With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a brief business statement. The House is already aware that after the Opposition day business tomorrow, we shall take Northern Ireland business. That business will now be a motion on the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, followed by the motion on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000.

Can the right hon. Lady tell the House when the flags order will be tabled? I understand that it is not yet available in the Vote Office. On the substantive point, the Opposition are, of course, prepared to sit, possibly beyond midnight, to deal with important parliamentary business. I am sure that that approach to parliamentary affairs is shared by Government Members.

My understanding is that if the order is not now available in the Vote Office, it will be shortly. I expected it to be tabled about now. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's co-operation.

Can my right hon. Friend inform us whether, in the interests of parity between the two communities, the Secretary of State will have power under the flags order to order the flying of the tricolour over Government buildings?

That is very much a matter for the debate.

Does the right hon. Lady understand how disappointed I am that, as the business statement precedes a statement on Sierra Leone, she did not tell us that we would have a debate on Sierra Leone? The situation in Sierra Leone is so complicated and difficult—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand that this is a short business statement, which was clear and tightly defined. The Leader of the House can be questioned only on the comments that she has made. If he is prepared to keep to that, I shall call him again, but no other business can be discussed with the Leader of the House.

rose—

Shall I give him a second chance?

Does the Leader of the House understand how disappointed I was that her business statement was about one particular point of business, and not about other issues of more pressing and immediate concern?

The right hon. Lady fully understands that.

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she really means that the information will be available within the next couple of hours? It has been quite difficult to follow the matter from a distance, although I understand the reasons for that. It would help facilitate an effective debate if we could hold consultations today after seeing the order.

I certainly anticipate that that will be the case. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to make information and briefing available as fast as possible.

Given that most people in the United Kingdom would consider it a matter of course that the national flag should fly over public and Government buildings, why was that ever denied to the British citizens of Northern Ireland? Furthermore, why have the Government decided to give IRA and other terrorists a further year—over and above the two years that they have had already—before they hand over their illegal weapons?

None of that is a matter for me.

Quite right.

With permission, I would like to make a statement about Sierra Leone.

In his statement last week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the House about the serious security situation in Sierra Leone and the implications for British citizens and others for whom we have consular responsibility. He said that the British Government had taken the precautionary measure of deploying military assets to the region. British forces were deployed to allow for the safe evacuation of British nationals and other entitled personnel. Essential to that has been the task of securing Lungi airport, which, as the Foreign Secretary said, will be extremely valuable in allowing United Nations forces to build up to their mandated strength over the next month. We have seen evidence of that in the recent arrival of two additional Jordanian companies, numbering some 300 personnel. That remains the clear and unambiguous position on the deployment of British forces. It was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister on 11 May, and it remains our position today.

I am confident that the House would agree that the deployment of UK forces to Sierra Leone has been an outstanding success. Faced with a rapidly deteriorating security situation, UK forces have evacuated almost 450 people. The airport was secured quickly and effectively. Although we have consistently made it clear that UK forces will not be deployed in a combat role as part of UNAMSIL, the presence of UK troops on the ground has helped stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone and we are providing technical advice to the UN as to how matters might be further improved.

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the armed forces on the work that they have done so far. It is a remarkable demonstration of their flexibility and speed of deployment, identified as key requirements in the strategic defence review. Both President Kabbah and Kofi Annan have welcomed the contribution that British forces are making.

The situation in Sierra Leone remains volatile and we must all be concerned about that—especially for the detainees. We have received reports that a number of UN personnel have been released, and I understand that the British officer, Major Andrew Harrison, is fit and well and is under the protection of the Indian battalion in the east of Sierra Leone. Although that is welcome news, we continue to work for the safe release of all those currently being detained by the Revolutionary United Front.

Freetown remains calm, but tense. Outside Freetown, clashes between Government troops and the rebels continue. For the moment, the rebels appear to be on the back foot. The Government of Sierra Leone and the UN forces have retaken the initiative. The arrival of Jordanian reinforcements at the weekend has been a significant boost to the UN mission. Reports to me this morning from the Chief of the Defence Staff have been encouraging.

The forces we have deployed are those we consider necessary to carry out their primary task effectively. The 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment is currently shouldering the main burden in Lungi. However, the maritime forces we have deployed—including our amphibious capability—provide vital flexibility for the joint force commander in what remains a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. If attacked, our forces have the rules of engagement and firepower to allow them to respond robustly.

In that context, while our forces remain, we shall do what we can to assist the UN mission. Its success is essential to ensuring long-term peace and stability in Sierra Leone. UN forces had been doing a difficult job in uncertain and dangerous circumstances—disarming large numbers of ex-combatants despite not being up to full strength in numbers of personnel and in equipment. Our presence has helped to ensure confidence, and has contributed to the stabilisation of the situation.

As a result of the presence of our forces, we have been able to give significant assistance. British officers are providing advice to UNAMSIL; they are giving technical military advice to the Government of Sierra Leone and, indeed, to the UN in New York. We have assisted the UN with the transport of vehicles into theatre by air. We have airlifted 230 Jordanians by helicopter from the airport at Lungi to Hastings, where the Jordanian battalion is strengthening its position.

I recognise that there have been questions about the length of our commitment. The UN plans to build up its forces to their authorised level of about 11,000 over the next month. We are in contact with those countries that are contributing troops to the UN force—in particular, with India, Jordan, Bangladesh and Nigeria—and are urging them to bring in troops as soon as possible to reinforce UNAMSIL. We expect that once the UN mission has been reinforced by those troops, our role at the airport will no longer be required. I assure the House that UK forces will stay no longer than is necessary.

However, even when our forces withdraw, we will not end our political or diplomatic support for the UN and for Sierra Leone. When it is safe to do so, we will continue with our programme of assistance to help train and build effective, democratically accountable Sierra Leonean armed forces that we announced in April. We will also continue to contribute military observers to the UN mission, and if required, technical advice to UNAMSIL.

I have made it clear that we are committed to the safe evacuation and protection of our nationals and to supporting the UN in its mission to restore stability in Sierra Leone. The deployment of British forces for a limited period on those tasks is a model of the rapid deployment concept that was at the heart of the strategic defence review. It has been much admired and acknowledged by all concerned. Our armed forces are doing an excellent job, which is acknowledged all around the world. However, there is no question of the UK taking over the UN mission or of being drawn into the civil war.

Let me reiterate our support for the Government in this respect: our thoughts are definitely with the service men and their families at this incredibly difficult time. Conservative Members offer them our full and unstinting support in whatever lies ahead for all of them. The whole House will be suitably proud of how they have operated, and of how we anticipate that they will operate, however long they are in theatre.

We in the House have a duty to give our forces clear objectives as well as support. In that, the Government have, so far, been found wanting. The undertakings given to my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary last week were different from the position in which we now find ourselves, which goes beyond the withdrawal of British nationals. The Government cannot allow that to continue and, to that extent, the statement is long overdue. We believe that it should have been made last week.

As I have pointed out, it now appears that, whatever reservations we have, British troops are in de facto full support of the UN forces and President Kabbah. Regardless of what others have said about us not being part of the UN mission, the reality is that we are in complete support of it and President Kabbah. Reports over the weekend show that British troops are patrolling Freetown and manning road blocks. We hear that special forces are operating in the countryside and that British officers are, to all intents and purposes, running the day-to-day operation of UN forces.

What role does the Secretary of State envisage for the Royal Marines, who are currently on board HMS Ocean? What can they be expected to do given the fact that, if they sit on board ship for four weeks, some of their capacity may deteriorate? Their deployment would widen the operation.

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether British air assets, which are currently on board HMS Invincible and HMS Ocean, will take part in any operations? Are Harrier aircraft, for example, likely to be used for reconnaissance or even close air support roles for the UN?

Regardless of our concerns, the objective now must be to make sure that British troops can operate untrammelled by any political indecision. Major-General Ken Perkins, who wrote to The Times today, said that the political masters must "not impose ridiculous constraints" on the forces.

The Government cannot artificially separate British combat troops from other British activities in theatre. Clearer rules of engagement are needed to allow British forces the flexibility to operate as the circumstances require, and to ensure that they are not locked into an artificial self-defence mandate that risks repeating the mistakes that were made in Bosnia, Srebrenica and even in Sierra Leone itself with the UN. The Secretary of State was not clear on that, so I urge him to clarify the position of our troops, which was too vague in the statement. Will he state what the rules are and how wide they can be stretched?

On the commitment to withdraw our troops within four weeks, last Wednesday, the Prime Minister spoke about deploying them for up to seven days. On Thursday, however, the Foreign Secretary moved that figure to four weeks. That slippage must be explained. Furthermore, it leaves us feeling rather cynical about the Government's capacity for decisiveness in the matter. When the Government said that they will withdraw our forces within four weeks, presumably they had in mind circumstances in which they could be withdrawn. In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the build-up of UN troops. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to listen to questions, and seem to think that they have a God-given right to do what they like with our forces. However, that is not the case.

I have a simple question for the Secretary of State. Will he tell us whether the build-up of UN troops to 11,500 is the factor limiting the time for which we will be out there? Will our troops stay out there to complete that build-up, or do the Government expect to withdraw them if those conditions are not met? The Secretary of State must surely realise that the real worry will be how we appear to be making the UN dependent on British forces in Sierra Leone, with all the risks that that entails.

If nations due to transfer soldiers to the UN are led to believe that the UK will stay longer than four weeks, as seemed to be the case from the statement, is there not a danger that they will feel under less pressure to meet their obligations early on? What categorical statements has the Secretary of State had from nations due, as he said, to produce troops for the operation?

On overstretch, the commitment puts our rapid reaction force into Sierra Leone. What reserve does the Secretary of State have and, should difficulties erupt in places such as Kosovo, Iraq or even Zimbabwe, is he content that it is sufficient not to stretch us beyond our capability to follow those up?

The Foreign Secretary has been less than frank throughout the whole deployment. As a result, he has put our service men in difficulties, with varying statements from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence creating problems. There are serious questions about the Government's role, which remain to be tackled at a later date. Today, however, the Government must stop all the sliding and messing around and give our troops a clear sense of what they must do, making plain that they may operate flexibly within the terms given to them in a way that will allow them to meet their objectives without any more shilly-shallying.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for supporting our troops' position, but—I too have a "but"—it is regrettable that he has chosen to try to make party political points this afternoon and, indeed, in several newspapers this morning. My statement today was wholly consistent with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. It is a matter of considerable regret that the hon. Gentleman has talked about our service men and women being in difficulties, as there is simply no evidence of that. He has asserted that to make a rather poor political point which, on reflection, he may well regret.

The hon. Gentleman invited us to set out clearly our objectives. That has been done by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I have repeated those precise objectives, so there really is no difference between them. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues examine what was said last week and study the text carefully, they will discover that what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said is precisely the same as what I have said today. There has been no change in the objectives.

On the specific concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman, he ought to know better than to ask about the deployment of special forces. He has supported the Government in the past. He knows full well that it is well established practice that Governments never comment on the deployment of special forces.

We have made it quite clear that the Royal Marines on HMS Ocean are there as a precautionary measure. They are to give forces on the ground greater flexibility, should they be required. Again, that is a wholly sensible deployment on advice of the chiefs of staff.

There is no need to go into greater detail on the rules of engagement. Our forces have been given robust rules of engagement that will allow them to defend themselves and ensure that they can do the job on the ground effectively. That is what the House would expect. I assure the House that those are the rules of engagement that were given—again, in complete agreement with the chiefs of staff and subject to the advice and consent of the commander on the ground.

We have made it clear that the build-up and reinforcement of UN troops will take place over the next month. We have discussed that carefully. The Jordanians already have forces in theatre. We expect further Jordanian forces to arrive very soon. Indian forces are under way and we anticipate contributions from both Bangladesh and Nigeria. That is a substantial programme of reinforcement of both people and equipment. We are confident that that will add significantly to the ability of the UN force to deal with a difficult situation on the ground.

Overstretch has become one of the hon. Gentleman's themes. We have tackled the problems of overstretch faced by the Army during the Kosovo campaign, reducing the Army's commitments from 47 per cent. at the height of the Kosovo campaign to 27 per cent. He knows that that has been done. He should also know that the spearhead battalion is specifically to deal with such emergencies; that is what it is there for. Indeed, we have already allocated a further force to act as the spearhead battalion in the event of that being necessary. He really should know that that has no impact whatever on the alleged overstretch of our armed forces.

I am extremely disappointed that, right across the weekend and continuing today, the hon. Gentleman has sought party political advantage from the situation. It has been a tradition that the Opposition support British forces in the field, and that means supporting those who take the decisions as well.

May I add my congratulations to the forces that have been deployed in and around Sierra Leone, and of course the support of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends for those who are in the field? However, is it not clear that a week is a long time in Sierra Leone and that United Kingdom forces are now doing much more than was predicted last Monday, to an extent that an early withdrawal would be deeply destabilising?

Is it not also true that the role of the United Nations is no longer that of keeping the peace? Should we not recognise that the presence of UK troops, whether by accident or design, has become essential to the success and credibility of the United Nations effort in Sierra Leone? In those circumstances, subject to there being no prejudice to our commitments and to obtaining from the UN Security Council a much more robust and effective mandate, should not Her Majesty's Government offer UK troops as part of the UN force in Sierra Leone?

I repeat that the UK forces are doing precisely what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that they would in his statement this time last week. He said that they were present to ensure the evacuation of British nationals by securing the airport, in the process allowing for the reinforcement of the UN contingent in Sierra Leone. That is precisely what they have been engaged in and precisely what has been happening over the past week.

On the contribution that the forces have made to the UN in Sierra Leone, as I said in my statement, the situation on the ground has clearly enormously improved as a result of the presence of British forces, which has, for example, freed other UN forces for other tasks elsewhere in Sierra Leone by undertaking the responsibility of securing the airport. That has been an advantage. Certainly British forces have boosted the morale of the Government forces in Sierra Leone, which have had a good deal more confidence in going about their task in the past week than previously. The presence of our forces has contributed to that. However, we do not anticipate that British forces will become part of the UN force in Sierra Leone.

Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicion that some of those who are asking for clearer objectives are really saying, "Mission accomplished, let us fold our tents. Evacuation is complete, let us depart." If we had done that, the inhabitants of Freetown would have been left to an awful fate, and the UN would have been discredited. As Kofi Annan showed in his warm thanks to the Government and to our forces, had we not been there, the UN would have found it extremely difficult in future to launch such an operation.

What longer-term lessons does my right hon. Friend draw for the relationship of the United Kingdom and our armed forces with the UN in terms of training, communications and in ensuring that the UN is properly strengthened to carry out tasks in Africa and elsewhere?

My hon. Friend has asked me questions of a long-term nature that would probably be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, the operation demonstrates the importance of ensuring that the UN has sufficient effective force and equipment in a theatre to enable it to do the job that was contemplated. One of the difficulties that the UN has undoubtedly faced in Sierra Leone is not having the authorised numbers—the numbers planned by the UN—available at the start of the operation. The actions of British forces have been designed to ensure that those numbers can be reached. Securing the airport will allow reinforcements to arrive relatively quickly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is entitled to the support of the House, as are our forces in Sierra Leone and offshore, at this difficult time? However, may I suggest that it does not help if he claims that the operation is a tremendous success for the strategic defence review? He is drawing on the particular capabilities and qualities of especially the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Marines and associated arms, which have been built up over decades by successive Governments.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly and unsurprisingly gives evidence to the House that the contribution of British forces has helped to support the morale and confidence of President Kabbah's forces. However, one of the real difficulties resulting from any early withdrawal from Sierra Leone is that it will have exactly the opposite effect. I do not expect a detailed reply because it is clear that General Guthrie's report will be critical in this respect, but I hope that when considering what General Guthrie says about the actual military situation, the right hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Secretary will consider further what can be done to sterilise as far as possible any support going to the RUF from adjoining or other territories.

If I gave the right hon. Gentleman the impression that I was claiming for the SDR the virtues of this rapid deployment, I apologise to him and to the House. However, the reality is that the SDR set out to build on the capabilities previously established. The deployment demonstrates—we have had discussion about the potential availability of both maritime and air assets—the importance of being able to deploy rapidly ground troops and supporting forces of a joint nature. The significant point about the SDR is that the conflicts that we face in future will most likely require rapid deployment.

I spoke to General Guthrie this morning, and I understand that he has had the opportunity of travelling round part of Freetown and seeing the British forces that are deployed there. I accept that his advice will be critical as to how the military campaign is continued. I anticipate that he will speak to representatives of countries that will be likely to deploy further force into Sierra Leone. When he returns to the UK, which will be shortly, we shall take further decisions in the light of what he has to report.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the outpouring of support from the Sierra Leonean community in this country and the pictures and reports from that country, showing how delighted people are at the role that Britain is playing to restore and defend democratic government in Sierra Leone? Would it not be appalling if any politician in Britain, by omission or commission, gave the impression that we were interested only in saving the lives of white Europeans, and that we could not care less about black Africans?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In addition to the Sierra Leonean community in the United Kingdom, President Kabbah spoke personally to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to thank him for the contribution that Britain has been able to make. In the plans for evacuation, I want to make it clear that we had a responsibility not only to British nationals, but to all the countries, particularly Commonwealth countries, that did not have diplomatic representation in Sierra Leone, for which we undertook consular responsibilities. It was never our intention, even as part of the evacuation process, simply to evacuate UK citizens.

What were the characteristics of Mr. Sankoh, the leader of the RUF, that commended him to the Government last year, and how has he changed since?

The United Kingdom did not make a judgment last year about the character of Mr. Sankoh, and would not do so now. He is responsible for breaching the agreement that he entered into last July. It was not a perfect agreement, but it offered the prospect of peace and stability in Sierra Leone. It was not a perfect solution; it was the best on offer. For the purpose of trying to preserve peace and security in Sierra Leone, at least it offered some respite from the appalling civil war.

It is Sankoh who has gone back on that agreement. He and his forces are responsible for the appalling bloodshed that has occurred since, and that is why the international community, through the United Nations, must take the action that it is taking now. We made no judgment about his character last July. It was simply the best offer that was available.

My right hon. Friend will have read reports in the media that the Sierra Leonean Army and the Revolutionary United Front have been involved in some appalling atrocities, against each other and against the civilian population. Can he assure us that when the training programme finally begins after the immediate conflict is over, the SLA will be fully trained in the need to treat troops and civilians decently?

My hon. Friend touches on a picture in Sierra Leone that is quite different from the one that we are used to when we think about disciplined armed forces. In Sierra Leone, bands of people are loosely attached to particular leaders and can switch from one side of a conflict to another at a moment's notice. It is an extremely uncertain, unstable, volatile situation. That is why it is important that we announce the need for effective training. Part of that training will undoubtedly be to provide the necessary discipline and commitment to the decisions of a democratically elected Government. Those are the kind of contributions that I believe that British trainers can make to the armed forces in Sierra Leone.

In his statement the Secretary of State made much of the role of the strategic defence review, and in an earlier answer said that the operation had had no significant impact on overstretch. Given that the SDR envisaged three parachute battalions, two of them in role, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many soldiers are left in the other two parachute battalions, and how long it would be before one of them could be used in a similar operation? How long would it take to stand them up?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the designation of the spearhead battalion is not necessarily and solely a designation given to a parachute battalion. The designation rotates around the armed forces that are in a position to complete the job. That is why, in answer to the question about the impact of overstretch, I made it clear that in the short term there is no impact on overstretch. The short-notice availability of the spearhead battalion is designed to deal precisely with such an emergency situation. That is the purpose of the battalion. The question of how many other members of a parachute battalion are available does not arise in the context in which the hon. Gentleman puts it.

Does my right hon. Friend share my anxiety that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Conservative spokesperson, appears to express dissent from the idea that United Kingdom forces should be acting in full support—I use the hon. Gentleman's precise words—of the United Nations? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not in Britain's interests that the United Nations mission should fail? That would be good neither for the future for Sierra Leone and the region nor for the ability of the United Nations to act elsewhere in the world on our behalf and that of other United Nations member states.

I invited the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who speaks for the Opposition on such matters, to reflect more carefully on his words. I am confident that when he reads what he said about the United Nations, he will have some further thoughts. Clearly, all hon. Members support the United Nations and its efforts to preserve stability around the world. It had and continues to have our support for the difficult decisions that it made and tried to enforce in Sierra Leone.

The Secretary of State rightly referred to our armed forces' professionalism, which all hon. Members will endorse. He specifically mentioned the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment. Will he join me in praising the 230 members of the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment from the Colchester garrison who are in Sierra Leone, along with 130 men and women from support units? How much longer will our forces have to act as the policemen of the world? Overstretch and back-to-back tours need to be tackled. I invite the Secretary of State to say that we will call upon other countries to put in their forces.

I commend all British forces that are involved in the operation and, indeed, all British forces wherever they are deployed. They are rightly regarded as the best of their kind in the world and they are in constant demand. I acknowledge that; my job often involves saying that there is a limit to what we can do. We were consequently able to reduce the overstretch that resulted last year from the Kosovo operation. Those decisions have already been made. As I said in my statement, we are encouraging other countries to reinforce their existing contingents in Sierra Leone. We are wholly confident that they will do that.

It should be a matter of satisfaction that British service personnel are upholding the authority of the United Nations and international law. The Opposition may criticise, but the majority of Labour Members are proud of what is being done. Why should we allow a bunch of outright murderous criminals and torturers to take over Sierra Leone? There is no reason for that to happen, and I hope that it can be avoided at all costs.

I know full well from the reports that I have regularly received from those forces deployed to Sierra Leone that they are determined to do an excellent job both on behalf of the British Government and in terms of what they perceive to be the right action for their service careers. I am confident that one of the reasons for the current success of recruitment to the armed forces is the excellent job that our armed forces do as a force for good around the world.

On my hon. Friend's second question, we support the efforts of the United Nations to uphold the charter and the principles that guide this country as well the international community.

Since the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment is based in Aldershot, the Secretary of State will not be surprised if I express my admiration for the professionalism with which the spearhead battalion has undertaken its obligations. It is led by Colonel Paul Gibson, who distinguished himself in Kosovo. However, families obviously want to know when the episode is likely to conclude. Does the Secretary of State have genuine confidence in the United Nations' ability to deliver an effective force to Sierra Leone by the middle of next month? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) asked, what happens when British troops leave? Will the situation go pear-shaped again? In that case, we shall see television pictures that will horrify the British people. That will lead to demands to keep British troops in place, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would like.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the supporting forces based in his constituency. I am also grateful to him for raising the issue of families, because we all tend to emphasise the contribution that the forces make, but perhaps sometimes overlook the fact that they have families at home who, understandably and rightly, worry about the circumstances in which their husbands, generally speaking, are deployed. He is right to mention that and, certainly, much effort has gone into ensuring that the families are properly briefed on the circumstances in Sierra Leone.

On the withdrawal, we anticipate that reinforcement of the UN contingent in Sierra Leone to its authorised level will continue to produce the stability that we have seen very recently. I said, "for the moment" during my statement, because I recognise that the situation in Sierra Leone has been especially volatile, but we anticipate that the level of reinforcement—of both people and equipment—available to the UN will make a significant difference on the ground.

May I express a certain unease in the genuine hope that my right hon. Friend will satisfy it? What is the analysis of where the rebels come from and where they get their support? Is not it true that Freetown and the rest of Sierra Leone are two different communities—Freetown very much being made up of the descendants of those who were involved in slavery? There is a rather different community up-country. Are we certain that the rebels—undoubtedly very cruel people—have not got a good deal of support up-country? On the question asked by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), what will happen when we exit? The two communities are very different, so how can we be certain that trouble will not continue?

My hon. Friend raises important questions about the nature of the rebel force. During the past few weeks, I have certainly tried to understand what motivates the rebels, whether ethnic divisions exist and whether there are intellectually definable reasons why the rebels are active at present. The reality is that they appear to be motivated by no more than greed and a lust for power. They do not control large parts of the country; they are extraordinarily unpopular in most areas. They control parts of Sierra Leone, but by no means all of it. It would be a false picture—if my hon. Friend sees it like this—to suggest that the area around Freetown is somehow controlled by the Government and the remainder is controlled by the rebels. The rebels control only parts of Sierra Leone and they have achieved that by ruthlessly intimidating the population, which is why they are so thoroughly detested.

In the light of the Secretary of State's previous answer and his earlier response to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), and in the context of the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy, will he explain the basis of their distinction between Mr. Sankoh, whom they imposed on President Kabbah as Vice-President and Minister of Mineral Resources, and Senator Pinochet, whom they proposed to extradite to Spain?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very dramatic, but completely erroneous comparison. The reality is that we did not broker last year's agreement, which was the best arrangement that the international community thought acceptable for Sierra Leone. Mr. Sankoh was not imposed on Sierra Leone; an agreement was entered into, but Sankoh has breached that agreement and plunged the country again into a destabilising and savage civil war. It is vital that we are able to secure a situation in which that agreement is upheld.

I fervently hope that the deployment of troops and, ultimately, the UN mission will be successful. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to be sure that we can stem the tide of conflict zones not just in Sierra Leone but in many parts of Africa, we must address the politics of the diamond trade, which is fuelling conflict and scarring the heart of Africa?

My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made that point in his statement last week. I referred a moment ago to what appears to motivate the rebels, and undoubtedly greed and the diamond trade is uppermost in their minds.

How many British subjects are still in Sierra Leone who wish to be evacuated?

None who wish to be evacuated are in Sierra Leone at the present time. We cannot be entirely sure how many remain. An estimate would be in the order of 400. Some will have made their own way out of Sierra Leone, so there may be less than that. As on previous occasions, not only in Sierra Leone but in other crises, our experience is that many people prefer to remain where they perhaps have a home and a business, and tough it out. Although we have strongly advised that British citizens should leave, I realise that a number of them will remain throughout the crisis.

Although British troops went in with a clear mission to extract Commonwealth and European nationals, their objective seems now to have changed to that of a support mechanism for the United Nations. Why cannot British troops be placed under UN command, so that it is clear that they are part of the UN? Is there not a danger that, if they remain separate from the UN, they may be asked by President Kabbah's Government to undertake economic objectives, such as securing the diamond-producing areas for his Government? We need serious clarity on what the British troops are there for in the longer term.

There is clarity, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend believes that, somehow or other, the mission has changed. The mission has not changed. It was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last week that the purpose of deploying British troops to Sierra Leone was to secure the evacuation of Commonwealth and European nationals, and at the same time to secure the airport for the reinforcement of the UN contingent. That remains the position, so nothing has changed. Those British troops have a particular and limited objective, which is precisely why they will not come under the control or command of the United Nations.

Is the Secretary of State paying attention to the lessons of other and earlier peacekeeping operations, which are that we either get all the way in or stay all the way out, that there is no third way, and that half measures risk lives unnecessarily? There is a case for a full commitment, but that could involve two fully equipped armoured brigades, which we do not have, or do not have available, after successive defence cuts. Bearing that in mind, is he happy with the situation in which we have a battalion plus of our finest soldiers in an African civil war without a single armoured vehicle?

Although it is important that we learn lessons from earlier conflicts, it is equally important to recognise that no two conflicts are ever the same. It is important that we make judgments in the light of the particular conflict with which we are having to deal. For the moment, I do not anticipate the circumstances in Sierra Leone in which a substantial armoured brigade would be of any great assistance in the limited role that we have set for British forces, which is to protect and secure the airport, and to allow for the evacuation of British and other nationals. That is a precise role, and I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view that it is impossible to find a middle way to deal with these issues, provided that we indicate clearly and precisely what we expect of British forces. We have done that, and I am confident that they can complete that mission successfully.

Given the uncertainty that my right hon. Friend has again spoken about this afternoon, may I discourage him from following the Leader of the Opposition and tying himself and our forces, who are doing such a marvellous job, to a specific time scale for withdrawal, but rather to remain committed to the specific tasks? Furthermore, in light of the rapid deployment of our personnel, will my right hon. Friend put more effort into the continuing discussions to establish a Europewide rapid reaction force, so that we can operate in concert with our European neighbours in such crises and civil wars?

I will heed my hon. Friend's warning, and ensure that I do not follow the strictures of the Leader of the Opposition.

I think this deployment demonstrates the importance of a concept for which Opposition Members have expressed some support—that of rapid deployment: sending forces quickly to a particular crisis or theatre. The importance of that was recognised at European level in the setting of the Helsinki headline goal. Obviously, the more all the European nations can fulfil that role, the more even will be the distribution of the burden—specifically that between Europe and the United States—and the greater will be the contribution that European nations can make.

The Secretary of State did his best to excuse the Foreign Secretary's misjudgment in the Lomé negotiations, but no Member should doubt that it was the Foreign Secretary who insisted that the unspeakable Mr. Sankoh be released from detention, that his death sentence be lifted and, furthermore, that he become a Minister in President Kabbah's Government.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, although nearly all of us—indeed, probably all of us—wholly support the use of British troops to evacuate British citizens and people for whom we are responsible, and although I would support the giving of financial, technical and logistic assistance to President Kabbah, I do not believe that British troops have any business fighting in a civil war in Africa? They are coming very close to that, and the Secretary of State for Defence will find it a lot more difficult to get them out than the Foreign Secretary found it to get them in.

I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point first. This was the final point that I made in my statement. We are not involved in a civil war; we are not taking sides in a civil war. Moreover, the Lomé accord was the result not of a British negotiation, but of a negotiation entered into by the parties. Those parties accepted that it was better, albeit difficult, to involve Sankoh in the process of government as the price that they must pay for peace and stability, rather than the continuation of an appalling civil war. It was a very difficult decision, and no doubt, with the benefit of hindsight, we might say that it possibly was not the most sensible decision; but at the time it was the best offer that was available.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pass my congratulations to the forces on their astonishing skill at arms in so quickly making a profound difference to the military situation in Sierra Leone?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also answer two questions? First, does he intend to retain logistic support for the United Nations from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships after the main forces have departed? Secondly, will military advisers left by the Government and the United Nations be United Nations badge troops?

We have already given the United Nations some logistic support, and a number of requests have been made to us. We assisted, for instance, in flying the Jordanian reinforcements from Lungi to Hastings, another airport where the main body of the Jordanian battalion is located. We have engaged in logistic operations of that kind, and will continue to do so. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific answer, because it will depend on all the circumstances as events unfold, and it would not be right for me to give such an undertaking at this stage.

As for the training forces, I do not expect circumstances to arise in which they will necessarily be UN cap badged. I made it clear in my earlier remarks that we would allow such a contingent to go into Sierra Leone only when we judged the circumstances to be safe, and it is plainly not safe at present for it to engage in training when a large number of people are still determinedly engaged in a civil war.

A major plank of Government defence policy is close co-operation with France. Have the Government made a request for help from the French Government? If so, what was the response?

We co-operate with a number of countries—with France, and with other countries around the world. In particular, we are currently co-operating with countries that have offered airlift, for example, to get reinforcements into Sierra Leone. We are discussing on a daily basis with countries such as Jordan, India and Bangladesh what kind of forces they will send into the theatre. That is a regular communication.

I know that a number of Opposition Members have become obsessed with the position of France. France is an important partner of the United Kingdom in a number of different organisations, and will continue to be so.

The Secretary of State has outlined the difficulties that the Government face. Having listened carefully not only to his initial statement, but to his replies to my hon. Friends, I find him slightly complacent. It seems to me and, I think, to many hon. Members, that the key to the seriousness of the matter is the fact that we have sent the Chief of the Defence Staff to Sierra Leone for four days. What will he do there? He has obviously not gone there to conduct a drill parade, or to inspect the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes stores. Presumably, he has gone there to evaluate seriously the extent to which we will make a major commitment there. If his advice to the Government is that we must make such a major commitment, what will the Government's action be?

I would be a lot more persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's assertions of complacency if he backed them up. He has just had the opportunity to say why he thinks the Government might be complacent, but he singularly failed to do so. Such rhetorical flourishes assist no one.

The Chief of the Defence Staff was already due to visit Sierra Leone. [Laughter.] I am sorry that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches appear to believe in the conspiracy theory of politics. It is obviously something that they have been nurturing over their three years in opposition. The reality is—I repeat it for their benefit—that the Chief of the Defence Staff was due to visit Sierra Leone. Before he set off on that visit, we discussed whether it would be sensible for him to go. He was keen to go there to see British forces in action on the ground—and quite right, too.

The Royal Marines on HMS Ocean have been off the coast of west Africa for three or four days now. The Secretary of State said earlier that that was a precautionary measure. I well remember that, after the Aden withdrawal, I spent some weeks off the coast of Aden cooped up in a commando ship. It is pretty frustrating. What plans does he have to get those troops ashore?

I have to say that those troops have not been there for three or four days, but they are ready and available as a precautionary force, should we require them. However, there are no specific plans at this stage to reinforce the existing forces on the ground. We shall look at the situation as its unfolds, but, if it continues as it is, we might not even need those forces. They are there to provide greater flexibility to the force in Sierra Leone, should we require them.

When the situation in Sierra Leone is juxtaposed with the Prime Minister's speech in Chicago last year, it is almost a classic case of where intervention, on the Prime Minister's terms, should take place. The RUF is supported by Liberia, which sells the diamonds that the RUF controls in Sierra Leone. Otherwise, they are a bunch of gangsters who hold their position in the country by force of terror. As President Kabbah was democratically elected, there is a classic case for intervention.

Our troops are now on the ground. Unless the Government grasp the nettle of making the decision to get out, having discharged their obligations to the British national interest, surely they must, if they are going to take on a wider national interest, make up their mind to commit fully to a United Nations mandate, with the UK, in effect, leading a UN operation to sort out the source of the problem: the RUF's control of the diamond fields.

I have had tide of the fax which the hon. Gentleman helpfully sent to the Ministry of Defence in urging the Government to commit British forces to a UN contingent. I am afraid that he has had no more success in persuading me than he has in persuading his own Front-Bench team.

We do not judge that it is appropriate to commit British forces to the UN contingent simply because they are contributing successfully to the UN mission by ensuring the security of the airport. That valuable task is providing the UN force with enormous confidence. It is a task that they are deployed to continue and to complete.

Now that British forces have fulfilled their primary role in an exemplary fashion—namely, the evacuation of those British nationals who wish to leave—can the Secretary of State tell us who is paying for the enterprise? Is the money coming out of the sorely pressed defence budget, or is there a special account from which he can draw in the Foreign Office, labelled ethical foreign policy perhaps? Can he say what conceivable British interest, beyond the extrication of our nationals, merits putting British service men at risk over a prolonged period?

We are keeping a close account of the costs—which, for the moment, are additional costs. We should bear in mind that some of those forces were already deployed on other exercises, so that they were already being paid for. Consequential costs are still being identified. We have agreed with both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with the Treasury that we shall continue to monitor those costs, and that we shall decide later their attribution between different Departments.

As for the hon. Gentleman's final comments, the reality is that we are there supporting the United Nations. We are there to ensure the evacuation of British personnel, and to fulfil our responsibilities as part of the international community. Those seem to be objectives that most hon. Members, at any rate, ought to support.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Madam Speaker will be thankful that this is not one of those points of order to which she has to say that she has had no request for a statement from a Minister. It is on a matter that I believe concerns the House of Commons.

Over the weekend, and not least in today's edition of The Times, there has been ample comment on the legal aspects of the Lockerbie case as it pertains to the Crown Office. We all understand that the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence aspects of the case are matters for the House. I am concerned about the Crown Office aspects—which, incidentally, are the matters of the greatest contention. It is now argued that those matters are, of course, for Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament, and that the House of Commons has no locus whatever in discussing matters pertaining to the Crown Office in Edinburgh.

If Lockerbie had happened yesterday, it might have been a clear-cut case. However, as it happened 12 long years ago, and as it has been a matter of continuing comment, particularly in relation to Mr. Boulier and to Mr. Lumpart, his engineer, of Mebo, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reflect—or to ask Madam Speaker to reflect with her advisers—on the issue of whether, if developments go forward as anticipated by serious members of the press, this is purely a matter in which the House of Commons has no say whatever? Some of us might think that, whatever view one takes, the House of Commons definitely has a locus in the issue.

I am sure that I am as grateful as Madam Speaker would be that, in this case, it is not a matter of giving the stock reply to the hon. Gentleman. However, I think that the matter tends to be more a matter for debate. Nevertheless, I shall of course ensure that Madam Speaker notes the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and, if a ruling on the matter can be given by the occupant of the Chair, undoubtedly it will be given. At first sight, however, it does not seem to be such a matter.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The whole history of fur farming in the United Kingdom has not been a very happy one. Since its introduction, it has been dogged by escapes from fur farms that have resulted in very large public sums being spent on eradication programmes. The coypu eradication programme cost about—in today's figures—£4 million. Attempts to eradicate mink after escapes from mink farms, when they were established in the United Kingdom, cost about £1 million. Therefore, about £5 million has been spent on trying to deal with the consequences of escaped animals from United Kingdom fur farms. With the associated escapes have come environmental damage, damage to indigenous wildlife, damage to stock and feeding birds, and the unquantified cost of trying to deal with them by trapping and control.

A range of welfare concerns, about how animals are reared and kept in fur farms, has been expressed by the Government's own advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and in independent research. There are also complaints from people who live adjacent to fur farms about smells, nuisance and flies.

The history of fur farms is not happy. The Government announced the introduction of the Bill on 22 November to fulfil our pre-election pledge to prohibit fur farming.

I acknowledge the strength of what the Minister has said, particularly in respect of the New Forest. The end to that environmental hazard is welcome, as is the end to a cruel practice. However, will he explain why, to achieve that desirable end, it is considered necessary to introduce into law what many of us feel is an obnoxious principle: that it is acceptable to farm for food, but not for pelt or fur? Could not the desirable objectives have been achieved at a lower cost?

No. I am well aware of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As long as fur farms exist, there is no guarantee that there will not be further escapes and further environmental damage for all sorts of reasons. That is why his local authority strongly supports the Bill and is keen for it to progress. The leader of his local council, who is a Conservative, has written to me in support of the Bill.

Are we to understand that the Government justify their proposals on economic and environmental grounds and that they have abandoned the argument of public morality?

The principal reason is public morality. I have been rather generous in taking interventions before I have been able to set out the case and our justification for the ban.

A combination of factors make fur farming a matter of public morality. We believe that it is wrong to keep animals solely or primarily to slaughter for their fur. Fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life. Animals should not be destroyed or bred for destruction without a sufficient justification of public benefit. Our detailed consultation and the many representations that we received from the public and other organisations showed that the majority of the public share that view.

Fur farming is distinct from food production. If the primary purpose of keeping animals is the production of food, that provides a sufficient public benefit to justify breeding them for slaughter. That is so even if the production of fur or hide is a secondary purpose to the keeping of the animal. That does not mean that high standards of welfare should not be applied in any rearing system.

Animals are live creatures. It is one thing to breed and kill them for food, because we have to eat to survive. In the balance between respect for the dignity of animal life and our survival, we put our survival first. We do our best to make sure that the animals that we slaughter for food are well treated.

Animals should not be killed for the sake of it or just for the business of stripping their skins off their backs—not in the 21st century. It is not the Government's philosophy. We also share the concern that many have for the welfare of farm mink. That is not our principal motivation for introducing the Bill, but we have sought to ensure the highest possible standards as long as fur farming continues.

Denmark, Finland, Italy and Spain have made observations and France has volunteered a detailed opinion about the Bill. When do the Government intend publicly to reply to those representations?

In the interim, will the Minister cease to advance the public morality argument, in the evident absence of a credible precedent for its use? Would not it be helpful in informing the debate if the Government published the legal advice they have received that apparently enables the Minister confidently to assert that the Bill conforms to the European convention on human rights?

I can certainly repeat that assertion. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that it is a convention that the Government do not publish their legal advice—a convention to which Conservative Governments have adhered in the past. The Government's response to the observations he mentioned is imminent, and we shall ensure that the European Union receives that response. While it is true that France submitted a detailed observation, including objections to the Bill, the hon. Gentleman did not mention that the Netherlands has made a submission that supports our position and backs our arguments. I stress that it is the Government's view that the Bill is compatible with the treaty of Rome and the European convention on human rights.

The Bill will make it a criminal offence, in England and Wales, to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. It will provide a winding-down period extending at least until the end of 2002, and will allow the Minister to make a scheme providing for compensation for certain categories of loss. I understand that the Scottish Executive will introduce legislation to ban fur farming in Scotland. Consultation in Scotland revealed unanimous support for such a measure.

The Minister is responsible for ensuring that a raft of European Union and British law on the welfare of caged animals is properly enforced. How can it be that rabbit A, kept in one cage under those regulations, can be raised and slaughtered for its fur legally, but—if the Bill is passed—the keeping of rabbit B, in an adjacent cage under the same conditions and monitored by the Minister, would attract a £20,000 fine for the person responsible, if he or she were caught? How can that possibly be logical?

The hon. Gentleman takes a simplistic view of the matter, which is unfortunately not unusual. It is our intention to end the fur farming of all species in this country. Cases in which the animal is not farmed predominantly for their fur, but in which the fur or hide is a by-product, will not be affected by the Bill. If we argue that we are against the breeding of animals for fur on moral grounds, we cannot have exceptions for certain species. The legislation must apply to all species. In the past, some species farmed for fur have clearly been kept in conditions that were not acceptable under any welfare standards in the modern age. Other species could be farmed in the future in this country, unless we have such a prohibition in place. Therefore, there is a sound and logical argument for applying the Bill to all fur farming in the UK.

The Minister will be aware that because of the current state of the sheepmeat market some sheep are kept specifically for the purpose of producing sheepskin. Will that be banned?

I am not aware that sheep are skinned in the production of wool. The skins are a by-product of the slaughter industry, and sheep are not kept predominantly for that purpose. Sheep have no bearing on the Bill.

At present, only mink are farmed solely or primarily for their fur in the UK. There are currently 13 licensed mink farms in England and none in Wales. Other animals which can be farmed for their fur include arctic fox, chinchilla, raccoon dog, sable and fisher.

It is not intended to prohibit the keeping of animals where the primary purpose is the production of meat, with fur production as a secondary purpose, as is generally the case, for example, with the farming of rabbits, as I have already stressed. Nor—in response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—will the Bill ban the production of fur or wool which can be clipped or shorn without slaughtering the animal, for example, the fur of angora rabbits or alpacas.

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I am sorry that I did not express myself more clearly earlier. I was not referring to sheep that are shorn for their wool, but to the substantial number of sheep that are kept specifically to be slaughtered so that their skin can be used for such things as sheepskin coats. I hope that I have spelt that out sufficiently clearly for the Minister, who obviously did not understand me before. Will that practice be banned by the Bill?

I am not aware of any farmer who keeps sheep with the primary or sole purpose of producing fleeces. Sheep predominantly are reared for meat. They are sent to slaughterhouses, and fleeces are a by-product. In that respect, they will not be caught by the Bill.

The import and export of fur products will not be affected by the Bill, as they re outside its scope.

The Bill has seven clauses. Clause 1 creates a primary offence of keeping animals primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur, or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. Moreover, I can tell the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that a sheep farm set up for no other purpose than to produce fleece coats would certainly be prohibited by the Bill.

It is immaterial whether the keeper or another person carries out the slaughter. Clause 1 also creates the secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to keep animals for the prohibited purpose. Both offences can be committed by a company or an individual.

A person who keeps animals partly for slaughter for the value of their fur and partly for another purpose will be guilty of the offence only if slaughter is the primary purpose for keeping the animals. Under no circumstances that I know of does that happen in relation to sheep.

The definition of "value" is the commercial value of the fur. We anticipate that there will be relatively few cases in which a person is guilty of the secondary offence. An example would be where the director of an overseas company might have caused the company to have committed that offence. For both the primary and the secondary offences, the penalty on conviction is a fine not exceeding £20,000.

Clause 2 gives the court power to make an order for the forfeiture and destruction or other disposal of the animals following conviction for either the primary or secondary offence. A person claiming to have an interest in the animals may apply to the court to resist the making of a forfeiture order.

Clause 3 deals with the effect of a forfeiture order. It provides a right of appeal to the Crown court for anyone claiming to have an interest in the animals being forfeited.

Clause 4 gives a power of entry and inspection to enable the evidence of an offence to be gathered, and gives a power to enter premises to carry out a forfeiture order. Intentionally obstructing or delaying any person in the exercise of either power of entry will be an offence. The maximum penalty for such offences will be a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which at present is £1,000.

Clause 5 requires the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a scheme for paying compensation to fur farmers who incur losses as a result of the banning of fur farming. The clause also allows the National Assembly for Wales to make a compensation scheme.

The Minister will recall that he and I discussed compensation and other matters in relation to the original Bill. Will he elaborate on that point later in his speech?

I can deal with that point now. The original Bill was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I pay tribute to the work that she did in bringing the Bill forward and exploring many of the arguments. The original Bill did not provide for compensation for income forgone. When that Bill was being considered in Committee, I gave an undertaking that the Government would consider an amendment that would not rule out the provision of compensation for income forgone. Provision for potential compensation for income forgone has been made available as part of the detail of the Bill.

Given the draconian nature of Bill, surely it is only fair that people should be compensated on an arm's-length basis? That means that they would receive the market price for a business sold as a going concern.

The Bill contains provision to set up a compensation scheme. There will, of course, be consultation with interested parties about the nature of the scheme, and about how it should be constructed. There will also be provision for independent arbitration, and a reference to the Lands Tribunal. I think that that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.

We are trying to be as fair as possible about this. That is why the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom has written to the Government saying that although the abolition of fur farming would not of course be its preferred option, it wants the Bill to progress. There has been an element of doubt and uncertainty in relation to their members' businesses, which, it is quite right and proper, should be addressed as speedily as possible by the House.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way again and to right hon. and hon. Members for their patience. Some of the dwellings on fur farms are covered by planning conditions restricting the use of those dwellings as ancillary to fur farms or agricultural use. Will the Minister confirm that instructions will be given from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to local planning authorities to allow them to overcome the restrictions and be sympathetic to lifting them?

This is rather a detailed point which has to do with the structure plans and planning priorities of local planning authorities. They will have their own views on this matter. There are alternative uses for fur farms, which are agricultural. Therefore, the provision for the house would not change in relation to some of those uses.

I want to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not doubt that once we start detailed consultation on the compensation schemes, planning will be discussed. I will be more than willing to consider and discuss that issue to assist existing fur farmers in diversifying into other businesses. I can give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.

I recall that in the Standing Committee considering the private Member's Bill last year, the Minister stated that detailed discussion of compensation was under way. Are we to understand that there has been no advance on that discussion in the light of the failed private Member's Bill last year?

No, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not recall saying that detailed discussion was under way. There cannot be detailed discussion on compensation without this Bill, which puts in place the mechanism for compensation. This is an enabling Bill: the compensation scheme will follow, after statutory consultation and the laying of a statutory instrument. We cannot have detailed discussion until then. It is certainly true that we have been giving thought to how it will work, but we cannot finalise the details until we have had a chance to have a proper discussion and consultation with those who are affected.

Such a scheme will provide for compensation to be paid, whether or not the fur farmers are still in business when the ban comes into force. The details of the compensation package are not contained in the Bill, as I said, but will be the subject of secondary legislation once the Bill becomes law. Only licensed fur farming businesses in existence on 2 March 1999 will be eligible to claim compensation. Fur farmers were reminded on 30 November 1999 of that cut-off date, which was originally announced when my hon. Friend the Member for Garston presented her private Member's Bill in the previous Session. No compensation will be payable for expenditure on assets acquired after that date. Existing fur farmers have been notified of that.

It is envisaged that the scheme will be used to pay compensation where assets cease to have a use and the investment cannot be recouped by resale. I will decide whether to compensate for income after the consultation exercise, and the form that compensation will take.

Principal assets of fur farming are the land, buildings and equipment, breeding stock and young-stock for slaughter. No compensation should be required for the land, as it has alternative uses. Compensation may be required for buildings and equipment that do not have alternative uses. Compensation may be required for wastage of some livestock over a winding-down period of two to three years. Disputes over compensation claims would be settled by arbitration or the Lands Tribunal.

Clause 6 provides that the power to authorise a person to exercise the power of entry and the power to make a compensation scheme rests with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and the National Assembly for Wales.

Clause 7 requires the Minister to make a commencement order for the ban to come into force. That may not be done before 1 January 2003. The Bill will thus provide a winding-down period extending at least until the end of 2002.

rose—

I think that I may be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. The purpose of delayed commencement is to give fur farmers an opportunity to adjust their affairs and wind down their businesses in advance of the ban. In particular, it provides an opportunity to slaughter any existing stocks of animals; to give notice to employees; to make arrangements for future employment and the future use of land on which animals are currently kept; and to avoid incurring new capital expenditure, other than any incurred for the purpose of complying with any statutory obligation.

Would the Minister clear up a point for me? Since neither the eating of meat nor the wearing of fur is essential to human life, what is the moral distinction between the two?

Meat is a food source. I recognise that some people do not eat it, but they are in a minority in our society, which depends on meat production as an important food source. There is a clear distinction in that sense.

The power to make a compensation scheme will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The power can be exercised to enable compensation to be paid to fur farmers who close their businesses in advance of the date on which the ban comes into force.

The Government's view is that the Bill is compatible with the treaty of Rome and the European convention on human rights. The Government consider that, although the ban arguably has an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, it is lawful under European Union law, being justified by article 30 of the EU treaty on the ground of public morality. As I have just outlined, there will be a winding-down period before the ban comes into force. Together with the payment of compensation for certain categories of loss, that will ensure, in the Government's view, that the Bill is compatible with the convention.

Many people have pressed the Government to introduce this Bill. I am glad to be able to move its Second Reading. There is considerable support for it in the country, and the fur farmers themselves want an end to a period of uncertainty. They want us to proceed with this measure in order that they may begin detailed discussions on compensation and phase fur farming out in a reasonable and orderly way.

I am convinced that the keeping of animals solely for fur is not justified on moral grounds in today's society. The Ministry has been involved in prosecutions in relation to welfare problems associated with fur farms. I will be happy to make available to any hon. Member who wants them the details of those prosecutions, including video and photographic evidence.

This reasonable measure has long been awaited, and I hope that it commands support from all right hon. and hon. Members.

The Bill sets a precedent, and an unwelcome one. Never before have a Government proposed an outright ban on a particular form of farming. We do not believe, and our view is endorsed by the National Farmers Union, that any Government should introduce legislation that seeks to criminalise the legitimate farming activities of a section of farmers. The Bill goes far beyond measures taken by successive Governments to regulate and enforce, but not dictate, what farmers can and cannot do in a free society.

The Minister has claimed that the NFU and fur breeders support the Bill. That is not strictly true. Many fur breeders are frankly desperate after years of harassment by animal rights protesters—perhaps a better description is animal rights terrorists. Faced by a Government with a huge majority who are intent on closing them down, those fur breeders are only too happy to throw in the towel, provided—the main point—that there is fair compensation. In no way can their capitulation be described as support. There has been coercion, in tooth and claw.

The Bill does not have the support of the National Farmers Union, either. Most of the farmers affected are NFU members. If there is a legitimate welfare concern, the NFU would support measures to underpin the delivery of high standards of animal welfare through regulation. However, that is not the Government's intention.

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment that the NFU would support measures to improve the welfare of mink on mink farms. What measures has the NFU supported to date?

It is not for the NFU to introduce legislation to control mink farming. The Government could have introduced such restrictions and regulations, but they have not done so—they have proposed a complete ban. However, I shall develop my argument on that point later.

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, as he may not have the relevant briefing to hand. The NFU strongly supported, among other provisions, the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, the Mink (Keeping) (Amendment) Regulations 1997, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, and the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, dated 1991. The NFU supported all those measures for the improvement of standards in mink keeping.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those details. The Government have completely ignored the NFU's recommendations.

The Government do not intend to introduce regulations. They hardly bother to justify their actions by reference to the welfare of mink on those farms. They know only too well that conditions are not wholly unacceptable; many farms are operating on lines identical to those of their European competitors. However, if there was an overriding animal welfare case for more stringent regulations and tighter controls, those measures would find acceptance on this side of the House, with the NFU and—I suspect—with fur farmers.

Why do the Government not take that road? One cannot but conclude that they are hung up on some warped ideology and skewered on the peg of political correctness.

The Bill is poorly drafted. Despite warnings during proceedings on the private Member's Bill last year, it is still not clear whether other farmers could inadvertently be caught by its provisions. There is a potential problem for farmers who breed rabbits for both meat and fur; they could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, if—when the value of the fur exceeded that of the rabbit meat—they could be accused under clause 1 of keeping animals

solely or primarily…for slaughter…for the value of their fur.

That problem could be overcome if the measure specified the species of animal to which it applies, rather than introducing a generalised catch-all. One is left feeling puzzled as to why the Government have not tried to rectify that anomaly.

Not only is the Bill poorly drafted, it is conceptually and legally flawed. Its conceptual flaw is that no reasoned justification has been given—although the Minister had ample opportunity to give one in his opening remarks. Its legal flaw is that it appears to run counter to European Union legislation.

A most telling contribution to the debate, and to discussion of fur farming in general, lies in an illuminating and interesting memorandum, dated 7 December 1999, from the legal experts of COPA—the Committee of Agriculture Organisations in the European Community—and COGECA—the General Committee for Agricultural Co-operatives in the EU—on the legality of national welfare measures from an EC perspective.

The key legal position is set out in Council directive 98/58/EC, which aims to establish common minimum standards for the protection of animals kept for fur farming. Under the directive, a member state can apply stricter provisions for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes within its own territories, but that opportunity is limited—this is the important point—by articles 28 and 29 of the EC treaty, as well as by the general principles of Community law; for example, the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination as defined by the Court of Justice.

Articles 28 and 29 refer to changes in the national production of certain products, including a ban that would influence trade between member states and could thus be construed as having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions. As for non-discrimination—one of the fundamental principles of Community law—comparable situations should not be differently treated unless the difference is objectively justified. The Commission's memorandum states:

It is difficult to justify objectively stricter national measures or even a national ban when, at European level, scientific evidence suggests this kind of production.

Perhaps the most telling judgment in the memorandum is that which refers to proportionality. In the view of its authors:

A national ban of a certain type of production would be considered disproportionate if it could be shown to have been "manifestly inappropriate in the aim of animal welfare".

Furthermore, the authors point out:

Stricter national measures or even a ban motivated by ethical or political grounds, not limited to genuine or justified animal welfare, seem to be incompatible with the principle of proportionality.

Those are truly damning indictments. There can have been few, if any, Second Readings of a Bill on which the Minister involved has given such a totally unsatisfactory and poorly reasoned justification for legislation as that given by the Minister today.

If I have caught the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks correctly, he seems to be suggesting that the Opposition will oppose the Bill. Will he explain why, in the previous Session when I was the Member in charge of a Bill that was almost exactly similar, the Opposition did not oppose it?

The hon. Lady will have to wait until the end of the debate to find out what will happen. In the main, we oppose the Bill, but we shall not vote against its Second Reading; there will be a free vote.

My hon. Friend, whose researches have obviously been legion, will recall that, when I was the Opposition spokesman on this subject, I said that the previous Bill's supporters had to answer a number of questions. To the best of my knowledge, those questions have yet to be answered. Is that not the answer to the hon. Lady's point?

My hon. Friend's point is well made.

Last year, on the Second Reading of the previous Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), the Minister spoke of the Government's determination to end fur farming, primarily on animal welfare grounds. The Government's emphasis now, in justifying this Bill, has been on the grounds of public morality. They have said—the Minister reiterated these points today—that they remain

convinced that no moral justification exists for fur farming in the U.K.

and that

there are over riding moral arguments in favour of a ban and a general public interest in removing this particular source of livelihood.

However, as I have pointed out by quoting from the Commission's memorandum, the public morality line—lifted, it would seem, by a rather desperate Government from article 30 of the EC treaty—would certainly be challenged, and would most likely fail, under the tests of non-discrimination and proportionality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, Finland, Italy, Spain and Denmark have written to the Commission about the Bill and sent in their observations, while France, as the Minister confirmed, has submitted a detailed opinion. Because a detailed opinion has been sent, it is my understanding—perhaps the Minister could confirm this when he winds up—that the Government cannot approve the Bill until June. Meanwhile, they are obliged to respond to that French detailed opinion. The Minister confirmed that the Government have not done that yet, so it may help us to know when the Government propose to ask for the detailed opinion from France.

So that there is no doubt as to what is covered in directive 98/58/EC, I make it clear that its definition relates to all animals

bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes.

However, the memorandum to which I referred earlier points out:

With the adoption of Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, a national ban on certain types of production of animal species which are covered by this Directive and covered by common Organisations of the Markets is no longer possible.

The Minister's own advisers and the other civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must have serious reservations about the Bill. If they are so confident that it conforms to European law, why did they think it necessary to notify the Commission about it? Why was it also deemed necessary to include in the Bill a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his interpretation of the European convention on human rights? That is certain to be tested in court, as the Bill appears to breach a fundamental right guaranteed under protocol 1, article 1, which states:

every legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

Of course, in law, possessions include farm animals. The Bill may also breach article 14, on discrimination.

In light of the Minister's failure to address those legal questions, we—along with the National Farmers Union—call on the Government to publish the legal advice from which they concluded that the proposed ban was compatible with EU law.

Given the sheer weight of that legal opinion from the EU, one is horrified and perplexed by the Government's attitude. Why are they blindly pressing ahead with the Bill, which was not a manifesto commitment, although it was mentioned in Labour party dispatches? It will not influence the wearing of fur—which, apparently, is now on the increase—or affect fur farming elsewhere in the EU. The Bill will simply hand an increased market share of fur production and trade to our EU competitors. As I have said, it has already provoked a reaction from other fur-producing countries, which are now committed to taking the Government to the European Court.

If the Bill is passed, compensation to producers—to which I shall return later—will entail a cost to the taxpayer. Sums ranging from £500,000 to £5 million, which could be much better spent on other Government services, will be involved. What are the Government's priorities? What is one to make of a Government who set as a priority for parliamentary time a Bill that will, on the spurious grounds of public morality, rob of their livelihoods 13 innocent farmers who are operating legally—especially as regards EU law?

The issue is no longer one of animal welfare. The living conditions of mink on fur farms are not in question. The Bill demonstrates the Government's fixation with presentation, which they put above substance, and with populism, which they put above the rights of minorities.

In my opening remarks, I explained that animal welfare was one of several issues relating to morality. A recent report from Nimon and Broom outlines welfare problems with the keeping of mink, stating:

The high level and pervasiveness of stereotypies among farmed mink and the incidence of fur chewing and even self-mutilation of tail tissue, suggest that farmed mink welfare is not good.

That is hardly a public morality issue of the kind that the Government seek to use to justify the Bill. Indeed, it is an animal welfare issue, and, as we have just said, animal welfare is no longer at the forefront of the Bill.

We welcome the fact that improvements to the earlier private Member's Bill have been incorporated in the Bill. It is proper that consultation should take place with fur farmers under clause 5(3), and that disputes should be referred first to arbitration under clause 5(4)(b) or for determination by the Lands Tribunal under clause 5(5). Frankly, that procedure is so painfully drawn out and laborious that the provisions are hardly worth the paper on which they are printed.

The restriction in the private Member's Bill excluding losses of income from any compensation scheme has now been dropped, but there is still no guarantee in the Bill that claims for losses of income will be eligible. It is important for all concerned, and in the interests of natural justice, that the Minister, in his wind-up speech, give an assurance that compensation will cover loss of income.

The industry genuinely fears that the Government intend to cheat it. Paragraph 26 of the explanatory notes speaks of compensation costs of £400,000 for assets,

and perhaps four times that amount if income were to be compensated.

That £1.6 million would be totally inadequate, given the size of claim from one producer alone of some £5 million.

Fair compensation—this point has already been raised—should be the value of the fur-farming enterprise at an open market sale price in the context of a willing purchaser under current European legislation. Anything less will be seen as robbery and a reneging on a verbal agreement given by the Government.

A cynic might well conclude that, having failed in their manifesto commitment to ban fox hunting—effectively caving in to a perceived backlash from the countryside—the Government have cast around for some other issue to satisfy the demands of the animal rights lobby—which, lest we forget, gave £1 million to the Labour party before the election. Bingo, there on the shelf was the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston. It was the only animal rights issue on the shelf.

I have a small correction. My hon. Friend gave the impression that there was a Labour party manifesto commitment to ban fox hunting. There was of course no such commitment; there was a commitment merely to a free vote on the issue. Equally, however, there was no Labour party manifesto commitment to ban fur farming.

I agree with my hon. Friend's second point.

The real reason for the Bill before us is a Labour party commitment to the animal welfare lobby, from which, of course, it received a handsome payment. It is a pay-off to that lobby, despite the fact that it is certain to be challenged in the European court, will incur considerable costs, and sets out to crush the legitimate interests of a tiny minority. This Government are blundering on with specious legislation because of their vindictive political correctness.

I am delighted that the Government are at last taking action to end one form of animal cruelty and to fulfil a pre-election pledge—not before time. It has taken them three years, but better late than never. I have long hoped that such a Bill would become law. Indeed, I tabled an appropriate early-day motion way back in June 1997, which had considerable support from hon. Members. I am therefore delighted at this Second Reading.

Today's debate allows the House to decide whether the welfare implications concerning farmed animals, and public concern over the breeding and killing of animals for no more than fur, are sufficient grounds to outlaw the legal practice of fur farming. Doing so is a responsibility that I take very seriously. Under the United Kingdom's constitution, we may all do what we like unless there is a law against it. That means that, as law makers, we must carefully consider when overall liberty should be curtailed. Having considered that issue, I reached the conclusion many years ago that fur farming should definitely be banned.

I am sure that my view reflects that of the majority of people in the United Kingdom—even, I understand, representatives of the National Farmers Union, who have not asked hon. Members to vote against the Bill. The NFU has certainly not contacted me, even though when it wants something desperately, it normally ensures that it makes contact.

The Government have justified their support for the Bill on the ground of public morality—we have just heard the argument. My support for the ban is based predominantly on animal welfare grounds—and I make no bones about that. The downright cruelty that fur farming generates must be stopped.

At this time of year, mink in fur factory farms are giving birth. After six months of hell in small cages, their offspring will be killed, ultimately by gassing—in order, frankly, that some pretentious person may end up wearing a mink coat. I find that totally objectionable. In this morning's edition of the Financial Times, an article headed, "Attempt to ban fur farming may go to European Court", was accompanied by a photograph of a fur farmer in Finland, showing the cages in which the animals are kept.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

In a minute.

The cages are not even big enough for the animals to turn round. That is absolutely disgusting, and it is one reason why I firmly support the ban.

rose—

rose—

I give way to the hon. Member from—

From where?

From Teignbridge.

The hon. Gentleman makes his point about the cruelty caused to animals, well knowing that current legislation could deal with that in any event. Will he comment on the Parliamentary Secretary's remark that the moral distinction between eating meat and wearing fur is that only a minority wear fur? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that analysis?

Yes, absolutely. I make no apologies for saying that I find the practice of farming and producing animals purely for cosmetic value to be distasteful and disgusting. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister, but my view is clear as well.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I shall continue for a little longer and then I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene.