What discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the impact on Scottish retailers of the levy proposed under the draft food standards Bill. [76305]

My right hon. Friend has had a number of discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the nature and possible impact of the levy-raising powers proposed under the food standards Bill.

From 1 July, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Has the Minister's right hon. Friend made it clear that in Scotland we cannot agree to a flat-rate levy? Why should a little shop on the island of Lismore or Gigha in my constituency pay the same as a large, wealthy supermarket? Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Parliament will be able to reject that "poll tax on the plate" and agree that the Food Standards Agency should be paid for out of general taxation?

The current levy scheme proposals are part of genuine consultation, and I have been touring the country having open meetings with interested parties. We shall certainly be happy to consider alternatives, provided they are administratively simple, cost-effective and fair, and we are actively encouraging such alternative proposals.

My hon. Friend will be aware that we inherited a crisis of confidence in food, following the E. coli outbreak in central Scotland in 1996 and 1997, when 21 people tragically died. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give the Scottish people that such tragedies will not occur in future?

As my hon. Friend will know, we have made considerable progress on food safety over the past two years. We have implemented almost all Professor Pennington's recommendations, with significant objective improvements so far. I have no doubt that, although the agency will not absolutely guarantee that there will be no more problems, it will significantly reduce them and reassure people throughout the United Kingdom of the safety and wholesomeness of our food.

Will the Minister accept that there is a strong, indeed unanswerable, case for locating the Scottish arm of the Food Standards Agency in the north-east of Scotland, given the unique combination of its research base and agricultural production areas? Should that not be part of a widespread plan for civil service dispersal across Scotland?

Did I detect from the Minister's earlier answer that the Government are moving away from the ridiculous argument that a branch of Sainsbury's should pay the same as a corner shop, and that they would consider a banded system that would be fair to all retailers?

As I toured the country, discussing this matter with interested parties, I noticed that, everywhere I went, everyone asked for the Scottish arm of the agency to be based in their area. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's presentation as a plea for his area, and duly note it.

Further to the Minister's answer, will the Scottish Parliament have the power, under the Scotland Act 1998, to overrule, compensate for or alter any levy that is set by the Treasury, or will the Treasury dictate policy in Scotland?

Detailed effects of devolution on that policy area are still being considered, although we intend the levy to apply consistently in all parts of the United Kingdom.

If the levy is to apply consistently in all parts of the United Kingdom, that makes nonsense of the Minister's earlier answer to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). Is it not clear that the Treasury will still dictate policy on that matter and that the measure will be another part of the Government's stealth tax programme which will be imposed on Scottish retailers? Are the Government not therefore hypocritical to criticise other parties for wanting to use the tax-raising powers that the Government campaigned for and included in the Scotland Act, when they are raising taxes by stealth from Scottish retailers at every turn?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the matter, as he made obvious by trying to draw false conclusions from my response to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. As I said, we aim to ensure that the levy is uniform across the United Kingdom because it is correct and proper for a UK agency to be concerned with food throughout the country.

If he will make a statement on the Government's strategy to improve literacy and numeracy in Scottish schools. [76307]

The Government have a comprehensive strategy for improving literacy and numeracy. That includes the early intervention programme for which £60 million is being provided, family literacy schemes supported by £15 million over three years, and £7.8 million of additional resources made available this year alone to allow every school in Scotland to buy books for its library. Those initiatives are being underpinned by action to improve teaching standards and by setting targets for raising attainment in literacy and numeracy.

From 1 July, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As a former English teacher, I know all too well the importance of early intervention schemes. As a secondary schoolteacher, I certainly found that it was often too late to help youngsters who could not read or write at age 11. Will my right hon. Friend break down those figures and tell the House how much is likely to be spent in Aberdeen—which obviously is my concern—in pursuing that valuable policy over the next few years?

I can tell my hon. Friend that, of the £7.8 million for school books during this financial year, about £272,000 will go to schools in the Aberdeen city council area. To take her point a little more broadly, in the first two years of the early intervention programme, Aberdeen city council received more than £226,000 of Government funding, and in the three years to 2001–02 it will receive more than £455,000 annually; so, over that five-year period of the early intervention scheme, the programme for Aberdeen will amount to £1,820,000. That is part of a pattern, which will mean that, by the end of the comprehensive spending review period, for every family in Scotland about £14,000 will have been spent on health and education.

We welcome the focus on the problems of literacy and numeracy. Given that almost £10 million have disappeared from school education in the north-east of Scotland—in Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire and Moray—the figures cited by the Secretary of State will go some way towards repairing the damage. However, when people think about their children's education, they consider the overall education. Does the Secretary of State accept that considerable damage has been done by the past two years of cuts?

No doubt that is something that the hon. Gentleman will want to discuss with his local authority. I may soon have an opportunity of doing so myself. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will want to welcome—although, strangely, he forgot to do so—the 4.7 per cent. increase in the settlement for local government in the coming year. It is the best for seven years, and it is part of an increasing programme which, step by step, will build up to the better standards to which I referred in my earlier answer.

Does the Secretary of State not find it fantastic that Opposition Members do not seem to look seriously at the Government's spending, and do not seem to have spoken to their local authorities? I have a table supplied by my local authority, which shows that Falkirk is getting £187,000 in early intervention funding, and a total of £2,600,000 extra for nine projects that will develop literacy, numeracy and education. Next year, the figure will be £2 million, followed by a further £1.8 million. Does my right hon. Friend find, as I do, that, whenever he speaks to local authority members, they tell him that local authorities are awash with money and the schemes are making a real difference to the literacy, numeracy and educational opportunities of the people of Scotland?

I certainly believe that anyone who listens to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and looks at the settlement for the coming year will recognise that the rather mean and penny-pinching approach of Opposition Members, who will always find something about which to carp and criticise, is totally unjustified. If hon. Members examine the education budget—the figures are well known to the House—and the increase in cash terms from 1997–98 to the end of the comprehensive spending review, they will see that, in the last year of that period, we will be spending £1 billion more on education than we were spending in the first year of this Labour Government. That is exactly the upward curve that people expect and want, and for which they voted in the past and, I expect, will vote again.

In the light of that answer, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the total decrease of £219 million so far in real terms in the education budget is part of his comprehensive strategy to improve literacy, or merely an oversight?

That is a bitter attack on the spending plans of the Conservative Government. We said before the election and during the election campaign that, for the first two years of our period in office, we would hold to the overall spending plans that we inherited from the hon. Gentleman's friends. That is what we did, and we never made any secret of it. Within that total, we reallocated in favour of schools and health—for schools, more than £100 million. We said that, after that two years, we would start building. We are now building, with substantial increases in real terms in health and education, and moving towards totals such as those that I mentioned earlier.

It does not matter to what extent the hon. Gentleman dances on the head of a pin—he will find it a very uncomfortable experience electorally. No matter how determinedly he does it, he is simply trying to misrepresent the situation.

When he plans to conclude the contract for the new college in Kilwinning. [76308]

I am not a party to the contract for the new college in Kilwinning. The board of management of James Watt college of further and higher education will sign the contract, and I understand that it expects to do so soon.

From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

That is excellent news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that access is one of the biggest problems in higher education, particularly for the handicapped and the disabled? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, by virtue of the Scottish National party's policies, people are likely to be deprived of access to higher education in north Ayrshire, and the building of the new college in Kilwinning would, at the very least, be delayed, if not cancelled, were its policies to come to fruition?

Kilwinning college is an important addition to the educational facilities in north Ayrshire, and I hope that it flourishes and does well. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the importance of widening access. We have an agenda in that area, and I can announce today that disabled student allowances will be extended from this autumn to part-time students studying at least 50 per cent. of a full-time course. Furthermore, the fee waiver scheme introduced last May for low-income or unemployed part-time first degree students will be extended to include students at higher education institutions on higher national certificate or higher national diploma courses. Steps will also be taken to introduce consistency for comparable students in further education colleges.

That means that £6 million will be channelled to benefit at least 6,000 part-time higher education students a year who are on low incomes or unemployed, and £1.5 million to benefit 250 disabled students each year during the next three years. That is an important and welcome extension of access for a group of students who have potential and capacity, but are often held back by personal circumstances.

Is the new college in Kilwinning also likely to be awash with money, or will it be constrained at least by the fact that in Ayrshire there has been a reduction in the education budget of as much as 15 per cent?

The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have a slight rapport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he is always extremely entertaining. As the hon. Gentleman has no doubt done his homework, he will know that an additional £41 million has been allocated to the further education sector next year, which has been very widely welcomed—I use these terms properly—right across the further education sector. There will be something like £241 million, in addition to the expected plans, by the end of the comprehensive spending review. The hon. Gentleman has struck a happy note in reminding me just how much is being done in further education at the moment.

What plans he has to increase parental involvement within the Scottish education system. [76309]

Parental involvement in children's education is crucial if young people are to realise their potential. Our plans for increasing parental involvement in the Scottish education system are set out in our recent White Paper "Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools", which was published on 27 January.

From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and for her recent visit to Dumfries, when she met educationists and discussed the White Paper, which I believe was well received.

My hon. Friend is fully aware of the excellent parental involvement in Maxwelltown high school in Dumfries, which is taking forward the whole concept of community schools and, despite not having achieved any additional funding as a pilot community school, the parents are continuing to work hard within the school and the community. Will my hon. Friend offer support for that project and pay the school a visit when the opportunity arises?

I very much enjoyed my visit to Dumfries some 10 days ago. If I have an opportunity, I should like to visit Maxwelltown because I know of the project undertaken there under the parents' guidance. My hon. Friend is aware that there are to be 60 pilots of new community schools, an exciting new development in Scottish education which puts the child at the heart of the education system. We are the only party that refers to education in relation to its impact on children. Before the end of this month, I plan to announce our decisions on the new community school plans, and I know that Maxwelltown high school has made a bid to be a new community school.

On Monday, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced plans to assist highly able children in England and Wales, and we all know how the parents of those children want more to be done for them. What are the Government's plans for highly able children in Scotland, and how will Scottish Office Ministers respond to the criticisms of the half-baked scheme that has come from their colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that the Scottish education system is significantly different from that in England and Wales. He asks about able children. The new advanced higher—which is part of the reforms, known as higher still, that are being introduced from August—is specifically aimed at encouraging able young people in our schools. It will also assist those of all levels of ability to maximise their ability fully. That, together with the £1.3 billion extra that is being put into our schools through the comprehensive spending review, will help not only the very able, but all young people who benefit from a good Scottish education.

If he will make a statement on progress towards the reopening of the export market for Scottish beef. [76310]

If EU inspectors have been invited to Scottish farms since the lifting of the beef export ban was announced. [76313]

Substantial progress has been made since the principles of the date-based export scheme were agreed in Brussels last November. The Government's chief veterinary officer has invited European Union inspectors to visit the United Kingdom in the week beginning Monday 12 April to assess our plans for implementing the date-based export scheme. I remain optimistic that Scottish beef can begin to regain its rightful place in the export trade in the course of this summer.

We have come a long way since the ridiculous beef war in which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) tried to play the role of the neighbour from hell in the European Union. Now that the Labour Government have implemented all the requirements of the Florence agreement—step by step and without any need for extra taxation in Scotland to pay for it—will my right hon. Friend make leading Scottish beef back into the export market in June a priority for the Labour Administration in the Scottish Parliament? As First Minister in the Scottish Parliament, would he like to arrange a Scottish beef barbecue in Brussels to celebrate?

I am not a great barbecue man myself, but, on this occasion and following such a beguiling invitation, I might reconsider my position.

I am encouraged by the fact that progress has been made, and that can be traced directly to the feeling across the European Union that, under this Government, the United Kingdom is involved and pulling its weight. We still have many disagreements, but at least we are involved and there is a feeling that we are prepared to talk and do business. That has resulted in the progress that we have achieved.

It is difficult to move from the agreement in principle through to the practical reassertion of Scottish beef's proper place in the European market, but I am glad that my ministerial colleague, my noble Friend Lord Sewel, was encouraged by his reception when he visited northern Italy only a couple of weeks ago and talked to people involved in what had been an important export market. I hope that we can build on his visit and on the other steps that we are taking, in close co-operation with the National Farmers Union of Scotland.

Given the size and importance of the beef industry in Scotland and given that BSE has always run at a lower level in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain, is the Secretary of State not rather surprised that, several months after the Prime Minister declared the end of the beef war with a flourish, the inspectors are not coming to Scotland for a further three weeks? There are direct flights, I believe. However, not a single tonne of Scottish beef is available for export to Europe.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that ungracious attitude, because he is often rather knowledgeable and reasonable in this area. We have never pretended that the agreement in principle on the date-based export scheme meant that we could immediately restart exporting. Clearly, there had to be tracing and slaughtering of offspring of all BSE cases born after 1 August 1996, and a completely new database had to be erected to establish eligibility checks. There was a great deal of work to be done, and it is being pushed on with considerable energy.

I have kept closely in touch with the National Farmers Union of Scotland. I welcome the fact that the chief veterinary officer has been able to arrange for 12 April a visit by the inspectorate from the European Union, and I hope that that goes well. However, the idea that, if we had just raised an air fare, the whole thing could have been settled four months ago not only defies imagination, but is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.

I welcome the progress that has been made and wish the Secretary of State success, but he will recognise that it will take a long time to build that export market again. Might one of the disagreements between the Scottish farmer and Europe be its possible introduction of a permanent ban on beef on the bone?

No, that was not one of the areas to which I referred. The beef-on-the-bone ban is in place because of the very clear medical and scientific advice that has been offered to the Government of the United Kingdom. I need hardly say that, if that advice changed, or if the very clear indications of an element of risk were removed, we would be happy to see the end of the ban.

I welcome any progress in the beef industry, but, given the fact that the Secretary of State has basically told us that not a single carcase has yet been exported from Scotland, despite all the rhetoric, how many slaughterhouses does he expect to be approved by the end of April? If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) is right in saying that the Scottish Office is awash with money, could the Secretary of State perhaps use some more of it to alleviate the suffering of those in the agriculture sector in Scotland?

I never cease to marvel at the hon. Gentleman's courage. Against the background of the record of the last Conservative Government and his record in the business, he criticises us. It is a little too much. I cannot predict what will happen, because it depends on the visit on 12 April. I hope that that goes well and that we can satisfy the European Union inspectorate that such a move is part of the necessary process. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has said, it is a slow business. We have always known that, but we are ensuring that every possible step is taken as quickly as possible. We are spending a lot of time and taking a lot of trouble to re-establish the contacts that will be necessary if we are to get our beef back into the European market. The results of those contacts are, on the whole, encouraging. A little support and backing from the Opposition, who constantly declare their interest in helping, would be appreciated.

What progress has been made on the trunk roads review; and if he will make a statement. [76311]

Some useful suggestions were made during the recent public consultation. We are amending the framework for the appraisal of trunk road investment in Scotland to reflect those. The outcome of the review will be announced as soon as practicable.

From 1 July 1999, it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Is the Minister aware that P and O has recently announced an order for a new conventional ferry for the Cairnryan-Larne route, which will have almost double the capacity of existing conventional ferries? Is he aware that there is the potential for 100-plus lorries to come ashore at Cairnryan and that that will add severely to the problems of the lorry convoy on the A75 and the accident rate? Will he undertake to take that new fact into account in the trunk roads review?

That is an important announcement by P and O. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it. The A75 as such is not part of the trunk roads review, but it is welcome news for the hon. Gentleman, because it means that we are able to go ahead with improvements that are planned, for example, in Glen. I hope to announce shortly that the money will be available to complete those improvements by the summer. The route action plan that we are working on for the whole of the A75 is still being developed, but, when that is completed, it will provide the basis for future investment on the A75.

What consultations has the Minister had with his English colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the proposals that they are considering to detrunk the English sections of the A7 and A68? Can he give the communities on the Scottish side of the border that are served by both those roads an assurance that any detrunking on the English side will not lead to a diminution in repair and maintenance and, indeed, in road improvement schemes for those two roads? Does he accept that, if he is not careful and gets past 12 July, difficult decisions may be left to someone else?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance about the detrunking proposals. Having been in direct contact with DETR, he will know that the proposals are part of a wider proposal relating to England as a whole, allowing responsibility for trunk road maintenance to be shared by DETR and groups of local authorities in the regions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this will not have the impact that he and his constituents fear.

When he last met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the local government settlement for 1999–2000. [76312]

My right hon. Friend and I last met the convention on 22 January to discuss the terms of the 1999–2000 local government finance settlement.

From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Will my hon. Friend wish COSLA well before it begins its annual conference later this week in Crieff?

As my hon. Friend will know, local government spending on vital services in Scotland has increased dramatically under the new Labour Government. Do the figures not give the lie to the fantasy statistics produced by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party, which suggest that spending is lower under this Government than under the Tory Government? Are we not, step by step, delivering for Scotland?

I am pleased to say that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will visit Crieff this week to address the COSLA conference.

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the local government settlement for 1999–2000, and up to 2001, is substantial. We are securing vastly improved services, and an injection of an extra £840 million, including additional resources for pre-school education. In 1997, the Conservatives increased the band D council tax by 10.7 per cent.; we halved that last year, and this year it will be only 2.6 per cent. We are securing better services, lower council tax increases and improved quality of life in every part of Scotland.

I acknowledge and, indeed, welcome the fact that the local government settlement is going up this year and in the forthcoming year, after seven years in which it has been reduced in terms of 1998–99 prices, and is scheduled to go up again in each of the succeeding two years.

By the same token, will the Minister acknowledge and, indeed, regret the fact that, over the last five years of the Conservative Government and the first five years of the current Labour Government, the average spend for local government is £460 million per annum less in real terms? Like me, the Minister has often criticised the Conservative party for the impact that its spending plans had on local government. What impact does he expect this settlement to have, given that in real terms—in terms of buying power—it is 5 per cent. lower than what the Conservative party was spending each year?

My constituents, and all the other constituents in Scotland, are less interested in arbitrary bartering of statistics than in hard investment in education and every other aspect of local government. It is possible to make any comparison by selecting a figure out of thin air, but the hard reality is that we said, "Education, education, education," and that in every council there is real investment, especially in services for the under-fives. That is what ordinary constituents want, and that is what a Labour Government are delivering.

Given that the local government settlement is part of a four-year budget for the Scottish Parliament, has my hon. Friend discussed with COSLA the SNP's strange proposal to cut £1,000 million from that budget, add £690 million back in, and then claim still to be spending more, rather than less, on services? Has my hon. Friend considered asking COSLA whether it would be possible to send the SNP spokespeople back to school to learn how to do their sums? Does he agree that not since 1707 have we seen such a parcel of dopes in the nation?

My hon. Friend has made a remarkably good contribution—but, if we sent members of the SNP back to school, there would be very few computers in the classroom to deal with their problems.

What the SNP is offering is a national disgrace. The Labour Government are investing in every part of education, but all that the SNP can do is continue to hoodwink the electors. How can those with a policy of breaking up Britain be interested in any other aspect of public services?

Has the Minister discussed with COSLA the contents of a parliamentary answer that he gave last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), which stated that, since Labour came to power, £750 million has been cut from local authorities' budgets? Is the Minister aware of the real damage that the cut does to public services, or does he—like the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty)—believe that local authorities are awash with resources? If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) believes that anyone requires to go back to school, does he believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who has had to do a superb U-turn on the ridiculous figures that he published seven days ago—should go back to school, to learn how £230 million really does not mean £500 million?

The hon. Gentleman is simply struggling. We are talking about real investment of £840 million over the next three years, and he cannot argue against the facts. In every school in Scotland, and in every service in Scotland, there will be more cash. It is absurd for the SNP to pretend that there is anything that it can do to improve the quality of life in Scotland. However, if the SNP gets anyone to vote for it, it will be about breaking up Britain—and divorce is very expensive.

Did the local authorities laugh when faced with the economic illiteracy of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats—who are now in alliance, and who voted last week to take £1 billion out of public spending, thereby lining themselves up with every opportunist tax-cutting argument? At the same time, they pretend that with 1p—the longest "p" in history—they will be able to rebuild Scotland's public services, which were run down over 18 years of Thatcherite Government. Will not anyone with eyes to see be able to understand that a country that has been systematically run down can be rebuilt only step by step, as the Labour Government are doing?

My hon. Friend adds to the other excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). It is a tragedy to see the SNP seeking to cut investment in Scotland, at a time when we are spending. As for education, there will be a 6.4 per cent. increase next year; a 4.4 per cent. increase in 2000–01; and a further 4 per cent. in 2001–02. That is about investing in Scotland's future. The Labour Government will continue to do that, despite the fact that the SNP is walking away from reality and the needs of Scotland.

If he will make a statement on the current levels of inward investment to Scotland. [76315]

In the year to March 1998, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office helped to attract to Scotland a total of 87 inward investment projects, involving planned investment of just over £1 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of nearly 18,000 jobs. The jobs figure is at a higher level than at any time in Locate in Scotland's 18-year history.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, under the previous Conservative Government, inward investment in Scotland was absolutely massive? Does he agree also that, under a Labour Government, unemployment is going up in Scotland; that, this month, it is likely to be up for the third month running; and that, this year alone, more than 4,000 jobs have been lost in Scotland? Does he believe that the Chancellor's Budget—which penalises lower-income and less well-off families in Scotland—will help? Does he believe that the SNP's raising taxes by 1p more than in the rest of United Kingdom would not have an adverse affect on smaller business?

I have just explained that Locate in Scotland has had a record year. I hope that that success will continue. I pay tribute to the contribution that inward investment has made to management skills and to broadening the base of the economy. It accounts for 29 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry. I hope that there will be further good news on inward investment shortly.

The hon. Gentleman is being selective about unemployment. At 5.5 per cent., the claimant count is at its lowest for about 20 years. Youth unemployment has almost halved. Unemployment in many constituencies in Scotland is very much lower than it was in February 1996, when I think the Conservatives were in office. To take a random example, in Banff and Buchan, unemployment fell by 42 per cent. between February 1996 and February 1999. That trend is true for all the constituencies represented by the Scottish National party. I am very happy to recognise that and say how satisfactory it is. We want to continue that record, not go back to the days of the Conservative Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise have an excellent record in attracting many thousands of jobs to Scotland and are the envy of the rest of the United Kingdom and most of Europe? Does he further agree that it would be disastrous for jobs in Scotland if there were any chance of the changes to Locate in Scotland suggested by the SNP—which would undermine its effectiveness—being implemented?

I understand that the SNP is advocating that Locate in Scotland should be taken into the civil service and should be answerable directly to Ministers. That is what has been reported to me. If it is not true, no doubt I shall be told. That is a remarkably centralising policy that would result in the input of business and commerce in the form of the Scottish Enterprise board being lost. I understand that the Scottish nationalists are also proposing that a majority of those in the local enterprise companies should be Members of the Scottish Parliament or local authority elected members. There should be a proper partnership, using the experience and entrepreneurial skills of Scottish industry, not the centralised arrangements that the SNP proposes. My hon. Friend is right to point to the success of Locate in Scotland. We are anxious for that success to continue.

I am sure that the whole House will congratulate Locate in Scotland on its excellent figures last year. Has the Secretary of State noticed that unemployment continued to go down rapidly when the Government came to power, before they had changed any of the Conservative Government's policies? Has he also noticed that unemployment has gone up in Scotland in the past three months? If he has not noticed that, he ought to. What does he propose to do about the fact that jobs and investment are moving away from Scotland? He cannot just rely on a good Conservative record.

Another badge for courage, I think. I repeat that there has been a substantial drop in unemployment since the Conservatives were in power three years ago. The record of creating and attracting jobs in Scotland since we came to power greatly outweighs the job losses. Of course there is some uncertainty about whether all the jobs that have been promised will appear, but even taking into account the National Audit Office's recommendation of discounting by a third, the balance is still on the right side. Jeremiahs are always to be found on the Opposition Benches, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is making a profession of it.

What initiatives he is proposing to improve educational opportunities. [76316]

The Government's plans for improving pre-school and school education were set out in our White Paper, "Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools", which was published on 27 January. Our plans for post-16 education and training were set out in our Green Paper, "Opportunity Scotland", published in September 1998.

After 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents, teachers and students are looking forward to the new Scottish Parliament with a new Scottish Education Minister, whose priorities will, they hope, be determined by the people of Scotland rather than by the political establishment in this place, which imposed tuition fees and scrapped grants even for students from low-income families? If my right hon. Friend survives the plot to stop her becoming Secretary of State for Scotland, will she remember that it is not the job of politicians to tell teachers how to teach? Will she please not give in to the temptation to go strutting round Scotland hectoring and handbagging Scottish teachers like some new Labour version of Margaret Thatcher?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that I visited the town of Falkirk, which he represents, to break the ground in the first of five new schools that have opened in Falkirk as a result of Government investment. I look forward to the future Education Minister in the Scottish Parliament continuing the work that the Government have begun—work that has resulted in £40 million going to the Falkirk further education college. I am totally confident that a new Labour Education Minister in the Scottish Parliament will continue the Government's work in raising standards and quality in Scottish schools to make Scottish education once again among the best in the world and provide an education system based on the needs of our pupils.

How the community legal service will be accountable to (a) Parliament and (b) the public. [76335]

The community legal service will be administered by the Legal Services Commission. As a non-departmental public body, the commission will be accountable to Parliament through Ministers. The commission's annual plan, setting out how it intends to carry out its functions, and its annual report, setting out how it has delivered against the plan, will be laid before Parliament and published. The commission's accounts will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and its accounting officer will be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee. The commission will, therefore, be accountable to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the public.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the community legal service offers the exciting prospect of a modern legal service that is available to all for the next century? That ambition is as fitting for the new world of the 21st century as the ambition doubtless felt by the Labour Members who established the legal aid service for the post-war world. Does my hon. Friend further agree that if the community legal service is to be a success, it is essential that Parliament and the public are guaranteed reliable standards of quality, funding and accessibility?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The Government set out in their election manifesto, on which we were both elected, their determination to create a community legal service. A great deal of work has already been done, establishing partnerships with local authorities and other funders to ensure that we have a comprehensive system of legal advice, helping those most in need and spending taxpayers' money as effectively as we possibly can.

I did not know that the community legal service was to be available for all and I welcome any comments that the Minister of State may have on that point. The Government have stated that they intend to withdraw legal aid from all personal injury actions. Does that mean that in future legal aid will not be available for important personal injury cases with a public interest element, such as the successful claims for asbestosis and white finger? Furthermore, will the Minister of State confirm whether his Department will be issuing a paper on the cost and availability of insurance for defendants' costs in conditional fee agreements and, if so, when that paper will be issued?

As regards the hon. Gentleman's point about public interest, the Department recently published a document on the funding code, which is the technical measure that solicitors will use to determine whether legal aid should be granted in particular cases. It sets out clearly our intention that public interest cases should continue to be supported, and cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman should continue to receive funding provided that they satisfy the criteria of public interest merit. As for the insurance industry, I am confident that it will continue to provide a dynamic and successful system for funding conditional fee cases. I am not aware of any particular necessity that such cases should be subject to any form of Government oversight or regulation.

Will my hon. Friend comment further on the role of local authorities in achieving partnership? I was pleased that the Lord Chancellor announced last week that Plymouth city council was to be among the 40 local authorities with associate pioneer status. I believe that local authorities have a role to play in achieving accountability, and I would welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that.

It is important that the community legal service is comprehensive, involving all those who are at present financing the unco-ordinated advice services that are available. That is why we announced six full pioneer areas and, as my hon. Friend says, a further 40 associate pioneer areas, where we will be able specifically to develop the comprehensive service that we believe is essential to a community legal service.

How can the community legal service be accountable to anybody when the Government's plans may not leave it with any money? Why will not the Minister give the service a separate ring-fenced budget, instead of forcing it to beg for what is left after the public funding of criminal cases?

The whole point of the Government's reforms to legal aid is to replace the present unplanned system of spending—which is entirely demand led and cannot be controlled year in, year out—with a system of planning, so we allocate resources to need. That system of planning will mean that there should not be an overspend year on year, and that there always should be sufficient funds available to the community legal service.

If he will set minimum requirements for pro bono work as a qualification for appointment to Queen' s Counsel status. [76336]

My right honourable and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to set minimum requirements for pro bono work as a qualification for appointment to the rank of Queen's Counsel. A commitment to pro bono work is, however, taken into account when considering Queen's Counsel applications.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, at the very least, it would be appropriate for QCs to spend some time on pro bono work, bearing in mind the fact that they earn up to £500,000 even before they are appointed as QCs? Does not the fact that the QC system has, so far, signally failed to provide pro bono work indicate a wider, symptomatic problem? Is not the QC system an anachronistic restrictive practice which does not work in the public interest and should be scrapped?

As I said, a commitment to do pro bono work is taken into account when considering applications for QC status. The Government recognise the contribution that the process of appointing QCs has played in selecting senior lawyers. There are no present plans to review that.

Will the Minister concede that if pro bono work is to be taken into account as a consideration in deciding whether a barrister should become a QC, such a stipulation should apply also to Members of Parliament who are barristers, and who hitherto have become QCs, as I understand it, as of right?

I am not aware that that is the case.

Has the Minister any idea, by way of a survey or otherwise, of the amount of pro bono work done by QCs—both as QCs and prior to becoming QCs? I can speak only for Scotland, where my contemporaries and I have done vast amounts of pro bono work in our time.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. The matter is taken into account in considering applications for QC status.

If he will make a statement on the role of county courts in serving their local communities. [76337]

The location of county courts has historically reflected the business needs of the people in the immediate areas that they serve. As technology and communications advance, however, we will consider how services can be more economically and efficiently provided without affecting the level of service offered.

I am grateful for that response, but the Minister could have gone further and recognised the enormous quantity of family and other work done by the county courts, which is of great importance in the local community. He is aware of concern in the courts surrounding Greater Manchester about proposed closure and relocation, and of my concern that the local function of courts should be taken into account. In that connection, will he give a commitment that where there are other court facilities that are under-utilised—I am thinking here of the Sale magistrates courts—those facilities will be looked at prior to any new-build options in the centre of Manchester?

It is important to draw a distinction between the times when people need to go to court for a case, when we must clearly take into account the distance that they have to travel—although that is quite rare because, fortunately, most people do not need to go to court repeatedly—and the function of the court service in providing information, which can be much more effectively delivered locally by telephone, fax or modern technology. To make that appropriate distinction will be to the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, allowing us to use the court estate as efficiently and effectively as possible.

My hon. Friend is a sensible fellow, and I know that he will bear it in mind that there is absolutely no point in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions asking people not to move important state facilities away from where people live and work if, at the same time, individual Whitehall Departments take decisions on a narrow economic basis. If he will undertake to bear that in mind before any more county courts are closed, we will all be a little happier.

I assure my hon. Friend that we will take that into account. Let me repeat that it is important to distinguish between the relatively rare occasions when people go to court for cases, and the provision of information. We need to ensure that much more information is provided locally and that we use modern technology to deliver it much more efficiently than at present.

What assessment he makes of the (a) environmental implications and (b) inconvenience to individuals, in reaching decisions on appeals against closure of magistrates courts. [76338]

Environmental issues and accessibility are certainly taken into account, but they cannot be overriding considerations. Other themes that are common to the majority of appeals against courthouse closures include accessibility to all court users; the facilities available; the cost of necessary renovations to bring the court up to standard; and courtroom use. Each appeal is considered on the merits of the arguments presented by the parties. There are no statutory criteria.

Is the Minister aware that the court service proposes to close the magistrates court at Haywards Heath, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), which serves my constituents? That will require my constituents from Wivelsfield to go to the court in Lewes, where there is no proper public transport connection, and those from Ditchling to go to Brighton. Should not justice be accessible to all? The closure, if it goes ahead, will lead to considerable inconvenience to my constituents.

The court service is not responsible for the provision of magistrates courts, which are the responsibility of the magistrates courts committee. An appeal against that proposed closure might, eventually, be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. I have had substantial—even weighty—representations from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), and I assure both hon. Gentlemen that their views will be taken into account.

Will the Minister admit that absolutely no notice is taken of the issues when appeals are made to the Lord Chancellor? Courts in my constituency that did not infringe any of the criteria were closed after appeal. Are not the Government supposed to have the environment at the heart of all their policies? How, then, can the environment not be a consideration that overrules all others? Frankly, the Lord Chancellor allows any court to be closed that any magistrates courts committee thinks it would like to close.

The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. He came to see me, with a delegation of hon. Members, and his representations were carefully considered, as are those of all right hon. and hon. Members. It is not the case that every single appeal is dismissed. Indeed, I would be perfectly happy to give him statistics demonstrating that some appeals are allowed.

What estimate he has made of legal aid expenditure in 1998–99; and what the figures were for (a) 10 and (b) 20 years earlier. [76339]

Legal aid expenditure in 1998–99 is expected to be about £1.6 billion; in 1988–89, it was £474 million; and in 1978–79, £83 million. Those figures show that the cost of legal aid over the past 20 years has increased by more than 490 per cent. above the rate of inflation.

Does the Minister agree that this is a classic case of introducing a benefit or grant for which demand will escalate? During his review of legal aid, will he appreciate that everything that he has said today and previously points to the single, simple objective of controlling the amount of legal aid? Will he address the fact that he is cutting whole sections of qualification for legal aid that arise from genuine need?. Finally, in case there is any misunderstanding, let me declare that I am not a lawyer.

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman talk in that way when it was the Government whom he supported for many years who slashed eligibility. The present Government are delivering reform of the legal aid system by ensuring that those who need assistance will get it—and will get the best quality assistance at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner.

Madam Speaker, with your permission I will make a statement on Kosovo.

As I speak, it is still unclear what the outcome of Mr. Holbrooke's talks in Belgrade will be, but there is little cause to be optimistic. On the assumptions that they produce no change in President Milosevic's position and that the repression in Kosovo by Serb forces continues, Britain stands ready with its NATO allies to take military action.

We do so for very clear reasons. We do so primarily to avert what would otherwise be a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo. Let me give the House an indication of the scale of what is happening. A quarter of a million Kosovars—more than 10 per cent of the population—are now homeless as a result of repression by Serb forces; 65,000 people have been forced from their homes in the past month, and no fewer than 25,000 in the four days since the peace talks broke down; and only yesterday, 5,000 people in the Srbica area were forcibly evicted from their villages.

Much of the Drenica region of northern Kosovo is being cleared of ethnic Albanians. Every single village that the observers of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees could see yesterday in the Glogovac and Srbica region was on fire. Families are being uprooted and driven from their homes. There are reports of masked irregulars separating out the men: we do not know what their fate will be, but the House will recall that at Srebrenica, men were killed. Since last summer, 2000 people have died. Without the international verification force, there is no doubt that the numbers would have been vastly higher.

We act also because we know from bitter experience throughout this century, most recently in Bosnia, that instability and civil war in one part of the Balkans inevitably spills over into the whole of it, and affects the rest of Europe, too. I remind the House that there are now more than 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia in the European Union.

If Kosovo was left to the mercy of Serbian repression, there is not merely a risk, but the probability of re-igniting unrest in Albania, of a destabilised Macedonia, of almost certain knock-on effects in Bosnia, and of further tension between Greece and Turkey. Strategic interests for the whole of Europe are at stake. We cannot contemplate, on the doorstep of the EU, a disintegration into chaos and disorder.

We have made a very plain promise to the Kosovar people. Thousands of them returned to their homes as a result of the ceasefire negotiated last October. We said to them and to Milosevic that we would not tolerate the brutal suppression of the civilian population. After the massacre at Racak, those threats and warnings to Milosevic were repeated. To walk away now would not merely destroy NATO's credibility; more importantly, it would be a breach of faith with thousands of innocent civilians whose only desire is to live in peace, and who took us at our word.

I say this to the British people: there is a heavy responsibility on a Government, when putting their armed forces into battle, to justify such action. I warn that the potential consequences of military action are serious, both for NATO forces and for the people in the region. Their suffering cannot be ended overnight. But in my judgment, the consequences of not acting are more serious still for human life and for peace in the long term. We must act to save thousands of innocent men, women and children from humanitarian catastrophe—from death, barbarism and ethnic cleansing by a brutal dictatorship—and to save the stability of the Balkan region, where we know chaos can engulf the whole of the European Union. We have no alternative, therefore, but to act, and act we will, unless Milosevic even now chooses the path of peace.

Let me recap briefly on the last few months. Last October, NATO threatened to use force to secure Milosevic's agreement to a ceasefire and an end to the repression that was at that time in hand. That was successful—at least, for a while. Diplomatic efforts, backed by NATO's threat, led to the creation of the 1,500-strong Kosovo verification mission. A NATO extraction force was established in neighbouring Macedonia in case the monitors got into difficulty.

At the same time, Milosevic gave an undertaking to the US envoy, Mr. Holbrooke, that he would withdraw Serb forces so that their numbers returned to the level before February 1998—that is, roughly 10,000 internal security troops and 12,000 Yugoslav army troops. Milosevic never fulfilled that commitment; indeed, the numbers have gone up. We believe that there are now some 16,000 internal security and 20,000 Yugoslav army troops in Kosovo, with a further 8,000 army reinforcements poised just over the border.

In January, NATO warned Milosevic that it would respond if he failed to come into compliance with the agreements he had entered into in October, if the repression continued, and if he frustrated the peace process. Milosevic has failed to meet any of those requirements. Even then, intense diplomatic efforts have been under way. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and his French colleague Mr. Védrine, have co-chaired the peace talks in France. There is an agreement on the table. Autonomy for Kosovo would be guaranteed, with a democratically elected assembly, accountable institutions and locally controlled police forces. After three years, Kosovo's status would be reviewed. The rights of all its inhabitants—including Serbs—would be protected, regardless of their ethnic background. And the awful conflict that has been a blight on the lives of its people could come to an end. The Kosovo Albanians have signed the peace agreement. The Serbs have not. They have reneged on the commitments they made on the political texts at the talks at Rambouillet, and they refuse to allow a peacekeeping force in Kosovo under NATO command to underpin implementation of the agreement.

It takes two sides to make peace. So far, only one side has shown itself willing to make that commitment. It was Milosevic who stripped Kosovo of its autonomy in 1989. It is Milosevic who is now refusing to tackle a political problem by political means.

NATO action would be in the form of air strikes. It will involve many NATO countries. It has the full support of NATO. It will have as its minimum objective to curb continued Serbian repression in Kosovo in order to avert a humanitarian disaster. It would therefore target the military capability of the Serb dictatorship. To avoid such action, Milosevic must do what he promised to do last October—end the repression, withdraw his troops to barracks, get them down to the levels he agreed, and withdraw from Kosovo the tanks, heavy artillery and other weapons he brought into Kosovo early last year. He must agree to the proposals set out in the Rambouillet accords, including a NATO-led ground force.

Any attack by Serbian forces against NATO personnel engaged in peacekeeping missions elsewhere in the region would be completely unjustified and would be met with a swift and severe response in self-defence. President Milosevic should be in no doubt about our determination to protect our forces and to deal appropriately with any threats to them.

Mr. Holbrooke has made the position of the international community crystal clear to Milosevic. There can be no doubt about what is at stake. The choice is now his. Milosevic can choose peace for the peoples of Kosovo and an end to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's isolation in Europe, or he can choose continued conflict and the serious consequences that would follow.

I hope that the House will join me in urging President Milosevic to choose the path of peace, and that it will support NATO and the international community in action should he fail to do so.

I thank the Prime Minister for that statement. First and foremost, I express the Opposition's wholehearted support for the British forces who might have to take part in the NATO action, for the service men and women who will be backing up those front-line forces, and for the families of those who might have to risk their lives as they do their jobs.

Given the repeated threats and ultimatums issued over many months, the Opposition's position is that we support the Government taking the action described. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has often asked for similar action to be taken. Although we support the use of ground troops to implement a diplomatic settlement, we shall not support their use to fight for a settlement. During the past year, events in Kosovo have already led to a humanitarian catastrophe in our continent: more than 2,000 people have been killed, and hundreds of thousands have fled from their homes since the fighting began. As we speak, villages are being burned and people are being killed, as the Prime Minister has made clear.

It is clear that we now need to demonstrate to Milosevic the credibility of NATO threats and ultimatums. Does the Prime Minister agree that although, from the start of the crisis last year, there may have been a case—although we would not have agreed with it—for the west saying and doing nothing about events in Kosovo, and there was certainly a case for the west issuing threats and following them through, there was no case at all for a string of last warnings and ultimatums that were not followed through? The international monitors carried out their tasks with the utmost professionalism, in what had become an impossible situation. Does the Prime Minister understand the Opposition's regret that peace monitors were not deployed in May last year when we made our original request that they should be deployed? By the time that deployment took place in October, the situation had worsened and extremists on both sides had had time to win over more people from their communities.

Last year, the Government were right when they said that the response to the tragedy had been dithering and disunited on the part of the international community. Unfortunately, that continued for a long time and the credibility of NATO has been called into question. Does the Prime Minister understand that although we would welcome an explicit demonstration of NATO credibility of the kind that he has described, given the repeated threats of action we regret that some decisive action did not take place earlier?

We must all realise that military action against Serbia will put further strain on our armed forces. Does the Prime Minister recall the Chief of the Defence Staff telling the Select Committee on Defence that we could maintain two operations such as Bosnia and Kosovo for only six months? He said:

"I do not think we could sustain two for longer than that."

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what steps he will take to ensure that the deployments that he has announced can be sustained? Will he give the House an assurance that precautions have been taken to prevent retaliation against British interests and British forces elsewhere in the world?

Any military action needs clear objectives. Although we support the Government's decision to use air strikes, will the Prime Minister confirm that those strikes are not a prelude to a ground war and that ground troops would be used only to implement a diplomatic settlement?

Can the Prime Minister also tell the House what measures are being taken to prevent the spread of the conflict to Albania, Bosnia and Macedonia? He has referred to his discussions with colleagues and he will recognise the need to do all in our power to encourage the international community to speak as one on this issue. Can he assure the House that Europe as a whole is now united on the need for action and can he inform us of what efforts have been made to meet the concerns of Russia?

Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that there is one person above all who must take the blame for the enormous suffering in Kosovo, one person who must take the blame for the enormous suffering in other parts of the Balkans during this decade, and one person who is solely to blame for the need to take the military action that the Prime Minister has been right to announce—and that that person is Milosevic, who must now be regarded as an evil man with much blood on his hands?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what I take to be his support for our position. It is important that we in this House take a united view and I am grateful for that.

I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's points. It is certain that all our thoughts will be with armed forces and their families. Our armed forces are among the finest anywhere in the world and we can rightly be proud that, in a situation such as this, they are not only willing to take action, but capable of acting in such an effective manner. We have often had cause to be grateful to them.

Secondly, it is fair to say that we have always been in favour of taking action sooner rather than later, but we could not take action on a unilateral basis. We have to take action with other countries—in this instance, within NATO—and we have done that. The degree of unity not only within Europe, but within the whole of NATO, is extremely important to the success of the mission.

Thirdly, I have no doubt that the deployment can be sustained; nor do I doubt our ability to make good any threat of counter-attack should there be any question of retaliation against the peacekeeping forces elsewhere in the region. Milosevic should clearly understand that. The best insurance against the spread of the conflict is to take precisely the action that we are taking. We know from bitter experience that we cannot afford such instability on the borders of Europe.

I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Milosevic, but let me make one final point. It is important to realise that we have been able to build extremely strong support for this action within NATO. Thirteen nations, including the United Kingdom, have some 200 combat aircraft deployed to the region: the United States, the UK, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Belgium, Portugal, Denmark and Norway have all committed aircraft, so this is a very united NATO action. If that unity is reflected across the Dispatch Box and within the House, that augurs well.

This a bad business which could turn out to be a bloody one as well. None of us should underestimate the risk of casualties on either side. If air strikes prove to be necessary, those who advocate them and those who support them—as I do—might have to live with some extremely painful consequences.

Is it not true that it has become necessary to contemplate air strikes only because of the deliberate and brutal targeting of civilians by Serbian forces as they shell, loot and burn villages and make refugees of their inhabitants? Does the Prime Minister agree that if the immediate military aim is to inhibit and degrade the ability of Serbian forces to sustain and persist in their campaign of sickening and uninhibited violence, there must also be a political aim in addition to the strategic aims he outlined? May I suggest that that political aim should be to require the Milosevic Government to pay such a high price in military assets that they are persuaded—even compelled—to return to the conference table? Given that we should look ahead to the consequences of actions of this sort, does the Prime Minister accept that, if we have to embark on air strikes, that would be a step towards the creation of at least a de facto protectorate for Kosovo?

I agree entirely with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the painful consequences of this action. As the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), said yesterday, there are painful consequences involved in taking this action, but the consequences of not taking it are even more painful. That is the right and honest way to put it to people.

As I have said, the objective is to inhibit repression by Serbian forces. It remains our political aim to return to the negotiating table because there is no doubt that the Rambouillet accords offer the only proper and realistic possibility of a lasting political settlement. I pay tribute to the work of the British and French Foreign Secretaries in putting that agreement together.

Finally, as to air strikes, there is no plan to have a United Nations protectorate in the strict sense. However, we wanted to get ground forces into Kosovo in pursuit of an agreement precisely to ensure that we could police that agreement properly and allow the constitutional settlement to take root. It is a tragedy that Milosevic has chosen not to take that chance. It is a double tragedy for him because the offer on the table was not a bad one from Serbia's point of view: it conceded many of the points that Serbia had made. By turning his back on that one opportunity to conclude an agreement, Milosevic has only himself to thank for the consequences.

My right hon. Friend is right to make this grave eleventh-hour statement as a final warning to President Milosevic and to point out the high risks involved. Most hon. Members accept the need for air strikes, but with extreme reluctance because we surely cannot be confident that bombs will bring peace. This is a high-risk action.

Are there any circumstances in which Britain would be prepared to commit ground troops in answer to the "What then?" question? In what way can we seek, even now, to assist the refugees—either by reaching into Kosovo or by helping the neighbours of Kosovo, such as Macedonia, which has been, and will continue to be, harmed by the conflict on its borders?

I think that everyone shares a sense of reluctance to commit our forces. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, that reluctance is overcome if circumstances dictate that it must be.

We proposed committing ground troops to pursue a peace agreement. However, there is a difficulty with committing ground troops in order to fight our way in: no one should underestimate the sheer scale of what is involved in that action. We would be talking about 100,000 ground troops, and possibly even more.

As to refugees, we are working carefully with humanitarian organisations and we will continue to support UNHCR and other bodies. There is no point is concealing the fact that, if we are forced to take this action, it will be difficult for people on the ground over the next few days. However, the alternative is to allow the Serbian forces to continue their brutal repression of the Kosovo people.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what his contingency plan is if the air strikes take place, yet Milosevic continues to defy NATO, does not withdraw his troops and the repression continues? What will the Prime Minister do then?

It is for precisely that reason that we set our clear objective to curb Milosevic's ability, through his military capability, to engage in that repression. That is our objective, and we shall carry on until it is fulfilled.

First, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can count on the overwhelming support not only of the House but of the British public, particularly as he has put forward a convincing argument that the concept of a just war is not redundant. Secondly, I hope that he appreciates that now is not the time to rake over the coals and consider the mistakes of failed Government policies on Bosnia and Kosovo in the immediate past—or, indeed, the past decade.

Finally, will my right hon. Friend give reassurance to members of a Macedonian delegation who are here—as I was unable to do in a meeting between them and the Select Committee on Defence—that any attack on Macedonia in the present circumstances would be deemed to be an attack on NATO because Macedonia is housing NATO forces? They will clearly be concerned about the possible development of events in the next few days.

On the latter point, I assure my hon. Friend that any attack on NATO forces in Macedonia would be regarded as an attack on NATO itself and would bring about swift and severe retaliation.

My hon. Friend's first point is absolutely right: we are acting to avert a humanitarian disaster. If we do not act and the repression continues, its consequences will also continue. It is a sobering thought that we now have in the European Union more than 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia, and if anything demonstrates how much our fate, even here, is tied in with the fate of the Balkans, it is that statistic.

Is it not almost certain that air strikes alone will not achieve NATO's objectives, as General Sir Michael Rose repeated yet again on the "Today" programme this morning? May I remind the Prime Minister that when air strikes failed in Bosnia and the previous Conservative Government announced that they were sending one British infantry battalion there, I warned them that it was useless to send one battalion when four divisions would be needed on the ground to do the job, and that proved to be right?

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that saying weasel words to the British people at this point is wrong because the Government are proposing to make war on Serbia, and it is a profound political mistake to suppose that Milosevic is not supported by the mass of the patriotic Serbian people, who form one of the great fighting nations of Europe? If we are to pursue that policy, the British people should be told now that we are embarking inevitably on ground operations that will involve heavy casualties.

That is the isolationist wing of the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. The hon. Gentleman must face up to the consequences that would arise from his views. I assume that he is attacking the whole policy on Bosnia, and that he would therefore have allowed the civil war and the repression in Kosovo to continue while he did nothing. The consequences would have been the brutal murder of tens of thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of people and chaos and instability on Europe's doorstep.

No one disputes the fact that taking our course is difficult, and I said that in my statement, but the consequences of not acting would be to plunge the whole region into chaos and consign thousands of innocent people to death and brutality. Britain should not regard that as an acceptable outcome.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British people have learned more than anyone else that appeasement does not work and that ours is not only a just cause but, more importantly, one that affects the stability of Europe? Does he further accept that the British people recognise what is involved in such situations? Finally, will he remind the political and military leaders in the former Yugoslavia that some of their people have already been put on trial for war crimes, that British people and the emerging law around the world no longer allow people to forgive and forget those barbaric crimes, and that there is time yet for those people to be put on trial too?

That is an entirely appropriate warning that the war crimes legislation exists, and that people who engage in the crimes of ethnic cleansing and brutal suppression and murder, whether in the Balkans or elsewhere in the world, stand at risk. We should be prepared to use the war crimes legislation to bring them to account.

Does the Prime Minister accept that he has done a service to the House through the clarity of his statement, which leaves no doubt in anyone's mind about the gravity of the choice that faced him and the Government, and which faces our country, or about the size of the challenge that will face our armed forces? There is, in my judgment, no alternative but to demonstrate firmly the credibility of NATO and to deal with a very serious situation.

If air strikes are successful, it will be essential for the land eventually to be retained by ground forces, as is part of the Prime Minister's plan. That will involve substantial deployments. Under the present provisions, I understand, they cannot be sustained for a long period. Will the Prime Minister give urgent consideration to that? We ask a lot of our armed forces. They unfailingly respond, as they have done on many occasions, but they are entitled to our fullest support and the knowledge that they will be properly supported on this occasion.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those comments and his support, which is all the more welcome from someone with his experience in such matters. I can assure him that we have carefully looked to see that the deployment can be sustained. We believe that it can be sustained.

I agree that if the air strikes are successful, we need to get the political process back on track. That is our aim, politically. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have no alternative if NATO is to remain credible. That is not our principal reason for acting, however. We are not acting in pursuit of a theory of credibility, but we have given certain undertakings, and if we do not abide by them, we will not have credibility in the future.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is absolute unanimity in the House and the country about the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo? May I tell him that the statement that he made is one of the gravest that I have heard in the House, certainly since Suez? An ultimatum has been announced, amounting to an all-out air war and possibly a ground war against a member state of the United Nations which, under article 51, has the right of self-defence. By doing so, the British Government and other NATO Governments are defying the charter, to which we are committed, and breaking international law. If the bombing begins—apart from the fact that it is no more likely to be successful than it is in Iraq—it is bound to cause casualties and worsen the humanitarian crisis, and it could well broaden the Balkan conflict.

May I point out to the Prime Minister that there are two bodies that he never mentioned in his statement? One is the United Nations, which exists to deal with crises of this kind, and the other is the House of Commons. We represent the forces who may well be sent into conflict—they are our constituents, our families. Not a moment of thought was given to a debate in the House, which would allow more than question and answer, and through which we could explore the Government's policy, consider whether it will lead to a ground war, as many believe it might, and come to a conclusion about it. To treat the House as though it were just an audience for "Newsnight" on so grave a matter is simply below the standard that we are entitled to expect.

There have been no fewer than three statements on the matter in the House of Commons during the past few weeks. There is a defence debate on Thursday. I am making the statement today in the House, where I can be questioned, not least by my right hon. Friend. That is hardly a "Newsnight" interview—I will not go into whether it is more pleasant or not.

I shall answer my right hon. Friend's two specific points. First, as a result of our action in Iraq, I remember how many people told me that Saddam Hussein would be stronger as a result, that he would be more powerful, and that he would be better able to suppress his people and wage war on the outside world. None of those things has happened. He is weaker, his military capability is weaker, and his ability to suppress his own people is hugely diminished.

Secondly, the UN has been important in relation to Kosovo. It has passed important Security Council resolutions. Let me read them to my right hon. Friend. The last one, Security Council resolution 1199, demanded that Serbs cease all actions by their security forces against the civilian population, and demanded that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Government order the withdrawal of security units used for civilian repression. A further resolution in October last year, UNSCR 1203, reiterated the previous one and endorsed the agreements between Holbrooke and Milosevic, including the verification missions. Milosevic has been in breach of every single part of those UN resolutions.

The plain fact of the matter is that we have to act now to avert the humanitarian disaster that I have set out. Of course, we will have an opportunity to debate this, and of course we should debate it, but the reasons that we have given have been very clear and I hope that they will be supported by the House and the country.

The vast majority of the House is in no doubt as to who the aggressor is in these circumstances. But I have been listening carefully to the Prime Minister during the past 15 minutes, and it is not yet clear to me whether he has ruled out the use of ground forces if air power fails. I can understand his being cautious, but is that something that he can do, or does he feel that he cannot do it under the circumstances?

No, I have made it clear that we support the use of ground troops in supporting the agreement. We do not plan to use ground troops in order to fight our way into Kosovo, for the very reason that I gave earlier. I do not know whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but it would take a huge commitment—possibly more than 100,000 ground troops—and that is why we have said that that is not our plan.

Will the Prime Minister accept that commentators observing the state of play in Serbia record the fact that the majority of the Serbian population are blissfully unaware of the atrocities that are being committed against their Albanian Kosovar neighbours? As a child, I witnessed how the bombing of Britain strengthened the resolve in the population here against the axis. What measures are being taken to inform the Serbian people of what their leaders are doing on their behalf, but not at their behest?

That is an extremely good point, but we have one great inhibition in getting through to the Serbian people directly, and that is that there is state control of their broadcasting and media. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: they are blissfully unaware of many of the things that their regime is doing. We take every measure available to us to get through to them, but it is difficult, precisely for that reason. It is worth pointing out that some of Milosevic's victims are his own people.

I welcome the clarity with which the Prime Minister set out his solemn statement today. Does he agree that the House should be fortified and sustained by NATO's unity at this difficult time, and will he confirm that the United Nations resolutions do give the necessary legal authority for air strikes to proceed? For my part, I think it unlikely that they will be successful, and likely that ground troops will have to be deployed. To that end, does he agree that, throughout the period of hostility, the political track must be kept going?

I agree entirely that the political track must be kept going the whole time. One reason why people say that we have over-delayed in this is that, from last October onwards, we had a political track that we were trying to make work, precisely because we understood the consequences of taking military action. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the UN and legal authority, and I also agree that we should be fortified by NATO's unity. The fact that 13 countries now have combat aircraft in the region, able to be used in the operation, is an example of NATO's strength and purpose.

Thursday's debate is scheduled to be answered by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary. In the circumstances, would the Prime Minister consider that either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence, and perhaps he himself, should take part in what is a crucial debate?

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the Prime Minister said that there would be "swift retaliation" if Yugoslav troops attacked troops in Macedonia. What, exactly, is meant by "swift retaliation" in those circumstances? Finally, a factual question: what have Mr. Primakov and the Russians had to say about the proposed military strike?

The position of the Russian Government and Prime Minister Primakov is well known and I doubt that it has changed, although they, too, feel a huge degree of frustration about the way their attempts to try to get a peace process on track have been thwarted by Milosevic. As for swift retaliation, we will judge that according to the needs that may arise at the time. It would not be wise speculate on that further, but people should know that, if our forces are attacked, there will be retaliation and it will be severe. Finally, my understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is indeed opening the debate on Thursday.

The Prime Minister has said that action is now required to avert a humanitarian disaster, but the situation that he has graphically described shows that a humanitarian disaster already exists in Kosovo. I accept the exchanges that have taken place about the use of ground forces, but the Prime Minister said in reply to one question that as many as 100,000 troops might be required if ground forces had to be committed to follow up air strikes. The Serb army numbers more than 200,000, so many more than 100,000 troops would be required.

Following on from the Prime Minister's answer that troops would be deployed to Macedonia if there was a direct threat to the extraction force of 10,000 troops there, I remind him that the Macedonian army numbers only 20,000; it is a tenth the size of the Serbian army. What contingency plans have the Government, with our NATO allies, to deploy troops to Macedonia quickly—we lack heavy lift—so that they are ready to take action against Serbia, if that is required?

There are already many troops and heavy weapons in Macedonia—and, indeed, elsewhere—so NATO certainly has the means to visit severe retaliation on Milosevic should he attack any NATO forces. In respect of the ground troops, I agree that more than 100,000 would be needed; that is the very reason why I am suggesting the difficulties of taking such a course.

The hon. Gentleman says that a humanitarian disaster already exists in Kosovo. That is why we need to act, but if we were to fail to act—if we were simply to allow Serb forces to carry on their repression, without even the inhibition that the threat of action might have—there is absolutely no doubt at all what would happen. They would repeat what happened at Racak many times over.

Is not the choice for the international community simple? Either we allow the atrocities—crimes against humanity—to continue or we decide to act, and act decisively. We listen to the voices of non-intervention in this House, but almost without exception, those who argue for non-intervention and issue constant warnings of what disasters will follow if we intervene were wrong about the Falklands in 1982, wrong about Kuwait in 1991, and certainly wrong in respect of how the international community helped to achieve a settlement in Bosnia in 1995. Why on earth should we believe that they are right now?

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that there are those who can always find a reason never to act. I emphasise that the consequences of this action will be serious—we know that—but as we have said before, the consequences of not acting are more serious still.

While I agree with the Prime Minister about the professionalism of our armed forces in the region—I have constituents out there, as have other hon. Members—what British civilians are there on the ground? Is he aware that British subjects have been targeted for kidnapping and killing by terrorist organisations in recent months? How will he ensure that British civilians are kept out of events as much as possible?

We have given clear advice to any civilian organisations operating in the area and we give what protection we possibly can. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the danger and threat to our civilians.

Does the Prime Minister accept that many of us genuinely believe that bombing a sovereign state could cause more, not fewer, civilian casualties, and could destabilise the whole of south-eastern Europe because the Serbs will almost certainly fight to defend their homeland? Is he aware that I visited Macedonia a few weeks ago? Not a single Macedonian Member of Parliament or citizen to whom I spoke believed that Macedonia should be used by NATO to take aggressive action against the Serbs—although the Macedonians rightly expect protection, given that they have allowed NATO extraction forces to be based there. They believed that dialogue was the best way forward. Perhaps a different way—perhaps putting sanctions against the Serbs on the table—might have helped, although sanctions harm the economies of emerging democracies in the area.

What will the strategy be if the bombing fails? What will we do if what is rightly described as the disgraceful action against the Kosovars continues?

We have set our objective; we intend to succeed in it. I agree with my hon. Friend that dialogue is the best way forward. That is why we went the extra mile to put together the talks process at Rambouillet. We put together the agreements last October between Milosevic and Richard Holbrooke. We have done everything that we possibly could to make dialogue work, but we are left with the realisation that dialogue has not worked. Then what do we do? Do we simply allow the repression to continue, or do we act?

In the past couple of years, there have been several occasions when the Government have faced that dilemma. No one wants to commit our forces unless we really have to do so, and everyone understands that the consequences of doing so will always include an element of uncertainty, but if we do not do that and we allow this to continue, then what? That is also a fair question to ask.

My hon. Friend talks about the Serbs and their homeland. The concept of Kosovo as an autonomous area within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia strikes the right balance, recognising that the vast majority of people in Kosovo are ethnic Albanians and that it is their homeland too. All they desire to do is to be allowed to live in peace there, free from repression. We surely have to be the people who give them that chance.

What happens if bombing does not bring President Milosevic to the negotiating table?

I set our objective clearly. It is to curb Milosevic's ability to repress the Kosovo population. We want him to come back to the negotiating table, but the precise minimum objective of any military action has to be to curb his ability—to reduce his ability—to suppress the Kosovar Albanian people. That has to be the task that we set ourselves. We can fulfil that objective. It is the right objective and it ties in, rightly, with our justification, which is primarily—as I set out in my statement—humanitarian.

Although I support my right hon. Friend's statement, we have still not had the answer to the question, "What if?" If it is our aim to curb the Yugoslav ability to persecute the Albanian people, the logic of that must be that we put in land troops. If we do not put in troops on the ground and merely use air strikes, we are left in a worse position than when we began.

Is not the logic of the position that, eventually, we will end up with at least a United Nations protectorate or a NATO protectorate, if not an independent Kosovo, with the problems that that will have? How will we be certain that the Dayton accords will be upheld by all the signatories to them?

I do not accept that land troops are necessary to curb repression in Kosovo. Air strikes properly targeted—directed against the military capability of the oppressor—can achieve the objective that we set ourselves.

Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned the concept of a United Nations protectorate. There is no notion of establishing a UN protectorate in the strict legal sense, but obviously the purpose of putting in ground troops was to back up an agreement—a constitutional settlement—in Kosovo, and that, of course, is what we still want to do if it is possible. A precondition, however, is that an agreement is in place to which not merely the Kosovar Albanians but the Serbs themselves will agree.

I believe that the action that we have proposed will be successful.

No one envies the Prime Minister the decision he must make. Does he accept, however, that evidence from Hanoi to Grozny suggests that bombing alone strengthens the resolve of a people, rather than weakening it—especially when those people, like the Serbs, have hundreds of years of memories of what they perceive as resisting the bullying of larger powers?

Does the Prime Minister really believe that bombing alone will reduce the atrocities being perpetrated against the Kosovar Albanians? If he is not willing to follow up bombing with the use of ground forces—and he has explained very clearly why we should not do that—I put it to him that it would be better not to bomb at all.

That, of course, is the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends—that we should not do this at all. I disagree entirely. If the hon. Gentleman wants an example of bombing achieving our objective, he should consider Iraq, where it certainly achieved the objective that we set ourselves. Let me give him another example. I do not believe that under the last Government, before the Dayton accords, we would ever have got the process under way had not military action been taken by allied forces. It is possible to give examples even from the region itself that show this to be a realistic objective.

I have explained the difficulty with ground forces. The hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to say at the outset that this is a difficult decision to make. I can only say that if we do not make that decision, and take no military action—let us be clear: we are not going to send in 100,000 or 200,000 ground forces with the consent of other countries, for no such consent exists—the repression in Kosovo will continue, and Serbia will know that there is absolutely no restraint or inhibition on its action. The consequences of that would be devastating.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that the Macedonian people were not in favour of the action, but the Macedonian Government have supported our position. People in that area know the consequences of letting the whole region slip back into total chaos.

The Prime Minister has set out very clearly the consequences of non-action, and the possibility of a wider Balkan conflict. He also referred to dialogue. Is he aware that, while Holbrooke was in dialogue with Milosevic yesterday and today, the bombing and burning of villages continued? Does he agree that the time for appeasement has plainly ended?

Will the Prime Minister consider again whether Serbia has forfeited any right that it may have claimed to govern the people of Kosovo? Will he also give further consideration to the declaration of a United Nations protectorate of Kosovo, to shield it from further Serbian aggression?

I entirely share my hon. Friend's sentiments about the bombing and burning that continue. As for the declaration of a UN protectorate, I have said what I have said.

The Kosovar Albanians have indicated that they can accept the accords negotiated at Rambouillet. If the Serbs would only accept them too, we could put the process of agreement back on track. As my hon. Friend rightly said, however, our immediate aim must be to stop the unacceptable repression of the people.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent discrimination in employment and in other matters on grounds of age.

We serve as Members of the House of Commons without limit of age; our capacity to do so is measured by other yardsticks. That is an unusual position in Britain today. Increasingly, older workers are being forced out of their jobs well before they reach the official retirement ages of 60 and 65, and they are unlikely to find new employment once they are into their 50s. All parties in the House recognise the need to prevent discrimination in employment against older people.

Today, people in the United Kingdom understand that to refuse someone a job because they are black or a woman is wrong. Tomorrow, they must see that it is wrong to refuse an applicant a job merely because of his or her age. Such discrimination can be devastating and humiliating to those who suffer from it. After half a lifetime of work and achievement, they are told that they are good for nothing.

What are the facts? The Employers Forum on Age estimates that, today, of 9.3 million people aged between 50 and 65 in the United Kingdom, some 3.7 million are not in work. Most of them—3.4 million people—are classified as economically inactive, which is to say that they are neither available for nor seeking work.

Men aged between 50 and 65 are disappearing from businesses in Britain. In 1976, only 11 per cent. of men of that age were inactive; today, the figure is 27 per cent. That is causing huge damage to our country's economy in lost output of goods and services. Costly training, acquired skills and valuable experience are all being wasted. Taxpayers are becoming tax takers. It is a shocking waste of energy and talent, and it is getting worse. In the past 20 years, the figures for unemployed older people have doubled. In a society in which the proportion of older people is steadily rising, that must cause great concern.

Some economic simpletons fantasise that if we give work to the old, we take it away from the young. The idea is false. It is nonsense to say that there is a finite apple pie of work, and that if we give a larger slice of it to older people, there will be a smaller slice for the young. As economies grow, so do the number of jobs. From 1975 to 1995, employment in the United States, Canada and Australia has risen by more than 40 per cent., and the jobs in those places have not all gone to younger people.

The House must take up both the carrot and the cudgel of persuasion. We have, so far, preferred the carrot. The Conservative Administration relied on road shows and pamphlets to chivvy employers into taking on older workers. The current Government are publishing a non-statutory code of practice. Equal Rights on Age—the umbrella campaigning group, which includes Members of Parliament and charities—points out that the code will be without teeth. John Monks, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has also predicted that a voluntary code will be largely ineffective.

Exhortation has certainly not proved itself. The Government's pilot scheme is called new deal for older workers, and it may be shown to be helpful. The approach, however, will not eliminate the problem of discrimination.

I listened with mixed feelings to the passage in the Chancellor's Budget speech on helping older citizens back to work. I am pleased that the Government are aware of the problem, and "£9,000 guaranteed" has a nice ring to it. However, what if one cannot get a job? What if, even after the £750 towards retraining, no employer is willing to let one prove one's worth? The £9,000 will remain beyond reach.

The Government's incorporation of the European convention on human rights will help to cut out the cancer of discrimination from public bodies, but age is not specifically mentioned in the relevant article—article 14. It is true that article 6a of the treaty of Amsterdam condemns discrimination on grounds of age. Nevertheless, the convention and the treaty make no demands on the private sector—which is why we need legislation.

Although we have legislation outlawing discrimination, it may be pointed out that women and ethnic minorities are still fighting to secure the same chances of employment as white men. However, such laws do provide remedies for the victims. They edge forward compliance with society's accepted standards and contribute to changing perceptions of what is appropriate practice by employers. The United States has had an Act preventing discrimination against older workers since 1967, and amendments have widened it to cover both private and public sector workers over the age of 40.

The House will understand that we cannot directly and easily use the experience of other countries to illuminate conditions here, but research shows that job losses in the United States from the delayering of businesses—as it was called in the 1980s—were more evenly spread across age groups than in this country. Research cited in the Employment Gazette shows that legislation can get

"employers to reconsider job evaluations and descriptions and to use objective rather than arbitrary age criteria."

The Bill would introduce a framework law to prevent discrimination in employment, redundancy and promotion on the ground of age. The civil law would enable instances of discrimination to be brought to court and made subject to civil penalties, or taken to an industrial tribunal if preferred. A commission would be appointed to help older citizens to know and secure their rights. When the time was right, it would merge into a single equality commission, similar to the body being created in Northern Ireland.

If we are to create a society in which the potential and energy of all our citizens can bear fruit, we must outlaw discrimination against older citizens now.

We have just heard a seductive argument—such arguments usually are—but before accepting it, we should pause for a moment to explore the possible implications. I thought that we were going to hear that because something happened in the United States, it must be rather good and we should copy it. I often find that argument seductive and persuasive, but the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) held back from that, although the fact that he cited the United States as a precedent gives me pause for thought.

While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was wondering how such a measure would work in practice. Open and honest as ever, he gave the answer, which gave me pause for thought. Leaving aside whether legislation against discrimination succeeds in changing attitudes, it inevitably involves all the factors that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned: a commission, a framework law, civil law, the courts and civil penalties. Now we know what we are talking about—the familiar phenomenon of a bureaucracy. The discrimination industry was set up with the best of intentions, but it has burgeoned into large bureaucratic bodies that are a burden on the taxpayer and eventually a burden on business.

Let us make no mistake about the fact that we are talking about a burden on business. As business knows to its cost—though not necessarily to the cost of us in this House—whenever such proposals are brought forward by well-intentioned politicians, they immediately involve others in the bureaucracy, paid for by taxpayers' money, then the framework law, the civil law, the courts and civil penalties. Then there is mention of resort to tribunals. That is a controversial subject. How far are we prepared to introduce the possibility of resort to tribunals in addition to the courts and legal action, with the taxpayer-funded bureaucracy behind it?

The Bill would add yet another layer to the bureaucracy that exists in an attempt to overcome racial or gender prejudice. Another prejudice has been identified that must be tackled by the bureaucracy, paid for by the taxpayer, and pursued through tribunals or courts of law. That ends up as a penalty on business.

Why not?

I am about to say why not. We must face the fact that the proposals are not a cost-free option. First, there is a cost to the taxpayer at large. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be too worried about that as he supports a taxing Government. I suspect that he and many of his hon. Friends feel comfortable with the concept of additional tax burdens. They may not be ready to admit it yet, but it is increasingly understood.

Secondly, it is a burden on business—usually on small businesses, as they tend to be taken to tribunals where they have to spend time defending themselves and then pay for redress. Therefore, such a measure will certainly not be cost free. Whatever its positive benefits—and I very much doubt them—I doubt whether many mature people would get jobs as a result of the bureaucracy, the framework of law, the civil actions, and the additional taxes and imposts on business that would result.

The risk of such an approach is that, by adding costs and burdens to business, we might jeopardize other people's jobs—indeed, they might be older people. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that very often these days, the older age group is first at risk if there is a squeeze on employment. Therefore, there is the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of a paradox arising of the very people whom the measure is intended to help being the first to suffer from its effects.

I hope that we will think long and hard before we go down this route too quickly because we really must examine all the implications, downsides, penalties and risks for what are not certain, but arguable benefits. I have tried briefly to identify the costs, penalties and difficulties. Even the right hon. Gentleman, in his more optimistic moments, might admit that the benefits of such a measure are at the very least doubtful. They are definitely not certain. I have the very gravest doubts about the measure and I hope that it will be considered in great detail before it proceeds further. I also hope that the House will be alerted to the likely possibility of its negative effects as well as its possible benefits.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today in the Daily Mirror there is a report about Anita Froggatt, who is a constituent of mine. She had a breast removed at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire royal hospital. The operation turned out to have been an error. It has emerged that the consultant pathologist, who has now been suspended, was also involved in a previous case. As this has implications generally for breast screening and treatment throughout the national health service, have you had any indication from the Secretary of State for Health that he will be making a statement on the matter?

As the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience of the House, he will know that that is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, although these issues raise wider concerns. The answer to his question is no. There has been no such request.

As ever with a money resolution, I am sorry that the Minister did not rise to move it. Therefore, it falls to me to explain why we have the money resolution at all. We have it because the Government have tabled amendment No. 12, the purpose of which is to give the Secretary of State powers to make grants to the Audit Commission in respect of local authorities and the national health service in England and Wales.

Has my hon. Friend, uncharacteristically, made a mistake? He suggests that we are debating a money resolution before an amendment has been considered, or even passed, by the House. Has he got this the wrong way round? Is he saying that we are being asked to consider, debate and—presumably—approve a money resolution before the amendment that gives rise to it has even been considered?

My right hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters—from his years of service in the House—will doubtless be greater than mine. The Bill has had the benefit of a money resolution earlier, but a second money resolution is now required because the Government have tabled an amendment that, if it is agreed to on Report, will give an additional power to the Secretary of State to make grants to the Audit Commission—a power that was not in the Bill beforehand. Therefore, the preceding money resolution did not encompass such a power.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) chides me for being wrong, but I think that I am right. The Government are proposing that the House should vote on a money resolution and then debate for the first time, by way of amendment No. 12, whether it is expedient for the Secretary of State to have such a power to make grants to the Audit Commission. While my right hon. Friend thinks about that, I will state what I see as some of the difficulties that might ensue from such a money resolution.

First, it is not a small change in the character of the money resolution—and it may well not be small change in monetary terms, either. Sometimes a change of this kind might be a small matter, in that the Bill is an expenditure Bill and the money resolution is simply to make sure that grants can be paid to a particular authority, rather than another. However, the change in the character of this money resolution is substantial.

As I understand it, the previous expectation of the effect of the Bill was that it would reduce public expenditure, rather than increase it. Essentially, the previous money resolution would have been based on explanatory notes published alongside the Bill, which foresaw three effects on the public finances. The first was that the Government proposed that continuous improvement in the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of local authorities through best value would lead to a significant cost saving. That is a debatable point—and I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would stop me if I were to debate that at length.

It is clear from the way in which some local authorities have responded to best value that they are more concerned with finding ways, through consultation, to justify increases in expenditure on services, rather than finding ways through best value of reducing such expenditure.

The second aspect relates to the compliance costs of local authorities. It is anticipated in the explanatory notes that such compliance costs will be encompassed within existing budgets, and will not therefore lead to an increase in total expenditure. The Minister may be aware, because of the Labour control of Brighton and Hove council, that the costs involved for that council are £180,000. If one extrapolates that to other local authorities, one is looking at potentially millions of pounds within local authorities.

The third example relates to costs for central Government, but there is no mention in the explanatory notes of any costs arising for central Government. Only the capping powers, which will control the total expenditure of local government to some extent, are mentioned.

The money resolution proposes for the first time an increase in central Government costs arising directly from the Bill. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I come to these matters relatively new—although I believe I spoke on Second Reading—but I get the impression that the Government are acknowledging at a very late stage that costs will arise and that they will need to make additional grants to compensate the Audit Commission for its extra activities as the inspection authority. As I understand it, Ministers resisted that notion in Committee.

We recognised it in new clause 5.

New clause 5, which is now clause 12, adds to the complications. A scale of fees will be set, but there is no upper limit and the Bill merely requires discussion. The answers that we got in Committee were inadequate, to put it mildly. I strongly support my hon. Friend in seeking an explanation before we even consider the resolution.

In his usual perceptive way, my hon. Friend has come precisely to my next point. It is perfectly clear that clause 12 provides a requirement on local authorities to pay the Audit Commission fees for inspections. What are the additional costs to the Audit Commission that will not be recovered by way of fees and need to be the subject of a central Government grant?

Normally, we debate a money resolution in the light of explanatory notes that offer some guidance about the expenditure to be incurred, but there is no such guidance in this case. In particular, we do not know how much of the cost will arise from inspections not covered by fees and how much will relate to other activities undertaken by the Audit Commission on behalf of the Government.

The money resolution may be inadequate, because inspection of best value will not be a function that is confined to the Audit Commission. New clause 4 refers to a whole range of inspection authorities—including the inspectorates of fire services, schools, police and social services—that will need to co-ordinate their activities with the Audit Commission.

My understanding—I hope that the Minister will not disabuse me of it, as that would negate many of the purposes of the best value process—is that many of those inspection authorities will also incur costs in implementing best value, which they will not necessarily be able to recover through fees under clause 12, because the power does not extend to them. Should not the costs that they are likely to incur be the subject of grant-making powers on the part of the Secretary of State?

A large part of the Bill is devoted to the circumstances under which the Secretary of State can intervene in respect of a failing authority. The Secretary of State can exercise those functions, or can do so through a nominated person. The Bill does not make clear, however, the extent to which the Secretary of State is able wholly to meet his costs or those of any nominated person through charges levied on the local authority that is subject to an intervention. That is not explained in the Bill or in the explanatory notes.

If costs will not be wholly met, they will arise for central Government, and may arise for persons nominated by the Secretary of State to intervene in a local authority that is failing in the exercise of a specific function. There may, therefore, be public expenditure that is not allowed for—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is enlarging his argument beyond the narrow terms of the money resolution. He must relate his remarks to likely expenditure incurred by the Audit Commission.

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you are quite right. I was talking about what I see as a deficiency in the two money resolutions on the Bill. They may not correctly anticipate where expenditure will arise, or provide adequately for the Secretary of State to incur expenditure as a consequence of the Bill. I seek guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is in order to speak further on that matter.

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat the part of his speech that I have ruled out of order.

Thank you, Mr, Deputy Speaker. As you have correctly brought me to order, I shall not elaborate on the point.

It seems remiss of the Government to introduce money resolutions without telling us how much money is involved and without offering guidance in the explanatory notes. In my limited experience of these matters, money resolutions are not necessarily debated, but that is often because expected costs are set out in detail in the explanatory notes.

The Bill, however, gives grant-making powers in respect of the Audit Commission without any indication of what costs will arise or what they are intended to defray. Is the Audit Commission to receive the costs of undertaking best value inspection in local authorities, or will it be compensated by the Secretary of State for intervening in local authorities—or for any other matter—on his behalf? Neither the money resolution nor the explanatory notes sets out the maximum level of costs likely to be incurred.

Money resolutions are not normally contentious, but the Government have begun today's proceedings badly by tabling a late amendment that has given rise to a new money resolution. They have not provided the House with the information necessary to reach a decision on the resolution.

I echo and reinforce the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Ministers seem, individually and collectively, to be slow learners. They must know by now that it would help the House—and even, occasionally, foreshorten debate; I do not think that is desirable, but some people wish it—if they did the House the courtesy of speaking to their money resolutions.

It matters not whether the resolution has to do with a private Member's Bill—I take an occasional interest in such matters—or a Bill of the Government's own. Money resolutions are an important part of our proceedings. Bizarrely, however, and time and time again, money resolutions appear on the Order Paper but there is silence from the Government. The House is presumably expected either to pass the resolutions on the nod without scrutinising them, or to wander around in something of a speculative fog, awaiting some explanation from a Minister.

I do not for one moment suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire was in a speculative fog. I thought his analysis as sharp and clear as ever it is, given the lack of information offered to him and to the House. I must, perforce—though not at length, as more of my hon. Friends may have questions of their own—speculate a little myself.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, I did not have the privilege and pleasure of serving in Committee, so I come to the issues with a fresh mind—even, one might say, a delightfully innocent mind—and not one with well formed views. My mind is open to being moulded and persuaded by the Minister about the virtues of the money resolution.

I have picked up enough information from my hon. Friends to realise that the basis for the money resolution is clauses 10 to 13 of the Bill, which set out the responsibilities laid on the Audit Commission in the policing of the best value concept. That much I understand, but then I get confused. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, amendment No. 12—to which we shall come later—repeats the provisions in relation to the Audit Commission and the National Assembly for Wales. However, my hon. Friend did not mention amendment No. 19 which provides that

"The Audit Commission may delegate … its functions … to … a committee or sub-committee established by the Commission (including a committee or sub-committee including persons who are not members of the Commission), or… an officer or servant of the Commission."

I assume that that means that it is possible that activities of the Audit Commission that go beyond those originally envisaged by the Bill could—and almost certainly will—involve additional expenditure. That may be one of the reasons why the Government have had to table another money resolution. Colleagues more expert than myself may elucidate the possibility that, for the first time, persons who are not members of the Audit Commission would be part of committees or sub-committees to fulfil the responsibilities laid on it by the Bill. That is new territory for the Audit Commission, its structure and activities and I can see why the Government have had to table another money resolution to support the amendments, although—paradoxically—they are not yet part of the Bill.

What would happen if we were to approve the money resolution now but did not approve one or more of the amendments later? We would he in a peculiar position. Having said, perhaps reluctantly, to the Government, "All right, we accept that more money is needed, but we do not agree with the reason why more money is needed", would the Government return with what might be called a negative money resolution—

Order. That is a procedural difficulty that we will address if we have to. We can discuss at present, in anticipation of the new clause that the House is greatly looking forward to discussing, only the narrow scope of the extent to which expenditure may occur as a result of the Audit Commission having those powers.

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it puts us in an odd position, as you may agree. We would have been saved all this trouble if the Minister had elegantly and succinctly told us, at the beginning, what the money resolution was all about. I have no doubt that she would have been able to persuade us quickly, but as it is we must ask the questions and wait for the answers.

I was a member of the Standing Committee and I also spoke on Second Reading, when considerable concern was expressed, especially by those of us who realise the difficulties that local government may face in respect of the expenditure that will result from the Bill. The greatest concern was about the expenditure that would be landed on local authorities by the Audit Commission and the auditors. It is worth touching on the peculiar relationship between the Audit Commission and the auditors in that it involves pay and rations but limited control. There were distinct concerns about the load that the Bill would put on local government and about the fact that there seemed to be no form of restriction or hold.

It must be a relief to local authorities that the money resolution has been introduced, because it seems that some of the expenditure will be drawn away from them. However, we have had no explanation of that, and there has been no anticipation of the size of that expenditure. If one wants to get a sense of the size of expenditure involved, one needs only to look at the recent activity of the auditor for Westminster council. After his investigation, local council tax payers were charged between £3 million and £4 million. If that amount were extrapolated—I realise that it would be an exaggeration— or even if half the amount were extrapolated across all the sizeable local authorities in the country, the expenditure would be enormous.

The debate on the money resolution came as a surprise to many of us, because we did not know about it until we saw today's Order Paper. We have no idea what the resolution applies to; we have been given no idea of what the total expenditure might be, nor of how great a load it will remove from local government. We do not know whether there will be any hold or restrictions on the amount of the expenditure and, if there are to be such restrictions, who will hold the reins. Is this to be one of those measures where the Secretary of State offers a broad-brush approach, saying, "Yes, I will pay", but that when we consider the secondary legislation that may or may not apply? We have yet to consider some of that legislation. Is the answer to be "yes, if and but", but, at the end of the day, local government will still pick up the tab? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we have been landed with this resolution; there is to be a formal nod instead of an explanation. The least that we can expect is a full and clear explanation from the Minister.

The money resolution arises from an intention expressed by the Minister in Standing Committee. When we discussed fees, she said—

It has all been explained before.

The right hon. Lady is now saying from a sedentary position that it has all been explained before, but, as she well knows, a large number of hon. Members—

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. If the Minister wants to contribute to the debate, she should do so from the Dispatch Box and not from a sedentary position.

I should be delighted if the right hon. Lady would explain the matter, because many hon. Members were not members of the Standing Committee. In Standing Committee, she said:

"We expect best value to lead to efficiency savings of 2 per cent. per year in each authority, which more than outweighs any additional costs arising from audit inspection arrangements."

She was obviously talking about global figures and the assumption on which the Bill was drafted was obviously that no additional expenditure from central Government would be necessary in terms of grants to the Audit Commission to cover its expenses.

The right hon. Lady continued:

"Additional funding to meet the cost of inspections will come from the revenue support grant or from a direct grant to the commission, and we intend to table a Government amendment to make provision for it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 238.]

However, the very fact that the matter is being introduced as an amendment at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings is a confirmation that the Government had not considered that the construction of the Bill would have implications for how it is likely to operate vis-a-vis local authorities. The right hon. Lady gave the Standing Committee various figures for the cost implications. It would at the least be a courtesy to the House if she explained the cost implications of the money resolution. Obviously, the Audit Commission has a budget of its own, but will the Minister explain the financial implications, in millions of pounds, of approving the money resolution, so that we have some idea of the cost consequences of the Bill? There is plenty of time remaining for the Minister's reply.

I had not intended to speak in this debate, but came to participate in the later debate on the various new clauses and amendments to the Bill, for which the House anxiously awaits. However, my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), have pointed out a major constitutional issue that arises from this money resolution. The reason why we have money resolutions is an interesting question. After all, it would have been perfectly possible, over time, for our predecessors to have so arranged matters—

Order. It may indeed be fascinating to discuss why we have money resolutions, but if he is to keep in order the hon. Gentleman must address the particular money resolution before the House and the question of expenditure that may be incurred by the Audit Commission.

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was coming to that precise point. The purpose of money resolutions is to draw to the attention of the House the purposes for which money is to be spent and the fact that money is to be spent; otherwise, it would be possible to avoid having money resolutions.

As my hon. Friends have made clear, it is not possible for the House sensibly to discuss whether the money to be spent—in this case, on the Audit Commission—is the right amount of money, or whether money should be spent at all, without having some prior explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made it admirably clear that the Minister and her colleagues were intending that the money resolution should go through on the nod. That would be perfectly appropriate, had the House understood what was going through on the nod from the explanatory notes that would normally have been provided. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope you will not rule me out of order if I make a slight aside—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Of course.

Is my hon. Friend endorsing the concept of something being considered and approved by the House, to use his words, on the nod, if a written explanation has previously been given? Is he seriously suggesting that Members of Parliament should play no part by reading and absorbing the written material and asking questions about it?

I was about to say, in an aside that I hoped you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would think was in order, that I have some reservations about that general practice. However, it would have been within the normal conventions of the House if the money resolution went through on the nod, had it been understood what the money resolution was about; but for Ministers to move a money resolution and expect it to go through on the nod without that sort of explanation is to subvert the nature of money resolutions as a whole.

I hope that this debate will have not only brought to the attention of the Minister for Local Government and Housing the immediate importance of explaining this particular money resolution, but reminded the Government as a whole of the future importance of ensuring that, when a money resolution is moved and the House has not had previous notice of its contents or of the sum involved—if I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) correctly, that sum could run into hundreds of millions of pounds—it is incumbent on the Minister to begin the debate by making a full statement and explaining to the House what is involved. Otherwise, there is no purpose in having money resolutions.

Our predecessors did not invent money resolutions purely for the purpose of amusing themselves, their successors, or any members of the media who may be observing the proceedings. They are here for a serious purpose, which is to bring to the attention of the House the sums involved so that they can be discussed and their appropriateness properly weighed. That was not done in this case, so I hope that the Minister will now give a full explanation.

I also hope that the right hon. Lady will take back to her Department and to the Treasury the message that we shall pursue the strategy of exposing to maximum debate any money resolution that has not been previously explained and for which the Minister does not come forward with a clear statement at the start of the debate. If Ministers do that, we shall all be spared the tedium of making speeches repeating that point, and the constitutional arrangements that our predecessors so splendidly gave us will be justified and followed in the spirit in which they were intended to be followed.

This has been an interesting debate. We might take the implications raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) more seriously if he and his hon. Friends had not briefed the media this afternoon about their disruptive tactics—but there we go.

Opposition Members have a view about how the House should address local government issues, and I am interested in that view. I am pleased to explain to the House precisely why this money resolution is required. I was taught that we should pay attention to all parliamentary proceedings—both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. If some of the hon. Members who have spoken had read the Committee's deliberations—not just that part referred to by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—they would have found a full explanation of the way in which we approach such matters. The question asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was answered in Committee, but I know that he intended to speak today, come what may. However, that takes a little of the gloss off his contribution—and we must ensure that everyone knows it.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for this legislation, is not responsible for Ofsted, the social services inspectorate or for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the money resolutions relating to those inspectorates are matters for the Departments concerned. A money resolution is required so that funds can be made available from Parliament in respect of the provisions set out in clause 31. Clause 31 provides that where the Bill, by virtue of any provisions within it that have financial implications, leads to the Secretary of State's paying increased sums under other enactments—

Perhaps the Minister will accuse me of misunderstanding again, but how can she say that this money resolution relates only to the Audit Commission because the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has responsibility only for that body when it is a Government money resolution? If the Government intend, through this Bill, to allow expenditure to be incurred by Ofsted or by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, that can be included in the money resolution. If such expenditure is planned, why does it not say so in the money resolution?

The money that Ofsted, the SSI and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Wales need is catered for in the legislation that established and govern those institutions. The clause relates to the ability of the Audit Commission to work effectively with those organisations. [Interruption.] I wish to goodness that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire would stop winking; this is a serious business. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seek a serious response but they treat this issue as if it were a joke. It is public schoolboy humour yet again. I wish that they would grow up.

Clause 31 provides that where the Bill, by virtue of any provisions within it that have financial implications, leads to the Secretary of State's paying increased sums under other enactments, moneys shall be made available from Parliament to meet such increases. It also provides that any costs that the Secretary of State incurs in discharging his functions under the Bill should be met by Parliament.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I was about to call him the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, but the right hon. Gentleman has changed his constituency—now understands the measure. He asked me to attempt to mould his mind, but that would defy anyone. I have heard of his exploits at Glasgow university, where Elvis Presley was his hero and he was the magnificent leader of a tribe of rockers or teddy boys. We look forward to him displaying his teddy boy behaviour today.

Clause 31, however, happens to be important in a number of practical ways. It will allow, for instance, for the provision of funds to best value authorities to meet any new costs in fees for best value inspections which they incur under the Bill. It will also be used to ensure that where best value inspections are funded by central Government grant, moneys can be paid to the Audit Commission for that purpose. It will also allow for the Secretary of State to be reimbursed for costs that he incurs, for example, by using his intervention powers. Those are three practical, important examples of why the money resolution is important.

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way now that she is getting to the facts instead of throwing brickbats that have nothing to do with the resolution. I welcome the fact that she is moving more funds to local government to help councils with proposals that they anticipate will require heavy expenditure, but has she any idea of the costs involved? Will she give us ballpark figures? Is there any way in which the Secretary of State will be able to impose limitations on that expenditure, such as an annual ceiling imposed by order or a percentage-based ceiling?

I cannot, in all honesty, give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he seeks. If I attempted to do so, he would say that they were not believable because we are not in a position to give them. In the same way that we and the previous Government negotiated with local government and the Audit Commission, we shall make the figures clear, and we are discussing with the Audit Commission its expectations of those figures. As the hon. Gentleman has implied, we would need regularly to revise those figures. I assure him that we intend to make public those agreements and to apply the principles of best value to any money involved.

I am now extremely confused because in Committee, on 9 February, in answer to my question, the Minister said:

"We anticipate that the annual costs of a strengthened audit and inspection framework will be in the order of an additional £50 million a year, once the best value framework is fully operational."

When asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) what that £50 million refers to, she replied:

"We took account of that in the comprehensive spending review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 243.]

However, we still do not know what that £50 million refers to, and I am sure that if the Minister takes this opportunity to clarify that point, the House will be grateful.

We made clear in Committee precisely what we believe the increased costs will be, but we have not yet agreed the exact balance between the Audit Commission and local government, and we know that it may have to vary in particular circumstances. We want to introduce clear guidelines so that the House and people outside will know what is happening year by year. I honestly cannot give anyone those figures today, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have always tried to be absolutely straight with hon. Members.

It is important that there is a balance between the amount of central Government grant and the amount to be contributed by local government. We discussed that fully in Committee. We discussed the importance of a balance that enabled both elements to be part of the settlement. That is how we intend to proceed.

Clause 31 will enable the introduction of the duty of best value in such a way as to avoid penalising best value authorities in terms of the financial resources available to them. It will also ensure that the Secretary of State has the resources that he needs properly to discharge his functions in accordance with best value. All parties will therefore be able to meet their legal obligations without fear of suffering financial disadvantage.