Westminster Hall Sitting of 24 March 2004

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Reserve Forces
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
9.30 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I begin by congratulating the Minister on his announcement earlier this year of the appointment of the Duke of Westminster as assistant chief of the general staff with responsibility for reserves? We welcome that appointment unreservedly; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has long argued for such an appointment. It will have a great beneficial effect on the reserves, and we thank the Minister for the action that he has taken.
When I was mobilised last June, there was a spate of articles in some of the quality broadsheets that seemed to imply that the mobilisation of so many reservists for Operation Telic had been little short of a disaster—no kit, no pay and the regulars pushed off early leaving the Territorial Army with disproportionately longer tours in the theatre of operations. Nothing is quite as it appears in the newspapers. My experience at the reserve training and mobilisation centre at Chilwell was that it was a slick process. I would be pushed to think of any improvements that could have been made to the organisation, and I said so when I wrote to the Secretary of State at the time.
That is not to say that there were not significant teething problems with what I presume was the first large-scale mobilisation of reservists since Suez or the Korean war. Undoubtedly, there were several problems, and we should have sympathy for those who were at the rough end of them. A great deal has been said about kit, for example. The issue for us in the reserves was whether we were disproportionately affected by problems that arose with the kit. I do not believe that we were, or that there was any question of discrimination. By the time that I arrived in Iraq in early July, there were no shortages of kit.
On the question of pay, those people who found that they were not being paid properly must have felt enormous anxiety, which we should not underestimate. We should ask whether the overwhelming of the system could have been predicted. That problem was solved virtually overnight by allowing the reserve training and mobilisation centre at Chilwell to create pay accounts, but I would like the Minister to address the outstanding issue of the reserve standard allowance. My understanding in the Army was that a decision had been taken to remove the rank-imposed ceilings on the reserve standard allowance. When I questioned Ministers about that, they were rather less than categorical about whether a decision had been taken. What is the current state of play? Such a decision would, at a stroke, remove the most significant grievance that reservists have when they are mobilised and find that the
250WH
pay that they can secure from the reserve standard allowance is less than their civilian pay because of a rank-imposed constraint that is inappropriate for modern civilian life.
On the question of lengths of tours, I do not think that there was any intended discrimination; there was simply the lack of a policy on how long reservists should serve. Now, there is a UK land-imposed policy. The policy is that a person mobilised as an augmentee will serve six months, and a person who goes out in a unit will serve and come home with that unit. That gives reservists what is so important to them: an indicative end-of-tour date, which is vital for those who have jobs and civilian careers.
There were many teething problems, but the key lesson that we have learned is that the system worked. It delivered the number of reservists required at a time when there were a million people protesting on our streets against the mission, and it did so at an administratively acceptable rate—certainly for the Territorial Army—of 1.5 call-outs for every reservist mobilised. That is significantly different from the rates for the regular Army reserve, which were some eight call-outs for every mobilisation. The Select Committee looked into that issue a couple of years ago, and Ministers need to revisit it. In fact, the system performed better than expected at the strategic defence review; it was able to deliver formed infantry companies, and that was never the expectation.
How did the reserves do? I do not think that they could have done better. They performed magnificently. Although I was based in Nasiriyah, largely with Italian forces, I made a point of visiting as many units as I could every time that I was in Basra. The measure of reservists is that one cannot tell the difference between them and regulars in any unit that one visits. That was my experience, and what I would have expected.
There was clear evidence of creative use by commanders of the skill sets held by reservists; those skill sets were used very effectively, although undoubtedly there were examples when that was not the case. It is alleged that the new FORGE software will give commanders an even better understanding of the skills of the reservists that they will command, so that they can make even better use of them.
I have always been somewhat sceptical about software solutions, and I urge Ministers to consider a rather more important issue: whether reservists should train much more frequently with the regular formations with which they are likely to be mobilised. That would ensure a much better use of reservists when they come to be mobilised.
Undoubtedly, there are jobs that are less desirable in any theatre of military operations. Some people will find themselves on static guard duty or manning permanent vehicle checkpoints. People coming back will have different experiences. They may go into their local pub and tell friends, "Yes, it was great; I really enjoyed my experience", or may complain that they spent six months stagging on and stagging off in a ghastly climate with pretty poor food. However, the difference between those two reactions is often not so much a measure of the jobs that the soldiers were doing as of the men themselves and the units that they were in. It is difficult to change human nature, and people respond to situations differently.

251WH
To come back to the coverage afforded by the newspapers, a spate of articles in late August seemed to imply that the large-scale mobilisation of our reservists amounted to conscription on a scale not seen since the Korean war. That is nonsense. I do not believe that, when any reservist is attested, takes the oath and signs up to the commitment, they believe that they are joining the boy scouts or the girl guides. Furthermore, I do not believe that anyone joins either the reserve or the regular forces without some hope of seeing operations at some time during their service.
It is said that there is at least one operational tour to be had from every reservist, and certainly from every member of the Territorial Army, but often the limitations of our careers and family circumstances prevent us from volunteering for a tour of full-time reserve service, for example. Therefore, compulsory mobilisation can be something of a liberation. A couple of years ago, about this time of year, I had been serving for three years as an assessor at the Territorial Army Commissioning Board in Westbury, watching candidates come through who wanted to secure a Territorial Army commission. I received a rather snooty letter from records in Glasgow, pointing out that I was coming to the end of my appointment at the Territorial Commissioning Board and that, as I was above the normal retirement age for my rank, I would be unlikely to secure another appointment in the Territorial Army.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Shame.
Mr. Swayne:I thank my hon. Friend. The letter was saying, "Thank you very much, but push off." I was prepared to accept that, but a number of colleagues insisted that I should struggle to stay in, so I wrote to the Duke of Westminster. He wrote back and explained that there was a pool of watch keepers and liaison officers at Woolwich. He suggested that I applied there. I did, I was interviewed and I secured a place there. I understand that I can remain there until I am 55.
After one training weekend, a brown envelope arrived on my breakfast table containing a compulsory call-out notice. That is what my wife thinks and, more important, that is what the Opposition Chief Whip thinks. The reality is that we have a system of intelligent mobilisation, and about four weeks before I had received a yellow piece of paper in a brown envelope headed, "This is not a compulsory call-out notice". However, it asked me whether my employer would be likely to appeal if I received one. I eagerly ticked both boxes in the "no" column and awaited my call-out notice expectantly. I was delighted to receive it. A compulsory call-out notice for a reservist who is eager to serve can be a liberating experience. Of course, I had to feign complete surprise and horror when the real thing arrived on the breakfast table and my wife saw it for the first time: "Gosh! What will we do?"
I said that the system worked. It delivered the number of reservists that were required at the time required. Employers have been very understanding, and I know that Ministers have been aware of that. The Ministry of Defence, in conducting employer appeals, has been very understanding, allowing the greater proportion of them.
252WH
The system worked, but I urge Ministers to be cautious. I would like to quote from the essays that supported the recent White Paper. Paragraph 3.3 of essay No. 3 on developing reserves states:
"This policy sees the Reserves providing an integrated, ready and capable component of Defence, capable of being mobilised for any type and scale of operation."
I am nervous about that. I make no bones about it; I was in favour of compulsory mobilisation for Afghanistan and the campaign in Iraq. One ought not to be in the Territorial Army if one does not accept or even welcome the chance of being called up. Conversely, I do not think that the reserves should be called up on a regular basis for continuing low-intensity operations. To do so runs the risk of destroying the reserves, not least by giving employers the impression that they are being taken for a ride and that it is defence on the cheap.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I apologise to my hon. Friend that I cannot stay for the whole of the debate. Does he agree, despite his earlier remarks, that a large number of reservists join the Territorials, the Royal Naval Reserve or the Air Force Reserve to defend the homeland? That is implicit in the term "territorial". A small but significant number of them have some difficulty in being just an arm of the Government's foreign policy.
Mr. Swayne:That is right, and there is room for both. The Government have formed civil contingency reaction forces, which would specifically accommodate those who wish to serve in the way that my hon. Friend describes. A significant number of the troops allocated to those reaction forces have actually been mobilised for service in Afghanistan and elsewhere overseas. That raises the question of what would have happened if such an emergency had occurred here during the height of the mobilisation that took place for Operation Telic.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is he suggesting—I would not be critical if he were—that there should be two kinds of reservist? Some should be dedicated and trained specifically for home defence—dealing with the aftermath of a terrorist attack, for example—and some should have a role in the overseas theatre. Does he agree that, if that were the case, it would not only deal with the problem raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) but would give more intense training in either type of operation so that those used on the home front were a more deployable force?
Mr. Swayne:I do not want to be tempted into making a policy statement from the Back Benches, but I think that there is sense in what the hon. Gentleman said. That was how matters were configured when I joined the Territorial Army. There were units with roles in the British Army of the Rhine and there were units with home defence roles. There was no distinction in terms of the quality of training and readiness required, but they had distinct and clear roles. It was possible to move between the two; nevertheless there were different roles.
Dr. Murrison:My hon. Friend is very generous. Does he recall the Royal Observer Corps, which was, in many ways, similar to the civil contingency reaction forces

253WH
that Ministers are considering? Their role was purely in the homeland and they were not part of the Territorial Army or other reserve forces.
Mr. Swayne:I am sure that there is a role for such a model. Indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made proposals about the use of volunteer reserves.
Brigadier Richard Holmes once said that the Territorial Army should be kept safe for married men with jobs. Those are the folk who will happily go to Iraq and Afghanistan, putting their civilian identities on the backburner because their country needs them. If we keep putting the bucket into the same well, the water is likely to become very muddy and we will run the risk of having a reserve composed largely of folk without proper jobs who are happy to go on operations whenever they get the chance. A proportion of those are, of course, necessary and welcome. However, it would be a great shame if membership of the reserves became a badge of unemployment.
I believe that it was folly to cut the Territorial Army in the strategic defence review. A bigger Territorial Army would have provided a deeper mobilisation well. I do not believe that, at their current size, the reserves can sustain recent levels of mobilisation for long. We must beware of the suggestion that peace in Northern Ireland, or the advance of "networked-enabled capability"—which is the buzzword for the introduction of new technology that will do away with attrition warfare and enable us to get by with what the jargon says is "fewer platforms", whatever those platforms may be—allows us to get by with fewer infantry.
If we couple together the continuing reduction in the number of soldiers with the continued high-tempo use of reservists, we have a recipe for disaster. The public simply will not understand how we can afford to have fewer regular soldiers and yet need to call up reservists more regularly. As Brigadier Holmes said to me last November, the reserves are a reserve for use but not for overuse. Things that are overused, such as fast cars and fine shotguns, wear out even if they are made by Mercedes or Purdy.
9.49 am
Mr. Paul Keetch: I am delighted to have been called somewhat earlier than anticipated.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mislaid his glasses.
Mr. Keetch:I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not think that the hon. Member for Canterbury ever mislaid anything, and I am sure that he will be back to make a contribution.
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on what he said. He is a man of great gallantry and has a remarkable position in the House. He speaks with great passion on many subjects, especially on defence and his deployment to Iraq. Whatever the concerns in all political parties about the Iraq war, there is no doubt that Her Majesty's forces performed incredibly well. The role that the Territorial
254WH
Army played was significant. I visited Iraq shortly after the conflict. I did not see the hon. Gentleman, but I did see Earl Attlee, who had also been called up and was doing a fantastic job in Basra.
I pay tribute to everyone in both Houses and in the Territorial Army who were called up for the Iraq war and for other operations. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that when our forces are deployed—in the Balkans, Iraq or wherever—no distinction is made between reservists or regulars. At first sight, it is not possible to tell which they are, and that should be the case.
The reservists in Afghanistan are, perhaps, forgotten. Perhaps the conflict in which they serve is a forgotten war. The hon. Gentleman referred just once to that country. A significant number of forces, including special forces, are still in Afghanistan, as I know from my constituency work. Territorial Army units are also there.
I pay tribute in particular to the members of the Hereford reconnaissance troop of light infantry TA, who were recently deployed to Afghanistan. I met them when they returned and they felt that because of the understandable weight of publicity and the spotlight on Iraq, the valuable work done by regular and reserve forces in Afghanistan was being forgotten. We should record our continued contribution in that campaign, which was broadly supported by all political parties for good reasons.
Those young men brought an issue to my attention that the hon. Gentleman did riot raise council tax rebates. What are the Minister's thoughts on that? Members of our reserve forces are deployed for months on end—six months is not unusual. As the hon. Gentleman said, they may well be redeployed relatively quickly after returning. It is extremely unfair of local authorities to continue to charge them a full council tax rate.
I understand that some councils would have a problem with that because of the large number of people deployed, and I am always careful about making any spending commitment. However, relatively few people from Herefordshire were deployed, and my local council could have made an exception, as some other councils do. The Government may want to consider whether a more nationally unified form of support could be given.
The hon. Gentleman made some important points, several of which I want to highlight. The most important was the way in which the formed units worked incredibly well. He rightly said that it was never the idea that TA units should be part of that. They were supposed to support and top up regular units. However, the formed units that have worked, including the reconnaissance troop that I mentioned, have done extremely well.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about members of the reserve forces not wanting to be called up or being reluctant to serve. The suggestion that there was conscription is frankly ridiculous. We know from our armed forces—both the regulars and the reservists—that they all understand that they may be called on to be deployed on active duty. As the hon. Gentleman said, many of them relish that opportunity; it is one reason why they joined the armed forces, either as regulars or reservists.

255WH
It is a sad but chilling fact that there has been, I think, only one year since the end of the second world war in which a member of our armed forces has not been killed on active duty. It would therefore be disingenuous for any member of the regular or reservist forces to say that they did not want or expect to go to war. I have never heard any of them say that and think that such statements have been put into their mouths by others. However, although our reserve forces are prepared, ready and often eager to be called up, they did not expect to be called up on a regular basis. That was never envisaged. We need to consider that carefully to establish whether the practice is right.
I share some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the TA being reduced from around 55,000 to 40,000 at the time of the strategic defence review. Looking back, even the Government would probably accept that that was not wise. We could all say that with hindsight. However, we know that events have moved on significantly from the SDR, which was broadly supported by all parties in the House in 1998. We must look at some of the lessons that have been learned.
Reservists have been under intense pressure as a result of the increased demands of the operations in Iraq. There are serious concerns about the recruitment and retention of some reservists, especially the more specialist reservists, such as medics. Can the Minister confirm the fact reported by the The Daily Telegraph that 27 medics are leaving the Territorial Army following demobilisation? I hope that that is not so because Defence Medical Services relies heavily on reserve forces and is under extreme pressure.
I have tabled a number of questions—most recently on 15 March—on the reasons why people are leaving the Territorial Army and how many are doing so. I was amazed to be told by the Minister in a written answer that
"Reliable inflow and outflow data for the TA are not currently available and for the same reason it is not possible to provide reasons for departure."—[Official Report, 15 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 49W.]
In an environment in which we rely more and more on our reserve forces, surely we all accept that a situation in which we do not know why people leave needs to be improved. We rely on our reserve forces. I would have hoped that we had a much better understanding of who they are, why they leave and how we can stop others leaving. There is a growing trend for people to leave as soon as they have been demobilised, which is why we need the information.
Lessons can be learned from the Iraq operation. For example, the hon. Gentleman referred to the divergent pay rates for TA and regular medics. We need to consider that and be aware that some TA soldiers have returned and lost their jobs. The Ministry of Defence should rightly be concerned about that.
The TA has had an active defence role in many theatres, not just in Iraq. Specialist units have been deployed to theatres in the Balkans and Afghanistan, where other regular Army units have been deployed. For example, TA infantry personnel have played a significant role in the Balkans, for which approximately 4,000 soldiers have been mobilised for duty since 1995.
256WH
Undoubtedly, since the emergence of the new threat of international terrorism directed at UK territory, it is important to continue to explore and reconsider how the reserve forces might contribute to security at home. As my exchange with the hon. Gentleman demonstrated, we could benefit from some of the reserve forces being dedicated to homeland security and defence—call it what you like, Mr. Deputy Speaker—trained for that, and being aware that that is their role. Of course, they would not be trained any less than those units that might be sent to Afghanistan or Iraq, but they might be trained and equipped differently and be ready for a different role or job.
I think that all hon. Members from all parties support the excellent role that our armed forces have played. It is not for them to decide whether they should be deployed on active service; that is for the Government. However, when they are deployed on active service, they perform with great heroism and bravery and do credit to our country. We should support them. I have often said that the best piece of equipment or kit that the armed forces possess is the men and women who serve in them. That is as true of the reserve forces as it is of the regular forces. I join the hon. Gentleman in supporting that unit.
9.59 am
Mr. Julian Brazier: I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) by being absent for most of his speech. I left my glasses on my desk and the blurriness in front of me was not the result of a convivial evening.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), on securing the debate and, more important, on the way in which he has encapsulated the views of many Territorials. He based that especially on his recent six-month deployment to Iraq on Operation Telic. I should like to echo many of the things that he said, but I shall spare hon. Members a repetition of the points that he has already made.
I shall briefly consider three areas: first, the mobilisation process, in which there are some strong positives, but also one or two negatives; secondly, the principles behind the use of reserves; thirdly, I want to spend a large proportion of my time on the present size and peacetime structure of the combat elements of the TA.
On mobilisation, one generalisation says it all, but, like all generalisations, this does not apply to every case. Most of the aspects of mobilisation that had to be handled by the individual reservist when their units, employers and families were involved—and, credit where it is due, when Chilwell was involved—were well handled. Chilwell came through very strongly on that. Most of the things that went wrong were in areas in which the personnel staff in the Ministry of Defence were involved.
The medical screening went well. As the Defence Select Committee observed, the gaps that showed up did so precisely because the medical screening was done well. There were paperwork problems in one or two areas, such as pay, but they were on a much smaller scale than they were, for example, during the first Balkans deployment. Again, that is a good reflection on Chilwell. Above all, the vast majority of recruits felt that the

257WH
assessment and training at Chilwell were well done and was adequate. The Select Committee made that clear. Therefore, Chilwell has come out very strongly. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said, the reserves came through extremely well and the feedback on them has invariably been good.
I do not want to dwell on the negative details because the system is changing, and rightly so. However, it is clear from some of the remarks in the Select Committee report, from comments made to me by Territorials and from the tetchiness of the some of the exchanges with the personnel staff in the Select Committee hearings—the main one in particular—that all did not go well with the central staff in the Ministry of Defence. The failure to give adequate notice is excusable up to a point when there is a war to fight, but we had a lot of notice on this occasion. The disgraceful mailshotting—like a travel company—of individual mobilisation instructions sent direct from the centre to individuals completely bypassed the TA chain of command in exactly the way that the Defence Select Committee objected to over the Balkans deployments. It is extraordinary that nothing had been learned; it was worse this time than it was the previous time.
All that convinces me that the Government are right to take such responsibilities away from the personnel staff in the MOD—who, I am sure, are hard-working and overstretched—and to give them to a directorate headed by a part-time reservist, himself a civilian, and reporting direct to the vice-chief of defence staff. That is better than using an organisation that is not used to dealing with people such as employers and where the focus of its attentions is bound to be principally the regular forces.
On the issue of the philosophy behind the employment of reserves, my hon. Friend put it so well that I do not want to repeat his points in detail. However, a macro-point and a micro-point must be made. The micro-point applies to each soldier, and the macro-point applies to policy as a whole.
People joined with an understanding of serving in action and a desire to do so. My great regret from the 13 years that I spent in the Territorial Army is that I never did an operational deployment. Some of us were particularly angry in 1982. We were in an airborne unit, which we were continually told was old-fashioned because we kept on parachuting on to Scottish islands. The Falklands war happened, but we were not called up. A willingness to give up one's weekends and evenings to work and train hard during peacetime, and the enthusiasm to get stuck in when there is a war or a national crisis does not equate, as my hon. Friend said, to repeated, compulsory deployments after the immediate crisis is over simply to ease regular overstretch. However, there will always be Territorials and reservists who welcome the opportunity to do that bit extra during peacetime.
At the macro level, the fundamental strategic point is that a reserve, by definition, is not normally used but is available when a crisis strikes. If reserves are used so heavily that units are pillaged of their best people because they are all off on deployment somewhere, there is no reserve for when things really go wrong and there is a major conflict. We are coming dangerously close to that.
258WH
That brings me to the peacetime structure and the size of reserves. In our English-speaking counterpart countries that do not have conscription, the general rule is that their reserve land forces are broadly comparable in size to the regular army. In Canada it is about three quarters; in Australia it is a little smaller; in America the two volunteer organisations—the US army reserve and, more importantly, the national guard—are, together, one and one third times the size of its regular army. In Britain, our Territorial Army is only one third the size of the regular Army and that disproportion is a great mistake. The wider community is playing a much smaller role and those in the volunteer reserve are sometimes severely overstretched. Above all, we do not have much to rely on when things go wrong.
Moving from size to structure, it is clear to almost everyone I speak to in combat units in the Territorial Army that the present structure is not working, particularly in the infantry. One of the most often quoted and widely accepted defence assumptions is that units can go from high-intensity warfare training to effective low-intensity deployment, but the reverse is impossible. Units that have been trained only for low-intensity work cannot do high-intensity work. There is a parallel with the reserve forces. Units that have been trained to work well together as units and have understood what it is to be part of a company and a battalion and to operate within an all-arms brigade can provide highly effective individual reinforcement, but people who have done only individual training cannot be deployed effectively in units or sub-units, nor in the long term are they much use as individual replacements, even at a level as lowly as a corporal commanding a section, let alone a platoon or company commander.
It is a fact that training must take place within a unit structure. Our present infantry battalion structure does not offer that and I shall illustrate why with two examples. First, it is simply too small. For a battalion headquarters to function, it must have an intelligence function. Information must come in to enable a battalion commander to make decisions and so on. In the recent add back and get well package, a very small welcome addition was made to infantry battalions and the post of intelligence officer was re-created, but he has been given no staff and the man clearly cannot stay awake 24 hours a day in an operational situation. He cannot work on his own. Infantry battalion headquarters cannot function properly even to provide a proper training aid for company commanders, individuals, sub-units, officers and NCOs, and so on, let alone to command the new rapid reaction force unit that is envisaged in the Government's White Papers.
My other example is the structure within the companies themselves. A proper rifle company should have three rifle platoons in it. Many people argue that it should have four such platoons. Three platoons are needed to have a good exercise. If there are three, and there are some people away training recruits, some people abroad on deployment and so on, two platoons can probably be cobbled together on a weekend exercise. Under the present structure, there are only two platoons in a rifle company. There is usually also a specialist platoon, but it is obviously not part of

259WH
company rifle infantry training. It has other jobs to do. Another set of problems is raised by the fact that allocations across the infantry battalions are perverse when it comes to training purposes, but I will not go into that now.
On paper, the company commander has two rifle platoons. He has no establishment for training recruits, and no establishment for recruits at all, beyond one NCO. The NCO needs two or three helpers to train recruits. The recruits that he has got are on the books of those two platoons, so they cannot go on a company exercise with the company. Effectively, by the time the recruits, the people training them and anyone who is away on deployment is taken out of the equation, we are left with barely one platoon's worth of people in a company. That is not a meaningful structure in which to provide an interesting exercise. As one commanding officer put it to me the other day, it simply means that he knows that his company commanders, company sergeant majors and even his platoon commanders themselves are not being properly trained. That will show through in a fall in quality in the long run.
Let us consider the issue in its recent historical context. Ministers rightly responded to the desperate concern around the country about the footprint. There was a requirement to keep sub-units—TA locations normally involve sub-units—in as many locations as possible. The result was to achieve a reasonable-sized footprint within a terribly small total TA size. The size of the sub-units was reduced and they are simply no longer big enough to train people properly. That will gradually show through in declining standards, although every commanding officer, company commander and member of the permanent staff is struggling to prevent that.
The Secretary of State made some very positive remarks a few months ago. He said that he regretted the size of the reductions. I was sorry to see that the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel) appeared directly to contradict those remarks, but that is another story. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West that we need larger reserve forces. The crying need that has to be met to make the forces that we have got work is not for extra units but for extra posts within the units and sub-units so that they have a meaningful structure and that real training can be carried out.
I end where I began—by congratulating my hon. Friend. He has brought his valuable experience to the House. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to what he said about the overuse of reserves. The TA, and its counterparts the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marine Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, did this country proud in Operation Telic. It is essential that we consider the issues o I structure, size and mobilisation arrangements if we are to do them proud and if they are going to be able to do us equally well in the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Before I call the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), I want to thank the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) for allowing me to call him early. It helped us out of a hole.
10.14 am
Mr. Keith Simpson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on securing a debate that is timely not only in terms of the discussion of the reserve forces, but because of its implications for the defence White Paper, which will be rolled out over the next few months.
As other hon. Members have said, we are conscious of the service of—and sacrifices made by—members of the reserve forces who are currently serving in Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and other overseas postings. Given the fact that, in my previous existence, I was a military historian, I am conscious of the role of the reserve forces in two world wars, for example. We tend to forget that, in the first world war, more than 50 per cent. of Field Marshall Haig's Army were Territorials. Many of the young pilots in fighter command, bomber command and those in the ground forces who supported them were from the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and hundreds of men and women served in the wavy navy in the second world war on escort duties, and many of them were killed or injured.
There is a long, voluntary tradition in our armed forces. Recent figures speak for themselves. Since NATO operations in the former Yugoslav republic began in December 1995, reserves have consistently provided between 10 per cent. and 14 per cent. of the United Kingdom manpower. Operation Telic involved the largest compulsory call-out of reserve forces since the 1956 Suez crisis. It is safe to say that, had the reserve forces involved in the United Kingdom contribution not been there, our contribution would have been—to say the least—seriously constrained. They were not just an add-on option.
The defence White Paper published in December 2003 emphasised that the Government had planned and structured the United Kingdom armed forces on the basis that any major war-fighting operation would draw on the support of the reserve forces. Furthermore, it says that
"the utility of Reserves will be used to evolve further to meet the need for compressed planning and preparation time-scales and more rapid transition to expeditionary war fighting. In future, Reserve forces may be required for a greater number of more frequent, short notice operations".
The issues that have been flagged up must be taken seriously. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the contributions to the debate have been made constructively. There may have been some criticisms, but they are more in terms of lessons learned and what we must do in the future. We must bear in mind what the defence White Paper has argued and, in particular, the speeches that the Prime Minister has rightly made about the threat of international terrorism, the role of our armed forces in proactively attempting to deter terrorists worldwide, the role of the reserve forces and home security.
Since the strategic defence review in 1998, the changing role of the reservists raises several important matters. We know that the number of reservists was over-cut under the SDR to provide funds for the necessary changes in organisation and the equipment of

261WH
the regulars. Such action was not new. Previous Governments have tended to rob the small amount of money that was allocated to the reservists to provide front-line regulars. It is interesting that those days have gone and, in a strange way, I suspect that the funding and equipment of the reservists will have to be better in the future because they are now so tightly integrated into the regulars. Thank goodness that the days of the old method used by Ministers and senior regular officers, when faced with cutting the TA and reducing its equipment, have gone.
The Secretary of State has acknowledged that the planned cuts of the TA and the SDR were wrong. On 20 February 2002, in an interview in The Daily Telegraph, he said that he was
"glad that the TA had not been fully cut from the previous strength of 56,000 to 41,000 set by the defence review . . . if its recommendations had been put into effect, TA numbers would have been so low that reservists would be unable to fulfil the tasks envisaged for them in the defence of the homeland".
I believe that such recognition was good.
The reserve forces are no longer the old-fashioned, second-line Saturday night soldiers—as they were often contemptuously referred to by some regulars and much of the media. They are now an integral part of the modern armed forces, and they are frequently used worldwide. Without the reserve forces, the regular forces would be unable to meet many of the Government's commitments.
Ministers will have to examine carefully the organisation and structure of the reservists, how they are recruited and retained, and whether we will need to dedicate certain reservists just to home defence and others only to operations overseas. I am merely an amateur in this, but my gut reaction is that I would be against that. We must have built-in flexibility. My friends in the military always say to me that soldiers, sailors and airmen have to be trained for full war-fighting capability and for being deployed anywhere.
Servicemen and women who have taken part in operations in Afghanistan or Iraq might subsequently, because of their age for example, serve in a civil contingency unit. They would bring considerable experience to such units, but we can debate that matter later.
Mr. Brazier:I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One way of squaring the circle and meeting some of the points that have been made would be to reintroduce the home service force—a company of older soldiers listed on to each TA unit. That would provide a low-cost supplement for domestic use only.
Mr. Simpson:More details can be fleshed out as the debate continues and as we discuss the defence White Paper and the interesting matter of the allocation of resources.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) made a point that the Minister will not want to address in detail. Our special forces have undertaken important roles in the past as they do at present and, according to the defence White Paper, they will play an increasingly important role in the future. Our regular special forces would be unable to operate on their current scale without the full and active involvement of the TA and reserve element; that is crucial.
262WH
The critical mass is in danger of being stretched very thin; I do not expect the Minister to comment on that. We should bear it in mind that our special forces, unlike those of other countries, are not elite units whose members are recruited straight from civilian life. They are drawn across the board from our regular armed forces and there comes a point when, if the size of those regular forces are reduced below a certain critical mass, the quality and quantity of the people who can get into our special forces will be affected.
Mr. Keetch rose—
Mr. Simpson:I think that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene.
Mr. Keetch:I certainly do. We do not expect the Minister to comment directly on the special forces issues, but there is another key matter, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of. Increasing numbers of private security companies now exist; they are used in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a huge temptation for former members of the special forces to go and earn considerable sums working for such private companies rather than stay on or move into the Territorial special forces. We must recognise that that is an additional draw on former special forces personnel. That is why the hon. Gentleman's comments about ensuring that the regular Army and the Marines are large enough to bring forward special forces people is doubly important.
Mr. Simpson:The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As the Minister knows, the expansion of the Home Office budget to deal with home security has led to many chief constables trying to recruit experienced men and women from both the regular and reserve forces to fulfil certain roles. That is an issue for the Government as a whole to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West and others mentioned that some reserve forces effectively play a dual role. I have mentioned that people have been earmarked to serve in the civil contingency reaction forces but have ended up having to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Will the Minister discuss the organisation, training and preparation of the civil contingency reaction forces? Are they in formed units? Have they received adequate training? In the event of a large-scale incident in the United Kingdom, could they act quickly and effectively?
As my hon. Friend said, the increased activity and service of the reserve forces cause real problems for certain reservists and their families as well as for their employers. He graphically described the situation, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). The MOD says in its report, "Operations in Iraq—Lessons for the Future", that it is addressing the problem. The matter was also taken up in the Defence Committee's report, "Lessons of Iraq". As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said, and as my former colleague and old friend Brigadier Richard Holmes intimated, we face the danger of running out of reserves if the Government maintain the tempo of operations, some of which are concurrent. Does the Minister agree with that?

263WH
Ministers may be confident that such is not the case, but, if operations continue at the present tempo, I fear that some employers may look with reluctance upon people seeking employment with them who have a reserve liability. For example, most businesses in my constituency employ fewer than eight people. A large business that employs 250 or 300 people can take a hit of two or three people serving as reservists. It is different if one or possibly two reservists leave a business that employs only five or six people. However patriotic one is, such a business may decide that that is a liability too far.
Like other hon. Members, I warmly welcome the MOD's strengthening of the higher management of the reservists and the appointment of His Grace the Duke of Westminster, who also works in civil life as the director of reserve forces and cadets. He is to come directly under the vice-chief of the defence staff. That is a powerful initiative for putting the reserve forces at the centre of MOD planning. However, will it result in an allocation of extra resources and reserve forces being strengthened in every possible way?
Will people in the regular armed forces no longer think that serving with the reserve forces is a potential career blockage? It was always the case in the past that someone who was sent to serve as adjutant of a TA unit or to command a TA battalion was considered a member of the second eleven. The current Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, would say that he is a living example of that not being so, having experience as a young captain as adjutant to a Scottish TA para-battalion, which, unfortunately, ruined his liver—at least, that is what he claims. However, in the past, an association with the reservists was not considered a good career move. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is no longer so, and I would like to think that, with reservists so integrated into the regular forces, appointments to the reserve forces will be considered a very good career move.
The second issue is the impression that reserve forces are given cast-off, virtually obsolete kit and equipment from the regular forces, primarily because of pressures on the defence budget. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said that reservists who were integrated into regular units had exactly the same equipment and kit as the regulars. It is more an issue for the formed reserve units that were sent out. There were criticisms that they did not have the best kit and equipment and that there were shortages. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
Over the past year many hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised questions about pay, allowances and the pensions of reservists and the security of civilian employment. All were touched on by the Select Committee report, and the MOD is undertaking a review of those matters. The Minister has approached the issue constructively but, as a matter of urgency, I ask him to make a statement in the House about how far the Ministry of Defence has got with addressing the problems.
I was particularly interested to see the MOD announcement on 3 February, about administrative changes to the recruitment and re-engagement
264WH
procedures for volunteer reserve forces, which touches on an issue that I raised earlier. The Select Committee noted that from 1 April new recruits from the volunteer reserve forces and applicants for re-engagement will be required to agree to their unit contacting their employer about their membership. The MOD says that the changes will
"enable employers to be in a better position to plan for the absence of employees who are reservists and also to be better informed about their rights and obligations."
The Select Committee said that it was concerned that those changes seemed to have been announced ahead of the findings of the MOD's own study on employer support, and that there seems to have been no prior consultation with members of the reserves. Will the Minister comment on that?
The debate has been short but, due to the contribution of my colleagues, it has been very constructive. I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West and other hon. Members and members of the House staff, who in the past two or three years have served in the reserve forces and been, as they used to say, twice a citizen.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Before I call the Minister, I shall just reflect on the fact that only last month I paid my last ever mess bill.
10.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I will not ask how large the mess bill was, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:It was £42.36.
Mr. Caplin:I want to begin on a sombre note by paying tribute to Brigadier Lord Vivian, the Conservative party's defence spokesman in the House of Lords, who passed away on 28 February. He had a distinguished military career before entering the House of Lords in 1991, where, if I may say to Opposition Members, he was among the most active peers in the Conservative party. He wrote me a very nice note on my appointment to this position in June last year, to which I responded. It is also worth saying, in light of today's debate, that Lord Vivian was an honorary colonel to 306 Field Hospital in the Territorial Army. I pay the respects of the whole House to his family at this difficult time.
I also want to pay tribute to the five reservists who have lost their lives in action in the past year. Private Smith of the 52 Lowland Regiment; Corporal Pritchard, 116 Provost company; Fusilier Beeston, also of 52 Lowland Regiment; Sergeant Nightingale of 150 Transport company attached to the 27th Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps; and Private Kitulagoda of the Royal Rifle Volunteers. We are indebted to all of them and their families for the efforts that they made on behalf of the United Kingdom here and abroad.
I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on securing the debate. I was expecting a few more of his hon. Friends to be here and, indeed, some of mine, but that is how it sometimes happens early on a Wednesday morning. I have been reflecting on how constructive the debate has been and contemplating one of my previous roles as

265WH
Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the then the Leader of the House—she is now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—in the 1997 to 2001 Parliament at which time Westminster Hall debates were created. The view was that we could have consensual constructive debates about the issues of the day, and today has shown the benefit of this debating Chamber even though there has been only a small attendance.
Everyone knows that the hon. Member for New Forest, West is a major in the Territorial Army. During the passage of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill, he insisted on not being referred to as a galloping major. One Conservative Member tried to refer to him as such, quite unfairly from the Government's point of view. I thoroughly enjoyed reading his story "From Westminster to Iraq" in the in-house magazine for the Ministry of Defence, which was published recently, and about his experiences of being in active service and working as a liaison officer to the Italian joint taskforce in Nasiriyah in Iraq for six months. We are pleased to see him back.
The Government hold the reserve forces in the highest possible esteem, and I fully endorse all the praise and accolades that have been bestowed on them this morning. We agree that the reserves form a key part of the United Kingdom armed forces. The reason for the appointment of the Duke of Westminster to the position of assistant chief of the defence staff, reserves and cadets was to demonstrate publicly that we regard the reserves as an important and integral part of what we do. I was delighted to be at Chilwell last month to announce his appointment. He will report directly to the vice-chief of defence staff, and, as hon. Members know, I take a direct interest in all reserve matters and talk regularly to the vice-chief and others in the organisation.
I am not sure what the Chief Whip will make of today's debate when he reads tomorrow morning about the secrets that the hon. Member for New Forest, West has given away. Mrs. Swayne, too, might have something to say when she sees tomorrow'sHansard.
Mr. Swayne:The Minister will know the truism that any speech made in Parliament is likely to remain a secret.
Mr. Caplin:That is probably true. After making announcements on defence issues, I have asked people, "Did you know that we were going to do this or that?" They say, "No. Where did you announce that?" I say, "Only in the House of Commons."
Until a few years ago, call-out for reservists seemed only a remote possibility. In the past 10 years, there has been a major strategic evolution, and I accept, as the Secretary of State made clear, that that started with the 1998 strategic defence review. We have moved from a large and little-used reserve force to a smaller, more effective one that is constantly in use. That has been a tremendous challenge for our reservists, and the Ministry of Defence has good reason to be grateful for the positive response from both the reservists and their employers. I shall try to deal with all the issues raised this morning, but I am more than happy to take interventions if I do not answer all the questions; we have plenty of time after all.
266WH
In line with the tenet of the strategic defence review, the Government plan and structure the armed forces on the basis that any major war-fighting operation would draw on support from the reserve forces. Namely, we have more usable, integrated and relevant reserve forces that support their regular counterparts in operations at home and overseas. That is a prudent approach that allows the maintenance of full-time armed forces in no greater strength than is needed for normal peacetime activity, and that can meet a limited range of contingencies. In addition, the more flexible use of reservists gives the Government the opportunity to harness skills appropriate for operations, which are not needed regularly or frequently in peacetime and therefore not readily found in the regular armed forces. Although we have a lot of time this morning, the defence medical service would probably take up the whole of the rest of my speech, so perhaps hon. Members would like to return to that matter on a separate occasion.
As the hon. Member for New Forest, West told us, and as the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) who was called out shortly afterwards knows, the call-out is the use of a legal power to bring reservists into permanent service—in effect, to mobilise them. It is authorised by the making of an order under the Reserve Forces Act 1996. The call-out order for Operation Telic was made under section 54 of that Act by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 7 January 2003. We renewed that order on 6 January 2004 to enable reservists to continue to support operations in Iraq and also in Afghanistan and the Balkans. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) rightly said, more than 10 per cent. of those in the Balkans are reservists.
In broad terms, Operation Telic required about 5,600 reservists—about 3,600 from the Territorial Army, 1,500 from the RAF and 500 from the Royal Navy and Royal Marine reserves. That was the largest call-out of members of the reserve forces since 1956. In determining the number of people who would be sent call-out notices, allowance was made for possible wastage rates resulting from those who would not meet medical or dental standards. Medical failures and applications for exemption or deferment from reservists or their employers were also taken into consideration where possible.
I do not intend to respond directly to the Select Committee report, if for no other reason than that I think it right and proper that the Ministry of Defence should give a proper, considered response to all parts of the report to the House in the usual way.
In the event, more than 8,000 reservists were called out and more than 5,000 taken into service in sufficient time to be deployed and participate in the war-fighting phase of the operation at this time last year. The majority were drawn from the volunteer reserve forces. A smaller number came from the Army and RAF ex-regular reserve forces. Members of the sponsored reserves were also called out. Once war-fighting operations were over, there was—and is—a continuing role for reservists in the reconstruction of Iraq. To date, more than 9,300 reserve forces have supported, or are supporting, operations in Iraq.
At this stage, perhaps I should tell the House about my recent visit to the Gulf and to Basra. Two things were interesting and significant. First, I spent part of an

267WH
evening with the London TA, which is out there at present. We did a question-and-answer session for the members of the unit. One of the young soldiers asked me whether the members of the TA could be referred to as part-time soldiers. I have heard that phrase a number of times. My response, which I am pretty sure is not only right but important, was that I did not consider him a part-time soldier, particularly when he is on an operation in a dangerous theatre such as Basra in southern Iraq. I said to him, "For all intents and purposes, you are a soldier not a part-time soldier". Over the coming months, it is imperative that we get that message across, and I hope that we will do so.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West referred to intelligent mobilisation, which is the other interesting thing. It is an important way forward for the Territorial Army and reserve forces in the future. When I was in Al Amarah, I came across a unit commander who is a chief inspector of police in the UK. He had been redeployed from his normal TA duties to mentor the new chief of police in that town. That is having a direct impact on an area where we have had problems over the last 12 months. That area is much calmer now and part of the reason for that is the mentoring process that that Iraqi police force is undertaking. That is also an area of policy that we want to consider.
There is a continuing need for us to use reservists and to call them out in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas. I made the most recent call-out order on 1 March 2004, which will allow the continued support of operations in Sierra Leone and the Congo. I assure hon. Members that the new order was routine, and will allow reservists to be called out should we need them.
Mr. Keetch:Mr. Keetch: Given the Minister's experience with the chief inspector that he met in Iraq, is it not the case—as it has always been—that the skills that members of the reserve forces have in their civilian occupations can often add enormously to the contribution that they give in training and active service? Has some thought been given to identifying particular individuals who may provide huge additional benefits to deployed regular forces in a peace-building situation or reconstruction phase? That might be a constructive way of getting the most out of those who have served in our reserve forces.
Mr. Caplin:The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Perhaps I can respond to it by quoting Peter Morgan, a business unit leader at GlaxoSmithKline. He said on the SaBRE—Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers—website in November 2003:
"After visiting Kabul in July, I now fully understand why the Reserve Forces are such a vital part of the UK's overall Armed Services strategy. I am in complete support of employees who join the Territorial Army. There is no doubt that the TA benefits individuals, particularly when skills learned in the military can be transferred to civilian jobs."
I fully concur with that view and I am grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman.
It is important to say in response to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk that we do not, will not and cannot take the support of employers for granted. That would be the wrong thing to do. As hon. Members will know, SaBRE was set up about 18
268WH
months ago to bring about greater focus on employer issues and to work with employers during call-outs. SaBRE has been a success. That does not mean that there is nothing more that it can do, or that there is no more work to do, but given the period of time since it was set up and what it had to face during that period, it has been successful.
We are constantly thanking employers. I have been to three regional receptions, and attended one in London at which the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff publicly thanked the national employers for their support during the past 12 months. It is also important to recognise that the chain of command has been very supportive in delivering employers' support where necessary. I pay tribute to the National Employer Advisory Board, chaired by the Conservative peer Lord Glenarthur, which plays a crucial role in advising the Ministry of Defence on employer issues.
Perhaps I can talk a little about the announcement that I made to the House on 3 February on employer notification. After our earlier exchange about secrets, I am grateful that so many hon. Members are aware of that notification. It was rather an achievement to be recognised in that way in a Select Committee report. The subject was the topic of much debate both in the Ministry of Defence and with reservists and employers before I arrived at the Ministry in June 2003. Surveys undertaken by the MOD have shown that a large majority of reservists have already told their employers that they are members of the volunteer reserve. In addition, when reservists are mobilised, their employers are automatically informed of their membership of the reserve forces. We do not expect that routine employer notification to have a significant impact on employers' support. I believe that that is an important step forward.
I decided that we should tell the House as soon as we took that decision rather than wait for further periods of consultation because it has been talked about for so long. It is an important step forward for the long-term strategic future of the reserve forces and the employers who support us. I should place on record the Ministry of Defence's thanks to employers from both the public and private sectors for the outstanding support that they have provided to our armed forces in the past 18 months. In the past, it has been suggested that we have had difficulties with employers. That is not my experience from going around the United Kingdom talking to them; by far the majority of reservists' employers have been tremendously supportive. What the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk said is right; operations would not have been as successful as they were if employers had not offered that level of support.
Questions were asked about reinstatement and other issues, and I shall deal with some of them. Under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, an employer is required to take back former employees who have completed call-out service. The Act also deals with the terms and conditions of reservists when they are reinstated to civilian employment. If an employer fails to take reservists back into his employment or infringes any of his rights under the 1985 Act, the reservist may apply to a reinstatement committee, which will decide on the matter. That committee has the power to require employment to be made available to the reservist or to order the employer to pay compensation, or both. I

269WH
mentioned that there were more than 9,000 call-outs. However, since 1 January 2003, we know of only 19 applications to reinstatement committees. That shows that the legislation is working well and the level of support that there is between employers and their reservists.
The MOD does not provide legal advice or representation to reservists seeking reinstatement to their civilian employment under the terms of that Act. However, it provides advice to reservists on their legal right to reclaim their civilian employment and on how to seek reinstatement. Each reservist receives a copy of JSP 532; I am sure that the major—the hon. Member for New Forest, West—is aware of that document which is entitled "Guidance for reservists returning to civilian employment following a period of mobilised service". The campaign team of SaBRE provides a helpline and a website that give additional information and advice. Each of the reserve forces and cadet associations in all of the regions has an employer support executive, which can offer advice and assistance to reservists who are experiencing problems returning to their civilian employment. We are also introducing unit employer support officers who will be able to assist reservists with employer issues. The Secretary of State made it clear that we will look again at those issues during the course of the White Paper debate, which will start on Thursday in the main Chamber.
There has also been discussion about financial assistance for reservists. It is right that I inform the House about that this morning so as to bring hon. Members up to date on this, rather than make yet another statement that no one sees. There has been some criticism of the financial package that is in place for reservists. The current banded rates that we use came into effect in 1997 and, as they currently stand, they do not reflect the increase in civilian earnings since that time. That does not necessarily mean that reservists lose out. They are entitled to make a hardship claim if their standard award does not match their civilian earnings. Nevertheless, we recognise that this situation is not ideal. As we announced in the White Paper, work is in hand to produce new regulations governing the award of both the reservist standard award and the reservist hardship award.
The new regulations will take into account the lessons arising from the mobilisation into Iraq. While that work is being undertaken as a priority, it is not yet possible to state what the finalised proposals will be. However, once we have completed our deliberations, we plan to publish a consultation document to seek the views of interested parties prior to the final regulations.
Mr. Swayne:I am grateful for the Minister's undertaking to consult on that. He will be aware that, in a flexible modern economy such as ours, a scaffolder may earn considerably more than a Member of Parliament. However, when mobilised, the scaffolder may be a corporal, and the Member of Parliament a major, so significant hardship would be imposed on the corporal under existing rank constraints.
Mr. Caplin:I accept the hon. Gentleman's points, and others have made them, too. I shall conclude my update
270WH
on the issue by telling the Chamber that the aim is to bring the matter before Parliament in the autumn. We will then have an opportunity to debate the subject.
Mr. Brazier:The Minister has given us the welcome prospect of future announcements. Could he come back to issues of unit structure, perhaps in correspondence? Inevitably, the bulk of today's debate has been on the mobilisation process. There is a real worry in the command structure of the Territorial Army that the present unit structures, particularly within combat units, are simply not delivering the training needed to continue the effort needed.
Mr. Caplin:I certainly can come back on that issue. I was going to make a few points about training in the last couple of minutes available, but if that does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I will, as always, be more than happy to write to him on the matter.
I want to reflect a little on Chilwell and Grantham, because the hon. Member for New Forest, West mentioned them today and in his letter to the Secretary of State in June. I welcome the support that he and others have given to the people who run Chilwell and Grantham. As hon. Members will know, last month I spent a day with the assistant chief of the defence staff, as he is now known. Chilwell and Grantham show how we have moved forward training for those reservists who go through that process. I certainly had the opportunity to discuss with many of the people being mobilised the training that they were about to undertake. That was very good, and I was pleased to see the progress made there.
I come to the point on council tax, which is a perennial for the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). He must have a chip that makes him say, "I must mention council tax in every speech, whenever I can get it in." I do not mind him doing that. As he will know, council tax concessions are a matter for local authorities rather than the Ministry of Defence. All regular and reserve service personnel who own or rent private property remain liable to pay council tax while they are absent from that property, as that normally remains their sole or main residence. Members of the armed forces stationed in the United Kingdom or overseas are treated in the same way as any civilian who is required to live and work away from home. That is a consistent approach.
I want to update the House on the civil contingency reaction forces, which I am pleased to say have now achieved full operating capability, in accordance with the timetable set out in the new chapter of the strategic defence review. The House will be aware that they have been designed to enhance our ability to support the civil police and other civil authorities. Some 14 CCRFs will be available for deployment at short notice to support the civil authorities at the scene of an incident—whether it be a terrorist attack, a major accident or a natural disaster—should they request it.
Currently, 852 members of the CCRFs are mobilised overseas or are on active service in the UK, but that does not affect the operational capability of those forces

271WH
Steps have been taken, where necessary, to fill those temporary vacancies. I know that training is ongoing because I discussed the training programme with one of the commanding officers when I was in Cardiff recently.
I conclude by welcoming today's debate, and joining all Members of the Chamber in paying the right and fulsome tribute to the work of all our reserve forces, wherever they are deployed. They have done, and will continue to do, a first-class job as part of the United Kingdom armed forces.

Disabled People (Assistance Dogs)
11 am
Mr. Edward Davey: May I thank Mr. Speaker, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving us the chance to hold this debate? I hope that the Minister is pleased at the prospect of this debate, because I am giving her the chance to make herself even more popular with both disabled people and the Chancellor. I believe that I have a win-win-win set of proposals: winning for the taxpayer, because savings can be made, winning for animal lovers and for the dogs involved, and, most important of all, winning for people with disabilities who can, through the use of an assistance dog in the circumstances that I shall describe, regain their independence and—in some circumstances—even return to work. Put simply, we can, through the sorts of actions in my proposal, make more assistance dogs available for more people.
We are all used to seeing guide dogs helping people who are blind or have severe visual impairments. Guide Dogs for the Blind has done tremendous work over the years. It has received support from previous Governments, from this Government and from Members from all parties in the House. It does a tremendous job and is popular with the public and the people whom they help. Canine partners—dogs—help many more people than just those with severe visual impairments and blind people. They can be used to help people with hearing difficulties and people with epilepsy—they can detect an oncoming fit, sometimes half an hour before it happens. The focus today is on assistance dogs that can help people with physical disabilities and often people in wheelchairs.
The charitable sector has developed these services and trained many dogs over the years. In this area, as in many others, the charitable sector is becoming much more organised than it has been in the past. There is now an umbrella organisation called Assistance Dogs (UK), which represents the five main constituent charities: Guide Dogs for the Blind, Canine Partners, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People, Dogs for the Disabled and Support Dogs. They are all registered charities and they receive no direct funding from the Government. However, I think that we all agree that they do a fabulous job in developing innovative approaches to canine partnerships. The Minister will have seen and will know about how these dogs can transform people's lives, help them expand their life choices, experience a different quality of life, and very often enable them to take up education and work opportunities. They can make a complete difference.
It is appropriate to mention one real life case. The Wiltshire Gazette & Herald of 24 December 2003 contained an article about a lady who had been suffering from multiple sclerosis and was increasingly dependent on carers. However, with some support from Wiltshire county council with payments for dog food, vet bills, insurance, and so on, she was able to benefit from her black labrador, Naomi, which transformed her life. The sorts of things that Naomi did for her owner included waking her in the morning, bringing her clothes, picking up items that were dropped, opening and closing drawers and doors, taking clothes out of the washing machine and, when they were out and about in the

273WH
street, pushing the button on pelican crossings. That huge number of tasks brings a smile to everyone's face when they hear about them and makes a difference to the individual concerned.
I hope that the Minister is pleased that I have secured this debate, because I know that she already supports these charities. I have heard from the charities that she has shown a great interest and is keen to help. Both she and her predecessor were helpful in ensuring that the direct payment scheme could be used and that the local care packages could be developed. I should like to say a little bit more about that in a second.
I am sure that the Minister is aware, through her work, that the opportunities provided by canine partners do not just help disabled people; they help their families, too—particularly young and elderly carers—giving them respite and helping them to get on with their lives. This is a compelling case. I could use most of my time describing how wonderful the opportunities are but, rather than doing that, I want to get down to brass tacks. What could the Government do to expand this great sector?
The Government have already been helpful on direct payments. I think that it was the Minister's predecessor who confirmed in writing a year or so ago—perhaps even two—that direct payments could be used for paying food and vet bills. Charities have presented the letter that I received from the then Minister to social service departments to show them that payments could be used for that purpose. The letter was very helpful. I ask the Minister today to reinforce that previous guidance through all the links that she and her officials have with social service departments throughout the country in order to ensure that the concept of allowing direct payments to support assistance dogs is given the full weight of her Department so that more social service departments consider that option. It would also be worth while if assistance dogs were included in the local care packages of people who are not necessarily eligible for direct payments. That would help disabled people, but it would also help their carers and the social service departments to understand the full potential benefits of assistance dogs.
Housing is a difficult issue. People who would like a dog and could benefit from one often find that they live in inappropriate housing. A dog has certain physical needs that tend to require a garden. Many people who are potential beneficiaries do not have a garden and therefore cannot benefit from a dog for obvious reasons. The idea of local authorities being required to have accessible housing registers was debated in respect of disabilities more generally in the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill on 24 February. There was support from both sides. Good practice guidance, which has been published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its predecessors, supports the development of registers listing the adaptive homes that are suitable for disabled people and the names of the people who are looking for such properties. The Minister's colleague in the ODPM was very positive in her reply to that Standing Committee debate. She had some concerns that new registers would result in the opposite of what the Government have been doing in respect of choice-based lettings schemes, but I wonder whether such schemes could be adapted to ensure the availability of
274WH
properties that would be the most appropriate choice for disabled people—in this case, for disabled people who would benefit from the use of a dog.
Current legislation enables dogs that are trained with their human partner to go into most public places, but dogs under training do not have that protection. Someone who is training a dog to be used by someone with a disability is not able to take it into all public premises. I hope that the Minister will undertake to review the legislation and ensure that dogs under training are permitted to enter public places.
I said earlier that there would be huge cost savings for the Government. That is not the rationale for my proposal; instead, it is to give independence back to disabled people. However, because the cost savings would be so significant, it would make sense for the Government to consider more carefully whether this cutting-edge approach would have benefits for councils throughout the country as well as the Exchequer. I suggest that the Government undertake a feasibility study to determine more clearly the relative costs and potential savings.
I understand that the savings could be huge. In effect, a dog would be on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The cost of its food and vet bills would be rather less than the costs of a human carer. An assistance dogs charity prepared a costing for this debate, which I would be happy to give to the Minister. Using extremely modest assumptions, it suggests cost savings of more than £65,000 for the eight-year period of the working life of a dog. If some of those savings were ploughed back into expanding the number of dogs available and improving access to such dogs, particularly for people on low incomes, substantial savings could still be left for social services departments and the Exchequer and the quality of life for many disabled people could be massively improved.
I do not ask the Government to commit huge sums of money, and the Minister is clearly not in a position to do that today. I ask them to give interested parties and me the assurance that they will examine the cost savings potential. That would not require a huge amount of work on the part of her Department or officials, but it might bring home to them the fact that the Government could be far more active in that area.
The Government could help with costs in one initial area. It is in line with many of their policies, particularly the access-to-work programme, and involves defraying the costs of the training courses for the disabled people who are beginning their placement with an assistance dog. Canine Partners, an assistance dog charity that has helped me prepare for the debate, runs its training sessions from a centre in Holton Lee near Poole in Dorset. It rents part of the centre from another charity for eight weeks of the year and, in that period, it provides four two-week training courses with about six candidates on each course. They are very intensive: the human and the dog get to know each other and learn to use the basic 100 commands that each dog is taught, and then the human learns to teach new commands specific to the individual's needs. The course can dramatically change someone's life as the partnership develops.
The cost of the course per partnership is £3,700. That is quite a small price for dramatically changing a life. In many cases, it results in the person being able to access

275WH
education and work, so it fits in with the Government's thinking on those issues. However, I hope that they will be more generous and not only link the course to access to work but help all disabled people to benefit by subsidising or defraying the cost of the course.
In discussions with the assistance dog charities, I had a slightly more esoteric idea to involve minor offenders in open and other prisons with the training of the dogs. There is a lot of evidence of the therapeutic benefits for offenders of working with animals, and I do not see why one could not have a virtuous circle of benefits for those involved and savings for the taxpayer if there was a way in which a scheme could be piloted at an open prison. The offenders could enjoy the friendship of a dog, learn positive things about a relationship with a dog and learn that, through their actions, they have helped a disabled person. That could reduce the training costs for charities and, if we cut reoffending, the costs to society more widely.
I have outlined a modest package of measures. If the Minister were to take them and run with them, they could make a significant difference to the availability of assistance dogs. I could have taken a different approach and argued that the Government should step in; that charities have shown the way forward and now the Government should run a national scheme and spend millions of pounds setting up their own dog training centres and provide assistance dogs to any disabled person who wanted one. It might be ideal, but it would be unwise to take that sort of service into the public sector. The state can get a bigger bang for its buck by working with and supporting charities and finding ways to develop the work that they are already doing.
There is huge potential. One charity has estimated that there may be as many 850,000 disabled people for whom assistance dogs would be beneficial. We know that there are millions of disabled people, but just under a million could benefit. Not all of them would want to benefit, and perhaps some people would baulk at the idea of 850,000 black or golden labradors going up and down the streets.
I think, however, that we could do an awful lot better than the 6,800 such dogs that are out there in the country at the moment. I am sure that there is massive untapped potential; this is a win-win situation, and the Government should grasp the opportunity with both hands. The Minister has a great record. I hope that she can expand on that and on her growing reputation.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): First and foremost, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing the debate. One of the benefits of this Chamber is that it gives us the opportunity to raise such issues, which although not always at the top of the political agenda, are none the less very important to many of our constituents. As he thoughtfully set out, it is possible to raise people's awareness of such important issues, and I congratulate him on choosing to do that.
I fully recognise the important role that assistance dogs play in enabling many disabled people, especially those with visual and hearing impairments, and
276WH
increasingly those with more complex care needs, to lead independent lives. I am pleased to endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the value that those animals and the charities that train them have in improving the lives of disabled people.
It is important that we debate such issues because I do not think that there is a general awareness among the public, who do not deal with such things on a daily basis, about what assistance dogs can do. Many people still think of guide dogs for the blind. They do not realise that dogs can help hearing-impaired people and that others, like Naomi, can assist people who live with MS. A dog can deal well with things that those people may find hard to cope with.
When people read our debate in Hansard, many will be amazed to learn that dogs can already help to pay for shopping at the supermarket. That is one of the innovative new services on which the charity sector and Canine Partners in particular have taken the lead. I am pleased to pay tribute to their work and to say publicly that the dogs' work is valuable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to direct payments. There is no doubt that the advent and increasing use of direct payments has been a big stimulus in assisting disabled people to take full control of their own care needs and how they are provided. Such payments have also stimulated local authority social services departments to think more innovatively about how to fulfil their obligation to provide care services to disabled people in their areas.
I congratulate local authorities such as Wiltshire, which helped with Naomi, and Surrey on realising that the role of dogs can go beyond simply helping those with a visual or hearing impairment. Such authorities appreciate that dogs can provide the care that in the past we thought could only be provided by humans. I congratulate them on their innovative approach.
Direct payments were introduced to give people control over how their care is delivered. Our intention is that they should be flexible and designed around the individual. Disabled people themselves suggested the idea of direct payments, which enable imaginative and novel solutions that are suited to the individual. Such payments mean that practical common sense can triumph over bureaucracy, form filling and processing, and the idea that we must continue to deal with things in the same old way.
The example of assistance dogs shows how innovative direct payments can be. They will not always be appropriate, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. However, when the council is satisfied that a person's needs can be met by using a direct payment in that way, there is no reason why it should not enable that payment to go ahead. The important consideration is the outcome for the disabled person. It is outcomes rather than processes that local councils should be focusing on, as the best and most innovative of them are.
The Government are committed to the increased use of direct payments for all disabled people, which is why we have changed the law to give councils a duty to make a direct payment to everyone who is eligible and wants one. In the past, there was a permissive power, which was not taken up with as much enthusiasm and speed as we might have hoped. We have now changed the law to

277WH
impose a duty on local authorities. That means that that approach to direct payments should be discussed at every assessment and review of a disabled person's circumstances. We will also include direct payments in how we assess performance. Hopefully that will get across to local councils—I am sure that it will—the importance with which the Government view the success of direct payments.
The Government have also put money into the support services that we know are essential in helping people to get on to and to stay on direct payments. The direct payments development fund is putting £9 million over three years into voluntary and community sector organisations, which can then work with the councils to promote and increase the take-up of direct payments. There is an opportunity to raise awareness about the potential role of assistance dogs in appropriate cases. For example, the Royal National Institute of the Blind is working in Rotherham to increase the take-up among people who are blind, partially sighted or have low vision by offering a quality of life check. At that point, it can raise awareness about possible solutions.
The provision of assistance dogs is not just confined to the direct payment system. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, some local councils and social services departments are taking an even more enlightened approach to the care packages that they provide and to finance that is outside direct payments. They have recognised the extent to which assistance dogs can be an integral part of care packages for some individuals.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my role in the Government, but I have to tell him that my responsibilities in the Department for Work and Pensions do not extend to dealing with social services departments. They are led directly by the Department of Health. That said, we are all believers in joined-up government and my ministerial colleagues in that Department and I look closely at such issues together. There is no reason why I cannot talk to those who have direct responsibility for social services, stress to them the points that have been made and draw his ideas to their attention.
I have, of course, some responses to make to the hon. Gentleman, but he will understand that I also have to approach my colleagues in other Departments. Perhaps I can deal with some of his points in correspondence. He asked me to reinforce the direction that the Government have taken to ensure that full weight is given to the concept of allowing direct payments to support an assistance dog. We have done that. He cited a letter from an ex-Minister at, I think, the Department of Health. There is no doubt that the Department has already issued guidance for councils and that we are committed to making it clear to them that we are looking for a creative and flexible approach to direct payments, built around the individual's needs. It is outcomes for the individual disabled person that are important, not a quota relating to how, and on what, money should be spent.
The hon. Gentleman asked about housing schemes supporting those with assistance dogs. He referred to the essential needs of dogs, such as a private area or a small piece of garden—somewhere where the dog can exercise and have a bit of space. As he said, that falls within the remit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. He said that there had been some discussions on legislation,
278WH
led by that Department. He will know that there is no requirement to provide private space, but registered social landlords are encouraged to provide suitable private or common space whenever possible. Under the housing quality indicator system, a registered social landlord receives better recognition for providing a larger open space. So there is encouragement for those who provide housing to think about needs that are not first on the list, including private garden space or communal space, which would be suitable for dog-owners.
I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments on registers of adapted homes, choice-based lettings and the implication of making changes, and I am sure that Ministers will give them due consideration.
The hon. Gentleman suggested looking at legislation to see whether it is possible to enable dogs in training to enter public premises. The policy of the Health and Safety Executive, which is within my Department, is that rather than implementing blanket bans, health and safety controls should be sensibly applied. The goal is not to try to eliminate all risks in public buildings—that would not be sensible—but to have a system under which risk is properly managed. We aim to have inclusive two-way communication with stakeholders, and he is aware of specific problems arising from the attempt to take dogs in training into public places. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me with some examples. I shall ask the Health and Safety Executive about its approach and ask whether something can be done to ensure that current rules are not applied unnecessarily rigorously.
I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman said about cost savings would be of great interest to the local authorities, which often bear the cost. No doubt, they will take notice because, if they have additional resources that are not being spent on the sort of support that someone with an assistance dog might otherwise need, they could not only provide a more efficient local service but have some spare money to do something for someone else in their area. I am sure that when local authorities start to think about the wider benefit of assistance dogs, they will recognise the potential.
On defraying the cost of training courses for disabled people as they learn to work with their assistance dog, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Department for Work and Pensions arranges vocational training—he referred to the access to work scheme, which is a little different—for long-term unemployed adults, many of whom have disabilities and are visually impaired, and for whom suitable vocational training provision is not available. On our courses, we ensure that any specialist support that is necessary for someone to make progress, including that relating to assistance dogs, is met. That does not deal with his concern about the cost of learning to work with the dog. I shall have to return to that, which I undertake to do.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting suggestion about prisoners. He will be aware that, along with all the other matters for which I am not responsible, I am not responsible for prisoners. However, I shall take his idea to my colleague in the Home Office and return to him with an answer. It is not something on which I want to stick my neck out at the moment.

279WH
The hon. Gentleman had a number of interesting ideas and I am pleased to see his enthusiasm, which I can well understand, having met many of the charities that provide assistance dogs. The great value of his comments, which extends beyond simply the issues raised and his ideas, is the opportunity to raise awareness among us all about the potential of assistance dogs. We need to make it clear to the public that their use goes beyond guide dogs for the blind and that they can provide much help and support for disabled people. It is clear that disabled people value their help widely.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Non-proliferation Treaty Review
2 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam):We have no Hansard reporter in the Chamber at present. However, the debate is being transcribed, so the position is not as bad as people might think.
Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the opportunity to introduce a debate on the nonproliferation treaty and its five-yearly review next year. The PrepCom will take place in April this year. I wish to declare an interest. I joined the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament at the age of 16 and I have no plans to resign from it. I do not recant anything that I have done within CND and I am a member of its national council. I am proud to be a member. I thank the CND and the House of Commons Library for their help in preparing for the debate.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) initiated an interesting half-hour Adjournment debate on the acceptance or otherwise of nuclear weapons by the British Government. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), replied to the discussions. I shall set the debate in context. We live in an incredibly dangerous world. Since 1945, there has been a huge number of wars. Many people have died as a result of those conflicts, yet we are still arming ourselves with nuclear weapons. While the purpose of the NPT is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we must recognise the heroic efforts of peace campaigners since nuclear weapons were first invented. People have bravely laid down their lives or devoted their whole lives to peace campaigns, such as the Nobel peace prize winner, Joseph Rotblat, who was part of the Manhattan project. There are many others, of course, such as the brave women of Greenham common who did so much to bring home to the world the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and a hero, Mordecai Vanunu, who is deserving of the Nobel peace prize and who is shortly to be released from prison. He has spent 14 years in an Israeli prison for having the temerity to tell the world that Israel was illegally developing nuclear weapons.
The case against nuclear weapons is strong. Each year, in Tavistock square in London—as in many other countries throughout the world—we remember Hiroshima day. We commemorate what happened on 6 August 1945 when nuclear weapons were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a result of which 60,000 people died immediately. The effects of the cancers at that time are still with us and people are still dying as a result of those explosions. They were no more than fireworks compared with the nuclear weapons that are now available to us. We should reflect for a moment on what has been achieved since 1945 in respect of even more nuclear weapons and greater dangers.
In his speech on 16 March 2004, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent rightly quoted at column number 293 something that former President Jimmy Carter said about nuclear weapons. I shall repeat the quote because it is very apt. The former President argued:

281WH
"In an all-out nuclear war, more destructive power than in all of World War II would be unleashed every second during the long afternoon it would take for all the missiles and bombs to fall.
A World War II every second—more people killed in the first few hours than all the wars of history put together. The survivors, if any, would live in despair amid the poisoned ruins of a civilisation that had committed suicide."
My hon. Friend also quoted former Soviet leader Khrushchev, who expressed similar sentiments when he said that
"the survivors would envy the dead."
Before we go into the minutiae of treaty negotiations and the technicalities of the issue, we must reflect on why we are trying to achieve nuclear disarmament and why many people have dedicated their lives to that end. The review conference in 2005 is important. It is the five-yearly review. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will give us some idea of what the Government's position will be and how he intends to involve Parliament in discussions about that so that MPs can make known their views on the matter.
The NPT review will take place as a result of the treaty that was first signed in 1970. It involved all the signatory states in the definition of what nuclear weapons were and in how they would get rid of them. The five declared nuclear weapon states undertook to get rid of their own nuclear weapons eventually. There was a commitment to total nuclear disarmament. That commitment remains, but it is a long way from being achieved.
I will list the declared nuclear weapon states. The United States developed nuclear weapons during the second world war in response to the true perception that Nazi Germany was also developing them, and it is the only country to explode them in anger. The Soviet Union followed by developing them in the immediate post-war period. Both the superpowers relied heavily in the development of their programmes on the expertise of Nazi weapons experts captured in 1945. Britain and France followed suit, but they developed smaller weapons. Then, dramatically, in 1964 China declared that it had nuclear weapons and exploded one.
The non-declared states that we know hold nuclear weapons are India, Pakistan and Israel. None of them has signed up to the NPT. That they should do so must remain a central demand of everyone involved in the peace movement. Another country that was well known to have nuclear weapons but was not a declared nuclear power was South Africa. Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress have achieved many great things; we should thank them for revealing to the world the existence of South African nuclear weapons when they took power, and for renouncing their use and abolishing them. That allowed Africa to become a nuclear-free continent. We should remember that it is possible unilaterally to declare oneself to be nuclear disarmed and not to suffer immediate invasion from somewhere else.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be useful if today or in the near future the Government were to make clear their intention not to continue with Trident when it reaches the end of its natural life? That would be a huge step forward in ensuring that the treaty becomes workable and effective throughout the world.
Jeremy Corbyn:I agree. I was going to mention Trident later.
282WH
The other countries that are believed to have nuclear weapons—or, at least, the capability of developing them—are Iran, Libya and North Korea. However, it is conceivable that most countries that have access to nuclear power could, in the right circumstances, develop nuclear weapons as well, although considerable technological knowledge would be required to achieve that.
We have NPTs and bans on the export of nuclear material and the technology that goes with it, but the limitations of all of that have been exposed by the statements of Abdul Qadeer Khan of Pakistan, who told the world about the large quantities of nuclear material that he had been involved in exporting to North Korea and other countries and the danger that goes with that.
So far, 188 have signed up to the NPT. The latest three to join are Cuba and East Timor. The only three states that remain outside the NPT process are India, Israel and Pakistan. I appeal to the Government to do everything that they can to persuade those countries to sign up to the NPT and to accept that the world must get rid of nuclear weapons altogether. If we are serious about persuading them to nuclear disarm, we should question why we are providing them with such a vast amount of conventional arms, which can be used in a localised war between India and Pakistan, and in the case of Israel can be, and are, used against the Palestinian people in the continued occupation of Palestine. The 2000 review agreed on 13 steps, all of which led towards a nuclear-free world, but the associated comprehensive test ban treaty has been signed by only 180 countries. Twenty-one countries have not signed it. I urge the Government to do everything that they can to persuade those countries to sign the treaty.
We should remember that the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons that took place routinely during the 1950s and early 1960s caused enormous environmental damage throughout the Pacific and in Australia. People, including British soldiers, are still dying who are nuclear test veterans. That is the reality of nuclear weapons and explosions.
In The Economist in October 2003, Muhammed El Baradei, the UN nuclear weapons expert, wrote an interesting and long article called "Towards a safer world" as head of the UN's investigation team. I shall quote briefly from it. He wrote that
"controlling access to nuclear-weapons technology has grown increasingly difficult. The technical barriers to designing weapons and to mastering the processing steps have eroded with time ... Uranium enrichment is sophisticated and expensive, but it is not proscribed under the NPT. Most designs for civilian nuclear-power reactors require fuel that has been 'low-enriched', and many research reactors operate with 'high-enriched' uranium. It is not uncommon, therefore, for non-nuclear-weapon states with developed nuclear infrastructures to seek enrichment capabilities and to possess sizeable amounts of uranium that could, if desired, be enriched to weapons-grade."
He continued:
"In 1970, it was assumed that relatively few countries knew how to acquire nuclear weapons. Now, with 35 to 40 countries in the know by some estimates, the margin of security under the current non-proliferation regime is becoming too slim for comfort."
He calls for a new approach and gives three proposals. The first is
"to limit the processing of weapon-usable material (separated plutonium and high-enriched uranium) in civilian nuclear programmes, as well as the production of new material through reprocessing and enrichment."

283WH
His other two proposals are that
"nuclear-energy systems should be deployed that, by design, avoid the use of materials that may be applied directly to making nuclear weapons"
and that
"we should consider multinational approaches to the management and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste. More than 50 countries have spent fuel stored in temporary sites, awaiting processing or disposal. Not all countries have the right geology to store waste underground and, for many countries with small nuclear programmes for electricity generation or for research,"
the cost of facilities is prohibitive. By bringing his considerable expertise to bear on the subject, he has pointed out some of the technical problems and limitations that one hopes that the NPT review conference will address.
The British Government will be participating in the PrepCom in April and May 2004 and in the full review conference next year. There are a number of issues that the British Government must address and I hope that we can discuss them briefly this afternoon. The first issue is that, if we are serious about nuclear disarmament, we must say that we are not prepared to use nuclear weapons. However, the Secretary of State for Defence made a number of statements throughout the run-up to the Iraq war and since—which were repeated by the Minister last week in a debate in the House—that the British Government would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons. I find it inconceivable that this country would ever use nuclear weapons. I want to hear the Minister say that, so that we can declare ourselves serious about disarmament and the non-use of nuclear weapons. I know that a number of facilities have been taken out of use and a number of submarines taken off patrol and that the number of active nuclear warheads is much reduced. Nevertheless, it takes only one warhead to go off to set off a nuclear conflict.
The second issue is the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which I believe is part and parcel of the US proposals for national missile defence, and Britain's signing up to the initial part of the NMD process. If we are to lecture the rest of the world on the need for nuclear disarmament, it ill behoves us to develop national missile defence, given the danger of proliferation.
The third issue is the one raised by my friend, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), in his intervention concerning the replacement for Trident, which is becoming more or less obsolete, as did Polaris before that. It would be nice to hear that there are no plans to replace that nuclear facility, and that we are committed to the statement to which we readily signed up in 1970 for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.
There is also the question of rigorous inspections in Iran, Korea and Libya. Although such inspections are taking place in Libya and, to some extent, Iran, and although negotiations are going on in Korea, one hopes that the NPT conference will be an opportunity to ensure effective inspections. As I pointed out, we should also continue to put pressure on Israel, India and Pakistan to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.
284WH
In 2000, my old friend, the sadly recently deceased Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked in the House of Lords whether the Government were
"hoping to make substantial progress towards world nuclear disarmament at the coming United Nations NPT Review Conference in New York"—
that is, PrepCom—
"and how they propose to avoid the procedural discussions which are reported to have nullified the recent Geneva Conference."
That was four years ago. In reply, the Minister said:
"We are looking for the conference to result in a balanced review which takes account of the positive steps which both we and other nuclear weapon states have taken over the past five years and which also sets a realistic agenda for the next five years."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 February 2000; Vol. 610, c. 323 and 324.]
Those were nice words well put, but unfortunately the problem remains that that conference, although important in itself, did not achieve the desired breakthrough. One hopes that there will be a breakthrough in the conference this April and May.
I hope that the Minister will answer the points that I—and, no doubt, other hon. Members—will raise this afternoon concerning the existence and use of nuclear weapons and, above all, the possibility of nuclear disarmament that comes from the NPT process. I also hope that he will seriously consult with the many bodies of opinion and expertise in this country, including those in the peace movement and various defence analysts and experts, so that there is popular understanding of what the NPT process is about, and of the possibility of our achieving nuclear disarmament.
The 1970 treaty envisaged that all states would eventually rid themselves completely of all nuclear weapons. In 1998, at the United Nations, the "new agenda" coalition of countries—Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden—proposed that we should get rid of all nuclear weapons, and saw that as a way forward. Why did the United Kingdom vote against the resolution put by those very honourable countries, all of which were very clearly saying something about nuclear weapons? Why was the opportunity of the 1998 strategic defence review not used to allow us to go a little bit further than we did in reducing the number of nuclear weapons on patrol? Why did we not use that opportunity to try to bring about the aspirations of the 1970 treaty?
I conclude—so that others may speak—by saying that the world has the ability to destroy itself many times over. Many people are dying because of conventional weapons, and many more would die if nuclear weapons were used. Many countries want to get hold of nuclear weapons because they see that the five permanent members of the Security Council are members of the nuclear club, and are the people with the power. deciding how the world is run. If the example is set by those five powers, who are expanding their nuclear capability through national missile defence, or a regeneration of Trident, or whatever, that does not make the world a safer place; in fact, it makes it infinitely more dangerous. The non-proliferation treaty debate—the conference next year—is an opportunity to step towards peace and use our skill, expertise and wealth for peaceful purposes, rather than for the development of weapons of mass destruction, which we hold in this country.

285WH
I have been in the CND all my life, and I am in a party with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, who has met many Members who are very committed to nuclear disarmament. This is a live issue in political debate, and I hope that today's debate goes some way towards encouraging further public discussion, with the hope and aspiration that there can be a world completely rid of nuclear weapons and their consequences.
2.19 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this important debate on a subject that we do not spend enough time discussing in Parliament. Although he has used the opportunity of the forthcoming review to hang his ideas on, those ideas flow throughout the security of this country and, more important, they underpin our dealings with other countries. We only have to look to our debate in Prime Minister's—or should I say Deputy Prime Minister's—questions on Libya and our relationship with that country to see how important it is to work on disarmament, rather than armament. I fully support and concur with the hon. Gentleman's ideas.
I want to concentrate first on the concept of a strategic deterrent in the form of nuclear weapons, which it seems that we have in this country at the moment, and secondly, on the proliferation security initiative, about which I should like to ask the Minister a few questions.
I begin with the defence White Paper of December 2003, which reiterated that
"our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security."
People tend to get somewhat disheartened on reading such words, because they are a de facto acceptance of a retention of a permanent policy commitment to nuclear weapons, in defiance of the international commitments and treaty obligations that the hon. Member for Islington, North outlined and which, incidentally, are not mentioned in the defence White Paper. In other words, the White Paper does not set out how the Government are setting about meeting their international treaty obligations to disarm and undergo nuclear disarmament, or how we square our treaty obligations with an ongoing commitment to Trident.
The White Paper also states that the UK faces "no major conventional military" threat. I think that that is still so. The threat that is identified, and which we have seen all too clearly over the past couple of weeks, is that of terrorism and of proliferation in terrorist methods. We must ask ourselves, "What possible use is our nuclear deterrent against that real threat to our daily lives in the United Kingdom, which is not in any way related to the issues of proliferation of nuclear weapons?" I shall deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in a moment. If we believe that the reliance on nuclear weapons as a strategic deterrent is of no relevance in the war on terror, that prompts the question of why we, as a nation, are holding back from moving forward on nuclear disarmament and particularly, why the defence White Paper says:
"Decisions on whether to replace Trident"
or not are not decisions to be made in
"this Parliament but are likely to be required in the next".
286WH
I regard that as a clear indication that the Government have in mind a timetable for a replacement for Trident. That is why I was grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North for allowing my intervention and for his remarks. It is clear from the White Paper that the Government have in mind a replacement for Trident. It would be useful if the Minister were able to say something today about any research that may be going on in nuclear installations in this country regarding such a replacement. That situation also underpins the need for parliamentary debate on such matters, to prevent our being bounced, as we were with the strategic defence initiative, into agreement with other countries about their defence and nuclear-based defence capabilities.
We were initially told that there would be upgrading work at Fylingdales for the strategic defence initiative during this month. It would be useful if the Minister said something today at least to confirm what is happening at Fylingdales at the moment and to give us the current state of play of that initiative.
We need to consider where the Government's policy is on this matter. The hon. Member for Islington, North set out clearly the international obligations and the way that he would wish the Government to address them, but we need to consider what they are actually saying on these matters. I reiterate—it is important to say this on the record—that the Government have not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. On 20 March 2002 the Secretary of State for Defence told the Defence Select Committee that
"in the right conditions"
the UK
"would be willing to use our nuclear weapons."
There are no right conditions in which to use nuclear weapons—that is the central question. However, we need to know what those right conditions are. Under what conditions do the Government foresee that it would be permissible or allowable to use nuclear weapons? The White Paper dismisses the idea of a major conventional threat to this country and identifies terrorism as the threat to our daily lives. That prompts the question, what are the Government doing about the issue?
On 2 February 2003, I asked the Prime Minister about the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in the context of what was then the forthcoming war on Iraq. Once again, the Prime Minister refused to rule out the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons and simply said that there was a traditional British doctrine. However, we do not know what that is because we have no explanation of what the right conditions would be for the use of nuclear weapons.
There was another interesting response in a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). He asked the Defence Secretary about the nuclear weapons programmes and there was the same reply:
"Under the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the United Kingdom, the United States, France, China and Russia are legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons."—[Official Report, 30 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 320 W.]
That is not what the treaty says at all; it does not give a legal entitlement to the ongoing possession of nuclear weapons. The purpose of that treaty is to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to facilitate their

287WH
total elimination. It does not give a legal remit to hold on to nuclear weapons at all. Article VI of the treaty states:
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date"
to a certain extent, the treaty has been successful on that—
"and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
The only conclusion that I can draw from the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Hereford is that the UK is trying to rewrite ipso facto the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to give the present nuclear weapon states, including the UK, some sort of legal basis on which to own nuclear weapons. I return to what the Secretary of State for Defence told the House of Commons on 5 June 2000. He said that
"the non-proliferation treaty as an agreement is an aspiration; it is not likely to produce results in the short term."—[Official Report, 5 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 12.]
I would say that the treaty has produced results. Whatever argument one may use about the history of the arms race, the treaty was useful in introducing effective measures to bring about the cessation of the nuclear arms race and can be effective for the future—this is the important thing for the review—for general and complete disarmament and a strict and effective international control. It is very unfortunate that the Secretary of State seems to have dismissed that as an aspiration when that aspiration has, partly at least, come about. The Government have obviously worked along those lines and I would like to see them work much harder to make the non-proliferation treaty work in that regard.
Finally, I should like to note in passing that the department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that deals with such matters has changed its name from the non-proliferation unit to the proliferation prevention unit. There is a subtlety of meaning there. "Non-proliferation" tied in the work of that department to the treaty, which was not just about non-proliferation but about nuclear disarmament. "Proliferation prevention" ties the department in much more to the current agenda of the nuclear states and the United States in particular. That agenda is about stopping other countries getting the weapons that we have and about keeping the weapons that we have. That is a very basic, rude and crude way of putting it, I know. However, that is what the United States policy is; I should be delighted if the Minister would put some more flesh on that from the United Kingdom policy point of view.
I want to mention the proliferation security initiative. We have not heard much about that in Parliament, and in general the issue has gone quiet during the past few months. However, hon. Members may remember that it was a United States State Department initiative. As it put it, it was set up
"as a response to the growing challenge posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction".
We know that such weapons are proliferating in Pakistan and North Korea. They may not be proliferating in Iraq, of course; that is a different matter.
288WH
The idea was that there could be an international seizure of the trade in weapons of mass destruction, particularly on the high seas. There were attempts just before the Gulf war to seize a shipment of missiles en route to Yemen from the Republic of North Korea. That turned out to be perfectly legal, in general international terms at least.
I remind the Chamber of what the proliferation security initiative says that it intends to achieve. Its interdiction principles state that it intends
"to establish a more coordinated and effective basis through which to impede and stop shipments of WMD, delivery systems, and related materials flowing to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern, consistent with national legal authorities and relevant international law and frameworks, including the UN Security Council."
I have some brief questions to put to the Minister and I hope that he can respond to some of them. One question is about the relationship between international law and frameworks and the United Nations Security Council. The US State Department has seized on a 1992 presidential statement of the UN Security Council to give it the authority to exercise the use of force to interdict ships on the high seas and check them. It does that in the name of non-proliferation. However, there are some serious questions as to whether that presidential statement gives it legal authority, and as to whether the international law and frameworks of maritime law, which are pretty well developed, run counter to that.
My second question relates to how any cases of such interdiction would be brought before the UN by the participants in the proliferation security initiative. The UK is a core part of that initiative. We also need to note that that initiative is a coalition of the willing—to use a phrase from another context—rather than an organisation based on an international treaty. We must ask ourselves how "states of concern"—that is the wording of the initiative—will be identified. Does the phrase have a legal definition or, as we have seen in the case of Iraq, does it allow one country to decide that another country is of concern and that action must be taken against it?
What mechanism will be adopted in the case of interdiction? Finally, what is to prevent any nation from adopting the same criteria and boarding any ship that it believes to be of concern, thereby thwarting legitimate trade between nations? Such measures could be used to put pressure on countries that do not fit in with the ideals of the nation concerned. We have only to think about what the US State Department thinks about Cuba, which internationally is a perfectly legal and recognised entity, to see how a proliferation security initiative could be misused by one country if it identified a concern in another country and took action on that. I hope that the Minister can bring the House up to date about the proliferation security initiative and how he intends that to work in relation to international legislation and the workings of the UN Security Council.
I conclude with a simple quote that I came across recently. It underlines my feelings on the matter and the conclusions of the hon. Member for Islington, North. It is as follows:

289WH
"We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security—and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use."
The United Kingdom is in that situation. We hold weapons of mass destruction. What is more, we continue to develop them and refine their capacities, and we have plans for their use. If the Government say that there are situations in which they would use nuclear weapons, obviously they postulate plans for their use. That quote came from the same person that the hon. Gentleman quoted in a different context: Muhammed El Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The quotation was published on 13 February 2004 in the International Herald Tribune.
We are talking about the key question for the review of the non-proliferation treaty. How will the Government approach that review? Will they build on the successes of the treaty so far in at least bringing about the cessation of a particular type of horrid arms race, or will they perpetuate the cold war in another guise? It is time for us as a nation to take the step not only of rejecting the use of nuclear weapons, but of saying positively that we will disarm. The replacement for Trident is the ideal opportunity to take that first step. I hope that the Minister will say—I do not think that he will—that we will not have a replacement for Trident and that we will be taking those steps.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. I see two hon. Members rising to speak. We should remember that the purpose of the debate is to enable the hon. Member raising it to get an adequate reply from the Minister. If both hon. Gentlemen are brief, they will be able to speak before the Minister starts his winding-up speech.
2.35 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall speak only for a few minutes. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this debate on a most important issue—arguably the most important that faces us. I entirely agree with the two fine speeches that have already been made so I do not need to repeat them, but some of what I say may reinforce them.
The cold war between the Soviet world and the west is now over. Weapons such as Trident were designed for that situation, but even then, I did not accept the necessity of nuclear weapons. I was a member of CND for many years, I marched all the way from Aldermaston in 1962, and many years later I became chair of Trade Union CND, so I have a record in these matters. It is time to decommission Trident and not to replace it—that point has been made. It was designed for a world in which major powers faced each other, not for a world that is dealing with terrorism carried out by persons unknown working within societies. Trident is out of date, irrelevant, extremely expensive and potentially very dangerous.
I agree entirely that we should decommission Trident and become a non-nuclear power. If we did, we would be seen to be the first major power to be moving in a
290WH
peaceful direction, rather than a warlike one. We would derive great moral respect in the world, and we would then be in a position to speak about peace to the rest of the world. I am not suggesting that we disarm conventionally, because we have a strong role to play using conventional arms—working under the auspices of the UN for peaceful purposes in various parts of the world is a very fine thing. Indeed, some interventions were not made that I think should have been made. Rwanda is one such case: if the UN had got in quickly, and we had sent troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda, that would have been a humane purpose for military activity, and I would have supported it. However, that has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, which have no role to play.
Britain has another role because we were a colonial power—the colonial power, with a footprint in more parts of the world than anyone else. We have links that can be useful. In my constituency are many thousands of constituents from Kashmir, Pakistan and India. The situation in that part of the world is tense and very delicate. It is starting to improve, but Britain could and should have a role. If we take sides in a strong and aggressive way, as we are at the moment, it is more difficult for us to play a conciliation role in those parts of the world.
In Africa, too, there are serious tensions in many states, and some have become non-states because of appalling internal civil wars and violence. We could play a role in Africa under the auspices of the United Nations, because we understand Africa—we have had a greater presence in Africa than any other colonial power. We could play a positive role for peace across the whole of Africa, but we cannot do that if we have a partisan, militaristic role in the world and retain nuclear weapons. We look like a country that is going to wage war, rather than a country that is going to end wars.
I wanted to make those brief points to support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and the other hon. Members who have spoken today. The UK has respect in the world—perhaps more respect than we deserve sometimes. Britain still commands respect from many people in the continent of Europe, and the many people from all over the world who live in my constituency. That could be massively enhanced if we chose to be the first major nation to get rid of its nuclear weapons and start to work for peace.
2.39 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this very timely debate, and on his own excellent and comprehensive speech. I also complement the other speakers and agree with much that has been said.
I believe that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the basis of a stable future for our world. I praise the work that the United Kingdom Government played in the 2000 negotiations in bringing countries together in a successful negotiation. If we are to have a safe future, it is vital that the treaty be strengthened. It has been much more successful than many people had anticipated. If one examines the forecasts that experts made in past decades, one finds that they predicted that by now far more countries would have nuclear weapons than has turned out to be the case.

291WH
When we debated this issue in January 2000, we were aware that there was a risk of materials passing from states not only to other states but to terrorists. In the light of 11 September, the awareness has become much stronger. Materials may pass not only from states but from black market or independent agents. There are various concerns about materials remaining in the former Soviet Union and the danger from Pakistan. When we were embarking on the campaign against al-Qaeda, there were fears that it could have obtained personnel or weapons material from Pakistan, through ideological or financial links. The general impression is that, although al-Qaeda attempted to do that, fortunately, it did not succeed. Where terrorism is concerned, we must concentrate on al-Qaeda and related organisations, but we must never forget that the threat is not simply from Islamic fundamentalism. As one can see from the Aum Shinri Kyo sect in Japan, it is possible for other organisations to adopt the sort of extremist terrorism that aims to kill vast numbers of people.
One should be cautious about what one says about Iraq. The present evidence is that Iraq abandoned its nuclear programme, and probably all its weapons of mass destruction, in the 1990s. If that was the case, it suggests that the International Atomic Energy Agency, the NNPT and international pressure were more successful than most of us—myself included—realised. That shows that there are terrible dangers in the neo-conservative concept of resolving such matters through pre-emptive war based on uncertain intelligence. Detestable as it must be to the Prime Minister and many others, I praise his decision to deal with Libya. We have to resolve such matters by negotiation.
On 11 February, President Bush made an important speech on weapons of mass destruction proliferation. I yield to most people in my respect for President Bush, but I admit he said some things that are deserving of special attention. Every civilised nation, he says, has a stake in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We could go further and say that the whole of humanity has a stake in that. His statement that we should do everything we can to prevent the criminal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is clearly correct. However, I share the concern that was expressed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that such a policy can include intercepting vessels one thinks are carrying materials. Because of the attitude of some members of the Bush administration, I am concerned that such action could become a cause of war if it were carried out in a cavalier fashion.
We should strengthen national laws, and I am pleased that we have been one of the first countries to take on the additional protocol. I am also pleased that President Bush is now talking about strengthening the Nunn-Lugar arrangements to control and reduce nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. It was disappointing that he moved away from it at the start of his presidency, but I am pleased that he has moved it back up his agenda and that the world community has fallen into line behind it. We must recognise that civil
292WH
nuclear production can be diverted to making nuclear weapons: in particular, processes such as enrichment and reprocessing must be controlled.
Llew Smith: My hon. Friend says that national and international laws must be strengthened, but is it not a fact that the United Kingdom is breaking the current law in nonproliferation treaty articles VI and I, and the United States is breaking another international treaty, the chemical weapons convention? He spoke of the willingness of terrorists to carry out mass killings. It is difficult for us to comprehend the horror of some of those events, but, in response to a question of mine, the Government said that in extreme circumstances they would be willing to press the nuclear button—surely the ultimate act of madness. Does my hon. Friend agree, or can he think of a more extreme act of madness than involvement in nuclear conflict?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. I remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) of the time constraints.
Mr. Savidge:I believe that all of us would devote ourselves to trying to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again. Having visited Hiroshima, I have no doubt about that.
It is important that the International Atomic Energy Agency be strengthened. Suspected violators should not be on the board and we should strengthen the additional protocol. However, the points made by Mr. El Baradei in response to the President must also be considered. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty should be made binding, and we should treat withdrawal far more seriously. There should be no permission for withdrawal from the treaty or, at least, there should be an immediate report to the United Nations Security Council in such an event. We must also recognise the dangers of diversion from the civil nuclear industry and ask whether the spread of that industry increases the safety of our world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, we must consider the non-signatory powers, including India and Pakistan. Obviously, we are very pleased that Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Musharraf are pursuing a peace process—we hope that it will be successful. Clearly, they should be involved. As has been said, the situation of Israel is a problem, and it is unacceptable for Sharon to say that he is waiting for success in the middle east peace negotiations if he himself is a major block to progress. We should also consider Kofi Annan's proposal for a UN conference on nuclear weapons in which the status of the unofficial nuclear weapons states would be avoided in order to bring them into discussions.
We cannot disregard questions about the nuclear weapons states themselves. I follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion in quoting Mr. El Baradei, who said that we must abandon the notion that
"it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them".
We must follow the 13 steps drawn up in New York. We promised that we would support a comprehensive test ban treaty and stop testing. The US must adhere to its

293WH
current moratorium and we must press our ally to consider and sign the comprehensive test ban treaty. It is unacceptable that, although we have said that we will have a missile cut-off treaty, China and the US are blocking it over the issue of weapons in space. It is unacceptable that, although we agreed to strengthen the anti-ballistic missile treaty, it is being abandoned. Missile defence is not helpful to the process that we need.
We must realistically reduce nuclear weapons. We need something far stronger than the Moscow treaty—something that includes irreversibility, is binding, and acts much faster to remove the vast quantities of nuclear weapons materials that no one needs. We therefore need a process that moves fast enough to bring in China, Britain and France.
The Bush Administration should cease talking of breaking negative security guarantees and devising programmes to make nuclear weapons useable. It is unthinkable that they should be talking about mini-nukes for bunker-busting, especially if one remembers poor Colin Powell being pushed out to say that the Administration knew about vast underground bunkers and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and how none has so far been found.
We must work together to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism and nuclear war and create a safe future. There is no future safety in national military invulnerability. There is safety only in the common security of all states.
2.51 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing a debate on a very important topic. As he pointed out, it is rarely afforded the opportunity of proper discussion in the main Chamber. I also pay tribute to all others who have contributed. They, in their different ways, have long and established campaigning records on these issues, and bring much expertise to the debate.
A recurring theme this afternoon has been the self-evident truth that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of international arrangements to reduce the threat of nuclear war and keep the world secure. For a period after the end of the cold war, people thought that the dangers had passed. The events of the past few years have indicated that the world is not as safe a place as we hoped. An element of complacency in the 1990s has been replaced with real fears about the spread of nuclear weapons and a new risk that, in time, terrorists or other non-state actors will get hold of the technology and capability for nuclear weapons.
When we examine the context in which the non-proliferation treaty will be reviewed in a year's time—as the hon. Member for Islington, North said, there is an important conference in a few weeks' time—we can see that there has been a mixed set of circumstances on the non-proliferation issue in the past year. There has been a mixture of some delight and a great deal of concern. In Libya, we have seen a real breakthrough. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) commented, there is some difficulty with the concept of
294WH
dealing with Gaddafi and his regime and never losing sight of the terrible events of Lockerbie. On the other hand, we have seen the rewards of a patient process in which the Government and others have participated, and the events of the past year, with missiles being shipped safely away from Libya, represent real progress.
Equally, there have been real concerns. The good news in Libya stripped away some of the difficulties of seeing the modern nuclear reality. We quickly saw the situation in Pakistan and the revelation of the virtual international bazaar that Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan was operating, spreading nuclear know-how around the world. We should be very worried to see many of the countries that he was dealing with in the possession of such knowledge. Know-how and technology are moving around, and there are parallel concerns in Pakistan about the safety and security of its nuclear arsenal. As has been mentioned, Pakistan, India and Israel are not members of the non-proliferation treaty regime. Given the new context in which we operate, it would be useful if the Minister told us what steps might be taken to allow Pakistan and others to come closer to membership of and compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Alongside Pakistan, we have concerns about North Korea, which is perhaps the most dangerous situation that is facing us. In the past year there have been threats, counter-threats and many periods of stand-off. Last year's announcement that North Korea was withdrawing from the NPT was worrying, but we must hope that, once again, multi-lateral diplomacy will be successful in drawing it into compliance with the treaty.
Events closer to the domestic political agenda of the past year have put a focus on the middle east. I will not rehearse again the questions and points that have been raised about Iraq. However, the prospect of a nuclear war that is started somewhere in the middle east remains real. It is vital that we get Israel signing up to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear state, allowing us to move towards the creation of a middle east that is free from such weapons.
Iran, in its own way, has brought itself to the public's attention. I shall return to that in a moment. There has been a series of responses from the world community. One of the key areas that needs further examination is counter-proliferation and the role of our intelligence services; they are the subject of severe scrutiny in the United Kingdom at the moment. We need to see their role in working with other international agencies strengthened. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the proliferation security initiative. We would welcome anything that will enhance security, although I recognise some of the dangers to which he alluded. The Foreign Secretary, in his written statement to the House of Commons in February, referred, in the context of the global partnership against nuclear proliferation, about the prospect of establishing a UN Security Council committee along the lines of the Counter-Terrorism Committee. Has that particular initiative been taken forward and what progress has been made on it? Similarly, there was mention in that statement of the desirability of a new United Nations Security Council resolution. We would support such an initiative and I hope that the Minister will have something to report to us about it.

295WH
I mentioned Iran. The peaceful use of a nuclear capability is something that is important to many countries. The agonising about the status of Iran's nuclear capabilities has been causing much concern in the past few months; there must be genuine concerns about the nature of its nuclear programme. Its announcement that it has suspended enrichment activities is welcome, but it is equally worrying that it has been unwilling to agree to the inspections that were requested by the international community. I pay tribute to the Government, who were working in league with France and Germany, for the way in which their diplomatic efforts have made progress in the past few months. I hope that, working in tandem with the United States, we may yet see an early resolution of that issue.
Previous speakers have made contributions about disarmament. I would merely say that we welcome the steps that have been taken. Serious progress has been made since 1997. However, we must hope that there will be further progress under this Government. In particular, we must hope for a recognition that if no further steps are taken by the existing nuclear powers, our credibility with those who have them illegally—in the context of the treaty—or with those who aspire to have them will not be great.
This is a brief debate and many serious issues have yet to be fully discussed, but I hope that the Minister will give a strong signal that the Government remain committed to pressing the non-proliferation agenda and that in the coming review of the treaty they will take a lead in making the world a safe place.
3 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. He and I may not always agree, but with great passion and conviction he brings to the attention of the House important issues on a variety of subjects and, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, I freely acknowledge that.
I also congratulate all the speakers who have contributed to this afternoon's debate. As others have said, it is important that at this time, in the light of recent revelations about proliferation and a month before the final preparatory committee meeting for the 2005 review, we debate the issue, which is crucial for global security and stability. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a vast issue, so I shall concentrate on the narrower subject before us today in a broader context.
The fact is that some countries possess nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and the apparent inequality of such a situation inevitably generates a desire for others to possess them also, whether to establish their status in a global or regional context or to possess so-called deterrents against other countries already in possession of them. Those are two often-cited factors when considering Iran's nuclear activities.
Recent revelations about the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan in Pakistan, Libya and North Korea have caused questions to be asked about the suitability of the 1970 non-proliferation treaty for the proliferations
296WH
challenges of the 21st century. The N PT legitimised the five nuclear powers' arsenals and forbade further proliferation, but does not contain provisions to penalise those who would not sign and who are technically not subject to treaty rules, such as India, Pakistan and Israel. It also allowed any signatory the right to use nuclear materials for peaceful purposes, and that is very grey territory because the development of a nuclear capability for some purposes can be transferred to a more aggressive posture in other circumstances.
The objective of the treaty, which was originally agreed for 25 years but was extended indefinitely in 1995, was full nuclear disarmament. That remains its ultimate objective and was reaffirmed in the 1995 review and extension conference, at the 2000 review conference and in preparatory committee sessions for the 2005 review. The NPT was the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, and ideas such as nuclear-free or weapons of mass destruction-free regions are being advanced at the moment, particularly in respect of the middle east; they deserve careful consideration.
The NPT has achieved successes and we should not downplay the role that it has played in limiting proliferation. However, while the need to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has always been great, it has never been more important than it is today. Historically, potentially belligerent states in possession of large nuclear arsenals were the main problem; today it is failed states, rogue states run by unaccountable regimes that do not always act rationally, and terrorist groups that represent the most potent threat to global security. The so-called traditional risk has not gone away—witness the near-nuclear conflict in Kashmir only a few years ago—but the treaty must seek effectively to address the new threats as well.
Recent developments in Libya have been alluded to and the decision to reveal and dismantle its programme is welcome although, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) stated, experience teaches us to be wary of Colonel Gaddafi's promises until they are delivered. Many unresolved issues remain between the United Kingdom and Libya. Important facts have been brought to light that highlight the complexity of the global proliferation networks, of which we were unaware, and the ways that the NPT has been circumvented.
The activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan have done a lot of damage to non-proliferation efforts. With a web of contacts and middlemen spreading throughout the middle east, parts of Europe, across the Indian subcontinent and into Asia, it is imperative that we now draw together all the available intelligence so that we can identify and pursue every contact in the web and form an accurate picture of what technology and knowledge has been passed on to which countries, regimes or even terrorist groups. The risks posed by the new proliferators, including those from the former Soviet Union, are real.
Iran's nuclear programme remains a concern to us. It is clear that Iran has breached nuclear safeguards and rules; that has been going on for 18 years. It has also refused to disclose important aspects of its nuclear programme. Those breaches are serious, and it is right

297WH
that the IAEA passed a resolution reflecting that. However, Iran has now started co-operating with the IAEA, and I hope that that continues and is built upon.
The situation in North Korea has been mentioned. It is arguably the most worrying consequence of proliferation that a totalitarian regime making very bellicose noises should possess nuclear capability. That is beyond the scope of the NPT to remedy. A firm stance coupled with the prospect of talks to remove the problem must be pursued. China's efforts to defuse the situation and tackle North Korea's nuclear status deserve our gratitude and support.
In the light of recent events, many people, including Mr. El Baradei of the IAEA, have begun to raise serious questions about whether the NPT is as effective and well suited to modern needs as it should be. He recently alluded to that in an article in The Economist. He stated that many countries that signed the NPT have yet to effect the safeguard agreement with the IAEA; fewer than 20 per cent. of them have finalised the 1997 additional protocol allowing for broader inspections and, seemingly. a culture of a reluctance to move first has developed. As he notes, hardware for nuclear energy production is at present often dual-use, which makes monitoring difficult.
With such proliferation of knowledge, does the Minister agree that the current framework for verification and regulation requires updating? Does he also agree that the processing of weapons-usable material, such as separated plutonium, in civilian nuclear programmes should now be restricted? Does he believe that proliferation-resistant energy system technology has been sufficiently developed to be considered for inclusion in all civilian nuclear programmes? Will he be pressing for the development of such processes to be a priority?
Much of what I have said is about how to prevent future proliferation rather than how to tackle proliferation that has already occurred, as this debate focuses on the treaty review. It is not about tackling new, or near, nuclear states, which are subjects in themselves. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the UK will play a full and active role in the 2005 review, as it did in past ones, and that it will give serious consideration to the views expressed here today.
In many ways today's world is more unpredictable than that of the cold war era in which the NPT was conceived. Proliferation is one of the causes of that unpredictability. We must ensure that the NPT adequately addresses the proliferation challenges of today.
3.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate; the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) stole the words that I was going to use in responding to him. What I have to say is not diplomatic flannel, although that is a necessity from time to time for Foreign Office Ministers; although there are disagreements on issues, there is wide regard and respect for the integrity with which my hon. Friend pursues his views on these matters. 1 was struck by the comments
298WH
that he and other hon. Members made about the appalling horrors that could accompany nuclear configuration, and in that context the important debate is about how we ensure that we avoid that situation. Those judgments are not easy, and that is what divides the debate. It is important that we take this opportunity to discuss those issues, particularly within the context of the non-proliferation treaty, its review and British participation.
We believe that the NPT is the corner-stone of the non-proliferation regime, and we are committed to working towards a world safer from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The NPT has been, is and should be in future a crucial tool for helping us to do that. We remain fully committed to the treaty and look forward to participating in the review.
The NPT is already a strong treaty. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, it already has a good track record in thwarting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has the widest membership of any arms control treaty and it retains the wholehearted support of the United Kingdom and the vast majority of the international community. We are committed to strengthening it in the face of the challenges posed by the new security environment.
I am somewhat younger than I look. I am a child of the cold war and I grew up with the real and constant fear of nuclear war. Some of the challenges that we face today are even more terrifying than those that we faced during that divide between east and west.
We must look to all international instruments and treaties at our disposal. With that in mind, the UK's main goal for the forthcoming 2004 PrepCom and the 2005 review conference will be to emphasise the need for greater efforts in the non-proliferation and compliance areas of the treaty. The events of the past year have shown that several states continue to seek clandestine nuclear weapons programmes and that individuals are willing to assist them in the proliferation of sensitive materials and technology. The treaty must therefore be strengthened and the political will generated to prevent that.
Before I go any further, it is worth putting on the record the considerable progress that we have made in nuclear disarmament. People involved in the debate do not often acknowledge it, but our record is good. We played a key role in achieving international agreement to the final document that was produced at the previous NPT review conference in 2000.
The UK has made considerable progress on the "13 practical steps towards nuclear disarmament" set out in the document. For example, we have begun a programme to develop UK expertise in verifying the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons internationally. At the second meeting of the preparatory committee for the 2005 review conference, held in Geneva during April and May last year, we issued a working paper on the authentication of warheads and their components. At the third meeting of the committee in New York this year, we will present the next part of the study, which looks at verification

299WH
technologies and their potential use in warhead dismantling. Those are some of the critical areas in which we must make progress.
Llew Smith:Could the Minister explain how Trident fits into those steps towards nuclear disarmament?
Mr. Rammell:If my hon. Friend will wait, I will happily address Trident, as I did directly to him in the Chamber last week.
At the 2005 review conference we will summarise the range of technologies and approaches that have been researched over the five-year programme. The work will provide the basis for methodologies that might be used in the verification regime of any future disarmament treaty.
I will address the issues that have been raised by hon. Members before I return to the central thrust of my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North rightly raised concerns about those states that do not operate in the auspices of the non-proliferation treaty in which there is a concern about nuclear weapons capability. We continue strongly to urge Israel, India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states. There is no equivocation about that. It is a view that we constantly put forward.
Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ceredigion raised concerns about national missile defence. It is important to make it abundantly clear what we have, and have not, agreed to. In February 2003, after significant public and parliamentary discussion, the United Kingdom agreed to the United States' request to upgrade and use RAF Fylingdales' early warning radar for missile defence. That upgrade keeps open the prospect of our acquiring missile defence capabilities should we desire such protection in future. However, we have not decided to join the US missile defence programme. That is a decision that is still open to us and there should be ample opportunities for it to continue to be discussed.
There has been significant questioning, which was similar to the questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), on the issue of the circumstances in which we would be prepared to use the nuclear weapons that we possess. It is important to make it clear that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote. That is consistent with what the Secretary of State for Defence said. We would use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence and in accordance with our obligations under international law. I think that that is a reassurance that should go forward.
Mr. Simon Thomas:Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that those circumstances categorically rule out a preemptive use of nuclear weapons?
Mr. Rammell:We need there to be some uncertainty on the part of those states that might seek to attack us about our disposal in defending ourselves. Nevertheless, as I have made clear, we would use nuclear weapons
300WH
only in extreme circumstances of self-defence and strictly in accordance with our obligations under international law.
A question that has been put forward this afternoon concerns our stance on a comprehensive test ban treaty and whether we are in favour of other countries signing up to it. Emphatically, yes that is the case. My noble Friend Baroness Symons spoke at the CTBT conference held in Vienna in September 2003. She took the opportunity to urge all states that had not yet signed and ratified the treaty to do so. That is the position that we maintain today.
The issue of the proliferation security initiative was also raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, who asked how that related to existing non-proliferation treaties and regimes. That is an important area for discussion and clarification. There are a number of tools at our disposal to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The aim of the proliferation security initiative is to build on and reinforce those existing tools, not—explicitly—to supplant them. The PSI builds on the 1992 UN Security Council declaration on proliferation of WMD, which states that the proliferation of all WMD constitutes a threat to international peace and security and underlines the need for member states of the UN to prevent proliferation.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion also raised the legal basis of the issue. The statement of interdiction principles that was agreed at the Paris PSI meeting on 4 September 2003 makes it clear that all action will be consistent with existing national legal authorities and the international legal framework. There is a large body of authority for undertaking interdiction operations, such as those involving actions in territorial waters, airspace or land or by flag states against vessels operating under their flags.
To those people who have a strong track record of campaigning against nuclear weapons, I say that I respect their integrity and motives but am sometimes puzzled as to why, given that commitment, there are concerns about initiatives such as the PSI, which is a legitimate and justifiable move to stop the proliferation of nuclear capability and its spread, both to states that could use it extremely irresponsibly and to non-state actors and terrorists who could greatly increase the risks that we face.
Jeremy Corbyn:I think, if I may say so, that the concerns that many of us have are about unilateral actions by nuclear powers, such as the US intercepting the vessel travelling from Korea to Yemen. We would much prefer an international inspection agency and interception process, and Muhammed El Baradei would confirm that.
Mr. Rammell:I think that case can be argued. To refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, we are certainly talking about a coalition of the willing who are rightly prepared to move forward on the issue. In time, the matter may well come under the auspices of wider international agreement. However, the fundamental point must be made that the proliferation security initiative is based on the sound principle of trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and other WMD capability, and preventing it from getting into the

301WH
hands of people who would have absolutely no compunction in using it and causing disaster to the whole world in a genuinely horrifying way.
I return to some of the broad issues and the UK's progress on disarmament under NPT article VI. We remain fully committed to all aspects of the NPT, including global and verifiable nuclear disarmament. We have an excellent record in fulfilling our NPT obligations. In some senses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) acknowledged, we are the most forward-leaning of the nuclear weapon states.
Specifically. we have undertaken a number of actions, particularly in the past six and a half years, that have made significant progress. First, we have withdrawn and dismantled the RAF's freeform nuclear bomb, so that Trident is now our only nuclear weapons system. We dismantled the last Chevaline warhead in 2002, demonstrating our commitment to irreversibility in the reduction of the UK's nuclear weapons. We have reduced our operationally available stockpile to fewer than 200 warheads. That is a reduction of more than 70 per cent. in the potential explosive power of our nuclear forces since the end of the cold war—a significant development, in my view.
We have also rightly reduced the readiness of our nuclear forces. A single Trident submarine is now on deterrent patrol, carrying 48 warheads. The submarine on patrol is normally on several days' "notice to fire", and its missiles are de-targeted. That, too, is a significant de-escalatory move. We have rightly signed and ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. As I said, we continue to promote its early entry into force.
The Government's policy on nuclear weapons remains as it was when it was set out in the 1998 strategic defence review and the 2003 defence White Paper. We are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons, and we continue to play a full role in international efforts to strengthen arms control and prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
However, the continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, means that our minimum deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security for the present. Nevertheless, we will continue to support multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons worldwide. When we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made to allow us to include British nuclear weapons in any negotiations without endangering our security interests, we will certainly do so.
We live in an uncertain world, and the NPT certainly faces challenges from states of concern such as Iran. We believe that the global community needs to strengthen the NPT by ensuring full compliance by such states. The UK is continuing to work in collaboration with the international community to ensure that Iran operates within its obligations under the NPT. We have also worked with the United States to secure a significant and historic agreement with Libya to renounce its clandestine nuclear weapons programme. Both those efforts demonstrate our clear commitment to strengthening the non-proliferation regime.
302WH
Let me take up the proposals on strengthening the international non-proliferation regime, which were laid before the House by the Foreign Secretary on 25 February. In addressing these issues I should like to begin by considering the NPT and the IAEA. Non-nuclear weapon states that are party to the NPT are obliged to enter into safeguard agreements with the IAEA to verify that there is no diversion of nuclear activities from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices. States that fail to comply with their safeguard obligations inevitably lose the confidence of the international community—which is a concern for all of us—and the bargain that is at the heart of the treaty is fundamentally called into question. We should consider whether such states should forfeit the right to develop the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly the enrichment and reprocessing capabilities, which are of such proliferation sensitivity. That does not mean that they would be deprived of the possibility of constructing and running civil nuclear power stations, which could still operate with fuel supplied by countries that honoured their safeguard obligations.
Experience in recent years has shown the need for more wide-ranging IAEA inspections of national nuclear industries. The agency's additional protocol provides the basis for carrying out such inspections. It is important that all members of the international community adopt one. Suppliers of nuclear technology should increasingly regard that as a key commitment when they judge export licence applications.
As I said, international security is jeopardised by the risks of the proliferation of nuclear materials and expertise. The recent exposure of the A. Q. Khan network has fundamentally highlighted those serious risks and concerns. We must remain focused on that threat, which is why we are committed to initiatives such as the global partnership, which is an important step forward, and the proliferation security initiative, which was launched in May 2003. That has an important and fundamental role to play in preventing the trafficking in weapons of mass destruction and related technology by state and non-state actors, such as terrorist groups or criminal networks, through increased interdiction efforts.
I said earlier that those who campaign, rightly, against nuclear weapons should take up the cause of the proliferation security initiative. There is also an argument that can be made in respect of some of those regimes, such as North Korea, that may possess nuclear weapons and are not—or claim that they are not—party to the NPT. I agree with a number of the comments that have been made about the serious concerns that exist within North Korea. I am puzzled sometimes by the way in which anti-nuclear campaigners rightly challenge, criticise and scrutinise this and other Governments, yet when there is an example of a country—such as North Korea in the past 18 months—that is seeking completely to disregard its non-proliferation obligations I do not hear the same voices raised in protest.
Jeremy Corbyn:I would like the Minister to be fully aware that those who campaign for nuclear disarmament and nuclear peace do so in every country around the world, including North Korea.
Mr. Rammell:I respect the integrity of my hon. Friend's position, but perhaps he will go back through

303WH
the record of parliamentary questions, both oral and written, on this issue in the past 18 months. I have not heard the level of concern on proliferation in North Korea that I have heard in other areas of the world. There must be some even-handedness and balance on these issues.
There is a fundamental concern, which is that the UN Security Council has not discussed proliferation since 1992—a period of 12 years, during which these processes have been ongoing. I warmly welcome the debate that is currently taking place about a draft resolution on proliferation, which would seek the adoption of tough national legislation to criminalise the possession, manufacture and trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. Our discussion is very timely. I hope that the Security Council will be in a position to pass that resolution very soon.
This has been an exceedingly good debate. We have had an opportunity to air these issues fully. There are real, genuine concerns that we need to continue to address. We need to go forward multilaterally and seek the nuclear disarmament to which every Member of this House aspires.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:I thank hon. Member for co-operating and enabling every Member who wished to take part in the debate to do so.

UK Citizens (Guantanamo Bay)
3.30 pm
David Winnick: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this subject. It is not my argument that the four British citizens held by the United States at Guantanamo bay are necessarily innocent of terrorism—I am in no position to know. We do know, however, that the five who were released, who had been held for some time by the United States, have not been charged for any offence since returning here. I accept that that, in itself, does not mean that the four in question are innocent of any involvement in terrorism. The point is that if the four United Kingdom citizens are to be tried in the United States, the legal process should be in accordance with the recognised law and international standards of democratic countries. Our Foreign Office Ministers and Law Officers should continue to pursue that in talks with the US authorities.
I share the concern that if any or all four of the detainees are charged, they will, as things stand, be tried before a military commission. Apparently, that method of trying people in America applies only to non-US citizens. For instance, members of the US armed services have the right to appeal against a sentence imposed by a court martial to an independent civilian court. Those tried before a military commission, including the British citizens, have no such right of appeal. What happens in such cases is that any guilty verdict is reviewed by a panel of military officers. Once a decision of guilt has been established, such findings go to the Defence Secretary and either he or the President of the United States gives the final confirmation of the decision. There is no right to any kind of independent court.
Moreover, if the four were to be found not guilty, would they automatically be released and allowed to come out of detention? If they are tried before a military commission and found not guilty, will they be released and allowed to leave the United States? It will be interesting to hear the answer to that.
After representations made by the British Government, will the four will be able to choose their own lawyers? That is an important point. The right to choose one's lawyer is a feature of any democratic society. In the United States, for example, those from the armed services who are charged and appear before a court martial have some choice. If the four detainees are to have their own lawyers, what about payment? I understand that it would be necessary for defendants in those circumstances to pay lawyers who, certainly in the United States, do not come cheap. What will happen if they are free to choose their own lawyers, but are not in the position to fund such services?
There is another question about lawyers. Lawyers who appear before the military commission need security clearance and difficulties could arise in such circumstances. If security clearance is very restrictive, would the lawyers acting for the four—if they are allowed to have lawyers of their own choosing?be so restricted that they would not have the information that defence lawyers normally have?
Following the representations made by the British Government, I know that the four are not going to be sentenced to death even if they are found guilty. That is

305WH
a useful fact to know, especially for those involved. Nevertheless, if they were to be found guilty by a military commission in the absence of a death sentence, the sentence could be very heavy indeed. That is all the more reason why the defence lawyers should have the necessary information to do the very best for their clients.
Will the proceedings take place in public or in camera, or will they be split between the two? It is important that the whole proceedings are in public. I would have thought that all parties would have similar thoughts on the matter. My hon. Friend the Minister may remember that when he first made a statement on the situation, before anyone had been released, there was a great deal of criticism from all parties on the way in which the United States intended to act. As we know, five have now been released, but there is much sensitivity on the matter, and rightly so.
I hope that I take the acute threat of international terrorism no less seriously than anyone else. My loathing of acts of terror is second to none. Indeed, for 30 years I took every opportunity to condemn the terrorists. In Birmingham, not very far from my constituency, the IRA committed a terrible act of terror in which some 21 people were murdered in November 1974. That is apart from all the other acts of terror that the IRA committed in Northern Ireland and England. While condemning such acts, as well as those carried out by its loyalist counterparts, I sometimes wonder whether those in the United States—what is sometimes described as the Irish lobby—took the same view of the seriousness of terrorism as we did. When it comes to terrorism, my point is clear: we require no lessons from anyone on the subject. We loathe terrorism and we loathe the threat to our people.
We know where the Prime Minister is at the moment. He is rightly paying tribute to the memory of those who were slaughtered in Madrid a fortnight ago. Nevertheless, international opinion, not least in the Arab world, needs to be persuaded that if the four, or any of the other detainees of various nationalities, are found guilty, the legal process will be just and be seen to be so. I am afraid that the proposed way to try those people, whether they are innocent or guilty, is not likely to achieve that aim, or to come anywhere near it. More safeguards are necessary.
If the four were to be charged—they have not been at the moment—it would be far better if they appeared as defendants in a proper court of law in the United States. They should have lawyers of their own choosing and the defence counsel should have all the facilities that defence counsels normally have in the United States and other democracies. If, at the end of it all, they were found guilty, there would be the feeling in this country and probably in the wider world that the due processes of justice had been undertaken. As it stands, what is being proposed is not satisfactory. I hope that Ministers and the Law Officers in this country do their utmost to persuade the United States of the seriousness of the matter.
3.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall,
306WH
North (David Winnick) for raising this subject and for giving me an opportunity to reiterate the Government's position on the British detainees at Guantanamo bay. In doing so, I want to emphasise two points. First, we have done more than any other Government to look after the interests of our citizens detained at Guantanamo bay and we will continue to do so in respect of the remaining four prisoners.
Secondly, although I accept that many aspects of the treatment of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo bay have been far from satisfactory, we must remain mindful of the unique circumstances in which the detentions arose. I am sure that my hon. Friend is mindful of that. The threat posed by al-Qaeda is unprecedented. In responding to it, Governments have had the difficult task of balancing the demands of civil liberties against the threat posed by an enemy that is extremely cunning, ruthless and utterly without scruple. That has given rise to some difficult dilemmas. I know that my hon. Friend, who, while being a strong upholder of civil liberties, is second to no one, as he says, in his detestation of terrorism, will appreciate those difficulties.
My hon. Friend asked whether the detainees would have access to their own civilian lawyers. We understand that they will, but that those lawyers must come from a list of civilian lawyers approved by the US Department of Defence. He asked who would pay and whether it would be the British Government. My understanding is that the US will not pay for the appointment of a civilian lawyer, but that a military lawyer will be provided in each case. We are considering what advice we can provide on finding qualified civilian lawyers. It would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to provide financial assistance to pay for the lawyers as that is not done in the many other cases in which British nationals are prosecuted abroad. It is not our practice to fund legal assistance for any British nationals facing trial overseas. However, we will be able to provide assistance with finding qualified lawyers.
Let me return to my first point. No Government have done more for their citizens detained at Guantanamo bay than the British Government, both during the detention of the nine men and in seeking to bring about their return. We have been in frequent and regular contact with the United States authorities concerning the British detainees. From the outset we sought to ensure their welfare and actively encouraged the United States Government to resolve their position. British officials have visited Guantanamo bay seven times. We have kept the families and Parliament informed of the detainees' circumstances and of other related developments.
In July 2003, two of the British detainees were designated by the United States authorities as eligible to stand trial by military commission. The commission had been established to prosecute the detainees. The British Government made it clear from the outset that we had concerns about the military commission process and consequently my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the Attorney-General to discuss with the United States authorities how the detainees, if prosecuted, could be assured of fair trials that met international standards. In parallel to that, the Prime Minister talked to President Bush and the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter many times with his opposite number, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Extensive discussions

307WH
have been held between British and United States Government lawyers and officials. Those discussions have involved many complex issues of law and security, which both Governments have had to consider carefully.
Although the discussions have made significant progress, the view of the Attorney-General was that the military commission, as constituted, would not provide the type of process that we would afford to British nationals. We have been attempting to ensure that the legal process will respect the human rights of the detainees, including the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, established by law. As we know, five of the detainees have been released and have returned home. As for the remaining four detainees, we and the United States authorities are continuing to discuss a range of security matters and other issues. As a result of our talks, US legal procedures against Mr. Abbasi and Mr. Begg were suspended in July and, as my hon. Friend remarks, the United States said that the men would not be subject to the death penalty, and that remains the case.
Our overall position remains that the detainees should either be tried in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. That is the basis on which we are working and on which we shall continue to work.
David Winnick:Is it the wish of the British Government that, given the opportunity offered in respect of the United States authorities, the detainees could be returned and that the authorities in Britain would decide, as they did with the five detainees, whether any charges should be made? Would that not be the Government's first preference? The detainees are British citizens and we were involved in Afghanistan, so it is not a separate matter from the United States. If the detainees are to be tried in the United States, will a military commission definitely be involved? Will the United States relent on that? Will my hon. Friend deal with the matter of an appeal if the verdict is guilty? If the detainees are found not guilty and acquitted, will they be released from detention and allowed to leave the country?
Mr. Mullin:On my hon. Friend's first point, our position remains the one that I just enunciated, which is that the detainees should either be tried in accordance with international standards in the United States or returned to the United Kingdom. As for whether they would he prosecuted were they to be returned to the United Kingdom, that is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, not the Government. I am sorry, but I have forgotten his third point.
David Winnick:Is it the wish of the Government that the remaining detainees should be returned to the United Kingdom as the other five have been and that the authorities here should decide whether any charges are to be made? If they are returned and charges are made against them, and it was only right and proper that they should be charged, there would be no question about the legal processes involved. We are happy with the legal processes in our country.
Mr. Mullin:I dealt with that. If the detainees are to be tried in the United States, which remains a strong possibility, they should be tried in accordance with international standards. Were they to be returned to the United Kingdom—in the event either of their acquittal or because they were not to be tried in the United States—the matter of whether they would be prosecuted here would be for the police and the CPS to decide. It is not one on which I can comment.
I now recall that my hon. Friend's third point was whether the commission is still the most likely form of trial. At present, the answer is yes, but the precise terms on which the trial would take place under a military commission have yet to be determined. Discussions about that are continuing.
Let me deal with the extraordinary circumstances in which the detentions arose. The attacks on 11 September were the most appalling terrorist atrocity that the world had ever seen. More than 3,000 people, including 67 British citizens, were killed. In response to those attacks, as my hon. Friend knows, a coalition of countries came together to launch a military campaign against al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters to remove them from their strongholds in Afghanistan.
In those operations, thousands of individuals believed to be al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters, or their supporters, were detained by coalition forces. The vast majority were released, but those who were deemed to pose a substantial risk of returning to conflict—about 800 people so far—were sent by the United States to Guantanamo bay to be detained and questioned about their knowledge of al-Qaeda activities. As a result, valuable information has been gained that has helped to protect the international community from further terrorist attacks.
David Winnick:What happened on 11 September was a terrible tragedy. I was in the United States on a private visit that week, so I know how the American people reacted. I spoke to a gathering on the evening of 11 September in which I made it clear that the United Kingdom would stand by the United States. However, is it not a matter of some interest that the five who were detained were held for a long time—two years—yet when they returned to the UK, no charge was made against them?
Mr. Mullin:I have said that the Government regard many aspects of the Guantanamo bay experience to be unsatisfactory. I outlined the detailed discussions that we have held at all levels with the United States. So far, they have resulted in five of our citizens being returned and then released, and discussions about the remaining four are ongoing.
It is easy to criticise Guantanamo bay, and we are critical of some aspects of it. It is difficult to maintain a balance between a country's security and the protection of its civil liberties in the struggle against the menace of international terrorism, of which the recent horror in Madrid is only the latest example. That is a balance that we must strike. The Home Secretary has been open about that. He published a discussion paper entitled "Counter-Terrorism Powers: Reconciling Security and Liberty in an Open Society". I commend that to hon. Members, because it sets out some of the dilemmas that we are addressing.

309WH
I encourage colleagues to consider the issues surrounding Guantanamo bay in that light, and to contribute to the debate on how we should address the various dilemmas that arise from the need to protect the security of our citizens while, at the same time, safeguarding fundamental freedoms that we all rightly cherish.
3.52 pm
Sitting suspended.

EU Constitution
4 pm
Mr. William Cash: It is a great pleasure to be here and to deal with an issue covered by the Bill that I presented to the House of Commons the day before yesterday. Curiously, I have just had the pleasure in the European Scrutiny Committee of meeting the Speaker of the Slovakian Parliament, who indicated that, enthusiastic as Slovakia is about becoming a member of the European Union, it is concerned about the parliamentary democracy of nation states in the EU. I mention that because it reflects some of the concerns that I have been pressing for some 18 years, almost from the time that I first came into the House.
I should like to say how sad we are about the recent tragic bereavement suffered by the Minister for Europe. We are sorry that he cannot be here, but more than understand why. I am grateful to the Minister for Trade and Investment for coming instead.
Until very recently, because of the passing of the European Communities Act 1972, a Bill such as mine would have been useful for reaffirming that the United Kingdom Parliament's laws prevailed over European laws, but it would not have been essential. It now is. The sovereignty of Parliament is the guarantee of British voters' democratic freedom. Parliament needs reform to bring it back to its objectives, and it is now in mortal danger. We must remind the courts that they owe allegiance to the Queen in Parliament and to the voters of this country. It is said that judges are appointed quamdiu se bene gesserit—that is, so long as they behave—in the national interest for which they were appointed, and in accordance, of course, with the proper procedures and laws that they are called on to interpret.
What does my Bill do and why is it now essential? It is a very simple, two-clause Bill that provides that European treaties and laws shall be binding in the courts of the UK only to the extent that they do not conflict with any subsequent Act or statutory instrument of the UK Parliament that expressly declares that any such subsequent enactment shall take effect notwithstanding the 1972 Act. That is to say that Parliament prescribes and the courts must back it. That is the crucible.
My Bill is now urgent because the European constitution has been back at the top of the agenda since the new pro-constitution Spanish Government came to power. Ironically, the Poles are alone yet again. The United Kingdom must therefore reassume the leading democratic role in Europe, as it did in the dark days, even if the circumstances have changed from military aggression to European legislative manoeuvre.
The European constitution not only reasserts the primacy of European laws, but also asserts the primacy of the European constitution over the constitutions of the United Kingdom and other member states. It gives the European Court of Justice the role of superior jurisdiction over both, as well as over our newly proposed supreme court, which explains why it is being driven through in the Constitutional Reform Bill, currently in the House of Lords, before the constitution is enacted. The European Court of Justice, with its ever-increasing arrogation of judge-made law, will, in effect, also have power to strike down Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament that are inconsistent with the vast

311WH
range of the constitution. Indeed, the director general of the European Union legal service and legal counsel to the intergovernmental conference, Mr. Piris, stated:
"The Court of Justice cannot declare that a national law is void because it breaches EU law; it can only declare that the Member State concerned has infringed EU law."
If the constitution goes through, the situation against national laws will be damagingly aggravated.
The practical consequences of the current role of the European Court of Justice are that if it declares an infringement, our courts are bound to give effect to that judgment under section 2 of the 1972 Act. For example, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was struck down by our courts. The UK Parliament is, as a result of the 1972 Act, obliged to legislate to achieve conformity with EU legislation and the treaty obligations. My Bill says that if, on behalf of our electorate, we decide not to do so, and therefore decide not to subscribe to those treaty obligations but to insist on our own legislation, our judges must apply and uphold that subsequent and inconsistent Act of Parliament, provided that it is clear and unambiguous. By that I mean inconsistent with the European Communities Act 1972 and the Community instruments, treaties and obligations.
Lord Woolf?s insistence that the UK supreme court should not be empowered to strike down UK Acts might be because he wants that to be reserved to the European Court of Justice, as clearly both the Prime Minister and his chum the hapless Charles Falconer—the noble Lord Chancellor—intend. Let us remember that Acts derive their authority from the voters, and it is no wonder that we need a referendum on the constitution. If the Prime Minister continues to refuse one and drives the constitution through Parliament on a three-line Whip, without specific manifesto authority, the Conservative party must promise a referendum if and when the constitution is enacted, and in any event.
I have argued the dangers of all that for years, in particular in the past two years as shadow Attorney-General and shadow Minister for Constitutional Affairs, and in my most recent pamphlet "The European Constitution—A Political Timebomb". That was published last October and I am now publishing a new one, "The Strangulation of Britain and British Business". They both illustrate the need for the reassertion of parliamentary sovereignty over European laws and the acquis communautaire, and the obligation of UK courts to give effect to the latest Acts that are inconsistent with such laws, provided they are clear and unambiguous.
The issue came to a head last September when the Foreign Secretary said on the Floor of the House:
"international treaties take primacy over national laws".—[Official Report, 16 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 794.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I refuted that. We tabled a series of questions, which ran into 2004, and forced the Government to back down. Our exchange eventually led to this answer:
]"The ultimate guarantee of Parliamentary sovereignty lies in the power of Parliament to repeal all or any of the Acts which give effect to the EU treaties in this country. It is within Parliament's power to legislate contrary to the UK's treaty obligations. This of
312WH
course includes legislation that might impact on the effective implementation of article I-10(1)"
of the proposed constitution. It continues:
"The result of so doing, however, would be to place the UK in breach of its treaty obligations."—[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 732W.]
It is always right to set out the case as fairly as possible and that is the Government's stated position as of January. I am prepared to say emphatically that that was not their view a few months before, but it is now on the record. If there are treaty obligations, which, of course, are made by prerogative, that are out of date or contrary to our national interests—as is so much European legislation, including the proposed European constitution, if it were to be enacted, and the common fisheries policy—they should be amended or repealed if the other member states and the European Commission will not renegotiate them.
I have always argued that if we are to be responsible in dealing with legislation that this Parliament would not want to continue to accept, we must first engage in the process of presenting our arguments to the other side—to those whom we oppose. After that, if they will not listen, we must steer our own course, as I put it in my personal message to my electors in the last general election. After all, every European treaty since 1972 has been a renegotiation, but only in one direction: further integration. European prerogative treaties—treaties that are made—would be swallowed up by the constitution which, when enacted, would prevail greatly to our disadvantage.
Having retreated in the face of our barrage, the Government will no doubt claim that, in view of their now stated position, my Bill is not necessary. That is not so. The reality is that we are facing the 21st century version of the bloodless revolution of the 1690s, except that the substitution of the Stuarts by the Hanoverians—merely one monarchy for another—was far less momentous in retrospect than the usurpation of our democratic Parliament by the European constitution. Democracy depends for its practical effect on delivery through effective accountability and fair and proper democratic procedures, not through waffle about abstract virtues.
Another important analogy is that the judges under the bloodless revolution were no longer appointed, as they had been previously under the Stuarts, at the King's pleasure—durante bene placito Regis. They were appointed so long as they behaved themselves—quamdiu se bene gesserit. Seeking to arrogate to themselves the making of laws at the expense of democratically elected representatives in Parliament would be beyond the pale, especially if that was accompanied by encouraging the judicial activism of the European Court, which is a new form of usurpation.
The forced abdication of James II was strictly unconstitutional and illegal. However, the absurd idea that it would have been possible for the Stuarts to return after they had been airbrushed out of the system was demonstrated by the failure of the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745. If we do not reassert the obligation of the UK courts to give effect to UK legislation subsequent to and in conflict with European laws, including the European constitution, we will face a similar fait accompli, but it would now be undemocratic.

313WH
Our parliamentary laws and the Westminster lawmaking system will be deemed to have been absorbed in practice, as events move forward, by the constitution and the assertions of the European cause. It will be an abdication by our Parliament if it whips through and enacts the European constitution without a referendum. The claims made by the European court in Costa v. ENEL, and a few other cases that I shall mention, for its own overruling jurisdiction would become reality. Such is the stuff of modern revolution.
Someone may have been listening to that whispering wind because the House of Lords European Union Select Committee report this month called on the Government to state their view on whether the European Court or national courts should be the final arbiter of the dividing line between UK and EU law, especially in the context of parliamentary sovereignty when there is conflict. That is what my Bill is all about, and I want Parliament to dig in its heels. I am not interested in the Government's weasel words because we have heard far too many of those on the subject during the past year or so.
The matter cannot be left to ambiguity. Present case law is clear. The judgment of Lord Denning in Macarthys Ltd. v. Smith and of Lord Justice Laws in the more recent metric martyr's case, Thoburn v. Sunderland city council, is clear. Let me take the opportunity to place on the record the sad tragedy that Mr. Thoburn died only a few days ago, ironically within a few days of the death of Sir William Wade, the great authority on the interaction of European law and the British parliamentary system.
Lord Denning stated in Macarthys Ltd.v. Smith:
"it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament"
if
"the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty"—
that is, the European treaty—
"or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms".
We must keep the courts to that in the light of the European constitution, and the wording in my Bill follows almost exactly the words of Lord Denning in that judgment.
I have set out what my Bill does. There is no time and no scope for uncertainty or ambiguity, or for allowing the Government or the European elite room to manoeuvre. The Bill is backed by many distinguished Conservative MPs and Privy Councillors, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House—
4.15 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.29 pm
On resuming
Mr. Cash:The matter is of vital national interest and I trust that I shall have the support of the Conservative leadership and a commitment to my proposals in the manifesto for the European elections and the next general election. The claims made by the European
314WH
Court in Costa v. ENEL and the Internationale Handelgesellschaft and other cases, and the related line of European Court cases in relation to what is called Kompetenz-Kompetenz, cannot be underestimated, as the Foreign Secretary sought to do, especially in the light of article I-10(1) of the proposed constitution. The constitutional courts of Germany, Denmark and Italy are all in defiance, but look as if they may be about to roll over. The legal adviser to the European Council and others said:
"The EU is not a federal state for lack of demos, lack of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and more simply for lack of will by its constituent parts."
That suggests a lack of will by member states. One has only to look at the outpourings of the European People's party and the Christian Democrats in Germany, not to mention a host of others, to observe that that is not correct. Furthermore, the simple reality is that the ever-pervasive and encroaching—
4.31 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.45 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Cash:Furthermore, there is a simple reality: the ever-pervasive and encroaching role of the European Court of Justice, now to be enhanced by the European constitution. It is a case of "Now you see it, now you don't". It is a world of magical mirrors, engulfed in smoke. It is disingenuous and naïve—I would say downright dishonest—to suggest that EU constitutional boundaries have been reached.
We only have to consider the 1970 White Paper and the evolution of the EU over the past 35 years to get the point. We need to ensure that our courts, without a written constitution, do not stray in the wrong direction. If the Government were sincere in their declarations that they do not want a superstate, they would commit themselves to the proposals that I have outlined.
4.45 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on a magnificent speech and on his battle to preserve democracy in the European Union. It cheers up the people of Rochford and Southend, East enormously that he still feels positive about democracy, when their own MP has become such an absurd pessimist on the issue.
I ask the Minister one simple question. On 6 November 2002, a Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions told me that, following discussions with the European Commission, the Government were told that under regulation 1408/71, Britain would have to pay winter fuel payments to British residents in Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Reunion, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands, all of which are overseas territories of Europe. The cost would be £10 million. As a result of the Chancellor's Budget, it will now cost us £15 million.
As those are areas of sunshine with no coldness at all, my constituents want to know that if our Parliament thinks, as I do, that that is nuts, crazy and an abuse of

315WH
funding, can British MPs vote to stop it? If the 659 MPs say that that is stupid, nuts, wrong and a waste of money, my constituents, especially the pensioners in Southend who suffer from the cold, want to know whether Parliament can stop it? Can we say that the people who live in Guadeloupe, Martinique and the Azores will not get winter fuel payments, and perhaps the people in Iceland or the north of Canada, where it is cold, will? If the Minister can give me an answer—perhaps not today, but by letter—that will reassure my constituents who feel that our democracy is almost dead and wonder why we have MPs at all.
4.47 pm
The Minister for Trade and Investment: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on securing the debate. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) will be pleased to know that the new European constitution, if adopted, would give greater power to the British Parliament to deal with such issues, so I am sure that he will vote for it.
Sir Teddy Taylor:Would it have the power to stop that payment?
Mr. O'Brien:I had not given way, but I had made my point. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman on the detail.
As for the main debate, the hon. Member for Stone argues that the draft constitutional treaty for the EU will undermine the sovereignty of this House. He could not be more wrong. Nothing in the new treaty, as drafted, would alter the fundamental relationship between this country and the European Union. The new treaty will strengthen the role of national Parliaments in EU business, which is why I can say what I said to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. The new treaty will strengthen that role.
The treaty will, for the first time, give this Parliament a power, at the EU level, to monitor and enforce subsidiarity. This House, and other national Parliaments, will be able to force the Commission to reconsider measures that do not meet the fundamental principle that decisions should be taken as close as possible to Europe's citizens.
The suggestion made today by the Leader of the Opposition that the draft treaty is the capstone of a federal state is sheer opportunistic hyperbole and soundbite claptrap. There will be a significant enhancement of the role of this House in European affairs under the provisions, if they are agreed. That reflects the Government's belief in the integral part that Parliament should play in debating and influencing the policies of this Government and of the EU. On 11 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out to the House various ways in which the Government propose to enhance that role of Parliament. They include the publication of an annual White Paper on the forthcoming plans of the Commission and of the European Council and giving sufficient notice of them to all Members of the Commons and the Lords so that they have an opportunity to influence policy before it is set in stone.
316WH
The opportunities for parliamentary involvement in the preparation and scrutiny of the draft treaty have been unprecedented. During the intergovernmental conference alone, Ministers attended eight Committee sittings —including three sittings of the new Standing Committee of the Intergovernmental Conference—that gave parliamentarians the chance to influence the negotiations. If this constitution is so important, it beats me why so few on the Conservative Front Bench—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Stone when he was on it—bother to turn up. We participated in more than a dozen debates on the same topic in this House and the other place last year, responded to 16 Committee reports and answered 60 parliamentary questions. That was in addition to the White Paper published in September, which set out the detail of our approach to the negotiations.
In May, 10 new member states will join the European Union, ending the cold war division of Europe and creating an enlarged single market of more than 450 million people: larger than the United States and Japan combined. There are huge advantages in that for Britain. However, if we want to maximise those advantages, we need to modernise the EU's structures to make it work effectively as a union of 25 countries. The new constitutional treaty will make the EU more effective and will give a clear definition of what the EU does and does not do. The constitution will not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the member states and the EU.
The hon. Gentleman claims that none the less the treaty will establish the principle of the primacy of European law and so end in some way the sovereignty of this Parliament. He claims that it will make the laws passed by this House and the other place in some way less relevant, or even redundant, as the EU will be able to override them. He believes that we should reject the principle of the primacy of EU law so that member states can effectively pick and choose which EU measures to adopt and implement.
Let us examine those claims. First, the principle of the primacy of EU law is, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, well established. He should know because my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been telling him that for a long time. The principle has been accepted since at least 1964, when the European Court of Justice ruled in the case of Costa v. ENEL that the law "stemming from the Treaty" cannot
"be overridden by domestic legal provisions…The transfer by the states from their domestic legal systems to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail."
That is what Britain signed up to when the Conservative Government of the day joined the then European Community. This House gave effect to the principle of the primacy of European Community law through the European Communities Act 1972. Is the Conservative party now opposed to that position, which it has supported for the past 30 years? Or is the hon. Gentleman out on his usual anti-euro limb? That remains to be seen.
Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien:The hon. Lady has not been present during the debate and she is aware that I have limited time, but I will be gracious and give way.
Ann Winterton:I am most grateful and I apologise for not having been here earlier. Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Europe in his Government has said in a written reply:
"The United Kingdom will honour its international treaty obligations until such time as Parliament decides to repeal the Acts that give effect to them."—[Official Report, 30 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 360W.]
Is that not the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has just been saying?
Mr. O'Brien:No, our position has been entirely clear, and we have held it throughout. Parliament already has the power to legislate contrary to our treaty obligations, but we should be in no doubt about what that would mean: withdrawal from the EU, which would be a disaster for the UK.
As far as we are concerned, the draft constitutional treaty explicitly states the principle of primacy, and that makes those on the Opposition Benches nervous. One of the purposes of the treaty is to lay out clearly EU principles and our relationship with the EU. The Conservative party signed up to those principles in 1972; it knew what it had signed up to. That is why we support a declaration proposed by the Italian presidency during the intergovernmental conference negotiations last December that spells out that
"the provisions of Article 10-I (1)on the primacy of EU law reflect existing court of justice case law."
Mr. Cash:Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien:The hon. Gentleman has had his say; I have not got long, and I would like to make some progress.
We support that proposal for clarity because if EU law did not have primacy, there would be no single market. If member states could pick and choose which European legislation they enforced, they would ignore legislation that threatened the protectionist measures that give special privilege to their industries, and we
318WH
would not have the level playing field on which thousands of British businesses and hundreds of thousands of British jobs depend.
The reality is that co-operation with our European partners on everything from the single market to stopping pollution to fighting terrorism depends on each member state implementing the measure that it has agreed to. To argue against this part of the treaty, as the hon. Gentleman is doing, is to argue against the very idea of European co-operation. Here, perhaps, we get to his real agenda. His pamphlet of October last year entitled "The European Constitution—A Political Timebomb" advocates a two-tier Europe where the UK has a relationship of trade and association with the EU. It is a scenario in which the UK would be forced to implement EU legislation if it wanted to continue to trade with Europe, but in which the Government and Parliament would have no influence on that legislation. How the hon. Gentleman could see that as a blow for parliamentary sovereignty escapes me.
The primacy of EU law is a well-established principle that has sat alongside the principle of sovereignty of this Parliament for 30 years. Nothing in the proposed treaty will change that. Most lawyers will be familiar—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is—with Lord Denning's view expressed in his judgment in the Bulmer v. Bollinger case in 1974. He said:
"When we come to matters with a European element, the Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back. Parliament has decreed that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law…The governing provision is section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act 1972…The statue is expressed in forthright terms which are absolute and all-embracing."
In other words, the Conservatives signed up to this in 1972. Their attempt somehow to disassociate themselves from the principle 30 years later is frankly opportunistic hogwash.
In order to give the provisions of the new treaty effect in UK law, they will have to be passed by Parliament. If Parliament so chooses, it can refuse to pass this legislation. Indeed, it could repeal the European Communities Act 1972. As Lord Denning also said in the case of Macarthys Ltd v. Smith, it is always within Parliament's power to legislate contrary to the UK's treaty obligations, but we must be clear that to pursue that course would be to breach our treaty obligations, and we would be signalling our withdrawal from the EU.
It being one minute to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.