What plans he has to use the experience and data acquired from the current air campaign over Yugoslavia to assist in the drawing up of criteria for future defence procurement contracts. [82578]

Decisions about our future equipment programme, and the best way to procure that equipment, are based on a wide range of information, including data drawn from operational experience. We are taking steps to acquire accurate data from the current air campaign to provide a sound basis for future analysis. The results of that analysis will be used as a guide in the determination of future capability requirements.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the lessons of the current conflict is the need for our forces to be at the cutting edge of technology, collaborating as much as possible with our European partners, and that that applies to air-to-air missiles as well as to air-to-ground missiles? In that context, may I especially commend to him the programme currently being developed by British Aerospace for the Meteor missile? I believe—as do many of my constituents who are employed by British Aerospace—that that programme will give Eurofighter great capacity; it will give us air strength, and enable us to carry forward our cutting-edge technology in defence procurement.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign on behalf of his constituents and the most important work that they undertake for our defence needs. He will be aware that proposals were received in May 1998 on the BVRAAM—beyond visual range-air-to-air missile—capability. We are holding discussions with our potential partners in Europe—Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden—on those proposals, and we are holding separate discussions with the United States. A contract to proceed to full development and production is expected to be awarded towards the end of 1999. All factors—operational, financial and industrial—will be taken into account in reaching our decision.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the experiences that has been learned from the campaign in Yugoslavia is that air power alone is not an effective way to induce an adversary to relinquish territory? Moreover, it kills many non-combatants.

First, we go to inordinate lengths to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties. The experience of the war clearly demonstrates that. Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not talk down the effect of our air campaign, which has significantly degraded the military capability of the Yugoslav armed forces and their armed police and paramilitary assistants. We have made a considerable impact on their operational capability, communications and command and control. That is starting to have a significant impact.

How many troops are currently deployed in Macedonia. [82579]

How many troops are currently deployed in Macedonia. [82585]

As at 10 May, about 5,700 British Army personnel and about 100 RAF personnel are deployed in Macedonia.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in taking this opportunity to congratulate our forces in Macedonia on the humanitarian work that they have undertaken to ease the plight of the Kosovo Albanians? Does he agree that their plight demonstrates that, despite the tragic events of last weekend, NATO must maintain its resolve to ensure that those people can go home and rebuild their lives?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I certainly join her in congratulating British forces in Macedonia. In fact, Lieutenant-General Mike Jackson, the commander of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps—the NATO force—was in London this morning and shared the rostrum with me at our Ministry of Defence daily briefing. I made clear to him—as did all my ministerial colleagues—how proud we are of the British forces and of all the troops under General Jackson's control for the outstanding work that they have done to deal with that flood of humanity tipped over the borders of Kosovo into Macedonia. With civility, decency and huge individual skill and sacrifice, the troops have looked after those human beings. We must continue to listen to what the refugees are saying about the horrors that they have experienced; we must not be put off by anything in our determination to get them home.

In addition to echoing my right hon. Friend's tribute to our troops in Macedonia, may I invite him to pay tribute to the men and women on board the Devonport-based HMS Somerset in the Adriatic? Macedonia and other front-line countries face a significant challenge in the way in which they accommodate troops, as well as the huge influx of refugees. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to help them meet that challenge?

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the Royal Navy and especially of those ships that sail from Plymouth, and I too pay tribute to HMS Somerset. I visited the Adriatic last week with the shadow Defence Secretary, the defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and the shadow Foreign Secretary. We all visited Gioia del Colle, where RAF pilots are in action on a regular basis, and HMS Invincible, where we were joined by members of the crew of HMS Newcastle. All of them are doing a job that is in the interests of international law and order, and we expressed the country's pride in their actions.

Would not the position of our troops in Macedonia be greatly enhanced when they eventually enter Kosovo were they do so pursuant to the terms of a United Nations Security Council resolution? Last week, the Government secured the agreement of Russia to seeking such a resolution, but has not that now been made almost impossible by the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that incident showed a quite unacceptable degree of incompetence, given that the address of the Chinese embassy is apparently in the Belgrade telephone directory? Does he agree that that act not only sets back the achievement of NATO's war aims, but means that we have succeeded in seriously damaging relations with both Russia and China within one month?

There was no targeting of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade—it was a huge and terrible mistake, and expressions of regret have been made by NATO and other Governments. However, given that some 18,000 sorties—6,000 of them strike sorties—have taken place, the few mistakes that have been made, every one of which is bitterly regretted, have to be seen in proportion.

Does the Secretary of State for Defence recall telling the Defence Committee some 10 hours before the bombing began:

"Our military objective—our clear, simple, military objective—will be to reduce the Serbs' capability to repress the Albanian population and thus to avert a humanitarian disaster",

"I would like to stress that whatever action is taken, that action is taken on behalf of all NATO allies with the aim—the clear and, I believe, justified aim—of averting a humanitarian disaster."?

That was of course our aim, and it is still our aim to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe that would occur if all those refugees who have left Kosovo were not to go home, and to avert the humanitarian catastrophe that would occur in many other parts of the world if Milosevic were to get away with his ethnic cleansing.

Given the fact that the American Senate has voted overwhelmingly against the commitment of ground troops, is it not clear that the air war of itself cannot achieve the objectives set? Will the Secretary of State tell the House how the indiscriminate bombing of Yugoslavia, including the bombing of a hospital and a market with cluster bombs, and the bombing of refugee camps and the Chinese embassy, contributes in any way whatever to the restoration to the refugees of their rightful homes in Kosovo?

I hope that sometime, when my right hon. Friend is listing the handful of bombs that have gone astray in Kosovo, he will mention the thousands of bombs that have landed accurately on military targets in accordance with the objectives that we set out. The air campaign is successful, but there are clearly limitations. If we believe in international law and in high standards of conduct, and if we are targeting military installations and trying specifically to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian buildings, we will be at a disadvantage compared with someone who is brutally, ruthlessly and mercilessly directly attacking civilians and civilian property. Yet we have had enormous success: the machine is substantially weaker than it was. Day after day and night after night, we are targeting the military installations inside Kosovo that are causing the violence. Ultimately, Milosevic must recognise that and comply.

Since the only personnel on the ground who might give any immediate help against persecution by the Serbian paramilitaries are in the Kosovo Liberation Army, what is the Government's and NATO's present view on supporting the KLA's activities within Kosovo?

Quite simply, we are prohibited from supporting the KLA either with arms or other resources. A specific United Nations Security Council resolution limits the military assistance that can be given in that theatre, and we are bound by its terms. Therefore, that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.

I join in congratulating the NATO forces that are engaged in humanitarian work in Macedonia. However, I ask the Secretary of State: are there no maps available to NATO forces showing them the sites of foreign embassies in Belgrade? If plan A—which is to bomb Milosevic into submission—fails, is the Secretary of State prepared to share with the House what is plan B?

First, I thank my hon. Friend for the congratulations that she has offered to British troops engaged in Macedonia. They have shown their usual professional skill and dedication in carrying out their humanitarian work, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's commendation will comfort them enormously.

The Secretary of State speaks of the need to return the refugees to their homes. Can he explain to the House how exactly that will be done without the use of ground troops? Is he aware of the dismay felt in the country that the greatest military alliance on earth seems in certain respects to be like the gang that cannot shoot straight?

I do not think that there will ever be an armed conflict involving so many people against such a ruthless opponent which will not involve mistakes. NATO, which certainly is the greatest military alliance in the world, is made up of 19 democratic countries. That is, on the one hand, its greatest strength, and on the other—at the moment—one of its key weaknesses. Another of its key weaknesses is also its towering strength: it acts according to international law. We take care. Mistakes will be made, but however tragic, they are small in comparison to the systematic genocidal violence being perpetrated by Milosevic against the civil population of Kosovo.

What proportion of the Army's Land Command is currently committed to operations. [82580]

We estimate that 56 per cent. of Land Command personnel are currently committed to operations.

Given the magnitude of that commitment and the possibility of future commitments for the Army in Kosovo, Will the Minister reconsider plans for decimating the Territorial Army at such a time? Before he falls back on chanting the ususal mantra about the cuts made in the early 1990s by the Previous Government, may I point out that there is all the difference in the wolrd between reductions at the end of a cold war and cuts Proposed, incredibly, at the Possible start of a hot War?

The hon. Gentleman would contribute more to the discussion if he resisted the temptation to make party political points and considered the task that the British armed forces have to carry out and how they will ensure that they do so, which was the subject of the strategic defence review. The review aimed to put our forces in a position in which they could be deployed, with the necessary impact, in situations such as that in Kosovo.

Has my hon. Friend any plans to use the Royal Marines?

Our marines are an important part of our armed forces and they will be deployed as necessary with our Royal Navy and our other forces in circumstances that demand their commitment and expertise.

Overstretch in front-line forces remains unacceptable, but what proportion of the operational strength of the British Army, and our NATO allies, in Albania is now devoted to planning the development of the Albanian infrastructure, such as the port, roads, airfields and health care? Who will prepare long-term plans for that infrastructure? What will happen to Albania's economy when NATO withdraws, or is our current effort part of a long-term, open-ended commitment by the Ministry of Defence?

At the moment, a small number of our forces are involved in those activities. Those key People are Planners, who are making a major contribution to NATO's effort. The hon Gentleman raises important issues, which will have to be dealt with in the long term, but it is somewhat premature to ask what detailed plans there will be for rebuilding the economy and social structure of the Balkans, including Albania. The hon. Gentleman will know that such condiserations are one the key principles incorporated into last week's G8 statement, and more will need to be done as time passes.

What plans he has to review his strategic defence review following NATO military action in Yugoslavia. [82581]

I have no plans to review the strategic defence review in the light of current events in the Balkans. The MOD's new strategic planning process ensures that there is now a policy-led re-evaluation of defence plans every year.

In the light of the recent strategic defence review, is the Secretary of State satisfied that our armed services can currently sustain two medium-level operations for more than a six-month period, or more than two medium-level operations for up to six months? In the light of recent events—not least in south-east Europe—does he agree that that is the minimum requirement around which our defence policy should be framed for the future?

The key point is that the strategic defence review was designed to look forward at the kind of threats that we would face in the future, rather than endlessly looking at the enemies we had in the past. It was designed so that our forces will be able eventually to deal flexibly with the sort of problems that we face in Kosovo today. I say eventually, because it is less than a year since the strategic defence review was published and its implementation was started, but I am confident that it will give us that flexibility. Kosovo has shown us how valuable and important that exercise was. However, the planning assumptions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are planning tools intended to guide the development of our long-term force structure: they were not intended to provide a template for specific operational commitments. As we explained at the time of the review, we may choose to do more or less, depending on the circumstances.

May I offer my thanks to the Secretary of State for inviting me to accompany him on his recent visit to the Balkans? As someone who supported both the process and the policy conclusions of the defence review, may I urge him to be realistic about what is necessary for United Kingdom defence in the light of the current and inevitable future commitments in the Balkans? Does he accept that the 3 per cent. annual efficiency saving, which is incumbent on the Ministry of Defence, is not just "challenging"—as it was publicly described by the Chief of the Defence Staff—but is in truth unachievable without an enduring impact on defence capability? Does he further understand that the Government should feel no embarrassment in reviewing the defence budget, but should take the opportunity to demonstrate sound common sense?

The defence review demonstrated sound common sense. The 3 per cent. efficiency target is challenging, but it is not unachievable, because it is already being met. In the event of a Liberal Democrat Government coming to power—that is a long-term vision for the House—and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman held my job, he too would strive for savings and efficiency. He too would seek better value for money and would wish to ensure that in defence we did not throw money at problems, but tried to get the best that we could out of our budget.

No doubt when the Balkan conflict is over, the Secretary of State will wish to examine how we and our allies respond to future conflicts. Yesterday, Mr. Prodi suggested that the European Union should have an army, and the Government apparently immediately rejected that call. However, is not Mr. Prodi's call wholly consistent with Government policy, especially paragraph 3 of the St. Malo agreement with France, which calls for

"the EU to have recourse to military capacity either within NATO or multi-national means outside the NATO framework."?

"multi-national means outside the NATO framework"

First, let me emphasise what the hon. Gentleman skated over—the fact that the British Government have dissociated themselves from the concept that Mr. Prodi put forward. In terms of the development of reasonable military capability inside Europe to deal with situations in which NATO may not wish to become corporately involved, or in the event of the United States of America and Canada not wishing to be involved in European-based operations, I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the Petersberg tasks. They were adopted by NATO for use through the Western European Union and foresaw precisely that form of European-based operation taking place.

What discussions he has had about a new generation of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [82582]

I have not had any discussions about a successor system to Trident. We concluded in the strategic defence review that no decision on any possible successor system would be needed for several years.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that two previous Labour Governments—those of Lords Attlee and Callaghan—embarked on the development of nuclear weapons without consulting even the Cabinet, never mind the British public? Can he give the House an assurance that the Government will not begin the development of any new generation of nuclear weapons without first taking the public into their confidence?

I thought that my hon. Friend had become so venerable and so distinguished that he had given up the conspiracy view of history, including any such view regarding the present generation of Labour Ministers. I do not have to make some defensive statement on the subject. I simply say to my hon. Friend, read the strategic defence review and see there probably the most transparent account of our nuclear forces and reserves, and all aspects of our nuclear policy, that has ever been disclosed in this country. That is the model for open government on those critical issues. So open have I been, so much detail have I given, that most people have not even noticed that that account has been published yet.

Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the proliferation of nuclear arms between India and Pakistan, and the proliferation generally of ballistic missiles? Does he think that the UK should consider—perhaps with its international partners—the need for an eventual ballistic missile defence system for the UK in future?

We are very concerned about nuclear proliferation; in fact, that was one of the key subjects of the NATO summit in Washington two weeks ago. We take very seriously the manufacture and deployment of ballistic missiles by countries that previously did not have them, and such proliferation is part and parcel of the thinking that is going on and should go on at the moment.

With nuclear non-proliferation negotiations taking place in Geneva this coming fortnight, may I ask whether, despite the difficult international climate, especially in regard to our relations with Russia and China at present, Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to give fresh impetus to the nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament process, both at Geneva and in other forums?

Most countries that have examined what we proposed in the strategic defence review—very serious reductions in our stockpile and in the number of nuclear weapons that we have deployed—will have seen that we are not just engaged in arms control discussions for the sake of appearances. We believe in arms control. We have shown by example what other people can do about it. Therefore, we shall bring to these arms control negotiations a considerably greater sense of urgency than previous Administrations did to previous negotiations.

What assessment he has made of the availability of weapons systems equipment to British forces in the Balkans. [82583]

UK forces deployed on NATO operations in the Balkans have the right equipment for the job.

I am delighted to hear that, but I have to bear in mind that, further to the question put to the Secretary of State for Defence by the right hon. and learned Member for NorthEast Fife (Mr. Campbell), the Government must also consider the 3 per cent. efficiency savings. Can the Secretary of State confirm—he may not be able to give us a cast-iron guarantee, although I would like that—that nothing will stand in the way of supplying new, up-to-date and more efficient equipment, designed to suit conditions in the Balkans, so that equipment will not compromise the efficiency of the British armed forces serving there?

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to hear that our forces have the equipment that they need. After all, the previous Conservative Government bought most of it. The basis of the SDR was to re-equip and realign our forces to meet the new post-cold war environment. We have an on-going major programme of re-equipping our forces, with many examples of new equipment, some of which have been mentioned today.

Would the Minister care to comment unequivocally on claims in the press, on the internet and through e-mail channels that the Royal Air Force is using cluster bombs and runway-denial weapons involving sub-munitions that are identical in character to landmines, and that British personnel are involved in training the Kosovo Liberation Army to deploy landmines, something that would clearly be in contravention of the Ottawa agreement? Is my hon. Friend able to give an unequivocal response to such accusations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity firmly to deny all those rumours, which, as he said, are coming through a variety of media. I confirm that we are using RBL755 cluster bombs, which are not prohibited under the Ottawa convention or under the Landmines Act 1998.

Is it not the case that weapon systems are only as effective as the training and the commitment of the crews who have to operate them? Should we not pay tribute to our aircrews in the Balkan theatre, but realise that thet always need the most modern navigation and attack systems and the most modern weapons and defensive aids? When the Minister is procuring sophisticated aircraft, will he ensure that there is that full complementarity that makes systems fully effective?

As I said earlier, we are continuing to make further investment in the equipment that is available to our forces. I obviously join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the skill and dedication of our forces. In some instances, there has been an argument about whether they have been able to hit certain targets. They make an enormous effort in that regard. On a number of occasions, they have not bombed a target because conditions did not give them the assurance that they would be able to hit it. That is a tribute to their professionalism and the success that they have had, and to the very limited collateral damage that has been inflicted.

What in heaven's name is the justification for using cluster bombs against targets such as the centre of Nis?

We are not, as my hon. Friend says, using cluster bombs against the centre of Nis. That was a mistake. We are using cluster bombs as effective munitions against the military concentrations of those troops who are committing the most appalling atrocities in Kosovo. We are degrading their ability to do that and taking out a considerable part of the Yugoslav forces and the armed police. I would have thought that to be a legitimate objective, and one that the great majority of hon. Members would endorse.

The Minister is aware that, both outside the Chamber and inside it, a number of reservations have been raised about the effectiveness of the air campaign to fulfil NATO's political objectives. Most recently, General Naumann, the retiring chairman of the NATO military committee, raised some deep reservations about the campaign. Can the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom chiefs of staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff had no such reservation when they advised the Government about the air campaign prior to 23 March?

Yes, General Naumann's comments were taken very much out of context. As I have said, the air campaign has had a major effect in degrading communications, the ability to move and quite a bit of the materiel of the Serbian forces. This is a policy of the Government and of the armed forces, who are pursuing it extremely effectively. Given the hon. Gentleman's previous experience, I am slightly surprised that he seems to be trying to drive a wedge between service chiefs and the Government on the matter, when we are united in pursuit of the objectives.

What discussions have taken place between his Department and the Foreign Office on the longterm implications for the international nuclear disarmament process of NATO's decision not to redefine the role nuclear weapons play in NATO's new strategic concept. [82586]

My Department and the Foreign Office maintain close dialogue on all aspects of nuclear policy. At the Washington summit, NATO's strategic concept was endorsed by all 19 members of the alliance.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and welcome the small signs of progress at the Washington summit in the redefinition of nuclear weapons policy. Could not the very slow pace of the progress towards the objective of reducing nuclear weapons worldwide put at risk the negotiations on the non-proliferation treaty taking place this week, as well as the long-term future of the comprehensive test ban treaty?

I hope not. By reassessing our own nuclear stocks—we now have the smallest stockpile of nuclear weapons of any of the five nuclear weapons states—and through the confidence-building measures that we have introduced—the reduced state of alert of our nuclear submarines, and the fact that our missiles are detargeted—as well as through the other measures in the strategic defence review, we have given a clear idea of the direction in which we believe that the world should go. Therefore, our commitment to retaining Trident, which was the policy on which my hon. Friend and I fought the last election, should be, as the manifesto stated, accompanied by a greater degree of urgency in arms control negotiations. In that respect, we have shown by actions, not by words, that we mean business.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the estimate by the CIA that, by 2015, almost any country will be able to deliver an intercontinental ballistic missile? Does he therefore follow the argument that, in addition to the ability to respond with nuclear force, we need to invest in a credible defence mechanism?

I do not think that the CIA was suggesting that every country would have its own intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015. However, the matter of ballistic missiles causes concern across the world, and that is why it is kept under constant examination. As and when the technology is available to deal with that threat, we will examine it carefully. In the meantime, we must step up the discussions on arms control, so that countries will not feel the need to acquire such weapons systems.

Did my right hon. Friend read the communique of the strategic concept summit, which stated that the characteristic of nuclear weapons is that

"they prevent coercion and any kind of war"?

Nobody is pretending that nuclear weapons can prevent all conflict, but the deterrence value of our nuclear weapons is proven and is supported by the vast majority of the British people. As I said before, the strategic concept and the language in it, over which there were long and sometimes painful discussions, were subscribed to by the Governments of all 19 countries.

What contingency plans NATO has made for the stationing of British land forces in Kosovo. [82587]

It was agreed at the NATO summit that the Secretary-General of NATO and the military planners should update their planning. In the meantime, a build-up of NATO forces is taking place in Macedonia in anticipation of deploying into Kosovo to implement a peace settlement and ensure the safety and security of refugees returning to their homes. As at 10 May, there are 5,700 British Army personnel and about 100 Royal Air Force personnel deployed in Macedonia in connection with those plans.

The Secretary of State has said nothing about the amount of time that troops might have to be in Kosovo. Perhaps he is quite right to do so—it could be an indefinite commitment. If we are to maintain troops in Kosovo, and also in Bosnia, we will need about 30 new regiments and battalions if we are to achieve a 24-month gap between operational tours. Is that not the case and, if we are to make a commitment in Kosovo, will the Government either commit themselves now to increasing the number of operational regiments or will he admit that the gap between operational tours will have to decrease?

I hear the grinding sound of a great military mind at work. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman comes to that conclusion, which I have never heard from anybody else, about 30 new regiments being required for the British Army. The discussions that took place at Rambouillet about that suggested that we should be looking at a troop commitment by this country in Kosovo for three years after a peace agreement was arrived at. We have an early burden to carry, because we are the framework nation of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, and Lieutenant-General Jackson and his people are doing their job with enormous skill.

We can see different brigades and regiments going in during the build-up of British troops, but there has been no mention of the Yugoslav navy, which is a threat to our Royal Navy, or to the possibility of Marines being deployed. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what has happened to the Yugoslav navy in this conflict?

There is a Yugoslav navy—my hon. Friend is absolutely right—but it has not ventured very far out of any of its harbours. If and when it becomes a threat to NATO forces in the area, action will be taken.

In the light of the Secretary of State's plans for Kosovo, deployments to other parts of the Balkans and to Northern Ireland and other possible threats, I again urge him to reconsider the plans to run down the Territorial Army in the next few months and the horrifying decision to break up the centre of excellence—5 Airborne brigade—on 1 September. Before he gives me the same glib answer as the Minister for the Armed Forces gave my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), may I remind him that, when the Conservative Government found themselves faced with a crisis in 1982, Margaret Thatcher put her strategic defence review straight on to hold and cancelled the decision to sell HMS Invincible?

The difference is that those previous defence reviews were reducing the size of our forces. Our strategic defence review increases the regular strength of the British Army by 3,300 troops and creates a sixth deployable brigade, which is precisely what the British Army was asking to be able to deploy in such circumstances.

Can the Secretary of State assure the House that he has not changed his mind about the fact that President Milosevic has no veto over any NATO action? Does he agree that it might be necessary for ground troops to go into Kosovo in an atmosphere that is not completely permissive?

President Milosevic will have no veto over what we do in relation to getting the people evicted from Kosovo back safely to their homes. The NATO authorities are, on the instruction of the Secretary-General, re-visiting all of the assumptions that were made earlier this year. There is no question about a forced invasion of Kosovo, but it would be prudent and reasonable for us to look at all the options again in the light of the damage that has been done by Milosevic to Kosovo and the considerable damage done by NATO to the Serb military machine.

:If he will make a statement on the role of the commissiners in respect of Church schools. [82613]

Responsibility for the management of Church of England schools lies with the individual governing bodies of the schools, supported by diocesan boards of education and local education authorities. Nationally, they are represented by the Church of England Board of Education, which, working with the National Society for the Promotion of Religious Education, provides a range of support services for dioceses and schools.

My hon. Friend will know that there are some 5,000 Church schools in England, and about one in eight of our children attend Church of England schools. Lancashire has more Church schools than any other county in England. Can my hon. Friend tell me how value added tax on repairs is dealt with differently in Church schools and county schools?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the number of Church schools in Lancashire. The current estimate of the Church's contribution to capital works in Church school buildings is £20 million a year. A significant proportion of the work undertaken is subject to VAT. Equivalent work in county schools is not subject to VAT, and I hope that the Government are listening to the campaign of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) to get rid of VAT on Church repairs.

rose—

I shall have to call the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no VAT is charged on the building of new Church schools or new churches? Does he agree that the Government should apply for the new derogation that is about to be agreed by Finance Ministers, which would allow for VAT not to be charged on Church repairs for up to three years?

Yes. I support the hon. Lady's campaign in relation to VAT on Church repairs. I have pointed out to the House that, since 1972 at least, successive Governments have ignored any pleas on that issue. The hon. Lady raised the issue of the Council of Ministers in Europe and a new derogation. I am sure that the Church Commissioners would like to support that, and see what the Government have to say.

What plans the commissioners have to dispose of their shares in GEC. [82614]

None. The Church's ethical investment working group, which makes recommendations on ethical investment policy, has made no such recommendation. The hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen inaccurate press reports, which the newspapers have since corrected.

I am most grateful for that answer, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Church has a policy of not investing in companies that manufacture arms. I hope that he can assure the House today that, although the Church fully supports the concept of the just war, it also supports the excellent British people who work for a first-class British company such as British Aerospace, which is in the front line of the defence not only of the freedoms of the people of this country, but of the war against aggressors overseas. Does he agree that there is every reason why the Church should invest in such an honourable company? Moreover, had it invested in British Aerospace earlier, it would have made much more money to fund the stipends, the bishops and the clergy.

I will not be tempted to go down the route of the stipends, the bishops and the clergy at this moment. I have visited British Aerospace factories and can testify to the sterling work done there and the contribution that British Aerospace makes to the nation. The Church accepts the right of nations to defend themselves and engage in peacekeeping activities. It therefore accepts the legitimacy of an indigenous defence industry supplying equipment under Government licence. The national Church investing bodies, however, have never held shares in British Aerospace.

What plans the Church Commissioners have to celebrate the millennium. [82615]

Among other things, hundreds of local congregations are making plans for activities and events under the three themes: "a new start with God", "a new start at home" and "a new start for the world's poor". Every parish in England will be encouraged to distribute millennium candles to their parishioners. There is a schools arts project called JC2000, which was originated by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). The Open Churches Trust is encouraging every church bell in the land to be rung on new year's day, followed by a time of prayer. That will be a joyful message and a joyful occasion.

I welcome all those initiatives. Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner say a little more about his involvement in trying to secure funding for a Christian section of the spirit zone of the millennium dome? Does he agree that Christianity should, at the very least, form the core and substantial part of that spirit zone?

I am pleased to announce to the House—where all good announcements should be made—that, under my guidance as Second Church Estates Commissioner and that of Sir Tim Sainsbury and others, a number of Christian sources have provided the majority of the funding for the zone. An official announcement will be made by the New Millennium Experience Company in the near future. Those who visit the zone will be impressed by its thoughtful but inspiring vision of Christianity, and it will dovetail with all the other millennium celebrations that the Church is planning.

It is right and proper that the millennium should be a Christian celebration, and that, as my hon. Friend said, the Church Commissioners are organising events. What co-operation has there been with people in the many communities who, as well as the Churches, are planning to celebrate the millennium? The Church Commissioners and the parishioners should liaise with local authorities and other community groups who are organising millennium celebrations. We should bring the Christian and local dimensions together in those celebrations.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that we are not an exclusive society. We have a strong Christian ethic—this is a Christian society—and we fully recognise the major faiths of other communities, as they recognise ours. There has been great co-operation between all faiths, certainly on the spirit zone of the millennium dome. That co-operation is being repeated up and down the land.

I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my delight that more than 12,000 schools in the United Kingdom have signed up to the millennium arts festival for schools, JC2000. Does he also share my slight concern that, so far, the parishes and other elements of the Church of England either have had little opportunity to assist us in this work or, if they have been given the opportunity, have not availed themselves of it?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his campaign for JC2000. It has at least 10,000 schools behind it, and that number is increasing by the day. Local education authorities up and down the land are being encouraged to participate. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that there is a massive organisation for the millennium celebrations, and assets and funds will have to be shared out carefully.

If he will make a statement on the ethical investment policies of the Church Commissioners. [82616]

The Commissioners try to invest in companies that will successfully develop their business in the interests of their beneficiaries, but that also have responsible employment practices and are conscientious about issues of corporate governance, environmental performance and human rights, and are sensitive to the communities in which they operate.

That is a clear statement of their ethics. Does it not follow that the Church will have to take some hard decisions on large companies, especially firms such as GEC? The Church will have to measure its desire for profit against the actions of companies that manufacture arms.

The Church Commissioners have £29 million invested in GEC, which has our strong support. However, when it hived off a division making equipment for offensive rather than defensive action, we made a clear statement that we would not take up the new shares in British Aerospace. The Church understands the varied views held by its membership on this difficult situation. As my hon. Friend says, it is clear that wholehearted support for every defence stock would be unacceptable to many Church members.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on recent developments in Kosovo. Before I do so, however, the House would expect me to say a few words about the tragic death of Derek Fatchett. Along with all the workers at the Foreign Office, I am shocked at his sudden loss. Our thoughts today are first for his wife and family. I spoke this morning to Anita, who told me how proud she had been of what Derek had done. She and her sons had every right to be proud of him. Over the past two years, he had proved himself to be an effective and creative Minister—from the early days, when he helped to broker a ceasefire to provide relief during the famine in Sudan, until last month, when he paid a brave visit to East Timor. His early death cruelly deprives the whole House of a Member who had so much more to give. It robs many of us of a friend whom we will always remember as cheerful, whatever the difficulties.

Did he enclose a cheque?

That was a very tasteless remark about what is a very grave and serious situation.

First, may I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's comments about the tragic and most untimely death of the Minister of State, the news of which will indeed have shocked the whole House. Whatever our political differences, he will be greatly missed, and our thoughts and sympathy are with his family.

"any failures cannot be laid at the feet of the military",

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for associating himself with my comments about Derek Fatchett. It may be of some help to his family to know that respect for Derek was felt on both sides of the House.

Holding on to his pension.

The hon. Gentleman says that General Naumann was hanging on to his brief. He resigned the next week because it was his retirement date. He was not speaking to hold on to office. The hon. Gentleman should know who he is speaking about, because I understand that he claims to be a defence spokesman. General Naumann retired at the agreed date with his consent and that of the allies. He could speak freely and he said that he would make no change to the military campaign, which was achieving its objectives.

Is it not clear that the intelligence community, particularly in the United States, will have to be far more accurate than it was over the bombing of the Chinese embassy? I hope that the allied Governments, including Britain, will make that clear. On the wider issue, while every effort should be made to find a diplomatic solution, and Russia is to be congratulated on its efforts, was there not a simple choice at the beginning of the allied military campaign? Either we accepted the ethnic cleansing, the crimes and the rapes that were taking place in Kosovo, or we took action. If we had not taken action and merely accepted the situation, it would have been a shame and humiliation for this country. As a Labour Back Bencher, I make no apology for supporting what has been done.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarity. There is a review of what went wrong and of the procedures. If improvements can be made to the procedures, they must be implemented to minimise any possibility of such a tragic error recurring.

May I begin by associating myself with the remarks made by the Secretary of State about his colleague Derek Fatchett. In opposition and in government, he had a sure touch on foreign affairs, and his family's loss is our loss.

I agree absolutely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the need to pursue the matter. All of the mounting evidence from those who have spoken to any of the refugees who have left Kosovo over the past seven weeks confirms the importance of continuing with our campaign. We cannot allow such evil to triumph. We will at every possible opportunity seek to minimise civilian casualties and to make sure that we minimise the opportunity of ordnance going to the wrong target.

Is not it the case—as my right hon. Friend has clearly said—that the way to end the war is for Milosevic to meet the conditions that my right hon. Friend has spelled out this afternoon? Was not the way in which the Opposition behaved this afternoon a clear case of their trying to undermine the Government's resolve, in exactly the same way that right-wing opposition in the United States Congress and Senate has tried to clip the wings of the President at a time when he personally—like the British Government—would prefer to commit ground troops? Would it not be the worst of all worlds if the refugees were to return to Kosovo without the situation being properly and finally resolved?

I associate myself with most of my hon. Friend's comments. May I clarify a point in relation to ground troops? We have always been committed to providing ground troops to underline a ceasefire and to make sure that any agreement would stick. That remains our position. The whole of the alliance in Washington—not just one member—agreed to task Javier Solana, the alliance's Secretary-General, with reviewing the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for our forces to enter and to escort the refugees back in security.

We on the Back Benches would like to associate ourselves with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said about Derek Fatchett, who was a greatly respected and admired colleague in the House.

My mind is certainly not closed to anything that would help us to reassure the Government of China that what happened was not a matter of any deliberate intent. I am aware, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that that is a view widely held within China, although we are not convinced that it is a view necessarily believed by the Government of China. Nevertheless, we will seek to do anything we can to get that point across and to rebuild bridges with China. NATO has already recorded its deep regret, and we would be happy to consider what further statement might be of assistance. However, let us be clear: this was a tragic error, and there was no deliberate intent on our part. It should not deflect us from our intent and objective, which is to secure the return of the refugees to Kosovo.

I will visit the exhibition that the Foreign Secretary has staged of drawings by Kosovar children. I would have liked hon. Members to be able to visit a similar exhibition by Iraqi schoolchildren, except that that exhibition was banned by none other than the Foreign Secretary some months ago.

I point out to my hon. Friend that none of us entered this conflict lightly; nor did we enter it without exploring every other possible way of resolving the crisis in Kosovo. We put two months into the Rambouillet-Paris peace talks. The talks were followed up by a special visit to Belgrade by Richard Holbrooke. The reason that we are currently engaged in a military campaign is that every other possible avenue was closed off by Milosevic.

With our war aims set out, I well understand that it is extremely difficult to talk much about how long the refugees will be in the camps. However, is it not realistic to believe that a substantial number of refugees will be there for a very long time? Will the Foreign Secretary reassure us that the Government are working hard to ensure that the refugees' shelter against the cold of the winter and the heat of the summer is what they actually need? Can he assure the House that the camps will not become recruiting grounds for the Kosovo Liberation Army, as the refugee camps in the Congo became recruiting grounds for the Interahamwe?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to ensure that those camps do not become armed camps, as the camps in the Congo were. However, it would be foolish for anyone to deny that there will be many young refugees who will be interested in working for the KLA. We have to face the fact—as must Milosevic—that his behaviour and his brutality are the best recruiting sergeant for the KLA. That army has grown in strength during the period in which he has claimed to be wiping it out.

Whatever the reasons—or lack of them—for the bombing of the Chinese embassy, is it not now clear that the Russian embassy to the Yugoslays to seek a solution will be made doubly difficult? Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to put urgent and immediate support behind the widening of that embassy and the involvement of the United Nations in the war, so that action can be taken that will make it clear that we seek an equitable and honest solution?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The last information I had before leaving is that the Germans expect that the visit to Beijing will go ahead; that in itself is encouraging. I hope that that visit and the many other contacts that we are making with Beijing will help to ensure that we can achieve a common way forward in the diplomatic process.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is keeping in mind the war powers resolution of both Houses of the United States Congress, which applies equally to ground, sea and air forces, and which requires that if, after 60 days, Congress has not declared war, authorised the use of armed forces or given a time extension, the President must withdraw the American forces from the war zone? As it appears highly unlikely that the current Congress will pass resolutions in that sense, what will happen when 60 days of NATO bombing is completed on 26 May?

It is a brave diplomat who tries to tread in the relations between Congress and the White House, but we have had repeated exchanges with President Clinton over the past few days, including the period since that resolution was passed, and we detect no slackening of resolve on the part of our major ally. I believe that many of the Congressmen and Senators on the hill, including those whom I met only two weeks ago when I attended the Washington summit, understand full well what is at stake and would not want America or NATO to abandon the Kosovo refugees.

I put it to the Foreign Secretary that, now that the going has got rough and tough in the former Yugoslavia, our democracy has to be clear on one fundamental point, which is that there is no comparison to be drawn, either militarily or ethically, between the accidental bombing by NATO, tragic though it was, and the callous, systematic and repugnant policies of the Serb regime, which involve organised rape and mass killings. Ministers do not need this advice, nevertheless, I urge them to keep their nerve and to listen to decent British public opinion, not to those on both sides of the House whose words—however well meaning or sincere—can only give comfort to the planners of mass murder in Belgrade.

My hon. Friend raises an important point, in that we have to weigh carefully what we say, for in an open society, our words are openly and freely reported and are then prone to being abused in Belgrade, where there is not the same open and free access to the media.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept my clear view that, although he is entitled to seek the widest possible support in the House for the Government's current position and the action that they have taken, there are genuine public concerns about certain developments in respect of those events and that, in our parliamentary democracy, the Opposition have a duty to raise such concerns? I appreciate the pressure he is under, but does he recognise that it does not help when he tries to disparage the Opposition when they discharge part of their duty?

I entirely agree that there are concerns and that those concerns need to be expressed. However, if the right hon. Gentleman reflects, he will accept that the NATO objectives are clear and that it does not help us to show resolve and determination behind those objectives if it is suggested that there is any lack of clarity in them. They do have clarity. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred to the lack of clarity of NATO objectives, I believe that that is a false charge which does not enable us to show the resolve and determination that are necessary for success.

I have just been elected to the new Scottish Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that one of the clearest messages that citizens in every part of Scotland sent in that election was their rejection of a party that had criticised the military action taken against the ethnic cleansers of Kosovo? Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Kosovan refugees who arrived in my East Lothian constituency last night will be made very welcome? Surely the most important duty of the House and of the Government must be to create the circumstances that will allow those people to return to their own country safely.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to the Scottish Parliament. I think that there are many reasons why the people of Scotland rejected independence as an option last week.

At the end of April, I and other members of the International Development Committee had the good fortune to be briefed by two British NATO generals in Albania and Macedonia. I think I speak for Committee members from both sides of the House when I say that we were very impressed by both the generals and the good humanitarian work carried out by NATO troops in those countries. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a growing body of opinion to the effect that, although there is no problem with the armed forces' prosecution of the war, there is a problem with the political direction and a lack of understanding on the part of our political leaders? Is he aware that informed opinion in this country lacks confidence in our political leaders—indeed, there is a growing conviction that the political leadership both in Washington and in this country has no idea what it is doing?

I cannot say that I regard that contribution as immensely helpful in demonstrating to Belgrade our unity, resolve and determination. It is very easy to make that kind of open criticism. If the hon. Gentleman is genuine and serious about trying to find a way forward, and if he has thought of some approach that has escaped the 19 members of the alliance and its military command, we would be grateful if he would express his views rather than simply criticising what is being done.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware—he must be—that no one in the House is an apologist for President Milosevic or the crimes that he has committed? Is he aware that those who know war know that it is bloody and indiscriminate? When NATO decided to make war, it knew that many innocent people would be killed—and that has happened. Is the Foreign Secretary also aware that the impression is being created that the Government have lost contact with reality? The American Senate—which, unlike the House of Commons, has some power over matters of peace and war—will not support ground troops. The air war will not succeed. Therefore, the best hope for the refugees is to take up the Russian proposal at the Security Council where there is an opportunity to find a solution. Bombing and insult, in equal proportions, are getting us nowhere. The invasion will not be allowed and the danger is that the Government are misleading the refugees into believing that this policy will enable them to return home.

With respect to my right hon. Friend, I said in my statement that we are now working with Russia in order to take forward a Security Council resolution. I hope that we may be able to produce a draft of that resolution before the end of the week. It is certainly our objective to work on it as fast as we can.

It is unfitting and unsuitable for the Foreign Secretary to question the Opposition's resolve and motives because they choose to question and draw attention to the monstrous and unforgivable incompetence of the bombing of the Chinese embassy. One would have hoped that if NATO truly thought that the Chinese embassy was the federal procurement executive, it might have taken action some time beforehand to remove the executive and troubled to find out exactly where the Chinese embassy was.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I could not have made clearer to the House my concern about what has happened to the Chinese embassy and the difficulties that the events have caused us all.

I welcome the agreement with Russia, not as an alternative to NATO's military action, but as a complement to it. In planning for the eventual international peacekeeping force under the direction of the UN, are special steps being taken to widen participation as much as possible, particularly to involve the Governments of Muslim countries? Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that the United Arab Emirates has made substantial aid available to Albania to provide a field hospital, an airport and several camps, and would be willing to participate in an international peacekeeping force?

I welcome my hon. Friend's question. It is true that several Muslim countries are anxious to help, and some are already doing so. We have always made it plain that although any international military force must have a NATO core to be credible, it need not be exclusively NATO. I would welcome Russia's involvement in such a force, and I hope that Muslim nations will also be involved, to ensure that we demonstrate a full international presence.

It was not the Royal Air Force that smashed up the Chinese embassy, and as the Foreign Secretary is speaking in the British House of Commons, why does not he say so? That action was taken by the USAF, whose general and habitual standard of inept targeting and gung-ho opportunism must have been responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of civilians. In the last war, the alliance had the habit of issuing communiqués at the end of almost every day, saying what had happened and which units within the alliance had been tasked to take the action. Why cannot we introduce that procedure, and then at least some degree of responsibility for these repetitious outrages would be easier to attribute?

I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that UK aircraft were not involved in the attack on the Chinese embassy. He is the first Member to ask that specific question, and I am happy to give that specific answer. However, I stress that we are operating as an alliance. It would not help us to continue to prosecute the war together as an alliance if we were to get involved in individual recrimination, and I have no intention of doing so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that had Labour Front Benchers during the Falklands or Gulf wars made the sort of criticisms that we have heard from Conservative Front Benchers today, there would have been howls of outrage from the then Conservative Government? Does he also agree that when the wrong target has been bombed, as happened with the Chinese embassy, the whole House is concerned, but that to try to pretend that such mistakes will not be made in a military conflict is naive in the extreme and undermines the original intention of the action?

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. If there is to be a military campaign of the intensity necessary to make its mark on President Milosevic, it will unavoidably, on occasions, contain errors. That is why it is so important that we rightly express our concern about such errors, seek to learn lessons from them and try to prevent them from recurring. However, that should not divert us from our central resolve to see the campaign through.

The Foreign Secretary has told the House that a review will take place to consider the procedures that allowed the bombing of the Chinese embassy to take place. I invite him to give the House more details of that review, especially how long it will take and when any new procedures will be implemented. With the bombing proceeding every day, it is a matter of urgency to learn what lessons we can and to put new procedures in place.

I am sure that if changes are to be made, they will be introduced as a matter of urgency for precisely the reason the hon. Gentleman gives. It would not be appropriate for me to give a specific time scale to the review, but it will proceed as urgently as possible.

May I join my right hon. Friend in expressing my condolences on the death of our dear friend, Derek Fatchett, whom we will all miss?

It is perhaps worth recalling that we have achieved major improvements in our relations with China in the past year. The visit of Zhu Rongji to London was a great success. We are sure that China will not wish to throw away those gains, but will want to build on them. Nevertheless, nobody should understate the magnitude of what happened on Friday or the importance of working hard to ensure that we can put it behind us.

May I remind the Foreign Secretary that in the course of my earlier questions, I several times condemned the atrocities of the Milosevic regime and ended my questions by saying that the responsibility for the humanitarian disaster in Kosovo rested firmly and unambiguously on Milosevic. Will the Foreign Secretary now withdraw the remarks in which he falsely alleged that I had failed to condemn those atrocities?

If I have misrepresented the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I withdraw those remarks.

Apologise!

Well, if I have misrepresented the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I withdraw those remarks and I apologise, because that would be right in those circumstances. However, I invite him, the next time he discusses this matter in the House, to reflect on the balance of what he says. If he examines the balance of what he said on this occasion, he will find that for every criticism of Belgrade, there were five criticisms of NATO and the alliance for what has happened. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) who made the point earlier that during the Gulf war, the Government received great support from the Opposition. I hope that we can look forward to similar support from the Opposition on future occasions.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Doubtless the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill raises matters of importance, but those can hardly be as important or as urgent as the matters we have been discussing. Therefore, I ask whether you would be prepared to hear an application for a debate under Standing Order No. 24 so that the matters can be further discussed later tonight.

No, I am not prepared even to contemplate a Standing Order No. 24 application at this stage. I think that the Foreign Secretary has given us a proper explanation of developments over the weekend, and we have had good questioning. I have followed very closely those Members who have put questions on this. I am very keen that all Members are called at some time or another to put a question to the Foreign Secretary. I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been called today, but he is never usually deprived on such occasions, and I will look favourably at him on another occasion.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not a complaint that I was not called, because actually I have been treated extremely well in questions. The argument is rather different.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his point to the Leader of the House and perhaps it could be arranged, between the two Front Benches, that a date might be set aside for such a debate, but I am not prepared to accept an application under Standing Order No. 24.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In light of weekend statements by Mr. Romano Prodi supporting the creation of a single European army and a single Government for Europe—policies to which the Prime Minister claims to be opposed—I wonder whether you have had any indication from the Prime Minister that he would like to come to the House in order personally to withdraw his support from Mr. Prodi as President of the European Commission.

That is not a point of order for me; it is a matter of argument.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard the reply that you gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), declining to take his Standing Order No. 24 application; I can understand that. However, I am sure that you must understand that an awful lot of people feel very concerned and wish their Parliament—this elected Parliament—to have a debate and an opportunity to take a decision on British participation with the NATO forces in Kosovo.

These are questions which are usually raised on Thursdays at business questions with the Leader of the House, who always gives a very substantive reply. I do not arrange the business of the House. I am quite prepared from time to time to consider a Standing Order No. 24 application. At the present time, I am not in a position to hear such an application.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that the International Development Committee will be issuing a report on the Kosovo refugees on Thursday, and that that might be the right occasion on which to hold a full debate on these issues?

That is a point of information, not a point of order.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I may say so, you have been very generous to those who have taken a different view from Ministers on this issue, and I have no complaint. I have never believed that the Speaker determines the business of the House.

rose—

Order. We cannot continue in this way. These are not points of order, but points of opinion, about which I am perfectly understanding, but to which, in many instances, I cannot respond.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to follow on from what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said. However, there is a great deal of anxiety in the House about the fact that we have never been asked to authorise or approve what is going on. We have had an opportunity to discuss it and we have had an opportunity to ask questions, but we have not been given the opportunity to give our authority. That is a lacuna in the processes of the House and it would be enormously appreciated, Madam Speaker, if you could give urgent consideration to how the Speaker can ensure that the House has a substantive motion to address.

For the past three or four Thursdays when I have been in the Chair, numerous Members on both sides of the House have put this matter to the Leader of the House, asking for a debate on a substantive motion, which if necessary can be amended, and a vote. The response of the Leader of the House is there for all to see. Right hon. and hon. Members must continue pressing the occupants of the two Front Benches if they are seeking a debate on this matter.