If he will make a statement on the role of the Territorial Army. [11734]

The primary role of the Territorial Army is to act as a general reserve for the Regular Army and to provide a framework for full mobilisation in times of national emergency. The TA also helps to maintain a link between the military and civilian communities throughout the country. The role of the TA is being fully considered, along with those of the other reserve forces, as part of the Government's strategic defence review.

I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that the decision to withdraw the series III Land Rover falls disproportionately heavily on the Territorial Army. Are replacement vehicles being delayed up by Ministers? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Territorial Army has vehicles with which to train on 2 January next year?

I noticed that this was one of the more constructive questions asked by the hon. Gentleman during an otherwise non-constructive speech in the House a few days ago. The answer to his first question is no and the answer to his second question is that everything possible will be done to make sure that the Territorial Army can meet its training obligations not only at local level but at regimental and battle group level.

Will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that, if we are to sustain a reasonable, good and active Territorial Army, it must be led by professional people in cities and towns throughout the country? In my area, the King's Own Yorkshire Yeomanry, which used to be the King's Own Light Infantry, is a good and well-maintained territorial unit, but I fear that unless we retain full-time professional people to train, there will be a reduction in the efficiency and appropriateness of the Territorial Army.

The strategic defence review will take into account the strength that the volunteer reserve brings to the armed forces and to our regular service men and women. The immense contribution made by the Territorial Army is recognised by the Government, particularly its contribution to our operations in Bosnia in recent times. As my hon. Friend makes clear, a vital part of ensuring that we can meet such operational capability is ensuring that training is carried out professionally and with appropriate resources. That matter will be addressed during the strategic defence review.

Is the Minister aware that no other country in the English-speaking world has less than a quarter of its total armed forces in the form of volunteer reserves? Who is carrying out the studies advising the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State on the future of the reserve forces? Are they regular officers and civil servants, or are some serving territorials directly involved?

The strategic defence review will take into account a range of views from a range of contributors, not least the hon. Gentleman in his published material. The examination will be carried out by Ministers presiding over a range of inputs, including those that are in the Library, and those from the regular forces. We will consult reservist representatives during that process.

Does my hon. Friend commend the concern of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the effectiveness of the Territorial Army? Will my hon. Friend invite him to show similar concern for the effectiveness of the Regular Army by withdrawing the disgraceful remarks he made in last week's defence debate, which constituted a slur on the professionalism of men and women in our armed forces?

With great respect to my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman must defend his position. I have no intention of doing that, but I echo her remarks about the contribution that the regular forces and the Territorial Army in particular make to our defence effort, and it will not have slipped her notice that in the TA all posts are open to women.

What recent representations he has received on Britain's independent nuclear capability. [11735]

Following the announcement of the strategic defence review, we have received many written submissions concerning our nuclear deterrent. We have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of those submissions where authors have agreed that we should do so.

In the light of the sincere views that the present leader of the Labour party held when he was first elected to Parliament in 1983 in opposing all nuclear weapons, and as those views are held sincerely today by many other Labour and Liberal Members of Parliament, is the strategic defence review considering in any way the abandonment of Trident?

No, it is not.

Who are these nuclear weapons aimed at? Who is the enemy? Would my right hon. Friend be willing to press the button to involve this country in a nuclear confrontation?

Since 1994. the nuclear weapons of this country as well as of America and Russia have been de-targeted. They are not, therefore, pointed at anyone at present. The decision whether the nuclear deterrent would or should be used would not be taken by the Secretary of State for Defence, but I remind my hon. Friend that, like all Labour Members, he fought a general election campaign on a manifesto that said that we would retain Trident.

Will it cost or save money if the Government decide, as a result of the strategic defence review, to reduce the warheads on Trident? If, as I suspect, it will cost money to take off the existing nose cones and put on new ones with fewer warheads, is that not a terrible waste of scarce defence resources?

The strategic defence review will be based on the foreign policy priorities of the Government and indeed of this country, and we will assess what changes can be made in this country's nuclear posture that are compatible with maintaining a minimum credible deterrent.

When he plans to publish his plans for a defence diversification agency. [11736]

We hope to publish a Green Paper on defence diversification before Christmas.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, traditionally. Great Britain has been a world leader in the development of new technology in the defence sector, that we are much less successful when it comes to exploiting those industries commercially, and that there is a need to facilitate a transfer of technology from the defence sector to the defence industry? When the new defence diversification agency is eventually set up, will both those factors be taken into account?

We recognise the increasing interchange of technology between the civil and defence sectors. That is also recognised by industry. We hope that, through the defence diversification agency, we can ensure that technology is disseminated far more widely into the civil sector so that we can continue to build, indeed rebuild, Britain's industrial base.

Is it not true that the record of defence contractors—of which Vosper Thornycroft and Basys Technology are two very good examples from the constituencies of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) and me—clearly shows that they have been extremely successful in using the skills that have developed in the defence area and deploying them for civilian use? Does the Minister agree that the last thing those skilled managements need are so-called experts offering to help them?

The hon. Gentleman has introduced an aunt Sally that would not be recognised by industry. In fact, there is considerable interest from the defence industry in dissemination—not so much among the prime contractors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman as among many of the small and medium enterprises that are looking forward to using the technology. There is also considerable interest in faster dissemination to industry of the very good technical and scientific work in our Government laboratories. The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to find how much genuine interest there is within industry.

If he will make a statement on the future of IFOR in Bosnia. [11737]

The NATO-led stabilisation force, SFOR, will remain in Bosnia until the completion of its mission in June 1998.

First, I pay tribute to the way in which the IFOR contingent, including British Army personnel, has carried out its duties. In certain circumstances, will the mandate be extended, bearing in mind the situation that existed up to the time IFOR went into the former Yugoslavia? Since my right hon. Friend's last statement to the House, has he had any further information about the two notorious criminals and mass murderers who remain free?

It is too early to talk of post-SFOR options, but our view remains that any follow-on force can only be NATO-led, with the risks and burdens shared equally by all allies.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that he is studying what the possible consequences might be of a withdrawal if it is decided not to renew SFOR in June next year?

I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that that matter is being looked at on an almost daily basis. We take it extremely seriously. What matters now is what progress is being made in Bosnia. During my visit it became obvious that substantial progress was being made in creating some new democratic institutions in that country. The existence of a renewed debate, especially in Republika Srpska, between the two elements is encouraging. There is also a growing realisation by people throughout the country that there is no military solution to the problems in Bosnia and that foreign forces cannot remain there indefinitely.

Most people agree that our excellent Bosnia operation is very good value for money, the cost being more than £200 million. In future, however, where will the burden of that cost fall? It is currently met by the contingency reserve, but will it in future fall fully on the Ministry of Defence?

It is too early in the financial year to establish the precise cost of the Bosnia operation to the defence budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is exactly the same answer as was given by my predecessor in the previous Conservative Government. As and when we know the precise cost to the UK of the Bosnia operation we will determine how much of that cost can be absorbed by the Ministry of Defence; anything over that sum will have to be the subject of discussions between my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and me. I have no intention of starting that discussion at the Dispatch Box.

I call the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

He has dealt with the point, Madam Speaker.

How splendid; in that case, I call the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).

If he will make a statement on progress towards NATO enlargement. [11738]

The Madrid NATO summit invited the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to begin accession talks with NATO. NATO's goal is to sign the accession protocol in December. At the same time, NATO is working with the three countries concerned to facilitate their effective military and political integration into the alliance.

What will the cost of NATO enlargement be? I note that, after the NATO summit, the Prime Minister said that the cost would be zero. There have been reports in the press, however, that the Pentagon and the NATO military command estimate that the cost will be between £3 billion and £6 billion. What will be the United Kingdom's share of that cost?

Those are not NATO figures. A variety of sources have produced a number of figures, few of which we consider reliable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not say that the cost would be zero; he said that it would be manageable. The cost of NATO enlargement will emerge from the detailed plans that are being produced, based on the decisions made at Madrid. It would be misleading to present figures at this stage. A good indication of where the costs are likely to fall should be ready for NATO Ministers when they meet in December.

Will the Secretary of State say what assessment his Department has made of the costs of NATO enlargement to the new member states in raised taxation or cuts in their social programmes, and what estimate he has made of the likely defence expenditure increase in Russia—which feels that it has a new enemy on its borders and is therefore likely to rearm?

Immediately after today's Question Time, I am going to Russia to meet my opposite number, General Sergeyev. The Russians' opinion is not that they have a new enemy on their borders and the NATO-Russia founding charter was a new chapter in the developing relationships between NATO and Russia. We do not believe that the new applicant countries will have to pay a price that will have to come out of their social expenditure.

Will the Secretary of State advise the House how critical the issue of the NATO nuclear capability has been in those discussions?

Given that there is absolutely no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of the new members, it can be taken that that was not a major factor in the discussions on NATO enlargement.

When he will publish the first annual report on UK strategic exports. [11739]

The content and timing of the publication of the first annual report on the state of strategic export controls and their application is currently under discussion between the Departments concerned. An announcement will be made in due course.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I thank the Minister for his personal statement and clarification, which the House will welcome. We are grateful to him. Nevertheless, will he clarify for the benefit of the Defence Manufacturers Association why there is such a delay in the granting of export licences? Export orders are massively important for British business and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm just how important the defence industry is to British export performance.

The defence industry is a substantial exporter, which is why we stressed its importance so much in our election manifesto and why we are holding regular meetings with defence manufacturers. Some of the delays have inevitably arisen because of the Government's review of the criteria to be considered when issuing licences for the export of conventional arms. My Department has provided staff to other Departments involved in the licensing process to assist in clearing the backlog. Our aim is to ensure that the system is sufficiently flexible to deal with urgent cases. Officials are well aware that undue delay in the clearance of licence applications could result in lost orders or, equally important, in damage to our reputation as a reliable supplier.

Does my hon. Friend agree that previous Governments did not invest sufficiently in research and development to enhance strategic exports? What plans have our Government to invest in this vital sphere?

My hon. Friend is well aware from previous answers that we are examining the interchange between the civil and defence sectors in defence manufacturing and the interchange of research that that involves. We are also considering much wider dissemination of the work undertaken by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. We understand that much of the benefit that we are now deriving stems from previous research and we appreciate the need for future research to sustain our industry.

The House will have heard and welcomed the Minister's apology for his unwarranted attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—no doubt that particular weapons system will not be deployed again from the Government Front Bench. In view of the implications for jobs and, indeed, for foreign exchange, is the Minister able to give the House a date by which the Government will have reached the previous Government's target for processing export licences?

As I told the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), we are working with other Departments and taking up the matter with them urgently to ensure that there are no undue delays—we are seized of the potential difficulties, which I outlined, if we are not able to improve matters. We certainly take the issue seriously and are taking action on it.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's strategic defence review in respect of policy on RAF procurement. [11740]

One of the aims of the strategic defence review is to ensure that the armed forces are properly equipped to undertake the tasks asked of them. The review will consider what procurement policies are necessary to obtain the best possible output from defence resources for all three services. We will be seeking to establish a mutually beneficial partnership with the defence industry to achieve this end.

I thank the Government for their continued support for the Eurofighter project and its exclusion from the defence review. Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence sought in the House last Monday to undermine the previous Government's commitment to the project by arguing that it should be included in the defence review? Does the Minister agree that the voters of Lancashire were prudent on 1 May to vote for Labour candidates committed to the project rather than for Conservative candidates whose commitment now seems somewhat shaky?

I presume that my hon. Friend was referring to the following words of the shadow Secretary of State last Monday:

"The second flaw is mentioned again in today's edition of The Guardian. Excluding defence equipment from the review poses a risk that the equipment will dictate defence policy, rather than the choice of equipment being dictated by policy."—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 623.]

Unlike the Labour party, we have not changed our policies just because we have moved to the other side of the House. Our support for the European fighter aircraft is 100 per cent. We want an assurance from the Minister that the RAF will be able to do the tasks that we ask of it after the strategic defence review. Those who think that we can ask industries such as British Aerospace to diversify their Hawks into hoovers, their Tornados into teapots or their EFAs into fridges must realise that that cannot happen. We need to keep our skilled personnel together in factories such as those of British Aerospace.

The Conservatives may not have changed their policy, but they have changed their entire defence team. The hon. Gentleman's silly comments about diversification are countered by the experience of British Aerospace, which has done a great deal of work on establishing industrial parks near its sites to build up its supplier base, which includes many dual-use suppliers. That, not the strange picture painted by the hon. Gentleman, is the reality of diversification.

If he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to Her Majesty's Government's comprehensive spending review. [11741]

The strategic defence review is my Department's contribution to the comprehensive spending review. There will therefore be one coherent review of defence.

Given that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the aim of the comprehensive spending review is to identify savings in all Departments, will the Secretary of State tell the House the extent of the savings that defence will make over the next few years—3 per cent? Five per cent? What is his base line for cuts below which he will resign?

In the great history of brass necks in politics, I suppose that the hon. Gentleman does not shine out, but savings in this year's defence budget will have to be made to fill the holes in capability that his hon. Friends left. In addition to that, we inherited a 3 per cent. efficiency savings target from the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman was a special adviser to the previous Administration, so he knows a little about random, ad hoc, arbitrary cutting of defence budgets. Perhaps he should apologise to the House rather than boast.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives are in no position to lecture him on defence cuts, when defence expenditure was cut by one third in the past 10 years?

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. They have no justification for lecturing us. Whereas we made specific promises, which we shall keep, they made promises about defence strength that contrast with their record of cutting defence expenditure by one third in real terms in the past decade.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the good and ambitious programme of jointery, which was started by his predecessor, is well worth continuing? Does he accept that substantial savings can be achieved by jointery, and by undertaking further joint operations and much greater joint support work? I am sure that he will be supported in those efforts by the Opposition.

I can easily give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall keep the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the British Army. Like the previous Government, we shall want to look closely at how the three services co-operate, the better to improve the operations and procurement side of our defence. That makes absolute common sense and it is one of the key areas that we are looking at in the strategic defence review. The word "jointery" is a jargon expression which is virtually meaningless to the outside world. The ability of the three services, with a long and proud history, to work more closely together in an increasingly complicated and changing world is, however, something that most people would regard as common sense. I am glad to keep any tradition that makes common sense for the defence of this country.

For the record, our support for Eurofighter is total and unqualified.

We are all glad that the shadow Defence Secretary has belatedly given his full-hearted support for Eurofighter. It did not sound as if that was the case last week. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has difficulty in coming to the support of anything that starts with the word "Euro" at this time. We all wish him well in bigger fights than those across the Dispatch Box—fights to see whether he will be sitting on the Front Bench at the next Defence Question Time and whether he will be there on his own terms.

If he will make a statement on the future of the Eurofighter programme. [11742]

The Government remain strongly committed to the Eurofighter programme. The development phase is proceeding very satisfactorily. We are ready to sign the memoranda of understanding for the production and support phases and I hope that as a result of the positive decision by the German Cabinet on 8 October final German approval will be secured in the Bundestag later this month to proceed to the next phases. The aim of the four partner nations is to sign the memoranda of understanding for these phases in December 1997 and the relevant contracts very soon thereafter.

I thank my right hon. Friend not only for that reply, but for his earlier replies which show the Government's support for Eurofighter. That contrasts strongly with the views of the previous Government, who fought a general election campaign on the basis that, if the Labour party formed a Government, it would scrap this wonderful aeroplane. That was not true and what the Secretary of State has said has proved that.

I thank my hon. Friend and put on record my gratitude for his robust support for a project that is important not just in defence terms, but in terms of the degree of European co-operation that we can find in respect of the most effective combat aircraft to meet the needs of the RAF and other European air forces. As a multi-role weapons system, it offers the operational flexibility necessary to meet the uncertain challenges of the next century. That is why the previous Government backed it and the present Government will continue to support it. I hope that all hon. Members will realise its value.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as Eurofighter is exempt from the strategic defence review, which is the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the Government's fundamental expenditure review, should there be any cost overruns on that £14 billion project—the most expensive procurement project ever undertaken—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Soames—that is not our custom. They may be pretty girls, but we do not hold conversations with officials in the box. You may talk to me. Mr. Soames.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as Eurofighter is exempt from the review, which is the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the Government's fundamental expenditure review, any overrun on that £14 billion project—the most expensive procurement project every undertaken by the Ministry of Defence—will not be allowed to skew the rest of the defence programme, but will be charged to the reserve?

I do not know why you are so intolerant, Madam Speaker. I thought that bonding was the only thing that united the Conservative party at present.

What are his plans for commemorating armistice day. [11743]

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence will attend the Cenotaph ceremony on Remembrance Sunday, as will I and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. This is the formal national occasion for remembering all those, whether in a military or a civilian capacity, who made the supreme sacrifice.

Will the Minister join Conservative Members in supporting the British Legion and its proposal that a two-minutes silence should be observed on Tuesday 11 November? If so, how does the Minister propose to build on the success of the previous Government a year ago in promoting that idea?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to ensuring that Remembrance Sunday and the two-minute silence on that day are not forgotten, but observed with full dignity, respect and honour. He will realise, of course, that the observance of a period of silence either on Remembrance Sunday or on 11 November must be a personal decision. Indeed, one of the freedoms for which those who fell fought was the right of individuals to make that decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers, including myself, and their officials will be observing that silence on both those dates.

Amid the many and varied ways in which different communities commemorate Armistice Day, may I tell my hon. Friend about a very moving ceremony which takes place every year in my constituency and, no doubt, elsewhere? It is called the Ceremony of Light, when 100 names of people who have given their lives in wars this century are read out and for each name a candle is lit, usually by a young person in the constituency. Although I attend the ceremony every year, each year is deeply moving—not least because it involves people of all generations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that all generations—especially young people as they grow older—understand the awesome sacrifices that were made and the reasons why they were made to defend our freedoms?

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am sure that the House will have found his description as important and moving as I did. It is absolutely essential that young people not only formally remember but recognise those who fell for this country—first because many of those who fell gave up their youth for succeeding generations, and secondly because, unless the torch of freedom and the sacrifices made are passed from generation to generation, we shall not retain the will power to stand up for democracy and freedom. That is what the people who died in the second world war died for. All of us and any future generation will forget that to the peril of the very democracies and freedoms for which previous generations fell.

The Minister, like most hon. Members present, is wearing a poppy. Will he comment on the behaviour of the management of Coates Viyella Ltd. in Londonderry, which has sent home and suspended more than a dozen workers for wearing poppies and has even compelled visiting executives from England to remove poppies while on the plant? Does the Minister agree that a perverted interpretation of legislation is being used to support that outrageous action, and that the legislation should be clarified so that no person will be penalised in future for wearing a poppy?

I recognise the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman brings to the matter not only because of Remembrance Sunday, which is coming up, but because yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the terrible massacre in Enniskillen, which was a dastardly act by any standards. I had the privilege of attending a ceremony held by representatives of the Enniskillen British Legion yesterday and presented them with a wreath from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take back to Enniskillen.

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy relating to Gulf war illnesses. [11744]

The Government are committed to dealing openly, honestly and sympathetically with the concerns of Gulf veterans who are ill. We shall continue to give the issue the highest priority.

I thank the Minister for that answer on behalf of constituents of mine who have raised the issue. Are we taking steps to gain access to American research on the subject?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are keeping in close touch with our American colleagues. In fact, I was in Washington a fortnight ago having a meeting with the joint inter-agencies which are handling the issue. We are also extending to the Americans any information that we receive—from fact finding and reports that have recently been published and from any future research discoveries that we might make. The American assistance is particularly useful with regard to chemical weapons. As in all other spheres of information, I should make it plain that we will release that information—as well as all other information—for the benefit of veterans.

As the Minister has just acknowledged, exposure to chemical weapons from the regime of Saddam Hussein is a possible cause of Gulf war syndrome. Is it not therefore all the more chilling to learn that Saddam Hussein is persisting in the development of weapons of mass destruction, especially the nerve agent VX4, and is declining to allow United Nations inspectors access, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, to inspect the plants where the development is taking place? Can the Minister confirm that the Government stand four square behind the United Nations Security Council resolutions which authorise—if all else fails—the use of proportionate force?

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman and take this opportunity to make it plain that Saddam' s actions in relation to the United Nations Special Commission are completely unacceptable and he must now comply with the United Nations Security Council presidential statement of 29 October. We shall give our full support to the Secretary-General in his efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the problem and we are in close contact with our allies on that issue. Since the hon. and learned Gentleman asks the question, I confirm that we do not advocate the use of force, but we do not rule it out if Saddam fails to comply.

The Minister told the House during last week's two-day defence debate that, despite the best endeavours of his Department, he still has not been able to find out precisely what mixture of chemicals was given to how many soldiers serving in the Gulf. What further investigations has he made since then? In particular, what batches of chemicals were purchased from which chemical manufacturers, and on what day were they given to which units? Surely it is possible to arrive at a realistic conclusion.

The hon. Gentleman will understand if I say, with all due respect, that I have done more in six months on that matter than was done in the previous six years. I issued a detailed paper on organophosphates five days ago, and a detailed paper on the vaccines used has also been issued, warts and all, including information about decisions that hon. Members may find questionable. I have also doubled the resources allotted to the research side, put more people through the medical assessment in the past six months than were assessed in the previous four years, and established a fact-finding group to ascertain the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the funds available for the National Audit Office. [11769]

The National Audit Office corporate plan for 1998-99 to 2002-03 showed an increase in net cash resources from £39.8 million to £41.5 million in real terms over the next five years. There will be considerable increases in work load in this period as a result of the introduction of resource accounting, greater examination of regularity and propriety issues and involvement in accounting and tendering procedures in public-private partnerships. The cost of the extra work will be partly offset by continuing efficiency savings.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman—I hope that he is indeed a right hon. Gentleman because he certainly should be by now—for that answer. Does he agree that the National Audit Office gives good value for money and that its reports often lead to further savings? However, will the Public Accounts Commission consider whether we should put more funds into checking what is happening in local government? District auditors are supposed to ensure that the correct procedures are followed, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they sometimes get too close to local authorities and that many problems seem to be missed? Is it not time that we got to the bottom of what is happening in local government?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the value for money that is obtained by the National Audit Office. It is one of the great ventures of the House, and since its introduction in 1983, it has succeeded in meeting all the aims of the National Audit Act 1983.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the excellent statement on public-private finance in the annual report of the NAO is drawn to the attention of all hon. Members so that they do not forget that the taxpayer has a vested interest when looking at all alternatives to the use of taxpayers' money to find out whether better value might be provided by remaining within the state system?

The private finance initiative report by the NAO is very important and will be considered by the PAC in due course. We await that examination.

What plans the Church Commissioners have to mark the millennium. [11770]

The Church Commissioners are conscious that the millennium is both an inclusive national celebration and a significant Christian anniversary, and the Church is seeking to ensure that the religious and spiritual nature of the year can be appropriately reflected within the context of the new millennium experience.

While welcoming that statement, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the churches lobby so that they are at the very centre of the millennium experience—not least because the very name "millennium" is based upon the perceived birth of Christ? Will he use his unique position—linking, as he does, his fellow commissioners with Government Ministers—to help to ensure that we celebrate the millennium by ensuring that our glorious ecclesiastical architectural heritage is maintained into the next millennium? I am referring to cathedrals, churches and chapels of all faiths throughout the United Kingdom. An example of this work, incidentally, is the initiative successfully announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the previous Heritage Secretary.

I am glad to see the right hon. Lady in her place and I am happy to endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I should add that every church bell in the land will be rung at noon on Saturday 1 January 2000 for five minutes, followed by 10 minutes of prayer which will be open to all. In relation to the architecture to which he referred, these buildings are a testament to the Church, and as commissioners we shall work with Ministers to ensure that that remains the case.

Has my hon. Friend thought through the proposition that everyone could carry a candle? Is he aware that, if the so-called hundreds of thousands turn up at the dome with lighted candles, they might set fire to it?

My hon. Friend and I share a common heritage—we both come from mining families and our fathers went to work with candles. The dome is in the hands of the Minister without Portfolio, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—capable hands, but not those of the Church Commissioners.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask the commissioners to throw their weight about with regard to what the state and the Church will do at the time of the millennium? First, will he make sure that we do not spend unnecessary money on a temporary construction at Greenwich when we could invest in more beneficial activities for the longer term—perhaps for people at the bottom of the social scale?

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. The Church Commissioners are in touch with the Minister without Portfolio about the dome. We are seeking to have a chapel in the dome to celebrate the millennium with an appropriate exhibition. With the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, we are also seeking to ensure that while it is a Christian anniversary it is also shared on a multi-faith basis so that there is a proper spread throughout our land of celebrations on the millennium. The other points are for other Ministers and I will ensure that they reach them.

What representations he has received regarding changes in funding for clergy pensions. [11771]

The commissioners have been engaged in extensive correspondence with the parishes protection group on a wide range of issues relating to its work—in particular, the proposals for the future financing of clergy pensions. The group has made a number of assertions that the commissioners do not accept, and they have made their position clear to the group. I have invited my hon. Friend to see me about those matters and I look forward to his taking me up on that offer.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he satisfied that the pensions scheme as it is structured is actuarially sound for present and future members and that the parishes are not being asked to bear an onerous burden that they cannot meet?

The commissioners' actuaries have confirmed that sufficient funds are available to meet the past service liability for pensions. Future service is a matter for the pensions board and its actuaries, but dioceses are aware of the extent of their liability and are confident that the necessary funds can be raised.

Would it not be beneficial for the fund and ease the burdens on it if clergy could be encouraged to continue serving as parish priests or in other capacities beyond the normal retirement age? In many spheres of activity, clergymen even in their early 70s could perform useful functions, perhaps on more modest stipends. As few people are coming into the ministry, is that not the sort of thing that the Church Commissioners should support?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, which I should like to pass on to others.