What progress he is making with regard to the establishment of a defence diversification agency. [45218]

We are now considering the responses to our consultative Green Paper on the establishment of a defence diversification agency. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement before the summer recess on the way ahead.

Has my hon. Friend seen recent research by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which showed that Britain has failed to capitalise commercially on its scientific success in the past? Does he agree that one of the reasons why we need a defence diversification agency is so that we can use the skills and talents in the defence sector to help boost and promote Britain's commercial success abroad?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pamphlet he mentions rightly draws attention to our failure to disseminate and diversify technical and scientific knowledge. It has been a failing across British industry, particularly in the scientific sector. British industry has suffered as a result and we believe that a defence diversification agency would play a major role in redressing the position.

If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for acquisition reform. [45220]

As part of the strategic defence review, we have conducted a ruthless examination of our procurement processes in conjunction with industry and independent consultants. Our aim is to ensure faster, cheaper and better delivery of our future requirements.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are considerable savings to be made by reforming the way in which the Ministry of Defence procures equipment? Will the issue be at the forefront of thinking when the White Paper is produced, along with the policy on disposal, following the Chancellor's pressure to release land that we do not require in order to gain capital receipts?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There must be better ways of procuring equipment than those that have been used in the past. I am not willing to tolerate the accusation that the MOD is a ministry of waste, but, all too often, equipment has been delivered late and has been overpriced and of inadequate quality. That must change and that is why I have made it one of the principle priorities of the strategic defence review to explore ways in which we can reverse that record and get better equipment faster.

What representations he has received on progress in the destruction of United Kingdom land mine stocks; and if he will make a statement. [45221]

My Department has received a number of representations about the destruction of UK anti-personnel land mine stocks. We are committed to ratifying the Ottawa convention. In the past year alone, we have destroyed some 450,000 anti-personnel land mines—some 50 per cent. of the total.

I certainly welcome the final part of the Secretary of State's answer. However, there is great unhappiness about the fact that Britain has not ratified the treaty, as promised. Britain wishes to have a world role in defence matters. Until we ratify the treaty, many other countries will not do so either. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will bring pressure to bear elsewhere within the Government to get the treaty signed?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we desire to ratify the Ottawa treaty as quickly as we can and to make sure that we are among the number of countries required to ratify it before it can come into force. There is a very congested legislative programme because this is the first Session of the new Parliament, but, as and when the time is available, the measure will receive considerable priority.

We hear what the Secretary of State says, but what sort of figure does our country cut in the outside world when we wring our hands and say that we cannot ratify because of a shortage of parliamentary time? How much parliamentary time is needed for what we understand is an agreed measure?

It is certainly an agreed measure in principle, but there are a number of potentially contentious details which may require deliberation. We shall move ahead as quickly as we can. Since October last year, when the treaty was signed in Ottawa, only 19 countries have been able to complete their ratification procedures. Not all of them have moved with the speed and effectiveness that we have shown in meeting the obligations placed on us. My Department has taken significant initiatives on humanitarian de-mining, which have been loudly praised by other countries that are equally involved.

Given the Government's much-vaunted ethical foreign policy, is the Secretary of State not embarrassed by the fact that the Government have not yet ratified the agreement? Does he expect to be able to ratify it by the first anniversary of the death of the Princess of Wales? If the Government cannot do so, their resolve in such matters will be shown to be not as strong as they pretend.

I do not want to strike an acrimonious note on a subject with which we usually deal cordially and on which there is consensus, but the hon. Gentleman has a brass neck to say that. When the Conservatives were in government last year, they were not in favour of signing the Ottawa treaty or doing away with anti-personnel land mines. At the earliest opportunity, we banned the export, manufacture, import and transfer of anti-personnel land mines; the previous Government would not do that. We have signed the Ottawa treaty; the previous Government refused to do so. In the past year, we have already destroyed almost half the stocks of anti-personnel land mines. We shall ratify the treaty when the time is available, but we have already acted on our obligations, unlike other parties, which did not think that we should ratify.

Does the Secretary of State agree, in a slightly less partisan manner, that it is necessary to ratify the treaty before the recess, or the anniversary of the death of the princess? What better way is there to honour her memory?

The hon. Gentleman is never partisan in his questions. I appreciate the concern that we should live up to our obligations; we shall. We are in the first Session of a new Parliament. There is considerable congestion in the legislative timetable. We shall ratify the treaty as quickly as possible when there is time. I venture to suggest that the princess, who gave so much attention to the cause of eliminating anti-personnel land mines, would have been more interested in the efforts and energy of the Government to ensure that countries that have not yet signed the treaty do so, and to get rid of the stocks of anti-personnel land mines, which, as I have already announced, we are doing more quickly than any other country.

If he will make a statement on the future role of the Territorial Army. [45223]

The future role of the Territorial Army is being considered as part of the strategic defence review. No decisions have yet been taken, but I am confident that the review will result in a TA that is more usable and more relevant.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but I must press him further. If the Government decide to close 172 TA centres—more than one third of the total— resulting in a reduction of up to 18,000 in the number of part-time soldiers, how does the Minister intend to preserve the link between civilian life and the armed forces, which many hon. Members on both sides of the House regard as vital?

I regard that link as very important as well, and did so when the Conservative party cut the Territorial Army by 30,000—not by the speculated 15,000 which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. There will be a number of stages to our examination of the TA, one of which will be to agree the principles on which the footprint—the geographical spread of estates and units—is discussed and decided. I am glad to say that those principles have been agreed between the Regular Army and the TA, and there is now the basis for us to examine in some detail in the coming months the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman.

My hon. Friend has answered in part the questions that I was going to ask him, but I should like to press him further on the future of the TA. In the past, it has been necessary, on occasion, to deploy members of the TA as individuals. Will he assure the House that in any future major crisis, members of the TA will be deployed not as individuals but within existing serving units, and will serve in that way?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In the past half century, in spite of the contribution of the TA—for which every hon. Member is eternally grateful—'TA members have never yet been called up in a formed unit. One of the ways in which we could place the TA more centrally in our defence thinking, make it more practically useful to our defence effort and increase its importance within our defence configuration is by considering calling up the Territorial Army in formed units in less than a full-scale war. I will give sympathetic consideration to that proposal, as it would make the TA more relevant in the future that it ever has been in the past.

Does the Minister agree with the views of the Army's Director of Infantry as set out in his letter to the Commander-in-Chief, Land Command, published in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, that cutting the TA to 40,000 would jeopardise recruitment and

"erode the foundations on which the Regular Army is built & impair the nation's ability to generate the manning required for unpredictable levels of fighting power, undermining the strategic defence of the country"?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench for his first Question Time there, and his first lesson is never to quote out of context. I have the letter in front of me. Brigadier Monro—I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to his letter of 19 February—was asking for such contentions to be discussed openly, and for transparency in debating the issues which he raised. That, among other contributions, was taken seriously. Since then, we have had three debates in the House on those matters and I have answered several hundred letters and questions on them. No single subject has been given more scrutiny—as Brigadier Monro, others and I wanted—in the strategic defence review than the Territorial Army.

The House will wait with bated breath for the long-overdue review and to see exactly what the Minister meant by that answer. I must add that I quoted accurately from Brigadier Monro's letter.

It is not the Secretary of State who is the problem, but the shadow Secretary of State—he knows all about Treasury-led defence reviews, as he was a Minister at the Treasury when, in the 10 years up to last year, the defence budget was cut by 30 per cent., the personnel in each of the armed forces was cut by 32 per cent. and the Territorial Army was cut by 30 per cent. None of us needs to take lectures on Treasury-led reviews from him.

Is the Minister for the Armed Forces not being rather dismissive about the letter? It was not any old letter, but one from the Director of Infantry to the Commander-in-Chief, Land Command—it was not from someone promoting a private or special interest. Brigadier Monro says that the future of the Territorial Army is

"inextricably linked to the long term health of the Regular Army",

"there is little point in reducing the TA £ to insignificance, whilst hoping to man an enhanced regular Infantry."

No. I have the letter in front of me; it is dated 19 February, which I think, even using my rude mathematics, was about four months ago. Since then, all the points that the brigadier correctly made have been fully met. He did not want an insignificant TA; I have trebled the figures that were then being considered, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would know if he had watched the documentary on the strategic defence review. He also asked for transparency; the House has had three debates on the Territorial Army. So seriously did I take the suggestions that I not only paid attention to the letter and put right the problems, but discussed the whole issue of the TA with, among other people, the brigadier's father—indeed, I have met all the family.

What plans he has for employment levels at the Ministry's offices at Abbey Wood in South Gloucestershire. [45226]

Under plans already announced, it is intended that the transfer of staff from the Ships Support Agency to the Ministry's offices at Abbey Wood be completed by around the end of 2001–02. The impact of the strategic defence review may change the size and numbers of the units occupying the offices, but those offices should remain fully occupied by my Department.

Is the Minister aware that more than 2,000 people at Abbey Wood, many of whom are my constituents, have shown their loyalty to the Ministry of Defence by uprooting their homes and families to relocate there? Does he accept that those people deserve to be shown loyalty in return?

Absolutely; I understand that, and we are grateful for the work that those people undertake. They understand that there is evolution and change in the acquisition process. In many cases, that change has been based on suggestions that they have made, which are strongly supported and welcomed by many who work at Abbey Wood. Announcements have been made about a steady reduction of staff over the next four years as part of the drive for increased efficiency. However, we understand the human problems that may arise, especially for those who have relocated; those problems will be sympathetically considered in the broader context of the reorganisation of work at Abbey Wood.

The Minister announced last week that he would remove the final 370 jobs from RN Copenacre in my constituency to Abbey Wood by 2001. When will he announce whether the Defence Vetting Agency will be based at RN Copenacre as a replacement and, if the replacement is not to be the DVA, what it will be?

That announcement will be made, with a number of others, after the completion of the strategic defence review. We will consider all the options; as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are a number of possibilities, of which he has mentioned only one.

If he will make a statement on his Department's policy in relation to the purchase of British beef. [45227]

Our food supply contractor is bound to seek the best market price for beef under the terms of its contract and is also required to give full consideration to British products. As I advised the House on 1 June, the European Commission has recently approved a regulation allowing access to intervention stocks of British beef for use by the armed forces at competitive prices. That should allow our contractor to increase substantially the amount of British beef supplied to our forces in the United Kingdom.

I should be grateful if, subsequent to that answer, my hon. Friend would tell me what percentage of the stocks purchased henceforth by his Department will be of British origin.

We expect that it will be a considerably increased percentage. I am reluctant to go into the final figure, but we are looking at—

It will be in the defence review.

Actually, we will not know until we have looked at the contracts, which is probably the better way of doing it, rather than speaking first and reflecting later. In the light of discussions with our contractors, we expect a considerable percentage increase. Also, we have been analysing the acceptability of intervention beef, which has gone down very well in tests—I have tried it myself.

Although I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps unwilling to talk about future percentages, can he clarify the exact percentages at this stage? Does he envisage a doubling or a trebling?

It would probably be a little difficult to have a trebling, as that might take us over 100 per cent.; at the moment, it is something over 30 per cent. for beef, because of a number of measures which we have taken. We are at 100 per cent. for pork. We do not do well in the percentage for lamb—we have been in discussions with farmers to increase that percentage, possibly on the basis of long-term contracts.

If he will make a statement on the number of British troops in Bosnia. [45229]

Last week, the United Nations Security Council, under resolution 1174, authorised the extension of the stabilisation force's mandate for another year. I can today announce that the UK contribution to the follow-on SFOR force will be around 4,800 troops in Bosnia and Croatia, together with some 350 personnel based in the SFOR headquarters and Italy. We expect to remain the second largest contributor after the United States.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is vital that the forces stay in Bosnia as long as they are needed to prevent a reversion to the blood spilling that preceded the Dayton agreement? Can he say what steps NATO is contemplating to prevent further ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and to prevent Serbian expansion into Macedonia? Does he expect British ground troops to be committed to any such further NATO operations?

On my hon. Friend's first point, he is absolutely right. Although Bosnia has left the headlines for the moment, there is little doubt in anyone's mind that, if it were not for the presence of NATO-led SFOR troops, there could easily be a return to the violence, hatred and bloodshed that we saw earlier this decade. When I go to Bosnia next Monday, I will be taking—I hope on behalf of the whole House—our commendations and congratulations to the British troops who serve so well, professionally and bravely in that part of the world, who have brought peace where there was war, and who, through their stabilisation efforts, are ensuring that democracy and a greater degree of inter-ethnic communality is beginning to emerge once again.

I am sure that the Secretary of State agree with the individual soldiers will and airmen and the members of the chain of command who briefed the Select Committee on Defence on our recent visit to Germany about the effects of operational overstretch and their threat to our long-term military effectiveness. Will he restrain the Prime Minister from lobbying fellow world leaders to take on extra operational commitments without a proper increase in the defence budget? Will he explain how that threat to operational commitments and our military effectiveness will be helped by a cut of at least £500 million a year in the defence budget? Will he at least confirm that the commitment to Bosnia which he has announced today will be funded by the Foreign Office from the reserve, and not from the defence budget?

Of course I am aware of overstretch and over-commitment. That is what I inherited from the previous Government, to whom the hon. Gentleman was a special adviser and who, by their hollowing out, contributed to the overstretch and created the over-commitments with which we must deal. The brunt of the strategic defence review was designed to address the problems that the hon. Gentleman's Government left behind for us to tackle. I am well aware of the need to balance our capabilities with our commitments, but we also have obligations on the international stage.

Can my right hon. Friend say how close we are to achieving the desired objectives in Bosnia? If we are not there yet, will my right hon. Friend suggest what time scale he foresees for the finding of an acceptable solution, and for when we might see the withdrawal of British troops?

It would be a wiser, or a rasher, man than I who would make predictions about the attainment of objectives in Bosnia. All I can say is that the figures which I have announced for our troop commitment to Bosnia show a reduction in the numbers that were there for the past year. As progress is made towards normalisation and democratisation in Bosnia, I hope that there will be further reductions. We are there not as a permanent, long-term occupation force, but to allow democratic and civilised standards to grow again in that country.

The Secretary of State has confirmed that the United Kingdom is providing the second largest number of troops in Bosnia. In the context of the strategic defence review, will we have a sufficient number of troops to meet any realistic and reasonable United Nations requirements of the United Kingdom, or will our United Nations commitments be tailored to the amount of money that the Ministry of Defence will have left after the Treasury has mauled its budget?

We see here another Tory ex-Minister revisiting the scenes of his crimes. Their year out of office may be the longest the Conservatives have experienced, but the fact is that for seven years they raided the defence budget by more than 30 per cent. They cannot come to this place and lecture the Government about the amount of money that we intend to spend on defence.

If he will make a statement on his replacement programme for aircraft carriers and the provision of amphibious lift. [45230]

We have considered the future requirement for aircraft carriers and amphibious lift capability in the strategic defence review. We expect to announce our conclusions in the near future.

While I do not challenge the prudence of conducting the comprehensive spending review, may I respectfully remind my hon. Friend, and through him the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is made explicit in our Labour manifesto—our new Labour manifesto, which I signed and am proud to be associated with—that our strategic defence review would be foreign-policy-led? Essential to fulfilling our foreign policy objectives is the expeditionary capacity that is provided by carriers. If we are to have power projection to stay off horizon where necessary and help in humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, we need that carrier capacity. That matter should not be in any doubt, and the Government should proclaim now that the replacements for the Invincible class carriers will be delivered and are essential to our defence needs.

They will no doubt be called the HMS Mackinlay. My hon. Friend argues strongly in favour of future aircraft carriers. Those arguments are being weighed heavily and seriously as part of the strategic defence review, and we hope to make an announcement on the outcome in the not-too-distant future.

As usual, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has put his finger exactly on the Government's problem: whether they will deliver real carriers. Those of us who watched "The Paper War", the BBC2 documentary on the strategic defence review broadcast the other week, witnessed a meeting during which there was much badinage between Ministers about naming the carriers. The Minister for the Armed Forces suggested HMS Robertson and the Secretary of State favoured the HMS Gordon Brown.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. If he continues to ask questions such as that, he will be welcome to stay for a considerable time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Navy's three aircraft carriers, the first of which was built by my constituents, provide it with an important capability to support our forces, and those of our allies, when deployed in out-of-area operations? We are modernising our amphibious capability with the construction of HMS Ocean, again in my constituency, and two assault landing ships for the Royal Marines. Can my hon. Friend say more positively that, if we are to ensure that that new amphibious capability will be fully effective, we will need in due course to consider a replacement for the Invincible class carriers?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for his considerable and effective lobbying over several years on behalf of the Royal Navy and the excellent qualities of the shipyard in his constituency. These serious issues are being weighed in the strategic defence review. We look forward to making an announcement on that in the not-too-distant future. I take into account the excellent work of the Vickers yard in my hon. Friend's constituency, and of its loyal and highly skilled work force.

What plans he has to change the status or role of RAF Northolt. [45231]

The future of RAF Northolt is being reviewed in consultation with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This work is being undertaken against the background of the strategic defence review, the DETR's study of business aviation in the south-east and the policies relating to airports that will be set out in the forthcoming integrated transport White Paper. No decisions have yet been taken.

Would not any responsible Government wish to retain under their control the specialist air transport facilities provided by RAF Northolt that are crucial to Her Majesty's Government, the personnel of headquarters at High Wycombe, Northwood and Bentley Priory and diplomatic personnel in the United States and other embassies? Should not those facilities remain under Royal Air Force control? Would not any question of RAF Northolt being transferred to civil control and becoming a satellite of Heathrow not only be bitterly opposed, rightly, by the local population but militate against its primary role, which is specialist air transport for the military and Ministers?

Any responsible Government would wish, first, to pay tribute to the continuing role and contribution of RAF Northolt and, secondly, to assure themselves and the House that any proposals that even considered changing the status of RAF Northolt would be subject to thorough consultation. As a Minister in a responsible Government, I am glad to be able to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on both those points.

May I assure my hon. Friend that 1 am as one with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on this matter, if, sadly, on few others? My constituents are as one with his in viewing with horror the possibility of increased civilian use of RAF Northolt. The only ray of sunshine that pierces the dark clouds hanging over Northolt is the prospect that, if the list of putative bidders is as printed in the popular papers, whoever takes over will start by sacking all the pilots and returning peace to the skies over Northolt.

I am sure that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) speak representatively for their constituents. That will be a major factor in any consideration. As my hon. Friend referred to press reports, I should make it clear that my Department has received several unsolicited representations about RAF Northolt. Contrary to reports in the press, Stagecoach Aviation has not approached my Department, although an unsolicited commercial proposal was made by Glasgow Prestwick International in February last year before it was taken over by Stagecoach.

When he will visit Cyprus to assess the work of the British garrison. [45232]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the Akrotiri sovereign base in March. I shall make a more extensive visit to the garrison in Cyprus, starting tomorrow.

I know that the Minister will be warmly welcomed. I am grateful to him for facilitating my recent visit. Does he agree that the very few serious disciplinary offences committed by Her Majesty's forces in Cyprus should be put in proportion and that the discipline of British forces in Cyprus is second to none? When he visits Cyprus, will he examine particularly the recreational facilities available for single soldiers, especially as they are now largely confined to barracks following incidents that have been mentioned? Does he agree that the tabloid image of British forces in Cyprus—that it is a posting to over-indulgence in sand, sea and sex—is a gross distortion and highly misleading?

I shall not comment on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question; he has been to Cyprus more recently than I have. I would, however, make the serious point that British forces abroad, especially in Cyprus, are constantly in the media spotlight. That is more so in Cyprus because of the dreadful circumstances some time ago of the Jensen case. That terrible, tragic murder will continue to cast a shadow over the British forces in Cyprus for many years to come. I should therefore make it plain that we will not tolerate indiscipline. Some incidents over the past four years have been genuinely shocking, and the full weight of the law has been brought to bear on those responsible.

How many British troops are currently deployed in the Persian Gulf. [45233]

Almost 1,000 service personnel from all three services are currently deployed on operations in the Persian Gulf.

During the time I have spent on the parliamentary armed forces scheme, I have had the opportunity to have regular talks with members of the armed forces. They all share with me considerable pride in the role played by our armed forces in ensuring that Saddam Hussein was held to the promises he made to the United Nations earlier this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not be lulled into a false sense of security, and that we must remain prepared to make forces available to ensure that the promises made by Saddam Hussein are upheld in future?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our level of preparedness and our willingness to act if Saddam Hussein continues to confront the will of the international community and the role of the United Nations is not in question. My hon. Friend rightly says that many of our troops are still in theatre; not only those in Ali Al Salem in Kuwait—they went down there because of the immediate confrontation—but those who serve in the Armilla patrol, which has continued for about 14 years, and the pilots at Al Kharj in Saudi Arabia and in Turkey who police the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. All those personnel are in place to ensure that the Iraqi regime lives up to its obligations and does not continue to threaten its neighbours and the international community as it has in the past.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the first troops to arrive in the most recent Gulf crisis were American airborne troops? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in considering future possible operations in the Gulf and elsewhere, he will maintain a full, rounded airborne capability, including the supporting elements and command and control facilities that are needed for rapid land-air deployment?

The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that, in the reshaping and modernising of our armed forces that will come from the strategic defence review, the capabilities we require to meet the sort of problems and conflicts we shall face in the future will be to his liking, and will make total common sense in relation to what the British people expect.

Are the service personnel who are currently serving in the Gulf offered the same cocktail of inoculations as those who served in the Gulf war? Is there any truth in newspaper stories that inoculation of service personnel may become compulsory? If so, will my right hon. Friend consider ensuring that, when ill effects are felt, personnel are compensated properly and immediately, without having to take the Government through the courts?

No cocktail of drugs or inoculations was offered to any of our troops in the Gulf on this occasion. Anthrax vaccine was offered to our troops because that is a proven vaccination. To demonstrate my conviction that it was absolutely safe and had no visible side effects, I, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Chief of the Defence Staff, as well as the American Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the vaccination. We believe it to be safe. We have no plans at present to make it compulsory, although in any future climate of threat we would have to make an assessment about how best to protect our troops.

What further proposals she intends to put to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [45253]

In addition to proposed changes to the legislative process, EU scrutiny and the explanatory memorandum accompanying Bills, I hope shortly to submit a memorandum on the parliamentary calendar.

With no criticism intended of anyone who happens to be a servant of the House, if the word modernisation is to have any meaning at all may I ask what justification there can be, two years into the next century, for wigs, gowns and swords to be worn in much the same way as happened centuries ago? Now that the Modernisation Committee is carrying out important work, is there not a case for that matter being considered and action being taken during the lifetime of this Parliament?

That topic was mentioned in a recent report, and the Modernisation Committee is always open to ideas, but, so far, we have not been inundated with suggestions from hon. Members that that sort of change should be made. However, I noticed that, in a recent debate, the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), said that he was taken with the idea of modernising in that respect, so we might return to that issue.

May I point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) did not mention wigs, and that we wish to dissociate ourselves from the philistine comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), which would lead to the sort of drab uniformity that may be suitable for the hemicycle in many continental chambers, but is not appropriate here?

If would be interesting to have a debate on parliamentary dress, including wigs; if there were time,I should certainly try to schedule one in the near future. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are genuinely interested in changes to the parliamentary calendar, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks about safeguards. Everyone will study any possible change carefully, but there may be some scope for improvement.

If the Modernisation Committee and its members are serious about wanting to improve facilities for Back Benchers, instead of looking at nonsensical and superficial issues, they should seriously consider examining the work of the General Accounting Office in Washington to see how it provides detailed, accurate and factual support for Back Benchers who want to assess the implications of legislation. They should also consider expanding the support offered to Members of Parliament of all parties so that they can make uniformly useful contributions. The Committee should stop worrying about traditions that are important but hardly world-shaking.

My hon. Friend will have noted that the Modernisation Committee has chosen to concentrate on the issues it thinks the most significant. That is one reason we have not spent a great deal of time talking about dress and wigs.

Will the right hon. Lady consider a fast-track procedure for the ratification of treaties that have been signed by Her Majesty's Government so that we can avoid the embarrassment of urging other countries quickly to ratify treaties that we seemingly cannot ratify ourselves?

Legislation can always proceed quickly if there is total agreement. During the time we have been in government, I have found there to be total agreement on very few issues.

If she will set up a Select Committee to assess the future of Dounreay.[45254]

No. This matter already falls within the responsibility of the Trade and Industry Committee.

That Committee's visit to Dounreay brought some sanity to a situation in which Dounreay has been the victim of sensationalist and technically ignorant journalism. Given the huge resources of skill on the north coast of Scotland, how can the Government do without the plant in tackling their own targets for carbon dioxide reductions?

I am sure that members of the Select Committee will note by hon. Friend's comments. Later this summer the Government will publish a wide-ranging and open consultation paper on policy options for meeting the Kyoto target and moving towards our domestic aim of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. A great number of people will wish to respond to and take part in that consultation process; I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to do so, too.

If she will make a statement about synchronising parliamentary recesses with school holidays and half-terms. [45255]

I hope shortly to submit a memorandum to the Modernisation Committee which will deal with this subject, as part of what I have already described as the parliamentary calendar.

I am grateful for that reply. When she makes her submission, will the right hon. Lady remember that the timetable of the House of Commons does not always dovetail perfectly with school terms? Given that 516 hon. Members have children, a large minority of them of school age, and given the intolerable burdens of our life style in this place, will she do all she can to dovetail our recesses with school holidays so that Members can see more of their children?

I am extremely sympathetic to that suggestion. I know that many Members with families feel that we could sometimes order our timetable better at no inconvenience to the House—but for the convenience of Members. There are, however, certain problems: not all school holidays in England coincide, and Scottish holidays are different again.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish schools finish term at the end of this week and that many Members, if they have children at school or spouses who are teachers, will be highly inconvenienced? Will she take that into account when considering the parliamentary year?

Not only Scottish schools, but schools in towns such as Burnley will start their annual holidays soon. It will not ever be possible to satisfy all hon. Members on the matter, but it is possible to try to rationalise the situation and make improvements without jeopardising parliamentary business.

What progress she is making with regard to introducing additional morning sittings of the House. [45256]

This matter also will be included among the issues in the Modernisation Committee's consideration of the parliamentary calendar.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a compelling case for morning sittings, certainly on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which would enable better consideration of private Members' Bills, an early return to their constituencies for hon. Members such as me with northern constituencies and perhaps more opportunities for Ministers to take questions on the Floor of the House?

I do not want to pre-empt anything that might be in the report that goes to the Modernisation Committee. There are pros and cons of morning sittings and difficulties in terms of duplicating work in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The Modernisation Committee will want to consider all those matters. I hope that the memorandum that I shall publish will help hon. Members to concentrate their thoughts on practical solutions to those problems.