision been made to strike in March 2003? What has changed? I am still awaiting a clear answer to those questions.
Why do the United States and the United Kingdom feel so threatened at this particular point in time, while France, Germany and, indeed, many of Iraq's neighbouring states which were part of the international coalition in 1991 do not?
Why have our Government decided to put their previously strong relations with many of our key European allies at risk over this issue? And linked to that, why have our Government placed themselves in a position where they have had to choose between their commitment to the United Nations and their friendship with the United States? Why has the United States won?
I should like to have heard convincing answers from our Government to those and a number of related questions. But that has not happened and it is unlikely to happen before the war begins. So where does that leave me? Put simply, it leaves me in a position of support for our troops and, curiously enough, in support of the Prime Minister.
If the impending war is short—and I know that all your Lordships hope that that will be the case—we shall soon be in a position to conclude whether Mr Blair's judgment over this crisis has been sound. The Prime Minister and his key Cabinet colleagues are in possession of many more facts, particularly related to intelligence matters, than I or other noble Lords. It is also obvious that he passionately believes that what lie is doing is right. Although over the past six years I have not always agreed with his decisions relating to Northern Ireland, I have rarely doubted his sincerity. The current crisis has also demonstrated to me that he is—or can be, at least—a conviction politician. His conviction in this instance is that, for the good of our nation, Saddam must now be disarmed. I respect the Prime Minister for that.
We have reached the stage where it appears that the only way in which that objective can and will be achieved is through the use of force. That, of course, puts the lives of our troops at risk and explains why the mood of your Lordships' House tonight is sombre, as quite rightly it should be. Many noble Lords will have seen on television yesterday the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment taking part in a special St Patrick's Day parade in the Kuwaiti desert. They were poignant scenes. The 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, comprising about 800 soldiers, is part of 16 Air Assault Brigade.
210
However, they are only part of the Ulster contingent currently operating in the Gulf. More than 300 soldiers from the Irish Guards are with the 7th Armoured Brigade. There are approximately 150 reserve personnel, of whom more than 60 rangers are directly deployed with the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment.
There are a number of additional service personnel currently in the Gulf, including my own son, of whom I am intensely proud. He is serving in the headquarters of the 1st (UK) Armoured Division. Other regulars and reservists from Northern Ireland are serving in the RAF, the Royal Navy, the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines. I understand that it is the first time since the Suez crisis—possibly since the Second World War—that the Territorial Army has been called up on this scale. Those of us from the 2,000 Northern Irish families who have sons or daughters currently in theatre are very proud of the role that they are playing and will no doubt continue to play in the days that lie ahead. They face difficult times. Some may even face death. The least that all responsible politicians should give them and their colleagues at this stage, therefore, is our total and complete support.
This is the most significant debate to which I have contributed in my four years in your Lordships' House. Like so many noble Lords, I have had some difficulty in coming to a view on the important matters before us this evening. After weighing up all the necessary considerations, I have decided to pledge my backing to the Government's actions. However, if Mr Blair's judgment proves to be flawed, I will return to the questions that I posed at the opening of my remarks—but next time I will demand answers.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, when I last spoke on Iraq in our debate on 26th February, I said that I was totally opposed to war but still felt that it was not inevitable and that something would happen to enable the problems to be settled peacefully. The omens were not good, however. The rhetoric from Washington was bellicose, but we were told that the United States had been persuaded to go the United Nations route. Some of us suspected that American intentions were simply to get the UN to give authority for war rather than to seek a peaceful outcome. Unfortunately, we have been proved right. I cannot regard the Azores meeting as anything other than an expensive charade. It was clear that President Bush had already decided on war.
I also now believe what I suspected originally: that the crisis is not about disarmament. It has always been about regime change, and the occupation of Iraq by US forces. Regime change is not provided for in the United Nations charter, and nor is pre-emptive action. There has been a lot of fuss about a second UN resolution, and clearly a great deal of arm-twisting has gone on behind the scenes, with much in the way of threats, intimidation and, frankly, attempted bribery.

211
It says a great deal for the leaders of other countries in the UN that those blandishments have been resisted, for the second resolution was not really about a peaceful solution at all. It was designed as authority for war.
The way in which the French have been reviled for threatening to use the veto is extremely distasteful and does not augur well for future EU relations. Resolution 1441 was not authority for war. Had it been, they would not have signed up for it. Their line has been consistent, as has been that of the Russians. They were not prepared to rush into war. The inspectors were having some success and wanted to continue their work. Most sensible people would say, "Why not let them continue?"
Our Government and the US have constantly said that Saddam Hussein is not disarming but defying the United Nations. We are told that Iraq has had 12 years in which to disarm, and that there have been 17 resolutions. That is cited as though nothing had happened in those years, instead of which there were punitive sanctions that resulted in the impoverishment of much of the country, and constant overflights by our and the US's air forces, ostensibly to protect the No Fly Zones, but also to bomb Iraqi installations. There has been no UN authorisation for those bombing raids; they are a breach of the UN charter.
For a large part of the 12 years, there were inspections and some inspectors report that a great deal of material was destroyed during that time. When those inspectors left in 1998, there were complaints from the Iraqis that they included in their number some CIA and Israeli spies, which was later confirmed by one inspector. We then had Operation Desert Fox: intensive bombing raids on Iraq. The idea that nothing happened during those 12 years and that Saddam Hussein simply got away with it is absurd. Then France, Germany and Russia offered an alternative plan for the solution of any existing problems by peaceful means. That was rejected by ourselves and the Americans.
We are now into a war that most of the world's population does not want. There have been demonstrations against it even in the United States. There is very strong opposition in this country, despite overwhelming support in the media. Only two of the major daily newspapers in this country—and those with minority readership—support opposition to the war. Despite that, the feeling against it remains very strong. That is true throughout Europe. In France and Germany, there is massive opposition to the war. That largely accounts for the attitude of the leaders of those countries. In Spain, despite the presence at the Azores meeting of Mr Aznar, there is also very strong opposition.
I do not believe that those in this country who are in favour of war fully understand the revulsion that many of us feel or the reasons for it. We are accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, or else of appeasement, as if a minor dictator of a broken, battered country that has been reduced to third-world level can
212
somehow be compared with Hitler. Those who make such comments are too young to have experienced those days or else know no history.
It is sometimes forgotten that we have already seen wars on television quite recently. I did not feel happy about the bombing of Serbia, with the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium on civilians, and I said so in this House. Then we had Afghanistan, with daisy-cutter bombs and the loss of civilian life. We therefore have some idea of what awaits the unfortunate population of Iraq. "Shock and awe", it is now called: a massive bombardment. It is likely that Saddam Hussein will escape—leaders often do—but the unfortunate population will not. Those not killed in the bombing may die later, as a result of depleted uranium, poisoned water supplies, lack of food supplies or the sheer misery of homelessness. I support the call of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, this evening for cluster bombs to be outlawed so far as this war is concerned. Quite right. I do not believe in "smart" bombs, either. High explosive dropped on urban areas kills.
I do not understand the logic of those who say that we should liberate the unfortunate people of Iraq because of what they suffer under Saddam Hussein. To bomb people to extinction has always seemed to me to be a very odd way of liberating them. Modern warfare is a way of dishing out capital punishment to masses of people in a quite indiscriminate way.
War should be a last resort, but it is not in this case. We had the opportunity with the suggestions made by other council members but we have not taken them up. We have decided to support the war plans and the war programme of President Bush. We are threatening war not because Iraq is strong but because it is weak. I have no doubt that the war will be won—the forces against Iraq are overwhelming—but at what cost? I deeply regret that we are in this situation tonight.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, liberation of your Lordships' House, if not of Iraq, is at hand. I am the last speaker.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Desai: My Lords, well, I am the last speaker from the Back Benches. I refer to those of us who are not paid to speak. Sorry about that!
This is my third speech in the past 21 days on this question and I do not want to repeat too much. I have been for the war in Iraq on the grounds of the human rights violations that Saddam Hussein has practised on his own people. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, and my noble friend Lord Hardy expressed that view very eloquently today, and therefore I need not go into the subject any further.
We had a debate yesterday about the legal situation. I say to my noble friend Lady Turner, whom I respect very much, that if she wants to know the legal arguments for everything that has happened over the past 12 years—the bombing, and so on—she has only to read the report of the debate.

213
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has always said that he was ready to go to war in the absence of a second resolution. I remember hearing him make that point on the "Newsnight" programme a few weeks ago. He has always made that clear and has never hidden the fact. He always added a caveat. Whenever he was asked, "Would you go only with a second resolution?", he always said, "No, there is a caveat".
The Prime Minister said that there were circumstances under which he would take action even if there were no second resolution. He mentioned the example of an unreasonable veto. But I believe that he always meant to pursue the course that he has taken and that he has not simply been driven there by the United States. He has done so through his own conviction, which, I believe, is that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to exist for much longer. The problem must be solved in the interests of our security but, more than that, in the interests of the people of Iraq.
Today, I want to concentrate on the future shape of Iraq. Several noble Lords have said that the integrity of Iraq is very important. That is a good point to make, but I want to go a little further. Although Iraq will be maintained as it is, I hope that it will be a much looser federation than it has been thus far, especially so far as concerns the Kurds in the north. By spilling much of their own blood, they have created for themselves an autonomous region that allows their people far greater freedom and far greater prosperity than that enjoyed in the rest of Iraq. Those of us who know that should value what they have created.
In a sense, I am somewhat relieved that the Turkish Parliament decided not to take part in this campaign—that is what I understand unless matters have changed in the past four or five hours—as I believe that it would further ensure the autonomy of the Kurds in the north. I hope that when a new democratic Iraq is established, as I have no doubt will be the case, it will be a broad, loose federation with a great deal of autonomy for the different cultures and peoples of Iraq. That will be possible only in a democracy; it will not be possible under the current regime and has not been possible for the past 35 years.
I believe that there will be humanitarian problems, as has been emphasised by several noble Lords. But there are two differences compared with the situation in Afghanistan. One is that Iraq is—or, at least, used to be—a middle-income country. It has been ruined but it is a middle-income country and revenue from oil will eventually help to finance some of the humanitarian reconstruction. Some of the money may have been spent but it can be recovered. Therefore, I believe that, although difficult, the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq will probably be far quicker and easier than has been the case in many other situations.
I also believe that the issue in relation to Iraq is not so much what we do in Iraq but what we do about ourselves. Three things follow from that. I have only three minutes left in which to speak and so shall give a minute to each of them.
214
First, I do not believe that we can delay the reform of the United Nations for much longer. I talked about UN reform long before this debate started. The United Nations was created for a situation in 1945 which no longer exists. The Cold War helped it to continue as it was, but its arrangements—especially the structure of voting on the Security Council—are not feasible. I have advocated qualified majority voting in this House. I believe that before long we shall have to rethink the voting procedures on the Security Council. Unless the United Nations can improve its ways of operating, we shall get into such problems again and again and, as I pointed out yesterday, people will constantly defy the will of the United Nations.
Secondly, I refer to the European Union. I never thought that a foreign policy pillar was ever very strong. It did not work in Yugoslavia. We have to remember that Germany's recognition of Croatia and what the French did with Serbia was at the beginning of the Yugoslav conflict, and that owed some of its elements to the divisions within the European Union. There is no single foreign policy pillar. I hope that in the convention people rethink how we shall reconstruct the European Union. The old federalist dream, to which, I confess, I was very attached, is no longer feasible. We shall have to have a much loser, differential geometry, or a multiple-tier Europe. It would be difficult now to pretend that the Union will have a single foreign policy.
Finally, I also believe that NATO has reached the end of its useful life. It will have to be re-organised, perhaps with a different membership and a different purpose. Perhaps it will have to shift further towards eastern Europe. However, I believe that what has happened as regards NATO shows that it is no longer possible for it to carry on as in the past.
I should like to see a new United Nations, in which only democratic countries are members. It is time that we said that countries which violate human rights will not be allowed to be members of the United Nations. I hope that from this conflict we get a better United Nations, if that is the only thing we get.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, as noble Lords would expect, this has been a good but sombre debate on one of the most difficult topics we are likely to have to consider. The decision to move to military action in a democracy is probably the most difficult for any state to take. We are grateful to the Government for the opportunity to discuss this important topic in this House as well as in another place.
In this House, unlike in another place, despite the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, it is not our custom to end with a vote. But if those who follow our debates—I see there are not many from the public prints—read what has been said they will discover that voices have been raising doubts and questions about this policy but have been unanimous on one point. Whatever our doubts, once our forces go into action—I shall return to this point—we must support them.

215
I am told by one of my noble friends that it is one thing to make a speech in this House, but if one wants to have it noticed in the Foreign Office, one has to have it translated into a foreign newspaper. Then, within a day or two, one receives a complimentary letter from a Foreign Office Minister; not the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, but one of her colleagues from another place.
I have not spoken in the earlier debates, although I have listened to them all, and am grateful to have this opportunity. I am also grateful not to have spoken earlier as, I suspect like some other Members of your Lordships' House, I have spent much of the past six months arguing with myself about what is the correct position to take on this extremely difficult decision. However, like many now, having seen the events of the past month or two and particularly of the past few weeks, I feel that this period has represented a tragic failure of diplomacy. That was brought to our attention by the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, who knows the process of diplomacy professionally as well as anyone else in the House, and by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, on the failure of the United States to succeed in its diplomacy in persuading the rest of the international community to accept its word. But for me the point was made particularly powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who in an extraordinarily impressive, but desperately depressing speech, reported just how difficult it was to understand the policies of the current American Administration.
That failure in diplomacy occurred in a number of capitals—a failure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, once referred to as too much "megaphone diplomacy". But there was also a failure to assess correctly the position of the other actors and there was a lack of discussion on these critical issues at the highest levels among members of the European Union. I am depressed by the fact that when, less than a year ago, I asked about how much discussion there had been in the appropriate committees of the European Union on this subject, I was told, "Oh, no, we have not talked about that. We put it into the 'too difficult' basket". I happen to believe in the European Union. But if it puts issues such as Iraq into the "too difficult" basket, it will be criticised, as it has been in many respects.
There has clearly been a failure of French diplomacy, for which President Chirac has been over-criticised, but has been also legitimately criticised. It has also been a failure of others. There have been serious failures both in the diplomatic actions of individual states, to which my noble friend Lord Watson referred, and also at the workings of international institutions. There will be a need in due course to examine carefully what went wrong and what are the lessons we need to learn.
In coming today to judge whether the Government were right to reach the decision yesterday to use military force, we must decide whether the potential costs of such a decision outweigh the potential benefits and whether there were alternative policies available
216
where the net outcome might have been satisfactory. That is not necessarily only the rather polarised choice which the Lord Privy Seal set out in his initial remarks. It is not a choice about doing this and doing nothing and running away. There were a range of choices. We should be careful not to caricature that range. But all the other options were in fact vetoed by the United States. There was in this sense an unreasonable veto which led us into this situation. I think we should not overlook that.
Having said that, I can understand the position of President Bush who, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, made clear in his intervention last night, in the post September 11th situation is now ready, in a way in which none of his predecessors were, to implement the resolutions on Iraq which the Security Council has adopted. I understand why the president feels that if there is a risk of weapons of mass destruction being transferred to terrorists who might use them against the United States, this problem must be dealt with.
The Lord Privy Seal was quite right in his contribution to refer to that as a possibility. Unfortunately, the President of the United States in his remarks last night suggested that it was already accomplished. The situation is not yet as clear as that.
I can also understand the Prime Minister's position. Perfectly understandably, he feels that in an uncertain world, the maintenance of this country's relationship with the United States is of critical importance. But I share the caveats of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the costs and risks of pushing that relationship too far.
We supported the efforts of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, our Diplomatic Service, in ensuring that the United Nations is at the centre of our policies. We have accepted the need for coercive diplomacy—combining the return of the UNMOVIC inspectors and the deployment of armed forces, which, as the noble Lord, Lord King, made clear, was an essential precondition for the inspectors' success. In spite of the problems, that has in substantial part been successful. In that, I share the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
Where we disagree with the Government is on whether, at this moment, it was right to bring that process to an end by introducing what we consider a precipitate resolution. They were then unable to achieve a majority and. indeed, risked vetoes even if a qualified majority of nine could have been achieved in the Security Council, which is not clear.
We regret yesterday's decision, because the premature use of force with dubious legitimacy, little support in the Commonwealth—as far as I know, only Australia supports it—a seriously divided European Union and a marginalised United Nations, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said, is a serious mistake. Our judgment is that the potential costs and consequences in the region in the fight with global terrorism—the costs to international institutions, which have been so important in creating an international society during the past half century, and to international order more generally—will outweigh the benefits of that action.

217
Having said that, with today's debate we have reached the point at which these debates on jus ad bellum must be suspended for the period of the hostilities. However, we must also give notice that, when the hostilities are over, we shall need to return to them to inquire into the various diplomatic, legal and moral issues that we have discussed today and yesterday.
Within days, our forces will be in action, and our first concern will of course be with our Armed Forces and their families—in particular, in the family of this House, with our colleagues, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who is appropriately enough serving as Major Attlee in Kuwait, and with the son of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, who is also serving. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, whatever our views of how we have reached the decision, our troops will have our support. We hope that their tasks will be swiftly concluded, with the minimum casualties on all sides.
Opening the debate for the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he could not understand why we on these Benches could question the legitimacy of the decision to go to war—the issue of jus ad bellum, which we discussed yesterday—and still give our support to our forces when war occurs. My noble friend Lady Williams replied to that, but I suggest that our position is little different from that of the noble Lord. Lord Hurd of Westwell, whose article M last Friday's Evening Standard was cited last night by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, wrote:
"On balance I believe that a pre-emptive war against Iraq would he wrong and in the long-term unwise".
But he then added:
"But once British forces are in action the position changes for me… At that point, people like me shut up and hope that our rears were misguided".
If the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, can understand this position, I am sorry that the Opposition Front Bench cannot understand the position that we have taken.
When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred in his intervention to Suez, I was reminded of he fact that I completed my national service and left HMS "Eagle" in Malta in September 1956, six weeks before the Suez operation. Many of my colleagues served in the operation. That act of folly by a British government led me to realise the case for international institutions and the United Nations. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, with whom I have worked on those issues ever since those days, reminded me of that also.
For a third of a century, since I entered the House of Commons, I have believed that there is no contradiction between being a good European and a good Atlanticist. The past few weeks have been a challenge both to transatlantic co-operation and to the partnership that we are developing with the other countries of the European Union. That was made clear by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Whatever our views about the recent decisions, in the
218
interests of establishing future peace and stability in the world, we need to think about how we can rebuild an effective international system—the international structures of international co-operation that have been so harmed by the events of the past few weeks.
The issue, therefore, of post-war planning must be central to our concerns in the immediate future. My noble friend Lady Northover and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke a good deal about post-war planning for Iraq. I was glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal said on the role that the Government were trying to ensure that the United Nations would play. But, given the alienation of our partners in the United Nations—several noble Lords referred to this—it will not necessarily he as easy to bring the United Nations in to "do the dishes" as is sometimes suggested.
We must also address two other aspects of post-war planning. The first is the wider issue of post-war planning in the Middle East. The acceleration in the publication of the road map is one of the benefits of recent developments. Let us hope that it is not merely cosmetic, and that it will be accepted by all involved, in actions as well as words.
Perhaps the most important of the three aspects is post-war planning for the future of the international system and international institutions, which the noble Lord. Lord Desai, raised. The United Nations will remain. Nobody can afford to let it fail. The European Union will remain. Nobody can afford to let it go. But we need to re-examine how we could learn from the mistakes made so that both can be more powerful in future. That cannot wait until the end of hostilities. Such planning must be engaged now. This House, with the range of expertise displayed in our debates in recent weeks, has a particular contribution to make.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, listening to this fascinating debate, I have been scratching my head and trying to think how the cascade of expertise and experience that noble Lords bring to debates of this sort could best help the national interest and best add real value to public debate, understanding and confidence at this crucial time. The noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, is right that, although there is a fine balance, probably a minority of speakers in this debate fully support the Government's policy. The majority, although they expressed strong support for our troops in action—I thank our Liberal Democrat colleagues for making that clear—have been more doubtful or sceptical about the Government's policy. It may not reflect the opinion of your Lordships' House as a whole but it has been the case in this debate. That must be faced. In a sense, the question of whether one is for or against has been overtaken. The die is now cast and our troops are about to enter into hostilities.
We are and have chosen to be an advisory Chamber. Understandably, tonight all eyes are on another place, the elected Chamber. What can we bring to this defining moment for our country and for the world, now that the military operations—I prefer not to call

219
them "war" in the usual sense—are beginning? In a few minutes, as we close the debate, I shall elaborate on some of the areas in which we can contribute and in which our debates have contributed to the pool of wisdom.
First, there is the central question, to which your Lordships have returned again and again, of whether there is a threat and, if so, how we define and explain that threat. Some of us have insisted all along that that is the key to justifying pre-emptive intervention and to persuading a distinctly doubting public that the case has been made for a military intervention. Mr Cook, who resigned yesterday, is a colourful character and a superb speaker. In his resignation speech he said that he could see no threat. Many noble Lords have said the same thing: they cannot see that there is an imminent threat, and ask why there should be an attack on Iraq. I agree not with that view but with the view that the case for the threat and the explanation of why we need to move urgently have not been well made. All sorts of arguments have been paraded, as some of your Lordships have observed. I think that it was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who said that the argument had changed too often to be reassuring and persuasive. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde also made that clear.
That was in the past. Today, things changed a little. This morning the Prime Minister made a fine speech. He had a lot to say about the issue of the threat. His speeches get better and better. I hope that I am not imagining it, but one reason might be that phrases and sentiments uttered a week or two back in your Lordships' House have tended to turn up in the Prime Minister's speeches. Perhaps we are making a contribution in the right place.
This morning the Prime Minister said that Iraq presented a clear and present danger and a threat to this nation and our society, as well as to our interests and the wider interests of global security. He said that Iraq supported, financed and trained terrorists. I believe that that is right. Such matters should have been at the forefront of the case that was being made for the policy on Iraq. I know that there are those who do not believe that or do not want to believe it. They say that such assertions are not proof. Such exchanges could go on for ever, but the Prime Minister was right to put that argument now. Perhaps he should have put it at the centre of things before now.
The second issue is legality, with which your Lordships dealt last night. I fear that we sent out a bit of a mixed message. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Rees-Mogg, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Desai and Lord Hardy of Wath, that the humanitarian case for intervention is a lot stronger than some of the legalists allow. If we bring into the judgment that element of common sense and consider the wider context that the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, mentioned last night, we reach a more sensible and sober conclusion than if we concentrate on narrow legal niceties.
220
Thirdly, the Prime Minister spoke this morning about the divisions that had sprung up in Europe. He said—I think that he was right—that behind the quarrels and the views adopted by Paris and Berlin appeared to lie what he called the fallacy in some European minds that the world was divided into two rival poles of power and could be organised on that basis. I am glad that the Prime Minister now sees things that way and sees what we see. It is indeed a fallacy, leading to much cant and hype about Europe's voice in the world and the need for Europe as an entity to strut on the world stage. To me, that is chilling language. I am glad that the Prime Minister and, presumably, the Government now see the dangers of that kind of perspective. Perhaps I may put in one sharp note of criticism: I do not understand why the Prime Minister believes that now, but I am glad that he does. He spoke about Europe as a "super power". Why did he ever let a speech writer put that phrase into his famous Warsaw speech? But he did and I am pleased that apparently he has changed his mind.
No one can deny that the forceful comments made by Mr Chirac have hindered the efforts to achieve the second resolution. For the moment, France, through its excessive outspokenness and criticism, has forfeited its leadership in Europe. That is especially so not so much because of the veto promise, but because of the very uncouth attacks on the smaller nations of Europe, which were and are dangerous and have done enormous damage.
Nevertheless, we must understand some of the reasons why the French think the way in which they do. We must not forget that there are 5 million Muslims in their country. They have a real wish, as we all have, for stability throughout the Arab world and the Maghreb. If only on this point, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that too much France-bashing and trading of insults will get us nowhere. Some of the Foreign Office and official Government utterances on this matter should be calmed down. The truth is that when the pieces fall into place again, we and France—our nearest neighbour—will always need each other and will have to work together.
Fourthly, there is the question of the conduct of the war. This morning the newspapers carried a chilling story that our pilots will have to take legal advice on targets before they drop a single bomb. We want to know from the Government today—a question that I and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde have raised—how developments in international law have changed the way in which the fighting will he conducted. I asked yesterday about the Rome statute and the International Criminal Court, which is now open for business. My noble friend repeated the request earlier today.
Now that war crimes are on our own statute book, listed in great detail, could our fighting men, generals and, indeed, the policymakers be exposed to a cat's cradle of new legal restraints which might seriously impede them? We need to know about that. We cannot just push it aside. I know that yesterday the noble Baroness did not have time to address that central issue but I hope that she will have time today.

221
The question of Turkey is central. It has not been mentioned to a great extent in our debate—although I believe that my noble friend Lord Onslow mentioned it in a slightly different context, as did the noble Lord, Lord Desai. We should like to know what has gone wrong. How can we disentangle the Kurdish worry? There are 13 million Kurds in Turkey and another 4.5 million in northern Iraq. The Kurds are terrified of the Turks and the Turks are terrified of Kurdish independence which might lead to the carving up of their own country. It seems that a great deal of experience and diplomacy of the kind that this country is rather good at needs to be deployed rapidly there if matters are not to get worse rather than better.
There is the question—perhaps the most important in your Lordships' minds and the one on which there has been the most comment—about the aftermath of the war and the rehabilitation of Iraq. I think that it is now government policy—perhaps we shall learn in a moment—that there should be a United Nations trust fund into which the revenues of Iraq's present oil flows should go. Of course, with proper repair and attention after hostilities, the output of oil from Iraq would be raised from, say, 2 million barrels per day to anything up to 4 or 5 million barrels per day. I believe that 4.7 million barrels is one target figure. That would put Iraq almost in the top league—in the range of Saudi Arabia in terms of prosperity and revenues. That would raise very important problems and opportunities for the ways in which that enormous flow of wealth could be used to the benefit of Iraq.
Those are important questions which require more thought from us all. I do not expect answers from the Government tonight. But we must start to think about how Iraq is to be managed and governed, and how the military will detach themselves, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, rightly questioned. There can be no doubt that the prize of having a prosperous and benign Iraq in the centre of the Middle East region instead the present poison source which for decades has devastated and destabilised the entire region is absolutely enormous.
Much could go wrong. We have heard the long list: the tiring of oil wells; the destruction of the Tigris dam; possible refugee flows; destabilisation of neighbouring countries; more terrorism and more anti-Americanism. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe reminded us, and as did my right honourable friend John Major, the former Prime Minister, those are all possibilities. But I would say to those who put too much emphasis on the negative possibilities that some of them are already features of the Middle East. I have seen burning oil wells in the Al Burgen oilfield. It is a terrible sight and smells so evil that one has to wear a mask because it is impossible to breath in the fumes. However, at least in Kuwait the wells were swiftly capped and restored—much more swiftly than had been suggested by the pessimists.
Instead of mournful lists, now that the die is cast I prefer to view the situation as an opportunity to move on towards a much bigger diplomacy, one that engages the nations of the world in a combined effort to solve the Israel/Palestine problem in ways that almost
222
everyone except the immediate participants has now agreed. Apparently the Israeli Government still do not understand the point. That higher diplomacy demands a combined effort to corral North Korea, which will take much more than America acting alone. We need to make Iran think again about its illegal nuclear weapons programme, which could be very dangerous.
Furthermore, we need a diplomacy that could restore the non-proliferation treaty before it crumbles completely and would cage terrorism wherever it springs up. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, hinted, that diplomacy would bring Russia and perhaps even China—under their fast-changing government they now have a completely new team in Beijing—into the consortium of global governance. That is where minds should turn as we watch the unfolding situation.
Above all, here in London we need to take a lead in the rebalanced and less centralised Europe than the one that existed before the Franco-German detachment. We also need to rebuild transatlantic relations, probably on a totally new basis. Perhaps we even need to seek reform of the United Nations itself, as was ambitiously suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
As friends, we can say to the United States what critics and anti-Americans cannot necessarily voice; namely, that it never was on the cards for the US that it could or should go it alone. The noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Watson, were very interesting on US attitudes, having been to Washington. I believe that it would have been disastrous for the Americans to have gone down that route and unthinkable for us not to stand beside them now that they are moving forward.
It is important not only for us to be beside them; now there is a growing list of other allies, including Australia and Poland. I believe that shortly the list will grow very much longer. Outside of immediate military help there is of course Japan, which is extremely supportive. When the numbers are added up in terms of population, over half of the enlarged Europe has declared for the coalition.
Globalisation and interdependence mean what they imply: that in this network age no power, not even the mighty America, can go it alone or act without allies. We should not be shy of saying that to the Americans, even those of us who support them so strongly. Why is that? Because of the asymmetry of terror and because intelligence is the key to success. Here in the United Kingdom we have two centuries of experience in that area which other countries lack. Furthermore, as America discovered, size is vulnerable and weight of arms is not everything. Indeed, dominance and size may escalate terror, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested in a fascinating intervention.
That is a message which noble Lords could find worth sending to our American friends as they embark, with what I hope is now our full support, on yet another fight for a freer and safer world. Indeed, there is no better way of sending that message than by

223
wishing our own troops, fighting alongside their troops, every blessing and success in the long days and dangerous nights that lie immediately ahead.
9.5 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, this has been an important and sombre debate at a time of enormous international and domestic importance. Probably for many of us it is the most important debate in which we have participated. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has a clear and direct reason for his concern. We send his son and all the other sons and daughters, all the other husbands and wives and all the other loved ones—including our own colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, now Major Attlee—our warm support, admiration and good wishes.
I am sure that I speak for everyone in the Government, in this House and in the whole country when I say that this is a moment that we hoped we would not reach; a moment that my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and many others, have worked immensely hard to avoid through our huge diplomatic effort.
The debate has highlighted many clear differences, which have been expressed many times before in your Lordships' House, on how the international community should respond to the threat posed by Iraq. But let me begin by referring to the area of much greater agreement across all the contributions made today. For all the intensity of our debate today one matter has been striking—that is, the breadth of agreement that the Iraqi regime is evil, cruel and has palpably failed to disarm and meet a series of UN obligations placed on it.
The key questions raised by your Lordships in the debate and in previous discussions are about whether we have really exhausted all possibilities except that of armed conflict; about the legality of any military action; about the legal position of those engaged in any conflict; about the immediate impact on Iraq itself; about the longer-term issues of rebuilding that country; about the effect on our broader international relationships, including the Middle East peace process; and about whether or not the conflict is morally justifiable. By that I mean not whether it is legal or whether the timing is right, but whether in and of itself it is the right thing to do. I shall now do my best to answer some of those points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to weapons of mass destruction and questioned the issue of the means of delivery. She was echoing a point made yesterday by my right honourable friend Robin Cook. I refer her—and, indeed, my right honourable friend—to the 173-page document from Hans Blix entitled Unresolved Disarmament Issues. The noble Baroness will find that it is not correct to say that Iraqi WMDs do not pose a strategic threat or that there is no missile capability. There are up to 20 al-Hussein missiles. With a range of 650 kilometres, they are capable of reaching Jerusalem, Nicosia, Tehran and Riyadh. UNMOVIC has been unable to account for 50 CBW warheads for these terror weapons.
224
As we know from before—I shall not go into the details—there are thousands of chemical and biological bombs. But let me return to means of delivery. There are the aerial spray devices for chemical and biological weapons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. There are the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, which have a range of just under 200 kilometres and are capable of delivering weapons to parts of Turkey and Saudi Arabia and to all of Kuwait.
Iraq has never come clean on its UAV programme but has admitted in the past to investigating the use of drones to deliver CBW. Earlier this month, the inspectors found a large drone called the Al Mussayara 30A which Iraq never declared. There are numerous other examples in the document.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is right—150 inspectors simply will not find the weapons of mass destruction in a country the size of France. Indeed, it was not their job to do so. It was the job of the Iraqi regime to co-operate and it was the inspectors' job to verify what they were told, as clearly pointed out by my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath.
The threat of Iraq is now a clear danger to our society, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, rightly reminded us. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks about my right honourable friend's speeches getting better and better. I am sure they will go on doing so.
Let us turn to the point about whether the diplomatic course has come to a closure. This was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and my noble friend Lady Turner. We discussed the position of France and whether, in relation to all UN routes, we have now exhausted negotiations. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that she had spoken to the French embassy today; they told her that the veto was not absolute and should he seen in the context of timing.
This is a very important point. President Chirac said that he would veto quelque soit les circonstances—whatever the circumstances. As the noble Baroness would expect, there have been a number of conversations across the Channel on this point. As I understand it, President Chirac would talk about timing—the noble Baroness is quite right. He would talk about tests, but he would not talk about the authority to use force, the very point at issue, the credible threat of which he is recorded as saying was so important in getting inspectors back into Iraq. I am not French-bashing; I simply am trying to answer the point that the noble Baroness put so passionately. Instead of UNSCR 1441 and another period of looking at what possibilities lay ahead and then, if warranted, through non-cooperation, going ahead with the military option, we would be back to a position of perpetual negotiation. In our view, that was unreasonable. As my noble friend Lord MacKenzie said, it left us no scope for negotiation. I thought his analysis was entirely right on that point. We either retreat from 1441 or we go ahead with the second resolution—or, rather, the eighteenth resolution.

225
The danger of inaction must be clear: no one, including the French, thinks that we would have got this far with inspections were it not for having 250,000 troops in the region. The real choice was and is: back away from 1441, entered into four-and-a-half short months ago, or face up to what it says.
I believe our friends in France may have meant well, but we now face the position where negotiation is beyond our reach. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, and others have been right—it is a failure of diplomacy. That much is self-evident. Those harshest of judges, time and history, will no doubt apportion blame.
The legal issues were initially raised by my noble friend Lord Richard, who said that there was a variety of opinions on the legal question. That is true. But he went on to quote from only one of your Lordships in the debate last night, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He might have quoted from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, a former Attorney-General. In the end, divisions of legal opinion on international law are nothing new. But the Attorney-General has had access to all information and he has delivered a clear view. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that he has said it is legal. I advise all your Lordships to read the second FCO paper in the Printed Paper Office which gives some more background.
Let me also say to my noble friend Lord Richard that we never said a second resolution did not matter. We wanted a second resolution very much indeed. It was politically desirable, but it was never legally essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and my noble friend Lord Desai said. If I may say so, I thought that my noble friend Lord Richard over-egged his pudding. No one doubts the importance we attach to that second resolution—or eighteenth resolution, depending on how you look at it. No one could have worked harder to attain that resolution. It was enormously important to us politically but not legally. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater. My noble friend Lord Richard seemed to set on one side the enormously long history of UN resolutions on Iraq—Chapter 7 on mandatory resolutions, beginning with 660 in August 1990. The noble Lord, Lord King, was right—progress came only when Saddam Hussein really believed that he was facing a credible threat of force. My noble and learned friend Lord Williams laid out the history. There have been five final declarations—every one of them false, every one a story of sustained lying and deceit, every one an example of cynical defiance of the UN.
The legal position was also challenged by my noble friends Lord Judd, Lord Ahmed and Lady Turner. I hope that they will read carefully again both sides of the arguments put. I repeat briefly that UNSCR 687 was suspended but did not terminate the authorisation to use force in UNSCR 678. The formality of acceptance of its terms was not sufficient. Iraq was, and is, required to comply with those terms. My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale was quite right in the view that she put forward. What came out in
226
Resolution 1441 was not the first of the final opportunities; it was the final "final opportunity", as was recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Braman, was quite right. Our forces will be upholding 17 UN Security Council resolutions. The latest, Resolution 1441, was unequivocal in demanding Iraqi cooperation, and in demanding that it was immediate, unconditional and active. On all three counts Iraq has failed.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that this war, if it comes, was never motivated by regime change. Fervently as we may desire that change, it is now, and always has been, about disarmament in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We are quite clear on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right when he said that, although that is the main point, we also wish to see the back of that regime for its support of terrorism, for its appalling humanitarian record and for the threat it poses to its neighbours and to world peace.
What is the legal framework for those fighting? I was asked that question by the noble Lord and by his noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Military planning is very careful to minimise civilian casualties. The planning and action of our forces will take full account of the requirements and obligations of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva conventions and The Hague regulations.
But that has been true since the emergence of this body of law. It is true today; it will be true tomorrow. The Government's signature to and ratification of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court—the point that particularly concerned the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—and our full support of the ICC do not in any way change the obligations that we have had in our Armed Forces to act in accordance with international humanitarian law.
I turn to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont—and I thank them for their remarks about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I do believe that the five tests that we have put forward as our compromise—and the sixth added by Hans Blix—were straightforward. Incidentally, I think it is sad that France rejected that compromise even before Iraq had done so.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, raised some of the longer-term questions about Iraq after the conflict. In this he was joined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Wright of Richmond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. These are matters that we have discussed at length. I did so myself when was in Qatar recently.
I will write to all noble Lords on this. I know how much your Lordships are concerned with it. However, perhaps I may make a few brief points. Our work is aimed at helping to minimise the risk of humanitarian suffering as well as alleviating it when it occurs. That has guided all our planning.

227
In the event of a conflict in Iraq, the DfID would have two humanitarian roles. One will be to help to advise the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces on how best to discharge their humanitarian responsibilities under The Hague and the Geneva conventions. The other is to use the funds, expertise and influence available to the department to support the direct delivery of impartial humanitarian assistance by the international humanitarian community.
There have been discussions with a number of different agencies. But I stress to your Lordships that it is likely that in the first stages of any conflict UN agencies and NGOs would not be fully operational, particularly if there is credible use of chemical and biological weapons. Military forces might have to have the primary responsibility for the initial delivery of humanitarian assistance. They might have to provide secure environments for other organisations to deliver humanitarian assistance. It is important to be clear about this. A great deal will possibly ride on the shoulders of our military in those first few days. But the principles that we apply will be the same as anywhere else. They are not determined by the nature of the conflict or subject to military strategy or diplomatic considerations. We shall respect international humanitarian law and relevant human rights laws and conventions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Ahmed were rightly worried about the humanitarian situation. Iraqi people's lives are perilously fragile. About 60 per cent of the population are now completely dependent on food rationing introduced in the Iran/Iraq war. Almost a third of all the children in the centre and south suffer from chronic malnutrition. In Baghdad-controlled Iraq, the under-five mortality rate has shot up to 131 per 1,000 live births. More than half of the Iraqis living in rural areas have no access to safe water.
The situation is difficult, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lords, Lord Desai, Lord Redesdale, and Lord Howell, were right to concentrate on what will happen in the longer term. We are acting, with the UN, through the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, to try to establish a leading role on the co-ordination of humanitarian activity, including the vital function of pooling and sharing information about priority needs. There is also close liaison, not only with UN agencies, into whose contingency planning we are already feeding, but into the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs in the US Department of Defence, which is now leading American planning on humanitarian issues that would arise in any conflict. We have a secondee to the United States for that issue.
What can we do? We can work to ensure that any military campaign is as swift and carefully targeted as possible; we can work with the UN and the international community, as I have described. We must enable Iraqis to establish their own effective representative government. We must also achieve a swift end to sanctions as soon as Iraq is in compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions. We want
228
also to support Iraq's reintegration into the region and the wider international community. We want to promote increased aid from the international community, promote investment into Iraq's oil industry, and encourage renewed cultural and educational exchanges.
I have spent some time on those issues, as it is important and so many of your Lordships were concerned about it. Many of your Lordships will know about the paper, A Vision fir Iraq, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred and which was published after the meeting in the Azores at the weekend. That paper sets out the kind of programme that I have outlined, which has been agreed with the United States. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I will write to him with detailed answers to the questions that he raised about the Azores paper.
I shall also write to those of your Lordships who raised questions about Afghanistan. Some of your Lordships have continued to exaggerate the problems there, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the situation with many of you, but in the first instance I shall write.
I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about the international coalition that he said was so desirable. Of course, I agree. Many countries—and that is not an exaggeration—have indicated their support. Many say that they will give their support, logistically and possibly militarily as well. That includes countries in Europe, in the region and much further afield. I warmly support the points made on that by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. He is absolutely right.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, was uncharacteristically rather gloomy about the United States. He should judge the administration by its actions, not by its words—or, to put it more accurately, by the words of some of the administration. The United States did choose to go down the UN road; it did work with us and others on UNSCR 1441; it is working with us and others to strengthen UNMOVIC's capacities; it worked with us and others on a further resolution—now, sadly, put beyond our reach.
We now need to work with the US and with others—I assure our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches of that—to ensure and facilitate the work of the UN in the coming months. Kofi Annan has spoken on that matter in the past few days. I remind all your Lordships about the Azores declaration, which says:
"We plan to work in close partnership with international institutions, including with the United Nations".
That statement was agreed only last weekend.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, that the vision must be for an international perspective pursued with determination, professionalism and courage—those were his words. I can, and do, assure the noble Lord that that is a priority. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Roper, that we must turn our minds to how those international relationships can flourish in future.

229
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Blaker, Lord Chan, Lord Wright of Richmond, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the Middle East peace process. Our aim remains a just and lasting peace in the dispute between Israel and her Arab neighbours. That settlement must allow for a secure state of Israel and a viable and secure state of Palestine. Yasser Arafat has nominated the excellent Abu Mazen as the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and the Palestinian Legislative Council met today. It has passed amendments to the Palestinian law required for that appointment. That is a very significant step and a tribute to the value of engagement by the United Kingdom and others. As soon as the appointment of the prime minister is confirmed, we expect immediate publication of the quartet road map. I understand the cynicism of the noble Lord. Lord Wright of Richmond, but this is a step which many of us, including the noble Lord, have wanted for a long time. Whatever its genesis, I welcome it wholeheartedly. However it happened, it is important that it has happened. I believe that it was partly got on its way by our influence.
I turn to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, about Mr Mugabe and North Korea. The noble Lord asked whether what we are doing would be a had example to them. I hope that they will see what is happening and note that some nations are prepared to understand that words mean what they say. I think that not to act would be a far more potent message to North Korea, to Mugabe, to whomsoever. As my noble friend Lord MacKenzie, said, we need to get over the message that tyranny can and will flourish if good men and women look the other way.
Some noble Lords asked about the political challenges of the future. The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Jopling, obviously had a very depressing time when they visited Washington. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, said that he had heard about a nightmare with regard to the possibility of terrorism in United States cities. Does the noble Lord really wonder why that is? It is only 18 months since America really did wake up to precisely that nightmare. The issue, again, is the linkage between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, also mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Howell of Guildford. As the Prime Minister said, there is a strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD. It is a fear which Her Majesty's Government share. Proliferation of WMD in the hands of a state with a history of mass murder and defiance of the UN is truly appalling. The possibility of such weapons leaking into the hands of terrorists is one that we have to guard against as, if that occurs, it will not result in the deaths of 3,000 people but 30,000 or 300,000. That would be a terrible situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was right to say that war is a last resort—a point echoed by my noble friend Lord Judd—but when the noble Lord said that he was ashamed of the Government I say to him that others might be equally ashamed if we did not act. This is the last resort. It could not have been made clearer
230
in Resolution 1441. It was stated there—the final opportunity after 12 years, 17 resolutions, and four and a half months.
I turn to some of the points raised by noble Lords about whether or not the action is right. For 12 years the international community has shown great patience, yet for 12 years the regime has responded with persistent defiance—12 years and 17 resolutions. What is remarkable is not that patience ran out but that it lasted so long. For all those years Saddam has shown himself to be adept at tricks and manoeuvres to divide the world. Each time he succeeds, each time he is further emboldened, each time he is further empowered. There is always the last minute discovery, "Oh, we do have a bomb we overlooked", or that last minute concession, "We shall destroy the al-Samoud weapons". There is always an attempt to buy more time. But it is an attempt, sadly, to do something far more damaging; to sow that awful seed of doubt in the minds of good and decent men and women, the doubt that says, "There is another way. There might be another way out. Let us not resort to force. Let us try one more time". And so the number of resolutions rises from 1990 to 2003 and we try over and over and over again to discover what we always knew, namely, that we are dealing with a liar and a tyrant. What we hoped, namely, that the goal of a peaceful settlement was achievable, was, sadly, all too wrong.
Our purpose is disarmament. But in taking military action I have no doubt that the Iraqi people will be liberated from a life of tyranny and a repression which has imprisoned them for so long. Those were points put forward very movingly by many noble Lords today. Saddam has turned Iraq from a prosperous Arab country of great potential into a poverty stricken nation dependent on food aid and suffering horrible, horrible human rights abuses. In the event of military action and the overthrow of his terrible regime, we shall enable the Iraqi people to reclaim their country, their natural resources and their own future. We shall thereby secure the long-term reconstruction and the renewal of Iraq. I agree strongly with the moral case for action put forward by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. He put his case as powerfully as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, put theirs to the contrary. I believe that my noble friend was right. The United Nations must face up to its responsibilities. I hope that he was right that, as a result of the awful conflict that we face, a new future for Iraq will demonstrate to the UN what should be done.
I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for everything he said, for his visit to the garrison in Colchester and, in particular, for his remarks about the chaplains. His views are different from mine, but I hope that we can both respect the sincerity of our respective positions. We all recognise that in Britain we are fortunate to be served by the highest quality military forces in the world. I am sure that all noble Lords support me in sending the strongest possible message of support to those Armed Forces in the Gulf, and to their loved ones who wait at home.

231
The mission of our Armed Forces is to enforce the will of the United Nations and the international community—that is to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and in so doing make the region a safer place for its people. Although I disagree with my noble friend Lord Judd, I agree wholly with his heartfelt hope that any conflict is brief and quickly over and that loss of life is kept to a minimum. I also
232
hope that we shall uphold the moral case described so ably by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours to uphold UN resolutions, secure a better future for the long-suffering people of Iraq and make the longer-term future of the region and the world safer and more secure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.

  Convictions Subsequently Quashed
  Convictions Subsequently Quashed
  Child Protection on the Internet
  Child Protection on the Internet
  Internet Watch Foundation
  Internet Watch Foundation
  Communications Data Retention
  Communications Data Retention
  Forensic Pathology Services
  Forensic Pathology Services
  Immigration Offences
  Immigration Offences
  Asylum Claims: Fast-Track Pilot
  Asylum Claims: Fast-Track Pilot
  Home Ownership Task Force
  Home Ownership Task Force
  UK Domestic Economy and Exports
  UK Domestic Economy and Exports
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act: Cost of Litigation
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act: Cost of Litigation
  DTI Conferences: Cost
  DTI Conferences: Cost
  Hull: Level of Poverty
  Hull: Level of Poverty
  Hull: GCSE Pass Levels
  Hull: GCSE Pass Levels
  Museum Funding
  Museum Funding
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Northern Ireland: Offences Recorded and Cleared
  Northern Ireland: Offences Recorded and Cleared
  Northern Ireland: Burglary
  Northern Ireland: Burglary
  Northern Ireland Railways: Freight
  Northern Ireland Railways: Freight
  Ballymoney: Power Station Application
  Ballymoney: Power Station Application
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  Northern Ireland: Protestant and Roman Catholic Employment Data
  Northern Ireland: Protestant and Roman Catholic Employment Data
  Potters Bar Rail Accident
  Potters Bar Rail Accident
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  West Highland Mainline
  West Highland Mainline