On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and this morning, I tried to obtain an uncorrected transcript of his evidence. In so doing, I have spoken to and been helped by the Clerk of the Select Committee.

I understand that the contract that the House has with the organisation that transcribes the evidence prevents the House from having more than one expedited transcript of evidence in any one parliamentary Session. Therefore, the transcript is not available to the House today, even though a debate is taking place on the same subject and the transcript would have been a great help to hon. Members. Might I, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ask whether there is a possibility of having the contract changed so that hon. Members are not impeded in their deliberations on subjects as sensitive and important as those that we are to discuss with regard to Sierra Leone?

As I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise, I cannot rule on the matter from the Chair although I have sympathy with the fact that the juxtaposition of the two events is such that it would have been helpful for the transcript to have been available. However, the control of such matters lies primarily with the Select Committee, which cannot be overruled unless new procedures are devised. Perhaps this is a matter for the Liaison Committee. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to respond and for putting the point on the record, but there is nothing that we can do to assist us during the debate.

I am pleased to have the opportunity of introducing this morning's debate because of a personal, long-term interest in west Africa. My interest has arisen from visits to Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana and Liberia, and because of the importance of the issue in terms of the future of the United Nations, which is surely of concern to us all.

The Government have been too diffident in justifying our role in Sierra Leone since the paratroopers landed there about a fortnight ago. We have constantly sought to say that our involvement is short term and will soon be over. Our involvement is just and necessary. We must be wary of over-involvement and devote a great deal of attention to achieving a greater contribution from others. However, we must not open ourselves to accusations of misleading the British public, as in some respects, a longer-term involvement is needed.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the impertinence of intervening at the start of his speech. I endorse what he is saying with regard to this important subject. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who are considering Sierra Leone, would normally wish to be here for the debate. However, this morning and this afternoon they are working on the final report of the Kosovo inquiry, which has been running for four or five months. I thought it right for this Chamber to know why the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were not present.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. I am pleased that the Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into Sierra Leone. I hope that my speech today will be considered as my evidence to it.

Thank you very much.

We need to consider the full dimensions of the Sierra Leone crisis. I am delighted that the days of Tory policies—or non-policies—on Africa are at an end. I draw attention to previous crises in Africa and to the way in which the House dealt with the issues involved. First, let us consider the previous Government's response to the Rwanda crisis. I remember the shame of Rwanda when this country and so many others turned their back on the most appalling genocide to have occurred since the second world war. We still do not know how many people were slaughtered during that crisis but the figure of 500,000 is often used. When the Security Council of the United Nations, with our support, pulled the United Nations out of Rwanda, the innocent were left to be slaughtered. The Government made no statement to the House about Rwanda and there was no parliamentary activity.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that as a result of the then Government's failure to act when genocide was occurring in Rwanda there is now the most appalling instability in the Great Lakes region, and it is threatening to spread across Africa?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that comment. Our past inactivity in that area is one reason for our present position. We made no political response to Rwanda; the British Government ignored it. However, we are not ignoring Sierra Leone, and that is an important step forward.

Secondly, let us consider Liberia, which is next door to Sierra Leone and contributes enormously to its problems. What did the United Nations do about Liberia? Nothing. After the American debacle in Somalia—an intervention that provided too little, too late and that was able to cope only with a war without casualties—the United Nations coined the idea of African solutions to African problems, which meant, in other words, "It's nothing to do with us, guv."

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the United Kingdom has the same national responsibility for Sierra Leone and Rwanda, or does he think that it has a different responsibility in the light of its interests in particular regions and because it has to act sometimes in the international community and sometimes on its own?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. In considering the way in which the Security Council operates, we must take into account where lead responsibilities lie. I do not have the slightest doubt that the lead responsibility in the case of Sierra Leone lies with us, although that is not the case in respect of Rwanda. Countries that have been most associated with African nations in the past have sometimes been the least appropriate to take a lead.

What was the policy of the Labour party on Rwanda? Did the then Opposition call for Government intervention and, more especially, military intervention? Did the hon. Gentleman expect our troops to be deployed in Rwanda?

I am not proud of our role with regard to Rwanda. Nor am I proud that Rwanda was not debated in the House and there was no statement on it. Indeed, there was no parliamentary activity in respect of Rwanda, apart from two Adjournment debates that I initiated. That is to the shame of this country. I am glad that we have moved on to acknowledge Sierra Leone.

I was talking about Liberia and the idea of African solutions to African problems, which meant that we excused ourselves from any involvement. That led us to the absurdity of a pariah state—I am speaking of Nigeria, which was thrown out of the Commonwealth—ruled by corrupt military thugs, who robbed their own country, being encouraged to lead forces in Liberia and Sierra Leone on behalf of the world community to try to end the turmoil there. That approach had many problems, one of which was that the Nigerians did not pay their troops, who were forced to live off the country that they were protecting. I remember the exasperation of the non-governmental organisations in Liberia when they found their food warehouses empty having been guarded by the Nigerian army. Eventually, however, the Nigerians turned up trumps; they drove out the Revolutionary United Front from Freetown to an extent that made it possible to draw up a flawed peace deal.

My most recent experience of Sierra Leone was at the end of March when I went there on behalf of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I pay tribute to that organisation which was established by the previous Government with all-party support and has allowed many hon. Members to play a valuable role in supporting and establishing multiparty democracy throughout the world. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), asked the Westminster Foundation for Democracy what could be done to support the democratic process in Sierra Leone.

The Lomé peace deal includes plans to hold three elections and it is the job of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to provide help, training and support for the political parties so that those elections are free and fair. That is not an easy task. Parliamentarians have not been able to return to their rebel-held constituencies for a long time and all forms of communication in Sierra Leone, which has become the poorest country in the world, are appalling. I assume that the elections are on hold.

The press took it for granted that the UN peace effort was hopeless. That was unfair. The atmosphere in the country in March was one of optimism, although there was uncertainty about Foday Sankoh's intentions. Although disarmament was slow, it was estimated that about 15,000 of the combatants had disarmed. Progress was being made, but it depended on the integrity of Foday Sankoh, who had signed the Lomé agreement. The UN was asked to oversee a peace agreement and forces were being assembled for that purpose; it was not its intention to prosecute a war. Foday Sankoh changed all that. Despite having received an amnesty for his crimes, the rank of vice president and responsibility for the mines commission, he failed to honour his word.

The peacekeeping force—although of a varied quality—was being assembled. The camps for disarmament were being set up and a disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programme was being introduced. The British effort was considerable. We were—and are—contributing enormously. However, the society was in total collapse. There was no army to speak of because it had rebelled against the Government and sections of it had formed militia groups. The police were in disarray. British aid did not concentrate simply on food and medicines—humanitarian aid—but on how Sierra Leone could be rebuilt from the bottom. It is relatively easy to construct buildings, rebuild roads, repair radio masts and reopen schools and health services; it is much harder to rebuild a society's social institutions and the rule of law, and to construct a shared understanding between opponents who have accepted that peace is better than war. That is painfully difficult work.

The conduct of the public debate on Sierra Leone has been seriously flawed. It has been wrong to concentrate on how quickly we can get out. I know that the debate has focused on frontline troops, but we must be honest and admit that it will take years rather than days or months to achieve a better future for Sierra Leone. A working democracy must be established. Earlier this year, we said that we were interested in reconstructing the Sierra Leonean army and the police force. In Freetown, I met the Ministry of Defence advisory team, which had decided to use our strategic defence review as a basis for a similar review of Sierra Leone. It was starting from scratch and had to consider the security risks and the country's defence needs. It started with the police, and is also concerned with political parties there. The country has been destroyed by nine years of war and many more years of corruption.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence of the post-second world war era is that whenever an international organisation such as the United Nations goes in and comes out quickly the long-term result is instability, but that when it goes in and stays in, there is at least a chance that stability, order and democracy can be restored—often at a lower price than a quick operation?

I agree, but there has to be a quality input, which is what is happening in Sierra Leone.

There are positives in Sierra Leone. It has hung on to some of the traditions of the legal system established by the British. Until recently, it had a good university. Civil society has some strong elements; a non-governmental organisation called the Centre for Good Governance would rank with many of the best NGOs. It is a small country with between 4 million and 5 million people. It has no huge regional, ethnic or religious tensions such as one finds in Nigeria or Sudan and there is a huge lust for peace.

If the United Nations cannot cope with Sierra Leone, it cannot cope with anything. It is important that it does cope, because many other tasks await it—for instance, next door in the Congo. We must make Sierra Leone succeed; if we cannot, the consequences for the world will be appalling. The message will be that the Foday Sankoh style of thug can run riot, and the UN will have to shut up shop as a peacemaker—and as an enforcer of peace.

The United Nations includes us, but that does not mean that we should always take the lead. However, UN forces should not include the appallingly trained and ill-equipped forces of parts of the developing world. There must be some first-world involvement because of our logistics and strategy.

My hon. Friend, who knows about such matters, will recall that "An Agenda for Peace", the report produced in 1992 by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, set out exactly what the United Nations needed to do to build up its ability to deal with regional conflicts and the subsequent peace-building process. Regrettably, the implementation of that report has been sabotaged, particularly by the United States. Does my hon. Friend agree that that report suggests some of the solutions that the UN needs today?

We have to revisit those issues. The United Kingdom is a member of the Security Council. If we are to respond appropriately to such crises, we must learn the lessons of the past; we must then move forward. It is obvious that we are leading in Sierra Leone; the shortest of visits confirms Britain's pre-eminence there. However, in response to the point raised by my hon. Friend, our actions are a role model for other Security Council member states.

I welcome the fact that our response was so thorough and committed. However, it is unsatisfactory in the long term that the UN force and our forces should act separately and distinctively, as they are doing in Sierra Leone. A job needs to be done there, and I am confident that the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office realise that and are looking for a solution.

The Government's policy is to end world poverty, but there is not the slightest chance of doing that unless we face up to the conflict. The vast majority of the poorest countries in the world are in conflict or emerging from it. To end their poverty, those countries must rebuild their social infrastructure, which has been destroyed because most of those wars were the result of internal conflict—although, as in the case of Sierra Leone, some of them were stimulated from abroad. In facing that task, we must consider how the international community should respond. We must consider the co-ordination of actions and the funding of peace efforts.

It is crucial that the UN's response should be quick and appropriate. The forces of the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone built up painfully slowly, which resulted in limbo after the peace deal. NATO, the world's pre-eminent military alliance, was unable to respond timeously, whether with relief and helicopters for Mozambique or the transport of soldiers to Sierra Leone. The Canadians have recently transported other nations' peacekeepers, but why is every peacekeeping initiative involving third-world forces bedevilled by the inadequacy of the means of getting them to the site, when NATO could do that?

Communications is another issue that needs to be examined. The country virtually no longer has a telephone system outside Freetown. Therefore, it needs first-world communications systems to be brought in. The absence of radio transmission for the whole country makes it fertile territory for the rebels. We can tackle that. However, we cannot go back to the Tory days of blaming the United Nations for failure when the main reason for that was our failure to provide the necessary support and team work.

The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous over interventions. Does he think that not seeking control of the diamond mines in Sierra Leone was one of the fatal mistakes? They were allowed to remain in the control of Sankoh and continue to fuel the war.

I am coming to the diamonds, which are a crucial issue.

We have done very well with respect to our present commitment. We recognised, first, through the scale of our commitment, that humanitarian aid was not enough—the high commission, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development have responded well—and, secondly, by the quality of our military response, that we were right to do as we have done. It is foolish of the Opposition to demand withdrawal dates or published limitations of action. Have they not learned from Kosovo that when we state that we shall not take certain military action, only the enemy benefits?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I would rather not, because I am conscious that other hon. Members are waiting to speak, and I have been generous in giving way.

We must give quality support and work with countries such as the newly democratic Nigeria, to ensure that the UN peacekeepers do their job effectively, but we must be deeply sceptical about other countries such as Liberia, which has been involved in stimulating trouble in Sierra Leone and which has a considerable diamond trade, although few diamonds. The killing of a high-ranking Liberian officer alongside rebel forces in Sierra Leone suggests that President Taylor may well be up to his old tricks. The capture of Foday Sankoh is tremendous news but there will be difficult days ahead in trying to ensure the safety of the hostages and we must be careful what we say in those circumstances. However, I am confident that with skilled management at the heart of the UN response the rebels can be driven back.

Enormous skill will be needed to tackle a central problem of Sierra Leone—control of the diamond industry, which remains in rebel hands. For a long time, politics in Sierra Leone has been corrupted by diamonds. Sierra Leone cannot become healthy until that wealth is honestly administered. In the words used by Graham Greene for the title of his novel, they are the heart of the matter. A report on the diamond industry, also called "The Heart of the Matter", by Smillie, Gberie and Hazleton, states that until the 1980s the legendary, mystical firm of De Beers, with its virtual monopoly of diamond marketing, had an office in Freetown. Now it maintains a diamond trading company in Liberia and a buying office in Guinea, but nothing in Sierra Leone. It is difficult to believe anything other than that many of the Liberian diamonds are of Sierra Leonean origin.

It is estimated that the annual Liberian production of diamonds is between 100,000 and 150,000 carats. However, Belgium imported more than 6 million carats from Liberia, although De Beers claims not to purchase Sierra Leone diamonds. There will not be peace until the diamond trade is controlled and that cannot be done by Sierra Leone alone. The same also applies in Angola and the Congo. The control of diamonds will have to be achieved through the setting up of control mechanisms by the developed world; otherwise, mayhem and thuggery will continue in Sierra Leone with assistance from outside the country.

The refugee and internal displacement problems are further reasons why a quick fix is not possible in Sierra Leone. About 500,000 people are refugees—10 per cent. of the population live outside the country—and about half the population has been internally displaced by the conflict. Mayhem has been rife in large parts of the country. That is graphically demonstrated by the amputations, the torture, the child soldiers and the total collapse of any ordered society in the regions, where the rebels have ruled by terror. Sierra Leone has become the poorest country in the world, a large proportion of the population being illiterate because a generation has missed out on schooling. A quick fix and rapid departure is not possible. An ordered response is required from the donor countries of the world, which must include help to build up Sierra Leone's civil society. Support must be given to local democrats, non-governmental organisations, lawyers and academics, who have kept the faith throughout these years and who need liberating from the thugs and the terror. The United Kingdom's role is crucial.

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for introducing the debate. The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record of raising important African issues. It is a disgrace that it fell to him to raise the issue in this Chamber; there should have been a debate on the Floor of the House on the commitment of British servicemen overseas. Two Government statements are not sufficient, particularly on a complicated issue such as Sierra Leone, which has so many facets. A single question to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or the Secretary of State for Defence following their statements does not allow hon. Members enough time to make their views known. Both Ministers were disingenuous in their statements. They sought to obfuscate the true nature of the mission—if it had any when they began the military commitment.

I intervened on the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie about the United Kingdom's responsibility for Sierra Leone compared with our position on Rwanda. The hon. Gentleman was unnecessarily harsh on the previous Government's policy on Rwanda, which, from my recollection, was supported by the then Labour Opposition. The United Kingdom does not have a particular responsibility for Rwanda and the previous Government's policy was in line with that of the rest of the international community. With hindsight, the international community should have acted differently, but we do not have the benefit of hindsight when we make such decisions. When the international community decided to send a UN mission to Rwanda, the United Kingdom committed troops to the operation.

The issue is not whose responsibility it is to intervene in any particular country. Those countries do not stand alone. The problem in Rwanda arose from the mutual antipathy of the Hutu and Tutsi people. They are spread throughout the Great Lakes region of Africa and any conflict between them was bound to intensify. Intervention in a particular country is not the responsibility of solely one country, but of the world.

The hon. Lady has identified one of the complications in the Great Lakes region. The fact that the two ethnic groups have a long history of hostility makes military intervention on one side or the other and trying to establish peace difficult. That is not the situation in Sierra Leone with the RUF. Sierra Leone is different because ethnic conflict is not present as it is in the Great Lakes region. We should not be distracted by the question of international intervention in the Great Lakes region.

The Great Lakes region illustrates how a problem in one country can affect the entire region. We have been discussing the diamond trade. Wars may be triggered by ethnic conflict and fuelled by the diamond, oil or gold industry. They affect the whole region and Sierra Leone is another example of that.

Certainly, the gold and diamond industries were not issues in the Great Lakes region.

Speaking of west Africa as a whole, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie drew attention to the very uncomfortable choice that faced the international community in respect of Nigeria leading regional intervention into Liberia. He drew attention to the nature of the Nigerian regime at the time. Nigeria was subject to sanctions from the Commonwealth and elsewhere for the execution of Ken Sarawiwa and the oppression of the Ogone people. However, the international community welcomed the Nigerian leadership of the intervention in Liberia. Foreign ministries throughout the world, and not least the members of the Security Council, have to make uncomfortable choices.

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Lomé agreement, which he endorsed. Making Corporal Sankoh Vice-President of Sierra Leone and Minister for Natural Resources turned out to be a disaster, which should have been predicted. It is the latest stage of British responsibility for what has happened in Sierra Leone, which is why we have a special responsibility now to take the lead in trying to reestablish a decent civil society there.

Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the Lomé agreement was a British-negotiated agreement? If so, he is wrong and other Conservative Back Benchers are similarly mistaken. It was an African-brokered agreement by ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, backed by the Commonwealth and the United Nations with Britain and the United States as observers. However imperfect it was, it must be remembered that there was no Sierra Leonean army, the RUF had thousands of troops and President Kabbah believed that he should obtain the best possible negotiated deal, however imperfect.

The unfortunate truth is that President Kabbah believed that he had to agree to that deal because his only source of income was aid from the first world. He did not have control of the diamond fields or receive royalties from diamond production. It was made clear to him that if he did not sign the Lomé agreement, he would not receive further development assistance.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that President Kabbah should have said, "OK, I don't want a deal. I'll let Mr. Sankoh take over Freetown and massacre intellectuals, lawyers and everyone else"?

Corporal Sankoh would have had difficulty doing that because he was under sentence of death in a Nigerian jail. He was released to conduct the negotiations leading to the Lomé agreement. It was clear from the specialist African press and the personalities involved that the agreement was forced on the Nigerians and President Kabbah against their better judgment. As the hon. Gentleman said, the production figures show that 90 per cent. of the diamonds sold through Liberia come from Sierra Leone and RUF areas. The RUF is a bunch of terrorist gangsters, so it is hardly surprising that, given its relationship with Liberia and having been left in control of the diamond-producing areas, it would not easily give up its source of wealth. That is precisely how it turned out.

If the United Nations force that was sent to implement the Lomé agreement had been robust and led by a first-world power with a strong mandate, it might have been possible by force of arms to have persuaded the RUF to surrender and to have forced the current confrontation with the RUF. The United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, UNAMSIL, was made up of nations that are militarily reasonable, such as the Indians and Jordanians, and of those that have proven in the field to be, absolutely lamentable, such as the Zambian contingent, which got into frightful trouble in Sierra Leone during the past six months and acted as a trigger—many Zambians were taken hostage. The next phase of operations with the RUF began to move away from the agreement, and the RUF thought that it might have a chance to turn over the operations of the United Nations and of the Sierra Leonean Government.

Our responsibility in the Sierra Leonean saga goes back to the arms to Africa affair. The Government display what appears to be an ethical reluctance to have anything to do with companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes, which worked for the Sierra Leonean Government and the diamond producers. The Government's reactions in public and private make a rather interesting contrast. In public, they display enormous concern about appearances and presentation. That is why they were so anxious to secure an agreement at Lomé. The Sierra Leonean Government and the Nigerians—the other major power that was involved—were, in effect, forced to come to an agreement, although their instinct was to crush and eliminate the RUF, which they would have done if they had had the appropriate support and opportunities. That could have been achieved if President Kabbah had been given realistic support in the first place from companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes.

The Government have made clear their great distaste for private-sector military companies, but if such companies had been used in Sierra Leone, they would have realised the objective, which we share, of ensuring victory for the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone and they would have secured the country's wealth-creation area—the diamond mines—which could have been handed over to a major mining corporation. That company could have helped to secure the area in exactly the same way that that has been done in other difficult parts of the world, such as Colombia. Royalties would have flowed to the Sierra Leonean Government—they would have had a source of income that would have enabled them to rebuild civil society in that country.

The hon. Gentleman's comments make a good advertisement for arms brokers and for illegal arms sales. Does he agree that arms brokers should be registered and that their exports should be licensed on an organised basis?

I agree with that absolutely. Transparency in this difficult area is extremely important. However, when one is trying to secure effective military intervention but, for understandable reasons, one does not want one's armed forces to be sucked into someone else's war, a strong case can be made for paying companies to take the necessary action. If one says that the public image of private arms companies is so unattractive that one wants to have absolutely nothing to do with them, one ties one's hands and takes away a tool that can be used to achieve one's foreign policy goals.

I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He knows, for various reasons, that there are many security companies in my constituency. Would he have preferred it if British mercenaries rather than a United Nations, or a British, force had gone into Sierra Leone?

Each situation is unique, but it would have been better if the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone had sorted out their own internal problem in the first place, with the assistance of companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes and on the promise of future revenue from royalties from the diamond mines, than if, after two or three years of butchery by Corporal Sankoh's forces and the RUF, the whole international community had been drawn in.

Given the United Kingdom's responsibility for Sierra Leone, the Government should see the action through to its proper conclusion. They were faced with a choice when they decided to deploy military forces. At first, the operation was intended simply to evacuate British nationals. Then another aim was added—to secure Lungi airport to get a United Nations force into the country. The main objective should be to return Sierra Leone to the control of its democratically elected president and restore civil society and security for its people.

The RUF is a bunch of terrorist gangsters, which supports itself in power through the supply of money that it gets from Sierra Leone's diamond mines and its relationship with Liberia, where the diamonds are marketed. The key military objective is to destroy the RUF by taking control of the ground that is vital to it—that is, the diamond-producing area. I believe that that is achievable, given that the RUF has no cultural basis of support and commands no tribal loyalty. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. The operation should be properly followed up with the kinds of commitment that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie described—retraining the Sierra Leone army, training the police force and the civil service and putting in place civil institutions.

Following the achievement of that military objective, the mining areas could be held by UN forces, and, in due course, handed over to a civil mining company that would look after their security. Meanwhile, the local police force and army could be built up with the help of companies such as Executive Outcomes and Sandline International, which provide such services in similar difficult circumstances.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have taken too long already, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.

The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie drew attention to the relative levels of involvement of UN and British forces. I agree with him that it would be infinitely better if it were a UN operation, under one flag, with a clear mandate to destroy the RUF through military action.

That raises the problem of who is to command and organise the UN operation. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that first-world forces would have to be involved. Britain is the only first-world country on the ground, so the Minister would have the difficult task of achieving British leadership and control of the operation so as to ensure its success. Given their previous leadership role, the Nigerians may resent the United Kingdom entering an area in which they are the main regional power. Another important factor may be the position of the current Indian commander of the UN force.

While difficult sensitivities will have to be addressed, the military objectives can be achieved with the forces that are on the ground in Sierra Leone. Given our country's responsibility for the situation, that is the course of action that we should pursue. It would be a crying shame if Government reluctance to establish control over the key wealth-producing area of the diamond mines—which is central to the restoration of civil society in Sierra Leone—led to a softly, softly approach based on the hope that the RUF would crumble in the face of a static British presence in Lungi and Freetown, and that the UN forces would gradually be beefed up to carry out that operation. The RUF might well collapse and victory might fall into our lap. However, we should not take the risk.

We have the opportunity to take firm action to restore a level of stability to Sierra Leone that it has not experienced for far too long. I hope that the Government will grasp that nettle. My hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have made it clear that that is also their view. I hope that the Government will discharge their responsibilities to Sierra Leone in a way that can be admired and held up as an example of resolute action being used to achieve the proper outcome in that unhappy part of the world.

I am here not to make my own speech but to represent my constituents. I am no expert in foreign affairs, and rarely engage in debates on the subject, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for raising the matter.

A third of my constituents is of ethnic minority origin, and among that group is a significant number from west Africa. I have received representations from three organisations. First, the National League for Human Rights and Democracy is a non-profit international human rights organisation that is a recognised nongovernmental organisation within the UN. It monitors and promotes issues of human rights and democratic values in west Africa. It is working on long-term solutions to the problems in Sierra Leone and examining models that have been adopted in Northern Ireland, for example. I hope to encourage it to make submissions to the Select Committee during its inquiry.

Secondly, I have received representations from the Lewisham Racial Equality Council, which feels that the status and concerns of people here need to be connected to their concerns about the countries from which they came. Finally, I have received representations from the South London African Organisation and I want to read its submissions into the record today. It believes that the present chaos in the west African sub-region is a consequence of the premature exit of the Nigerian-led west African peacekeeping force and the deployment of what it regards as an ill-equipped, under-resourced and badly trained UN peacekeeping force.

According to the organisation, most Sierra Leoneans argue that a weakness undermining the UN force is its rules of engagement, and that proactive engagement is the only suitable remedy for the complexity and severity of the conflict there. As one would expect, it condemns unequivocally the disruption of the UN forces and the peacekeeping mission. It appreciates the efforts of western Governments and the international community to secure peace and political stability, but it argues, as others have done this morning, for a much more proactive approach.

Prompted by recent developments, concerned Sierra Leoneans and other African nationals met on 8 and 9 May under the auspices of the South London African Organisation to put forward a number of proposals, which have been sent to me to convey to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). The organisation categorically condemns the killings and abduction of the UN peacekeeping troops by Foday Sankoh's Revolutionary United Front rebels. It asks western Governments—especially Britain and the United States—and the international community to support the Government and the people of Sierra Leone to secure sustainable peace and political stability by contributing rapid reaction troops. The organisation urges that this be treated as a matter of urgency.

The Nigerian-led west African peacekeeping force should, the organisation believes, be redeployed in Sierra Leone, as part of a well resourced, well trained and well equipped peacekeeping contingent. It believes that the current Lomé peace deal should be reviewed urgently, and that investigations into the shooting of peaceful protestors by RUF rebels at the residence of their leader, Foday Sankoh, in the capital, Freetown, should be part of such a wider review. The Sierra Leonean army and civil defence force should be strengthened, and the hitherto disputed status of the former resolved urgently.

The group does not want to engage in polemics about the rationale for a western contribution to a rapid reaction force, but it believes that the trustees of the Lomé peace accord—Britain, the United States and the international community—share an obligation to bring peace and political stability to war-torn Sierra Leone. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has clarified the position regarding the United Kingdom's role, but this organisation believes that the United Nations, including Britain and the United States, induced the Government and people of Sierra Leone to sign the Lomé peace deal with the RUF and its allies.

It is important that the Minister clarifies the position—he has done so today, and I shall make that point to the group. According to the group, there was a guarantee that the trustees would secure a sustainable peace through all humanly possible means. The group makes a contrast between the position of their country vis-à-vis the international community and that of Kosovo, where there are tens of thousands of NATO troops, including United States troops. Members of the group feel that there should be more international support, particularly from the United States, which recently agreed to extend operations by its troops in Kosovo, but still rules out sending a rapid reaction force to Sierra Leone. They say that the west and the international community should have learned by now that simple logistical support will not be a long-term solution to the problems faced by Sierra Leone.

Finally, on behalf of the Sierra Leoneans and under the umbrella of the South London African Organisation, I have been asked to appeal to the Government to react positively to the situation in Sierra Leone. The group appreciates what has been done, but feels strongly—the letter is signed by 71 constituents—that more must be done and that there must be longer-term, sustained support to find a peaceful solution and allow a return to full democracy.

I want to make three points, but I shall be brief.

First, I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said. A number of my constituents are refugees or have come from west Africa to study in this country. Two years ago, I made representations to the Government about why it was taking them so long to resolve the status of the Sierra Leoneans in my constituency. One of the leading lawyers involved in the prosecution of the people who carried out the previous coup had had to flee to this country. Her children were in Guinea, but she did not know where they were and was desperately worried. In the end, she went to Guinea to find her children, before her status in this country had been resolved. That was regrettable, and we should look at such matters, because they affect many people who flee to this country. Perhaps the Daily Mail and The Sun could carry stories about the way in which people have fled Sierra Leone and elsewhere to come to this country.

I want to comment on what the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said. He talked about national interest, which is a difficult question. Obviously, it is not possible for this country, despite being a permanent member of the Security Council, to be involved in all attempts to resolve conflicts throughout the world. However, it would be regrettable if politicians in this country gave the impression—as some Opposition Mems have—that we are interested in saving the lives of white Europeans only, and could not care less about black Africans. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate, who said that we should see the job through and continue to offer support. Given our involvement in the Lomé process, the diamond trade and other activities, and given our colonial history, we have a responsibility to the region.

What will happen in the long term if we succeed in liberating diamond production areas through the international community? Financially, personally and in terms of his surrogate army, the RUF, it is clear that President Charles Taylor of Liberia has a significant interest in the region. We must demonstrate foresight in respect of events in Liberia. Will it host continuing RUF incursions? Will there be guerrilla warfare? How secure will the region ultimately prove? That raises the wider question of stability and democracy not just in Sierra Leone, but in neighbouring countries.

I mentioned the UN report "An Agenda for Peace", which was produced by former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. We must reconsider that report, as well as how to establish effective regional security organisations. As a north Atlantic, European security organisation, NATO should not be the world's policeman. That would give rise to political problems, and it is difficult to see how it could work in strategic and logistical terms. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, NATO is the only regional security organisation that can begin to offer assistance, given the absence of effective organisations elsewhere.

The UN should consider the matter further. We have a role to play in building such structures because of the respect in which British military personnel are held throughout the world.

The hon. Gentleman's last comment implied that he believes that NATO has a role to play south of the Tropic of Cancer and I am sure that he will not want to leave that impression. Given his experience of defence, he will want to make it clear that it would be wholly improper for NATO to play such a role outside Europe. Moreover, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has misunderstood the nature of NATO. His comments were naive—NATO members may have a responsibility in the region, but the institution does not.

I agree. I know what is stated in article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty, but we shall not go into that now. NATO member states—particularly the United States, but also the United Kingdom and France—have military assets and capabilities that can be deployed globally. Such assets would have to be deployed in certain contexts, but to do so would raise the question whether the prime function—maintaining security in the north Atlantic—was being fulfilled. I have reservations about that approach, because there are implications that must be considered by NATO, the NATO alliance and our partners. Ultimately, we need regional security organisations, so we should do our best to support them.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Nigerians and the work that they have done in this region. I understand that 1,000 Nigerians have been killed in the Sierra Leone conflict. Such a loss would be an enormous burden for any society, and it is not surprising that the democratic candidate in the presidential election gave a commitment to get out of the situation because of it. The President's decision to re-enter the conflict required political courage and must be supported by other countries. We should be working closely with democratic Nigeria to do whatever we can, collectively and with others, to find a solution and to restore to the Sierra Leone Government control of their whole territory.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this timely debate. He is right to have brought the matter to this Chamber. I congratulate also the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on their important speeches.

I shall keep my remarks short, as I want to give the Minister time to answer the questions that have been asked. First, I should ask him whether there is any further information on the bodies bearing United Nations uniforms that were found yesterday and on whether they are those of UN personnel. We would be grateful for any information.

I offer my support and that of the Liberal Democrats to the British mission in Sierra Leone. The arrival of British troops could not have been timelier, and it provided an immediate and much-needed boost to the morale of the UN forces. It is increasingly clear that the presence of British troops is now essential to the success of the UN mission. Since British troops have been present, the UN force has been able to move deeper into the country, secure in the knowledge that its lines of supply, reinforcement and communication are covered. It is right that we should pay tribute not only to the Army presence—in the form of the Parachute Regiment and the Gurkhas—but to the support of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopter personnel who are flying from HMS Illustrious. The operation is an example of the deployment that the Government rightly identified three years ago in their strategic defence review.

In the past few days, pro-Government soldiers have been able to make significant headway in digging deep into Sierra Leone, assisted by British forces. With the arrest of the rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, and the news that more UN peacekeepers have been freed, the military signs are encouraging. However, the humanitarian implications are still not so. The new refugee crisis to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred is a strong possibility. We should remember what happened in Kosovo. Of course, the rains are coming, and the whole environment will change much in the next few weeks.

It has become clear that a week is a long time in Sierra Leone. The original mission of British troops was to evacuate British, Commonwealth and European nationals, but that has now advanced to another stage: Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Harriers have been undertaking reconnaissance missions, heavy artillery is being taken off HMS Ocean and deployed ashore to protect our troops at Lungi and Special Air Services and Pathfinder patrols are operating in the front line and exchanging fire with rebel forces. That shift in emphasis has allowed the UN to buy time for additional reinforcements to arrive. What is the Minister's impression of the new UN forces?

We urge the Government to accept that British forces are now central to the UN mission in Sierra Leone and that the premature withdrawal of our troops would have a devastating effect on that mission and on the UN's credibility in peacekeeping missions in general. We must keep some of our forces in Sierra Leone until UN troops have established their authority throughout the country. The hon. Member for Reigate called for one flag, one control and one force. There are good reasons why that should happen. Should not Britain continue to contribute to the reinforcement of the UN force and not merely enable that reinforcement to occur?

The UN cannot be expected to keep a peace that is not there in the first place. There is a stark difference between the mandates of peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Fundamentally, the UN needs a new and robust mandate that the troops can enforce. We must not forget that the UN constitutes nothing more than the will of its individual members. There has been much talk about the lack of suitable training, the ability to cope and the poor equipment of some UN units. However, if nations that have the capacity to support UN peacekeepers, whether financially, logistically or by providing high-quality equipment, choose to turn our backs, a UN failure will be our failure. It will not be the failure of nations of lesser economic or military capability, which none the less dedicate men where others fear to tread.

Some have argued that African nations should find an African solution to the problem. However, we have a moral responsibility as a permanent member of the Security Council, as the former colonial power and as the leader of the Commonwealth to provide a solution when others cannot. The Government are floating plans to train and arm the Sierra Leonean army and to ensure that 6,000 UN troops are available to secure SLA advances. We also welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence that military help to UN peacekeepers would continue even after the Parachute Regiment had been withdrawn. That support must be conditional—it must go to the right forces. There are now six separate armed command structures in a country of between 4 million and 5 million people, plus the RUF. We must ensure that British military assistance in terms of weapons or training is directed at the right location.

I pay tribute to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on the diamond trade, which is central to the problem. I welcome the reply that the Minister gave my hon. Friend on 18 May, when he said that he had had discussions with the G8, with Belgium and with De Beers. That was helpful and we will support Government moves to ensure that diamonds are part of the answer.

It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the United Kingdom does not carry the can for the west's unwillingness to connect in Africa. To withdraw prematurely would mean that our intervention had been in vain. By sending our troops to Sierra Leone and by assisting the UN peacekeepers, we have created a responsibility to the United Nations. We must ensure that we live up to that responsibility in the times ahead.

I welcome you, Mr. Gale, to the Chair for the first time in this Chamber. I am delighted to see you presiding over our deliberations. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on initiating the debate and I echo the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that it is taking place in this Chamber and not on the Floor of the House, where more hon. Members could participate.

I would like to add the Opposition's tribute to those already paid to our troops deployed in a hostile environment in Sierra Leone and also to their families back in this country, many of whom will be concerned until the troops return home safely. I am sure that our troops there will rise to the challenge of active service, not least because they are some of our finest service personnel. We all know that they will do a first-class job no matter what is required of them. I would like to express our concerns for the hostages being held by the RUF and for the aid workers still missing. We all hope for their safe return. We heard this morning of the RUF's demands for Foday Sankoh's release in return for the hostages. While appreciating the restrictions under which the Minister operates, we hope that in his reply to the debate he will reassure us about the Government's reaction to those demands.

We have a long historic connection with Sierra Leone, which has been maintained through the Commonwealth and our old colonial responsibilities. Freetown began as a destination for slaves freed by the Royal Navy. Believe it or not, at the end of the 19th century the level of education in Sierra Leone was higher than in this country. Today, however, it is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a derisory gross domestic product per head and a male life expectancy of a mere 37 years of age. However, that disguises the fact that its diamond mines are a major source of wealth. They are at the heart of the current round of killing and fighting, I am afraid. With great sadness we are again discussing Sierra Leone and the parlous state of affairs there.

I apologise for not having been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but I have been in a Standing Committee. That is a problem for hon. Members serving on Committees who wish to attend debates in this Chamber.

Do hon. Members agree that De Beers has a responsibility? As was said earlier in the debate, diamonds are coming out of Sierra Leone through Liberia and De Beers should close its purchasing offices there. Diamonds appear to be fuelling the conflict. Will Opposition Members add to what has been said about that?

I thank my hon. Friend, who saves me from having to cover the point later in my speech. Yesterday, the Minister gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee saying that he was taking action over diamond sales and blood diamonds and the Opposition will of course support him.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am very short of time and hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way.

I want to discuss some of the issues that were raised in the Select Committee because the Minister's evidence caused more confusion, with serious implications. I should like the Minister to clarify his evidence about requests from President Kabbah for Brigadier Richards to stay on in Sierra Leone, for an officer to train the Sierra Leonean army and for an official to be transferred into the office of the chief of defence staff. It was revealed that the decisions were taken by officials without reference to the Minister. Does he think, with hindsight, that that was wise? Can he confirm the date of President Kabbah's request, the date of the refusal and the date on which the Minister or his predecessor was informed that the requests—apart from the one for an official to be transferred to the office of the chief of defence staff—had been denied? Does the Minister consider that he has proper control of officials in his Department—particularly if they think that such decisions should be taken without bothering Ministers?

Surely there can be no doubt, after the Foreign Affairs Committee's previous investigation on Sierra Leone, when it adjudged what had gone on to be disastrous, that Ministers should be involved. Yesterday the Minister intimated that the issue was covered in Peter Penfold's briefings, particularly the final telegram, which the Minister said he would reveal in confidence to the Committee. If everything were in order, would the Minister place all the telegrams from Mr. Penfold in the Library of the House, including the valedictory dispatch? Anything less would lead us to believe the worst. He seemed very willing to provide them to the Select Committee yesterday, so I see no reason why they should be denied to other hon. Members.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No. There is not enough time and there is a lot of ground to cover.

I hope that the Minister will provide explanations of the involvement of Air Foyle, following his replies to the Select Committee yesterday. I understand from reports that Air Foyle flew surface-to-air missiles, Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenade launchers from the Ukraine to Burkina Faso last year. The Select Committee has asked the Minister to provide the dates on which officials and Ministers were informed about the flights and the date when the MOD contracts were awarded to Air Foyle. I hope that the Minister has those dates to hand.

The Lomé peace accord has been mentioned by other hon. Members this morning. Will the Minister expand on his evidence yesterday and confirm his and the Government's role? For example, how often did he meet Foday Sankoh? Obviously he spent a great deal of time with him, because he told the Committee yesterday that he repeatedly told him, "You have signed this agreement and you are going to stick to it." Did the Minister have any discussions with Mr. Sankoh about controlling the diamond-producing area of Sierra Leone and what was said on both sides? Can the Minister say categorically that no British official or Minister, or any other agent from the United Kingdom, brought any pressure to bear on President Kabbah to give Mr. Sankoh control of the lucrative diamond area? That matter was raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). There is some concern that inducements were given. During the Lomé negotiations did any party raise the subject of British aid and were any conditions attached to the aid? Were aid payments linked to the outcome of the Lomé agreement, and if so, how?

Why did the Minister acquiesce to the appointment to high office, and to the control of the country's finances, of a man who has raped, pillaged, maimed, tortured and cannibalised his people and murdered his family? Is the Minister happy to have done business with him on behalf of the United Kingdom?

Finally, I raise the military issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. Two weeks ago, we were told that our troops had a clear mandate to organise the evacuation of British citizens and ensure their safety. It is clear that that was not the whole truth; following the Minister's frankness in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we are now closer to the truth. The Minister told us that the troops' mandate was to evacuate British citizens, to secure Lungi airport, to facilitate the entry of UN peacekeepers via that secure airport, to provide logistical support to the UN force, to carry out searches for the hostages and to assist in any way that is considered desirable. That sounds like a mission brief. I believe that the Minister said yesterday—I could have checked his words had the transcript been available—that nothing is outside its mandate. If that is so, he should clear up the uncertainty and confusion about the deployment of forces. The remarks of a British officer with detailed knowledge of the operation demonstrate that confusion. He said that one of the problems in putting the mission together was that

the Government blows hot and cold on this issue, especially Robin Cook.

British forces continue to receive our support in whatever they are called on to do. However, the nature of our commitment is changing and Ministers have still not provided enough clarity. We read reports about the possibility that the United Kingdom might supply arms. The subject is being considered at a meeting today. The mission now appears to be an open-ended commitment, with the Minister giving the impression that our troops could be tied up in Sierra Leone for months. Despite the Foreign Secretary's assurances at the beginning of the month that British troops would not be committed as a combat force, they are taking on a combat role. The longer the mission lasts, the more likelihood there is of troops being drawn deeper into the conflict.

The Government's record on Sierra Leone has not been a happy one. British marines and paratroopers are doing a great job there. They will have the support of the Opposition in whatever they are asked to do. However, the Government's activities—and, in some cases, the inactivity of Ministers—will continue to be the subject of close scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will have enough time to answer the many questions that are being repeatedly raised about the Government's involvement in Sierra Leone.

Frankly, I doubt that I shall have time to do so.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this important debate at such a critical time. I pay tribute to his long commitment to foreign policy, especially in Africa. His remarks were thoughtful and well informed, which contrasted favourably with many of the debates on the issue in recent weeks. I agree with him that the debate has been flawed—the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made a similar point—in that it has focused on how fast we can depart rather than on what we are seeking to achieve.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

The remarks of other hon. Members were equally important, especially those by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that control of the diamond trade is crucial. That is true for Angola, the Congo and especially Sierra Leone. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) made the same point. He and other h Ms raised important issues concerning diamonds and the role of Liberia. Although De Beers has pulled out of Sierra Leone, it retains an office in Liberia. As all Sierra Leone's diamonds go across the Liberian border, De Beers should give the matter some attention. However, I must acknowledge that De Beers has co-operated with us in developing pioneering work to regulate the international diamond trade.

As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) described his plans for the use of private armies to solve every conflict in the world, I had an image of Commander Blunt, the hero of "Wild Geese", the sequel, intervening in conflicts.

Will the Minister give way? He has misrepresented me.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that he cannot accuse a Minister of misrepresenting facts in this Chamber.

The hon. Gentleman made one good point about how important it is to get control of diamond areas, but we must bear in mind that the diamonds are alluvial diamonds. They come from a vast area of bandit country and the terrain is difficult. The logistics must be considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) made many well-argued points on behalf of her constituents. I hope that they will be reassured. I understand the African anger about the apparent readiness of the west to intervene in Kosovo but not in Africa. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said in his well-informed speech, Africa needs regional security and peacekeeping. It needs to use the Southern African Development Community, ECOWAS in west Africa and the EAC—the East African Community—in east Africa to develop its own peacekeeping conflict-prevention capacity to provide the sockets into which a UN and western plug could fit. The absence of such a socket has been a problem in Africa for many years. I agree that NATO cannot do everything.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the big fuss that was made yesterday and what the high commissioner did or did not say. On 11 April, President Kabbah called the high commissioner, Peter Penfold, to say that he had decided to appoint a temporary Sierra Leonean chief of defence staff to replace the seriously ill Nigerian, General Khobe. He was concerned that General Khobe's departure would lead to a collapse of morale and would boost the RUF rebels. He asked us to move one of the British advisers who was working on the reform of the Sierra Leonean army into the defence headquarters with the new chief of defence staff. We did that, as the hon. Lady acknowledged. The president also asked us to advance the arrival of the new British commander of the military assistance and training team, which we agreed to do.

His third request, however, was to delay the departure of Brigadier Richards, who had been on a tour of duty, so that he could take over as the Sierra Leonean chief of defence staff. However, as there is no Sierra Leonean army to speak of, how could a senior British soldier—I hope that the hon. Lady is not advocating this—be catapulted into that position? We replied that our objectives are to strengthen the UN mission—we gave instructions to Peter Penfold to that effect—and to increase and stiffen the operation so that it is deployed further across the territory. We received no complaint about that. On the contrary, Peter Penfold reported that President Kabbah was content with our response and that UN forces were following our suggestion and deployment had begun.

As for ministerial involvement, the response was a routine operational matter. I saw the telegrams and there was no need to invite a submission or interfere with the decision. It was a perfectly straightforward operational matter within ministerial policy guidelines. It had nothing to do with the recent collapse of the peace process. The collapse was triggered not by that exchange—it would not have had an influence—but by the deployment of UN forces in the Makeni diamond producing area, which was controlled by the RUF. The UN forces asked the RUF to disarm, but they refused and took some of the UN forces captive because they feared that they would lose control of the diamond producing areas. That triggered Foday Sankoh's reneging on the Lomé peace agreement and the subsequent troubles. It had nothing to do with the exchange of telegrams. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put that on the record.

As for the Lomé agreement, I answered that point earlier. There were no inducements. There was no pressure. There was no bargaining over aid and development assistance. President Kabbah negotiated that deal. It should be remembered that he was besieged by thousands of RUF soldiers—the most belligerent and well-armed force in the country—and he had no forces of his own. There was no United Nations peacekeeping mandate; that would have taken months to achieve. One of the problems is the slowness of the UN's reaction to such matters. There was no alternative to that least-worst, imperfect deal. We will have to live with that fact, but there was no British pressure on the president to sign that agreement.

I have answered the question about Air Foyle. In March 1999, it apparently transported some arms from the Ukraine to Burkina Faso. We referred the matter to the UN sanctions committee, but there is no evidence that Air Foyle knew that those arms would be transported separately by another carrier to the RUF.

Violence and instability are not new to Sierra Leone. They have plagued it for more than 30 years. During the past nine years, since the RUF launched its war against the people of Sierra Leone, the country has been afflicted by unimaginable brutality. The people have seen their hopes and their prospects for peace repeatedly denied. The only time the RUF was repelled was in January 1999, when it besieged Freetown and 6,000 people were killed there. The Nigerian-led ECOWAS force repelled the RUF, which created the circumstances for the Lomé agreement. I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to the extremely important role played by the Nigerians—and the sacrifices that they made.

After nine years of brutal, bestial war, considerable progress has been made in the search for stability, security and peace. The UK and the international community have sustained President Kabbah, the elected leader, in power. The level of violence and the number of atrocities have been drastically reduced. We have supported the Lomé peace agreement, which offered the people of Sierra Leone a chance of lasting peace and stability. A large UN peacekeeping force has been deployed to help implement it; 2,000 more UN peacekeepers have come to Sierra Leone since British forces arrived, and another 2,000 will follow.

The reconstruction of the country has begun. We are building new and effective armed forces for Sierra Leone, accountable to a civilian ministry of defence. More than half of the former combatants have been disarmed—a considerable achievement—and led away from violence towards a new civilian life. Preparations for democratic elections early next year have begun. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for leading a visit by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in March 2000. Substantial progress has been made, but the RUF's actions in the past few weeks have posed a challenge to that progress.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about the RUF demand that Sankoh be released in exchange for the release of hostages. Let me make it absolutely clear that we do not negotiate deals with hostage takers. That has consistently been British Government policy. Sankoh and his followers must understand that they are in defiance of the United Nations and the international community. The hostages must be released safely and in good health. We will not trade Sankoh's freedom. He must face justice. He has a lot to answer for and he must be held fully accountable for his actions. I had a half-hour meeting with him, and challenged him about the diamonds. He became extremely unhappy and frustrated when pressed on the subject.

Our response has been swift and decisive. Our first priority was, and is, to protect British lives. Within days, we deployed the spearhead battalion with back-up forces, which enabled us to mount a swift and efficient evacuation of British and other entitled citizens. We have helped to secure the situation and we deserve praise, not continual sniping. The entire international community is praising us, and I invite the Opposition to do so as well.

I wish to raise an issue of justice that affects thousands, perhaps millions, of married women throughout Britain. Much of my speech will consist of short excerpts from letters that I have received from married women, because I want the debate to consist not of a politician from one party criticising a politician from another party, but of the authentic voice and anger of married women pensioners and those approaching pensionable age.

I shall begin with a letter from a Mrs. R. of Chingford, who says:

I am 54 years now…I have worked since I was 17 except for 3 years when I had my son, and am only entitled to 99p per week…It looks as though a lifetime of work and paying NI will leave me a very poor pensioner.

That is typical of the sense of injustice and anger in the 40 or 50 letters that I have received—a further four arrived this morning—on this issue.

As word gets around, I receive new letters expressing happiness at the fact that someone is taking up this issue, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively and constructively to the debate. I cannot hold the present Government responsible for these problems, many of which occurred decades ago, so I hope that the Minister will not adopt a defensive posture, but will join me instead in trying to right an historic injustice.

As the Minister will know, married women were initially allowed to pay a reduced rate of national insurance contributions in return for forgoing pension and certain other benefit rights. From 1977, no new cases were allowed, but 4 million women—about one in 10 of the then adult population—were allowed to continue with such payments, so the scale of the problem is large. In 1989, national insurance for the low paid was restructured, so that many married women on the reduced rate paid no more—perhaps even less—in opting instead for full national insurance. It is the initial system, the 1977 reforms and the 1989 reforms that I want to examine today.

The Department may have believed that married women who paid reduced national insurance contributions knew what they were doing, given that they signed a form stating that they had read the booklet and had made an informed trade-off. However, the reality is very different. Many married women have written to me saying that they had no idea how the system worked. Mrs. R. of Oldham said:

I recently wrote for a pension forecast and was appalled to find that I am only entitled to a pension of £22 when I reach the age of 60 in two years time…Absolutely no information was given to the fact that we would receive such a derisory pension. Had this been made clear at the time, I would immediately have elected to pay the full contribution.

There is also ignorance about the home responsibilities protection provisions. Mrs. S. of Weston said:

I was advised to pay a reduced stamp. I was not made aware at the time that I would not receive HRP credits for the time bringing up my children.

That issue has been raised by a number of women. Mrs. S. says that

thousands of women like myself…did not fully understand the implications of being on a reduced NI stamp until it was too late.

In other words, people genuinely did not understand the way in which this complex system worked. In many cases, married women did not make an informed and considered choice to save money now and pay in future—it was not like that.

Not only did many people not understand the system; some were given no choice. Mrs. S. of Morecambe writes:

In 1975 I got a small part-time job and told my then employer that I wished to pay full NI contributions. I was informed that this was not possible as all married women in part-time jobs had to pay reduced contributions.

She continues by emphasising:

At no time did I elect to pay reduced rate.

The Minister may say, "That is not possible: she must have signed a form." Perhaps she did, or perhaps the employer added her name to it—who knows. However, her perception is that she did not choose to pay reduced rate and would not have chosen to do so, had she known what was going on.

Some married women were given duff advice by their employers. One of my constituents, Mrs. H. of Compton Greenfield, who went back to work part time in 1972, was given no choice. She says:

My employer at that time employed an accountant who automatically deducted the reduced rate, and the implications were not explained to me. At no time was I informed about pension rights.

Some women asked their employers and got duff advice. Perhaps more worryingly, some also got duff advice from the Department of Social Security. For example, Mrs. J. of Billericay says:

I reached retirement age in October 1999 and filled in the form. The amount was £19.65 per week…I elected to pay married women's stamps when I got married in 1964—

this is the key element in this case—

because the Social Security said this would secure a full pension in my own right at 60 years, topping up my husband's contribution.

She went to the DSS and got duff advice. Similarly, Mrs. M. of Yeovil states:

A work colleague and myself were informed by the DSS office at Yeovil that, regardless of the stamp amount paid…our pensions would not be affected.

The Minister will have seen The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, which carried a story about a lady who had contacted me. When she asked, she was told that she had asked the wrong questions. That is the problem. People do not know how the system works. When they ask questions, they are given duff information; they are told that they have asked the wrong questions. If only they had known the right question to ask, they might have been given the right answer. That is the backdrop to the issue.

The 1977 rule change prevented newly married women from opting in. Married women at that time were contacted. I am not saying that the relevant information was not in the forms, nor that letters did not go out. I am aware that contact was made. However, I am querying the nature and the effects of the contact. Mrs. K. of Oldham says:

In 1977 when the law changed, I along with many others asked for advice either from our employers or the local social security office. The advice I got was "don't bother, you'll not get a pension, you won't have enough stamps on when you retire."

That woman is now receiving a pension of £29 a week. She says:

Just think what it could have been if I had started paying when I was 40.

That was when the issue arose. The advice given may have been right for some people, but I guarantee that it was not right for all.

Similarly misleading advice from the DSS can be found in the case of Mrs. M. from Wotton-under-Edge, who says:

In the 1980s—

after the rule change—

I telephoned the national insurance office to ask if this would affect my full pension at 60, and was told emphatically that it would make no difference whatsoever to my full pension at 60.

That was very clear.

A further example, relating to home responsibility protection and to the contents of the paperwork, is that of Mrs. C. of Dursley, who used to work for the DSS. She says:

When the election had to be confirmed, we were not issued with any paperwork or guidance. The certificate of election does not give any details—the implications on HRP do not get mentioned.

With regard to home responsibility protection, women who did not work at all would receive credits on their pension. Women paying full-rate national insurance would receive a pension entitlement. However, women who worked and paid some national insurance would receive no home responsibility protection. They would have been better off from the point of view of their pension if they had paid no national insurance at all. That is a crazy situation, and it is not surprising that no one understood it.

In 1989, we reach the key point in this saga. The Government reformed national insurance so that low-paid workers who did not pay much national insurance would have the right to a full pension. However, married women went on paying what was still called the reduced rate, which, by comparison, was pretty similar by then. Many women would have been well advised to go back in at that stage: all those who could have saved on national insurance by so doing, and those who might have paid a few pence more but started to build up pension rights. However, there were again problems with publicity. Mrs. K. of Oldham says:

I don't remember a major publicity campaign in the late 80s. How would people know about leaflets at the local Benefits Agency? It wouldn't have been difficult to get in touch with those concerned…[they] don't seem to have any problem when it's an underpayment, do they?

That lady knew nothing about the change in 1989.

Likewise, Mrs. Y. of Bath says that she did hear from the Department but could not make head nor tail of what she was told. She says:

I can remember having a letter many years ago—saying something about paying the higher rate National Insurance, but it was written in the usual official jargon which few understand and it certainly was not drawn to one's attention as being of major importance…the DHSS must have realised from the lack of response that thousands like me had not understood the full implications and should have issued something in "normal English" which spelt out the advantages a little better.

That is a key point. The change in 1989 should have prompted many married women to opt back in to the full rate and the number of women on the reduced rate should have dropped correspondingly, but that did not happen. The Department of Social Security should have noticed that few people had responded to the change and realised that it needed to try harder.

Two groups have been particularly affected. The first of those is women with much younger husbands; I refer to this as the toy boy problem. One woman said in her letter:

My husband is 15 years younger than me.

That means that she will be 80 before she receives a pension on his contributions to the age of 65. She might be dead by then, having had 20 years of retirement with no pension in her own right. The Minister may say that for many women it will not matter, because they will get a pension on their husband's entitlement and could not have made as much on their own contributions. However, for the woman that I quoted, and others like her, it matters a great deal.

The second group comprises women who worked on a full stamp before they were married. Mrs. C of Guildford states:

We were advised verbally that it was a waste of time paying a full stamp, but not told of the implications. The eight years I worked before marriage paying full stamp were wiped out.

In a couple more years, she would have had a 25 per cent. pension, but all those years were wiped out because she did not quite make the threshold. She probably could have got a pension, but was wrongly advised.

Pensioners from around the country have been telling me of the disgust that they feel when they receive their pension forecast, which is often the first time that they realise—at the age of 58 or 59—that they are expecting a pension that will not materialise. Mrs. M. of Wotton-under-Edge said:

I was 60 in 1995 and…had written to ask for a printout of my pension rights. I was totally shocked when it came back stating my pension would be 8p per week.

She had only seven years' worth of full stamps but, when she offered to make it up to 10 years, was told that she had left it too late. She continued:

I asked why I had not been advised but was given a curt answer. I have always been totally disgusted with the way the pension blunder has been handled by the government—

that is, the previous Government. In practical terms, some married women cannot retire; they have to carry on working because they do not have enough money to live on. Mr. Y. of Tyne and Wear wrote:

My wife receives the princely sum of 65p per week pension…she still works although she would like to retire—why can't she?—because the pension would not let her.

Married women all over the country who are just below, or above, pension age are disgusted, appalled and shocked when they receive such forecasts, because they had no idea how the system worked or they were given bad advice. Some are having to carry on working, and most feel that this is another case of women getting a raw deal out of the pensions system.

What should be done? I sought to give the Department advance warning of some of the points that I wanted to raise, and hope to receive recognition that the matter needs serious, long-term investigation. I ask the Minister to deal with three aspects in his response. First, married women deserve an apology—not from him, but on behalf of successive Governments—for the way in which they have been let down by the pensions system. One can argue that the forms gave the necessary information, and that if people had known the right questions to ask and had been aware of how the system worked there would have been no problem. However, many were not in that position and they continue to write to me every day to tell me so. They deserve an apology.

Secondly, the matter deserves serious consideration by the Government. I was treated somewhat dismissively by the Secretary of State when I raised it during Social Security questions a few weeks ago. The cases that I have mentioned, and others, require independent investigation, perhaps in association with Age Concern or another organisation that has contact with pensioners' groups. People must have confidence that a root-and-branch investigation into what went on and what went wrong is being undertaken.

Thirdly, redress must be given. That may be different in every case and inappropriate in some. Nevertheless, where people have been misled by officialdom, or if the Government have failed to contact them to tell them how the system works and what to do about it, the Government—even the successor Government—have a duty to respond to those cases, perhaps by reconsidering the home responsibility protection rules, or by allowing people to buy back years, even some years later. There may be other forms of necessary redress, but redress must be made.

The 40 or 50 letters that I have received are the tip of a large iceberg. I am grateful for the chance to bring the matter to the attention of the Chamber, and I look forward to a constructive response from the Minister.

I hope that I will be able to give the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) a response that will be at least partially satisfactory. No Minister could ever give a totally satisfactory response in a half-hour debate such as this.

What is perceived to have gone wrong in the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—although I note that the ages of the individuals vary—was a long time ago; in a bygone age, as far as my Department is concerned. To refresh my memory of the issues, I have checked parliamentary questions that I asked and comments that I made in the 1970s. In the late 1970s, changes were made which prevented married women from opting out if they were new to the work force. There was also the abolition of the half-test rule. At one time, I had a file 6 in thick, and I remember writing to those constituents for whom we were unable to put matters right, saying that we had put them right for the future and that the next generation would not be in the same mess.

I remember asking my noble Friend Lord Orme, who was a Social Security Minister at the time, why the Department could not give advice. It was as if there was an ordinance that Departments did not give advice—they were not in the advice business. All we could say to constituents was, "Make a claim and you will get a decision", when what they really needed was an advice shop in the Department. I can assure hon. Members that, in the 1940s, '50s, '60s, '70s and most of the '80s, no such thing existed.

The culture has changed since then, although I do not say that the future is completely rosy. The women whose cases the hon. Gentleman has raised are, rightly, aggrieved about the way in which they have been treated. However, most people in this country have not got a clue about how the national insurance system works. I must be careful about my language; it seems to me that most people do not fully appreciate the starkness of the position. Single men pay the same rate of national insurance as married men. The stark reality is that married couples who rely on the pension of the man are subsidised by the contributions of single people. Although no one puts it quite like that, that is how the system works. There is no differential between the rate for single people and married men. A married man will collect 160 per cent. of pension, including 60 per cent. for his wife, if she is not contributing.

There are many quirky bits such as that in the national insurance system and, occasionally, they come up and bite us. I remember the married women's option, as it was called; I dealt with it when I was a junior manager in the engineering industry in the 1960s. It was a flat rate of one shilling. Everyone knew that the only thing that it covered was industrial injury. The women on the production line at Salter's in West Bromwich knew that—it was common knowledge. That was all they got for their shilling. Of course, their wages were so low that they could not have contemplated paying the full rate. More women were coming into the work force, but they were, predominantly, on low pay. That is why there were campaigns about equal pay and related issues at that time.

There was an informed choice. The hon. Gentleman may know of someone who claims that they did not sign a form. However, we still have tons and tons of paper records around. There was a form that had to be signed. I admit freely, having read it again this morning, that the form was not brilliantly clear, and I can guarantee that it would not pass the plain English test. Nevertheless, a signature was required before someone could opt out of the full rate of national insurance.

To that extent, it had to be an informed choice, and leaflet NI1 did explain the situation in relation to pensions. By the 1970s, many more women were working, which was the reason for the change in 1977. The option was withdrawn in the 1978–79 tax year because 3.6 million women had opted out of the full rate of national insurance contributions. That figure is now 175,000. We stopped that unfairness for the next generation, and that reduction over 20 years means that we are on the way to eliminating it. That may not solve the problems of the examples given by the hon. Gentleman this morning, but reducing the number of women who opt out means that more will collect a lifetime's national insurance contributions because, by and large, women are working longer and the difference in wage rates is closing.

I do not suggest that everything was hunky dory under the previous Labour Government, but things started to go wrong in 1989 when the structure of national insurance contributions changed and gave rise to an anomaly in which someone who opted out might end up paying more national insurance than someone who was paying the full rate. The change in 1989 was for the good reason that, unlike tax, a £1 rise in wages might result in a £3 rise in national insurance contributions. That was barmy and the then Chancellor, Lord Lawson, introduced the change to deal with that.

In August 1989, a mail shot to the women concerned advised them to examine their position before the structural changes were introduced. The Government wrote to those women in a form that would probably not pass the plain English test—that is a bold statement, but the wording of the document does not look like plain English to me. A warning bell was rung and a light flashed to warn women to take action, but not many seem to have done so. I do not know why.

Further changes have been introduced more recently so that many women on low earnings do not pay contributions, but will be credited to the level of the basic state pension. It is beneficial for married women on low earnings to revoke the reduced rate election if they have continued to work and have remained opted out since 1978. The Inland Revenue now administers national insurance assessment and collection and is planning a mail shot later in the year to target those women.

I have seen some of the hon. Gentleman's questions, most of which go to the Treasury, which deals with national insurance matters, but I may not have seen all of them. Any Government mail shot in 2000 should be checked for plain English and it should be clear and explicit about what to do if people have questions. The Government would fail if they sent out a mail shot that was not consumer friendly. We estimate that some 6,000 women will receive it.

When the Labour Government made the changes in 1977, we did not want married women to lose out later in life and, in a leaflet, we gave a full explanation of the changes. However, not everyone, particularly if they are working shifts, checks with the Benefits Agency. In those days, it was impossible to get through on the telephone and letters were not answered for weeks, even letters from Members of Parliament. The system for responding to the public has been vastly transformed, but in the 1970s and 1980s it was not a customer-friendly service.

The hon. Gentleman was unfair to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was dismissive when the hon. Gentleman asked a question on the Floor of the House last Monday. My right hon. Friend said that the hon. Gentleman had asked the question before, but had not given sufficient information. I repeat that now. I require more information than the hon. Gentleman has provided when he has written to me in the past.

I have some correspondence in which I was given only the name of the lady in question. It contains no address, date of birth or national insurance details, yet I was asked to say that she should be eligible for an increase in her pension because she had worked in a Royal Ordnance factory during the war. I had to write back and ask for more information. If we have the basic information to enable us to check the files—date of birth, national insurance number, maiden name and so on—we will check every case submitted to us.

In cases in which someone has made a genuine inquiry—perhaps in the form of an early forecast requirement—and has been misdirected, there remains the option to buy back in. We must be careful that that would not constitute a one-way bet against the taxpayer. Every case would have to be individually assessed. However, I do not believe that there is any need for a large-scale inquiry. This is not like the issues surrounding SERPS.

However, if it appears after evidence has been submitted and we have checked our files that someone has been misdirected or misinformed by my Department, we will consider allowing her to buy back in the contributions that she has missed. In that way, she would be able to regularise her benefits. Successful applicants would be given the opportunity to pay arrears at the rate in force at the time that the payment was due. For some women on low incomes, that could even lead to a refund.

Would the Minister include in that category the people who, since 1989, could have saved money by going back into full-rate contributions?

I am not sure about that. It would not be possible, once one had elected to come out, to swap over again. We are quite prepared to look at each case on its individual merits. We do not have any such cases before us at present, although from time to time, people make individual inquiries of the Department. The situation is not unique.

In 2002, we shall start to operate the pension forecast. It will be phased in over a number of years, and will mean that everyone who is working will receive a pension forecast every year. It will include information on their state pension and their occupational pension. Women and men in their 20s and 30s, among others, will receive a P60 and a pension forecast every year. They might respond by saying, "I thought it would be more than that. What can I do about it?" The time to ask such questions is earlier, rather than later when one cannot do anything about it.

I have heard from constituents who have discovered at the last minute that their pension entitlement was 24 per cent. If one's pension entitlement is less than 25 per cent., it will be zero. Unfortunately, some people find out about such things at the last minute, when it is too late to make up the shortfall. They will get zero. That is an aspect of the workings of the national insurance system that has been in place since it started. Nothing is being reinvented here.

However, I take on board the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and, if we have evidence of misinformation or misdirection in individual cases, we shall do our best to check the files and, if need be, regularise the situation. We are not asking people to turn the clock back, but we shall need evidence in these cases. I hope that, in 20 years, there will be no need for a Social Security Minister to stand up and answer this kind of question.

The Minister mentioned evidence. Obviously, it is very difficult to obtain evidence from 10 or 20 years ago. What sort of evidence does he have in mind? Does it have to be documents?

I suspect that it will have to be. Unlike in the circumstances relating to SERPS, the burden of proof will not be on the Department. When the changes were made, mailshots were carried out. The publicity was adequate in the sense that leaflets were sent out by the Department and debates were held in the House. I realise that the media now tend to ignore the House but, in those days, they used to report the House more thoroughly, so there is less excuse for people being ignorant of this matter. However, we will look at every individual case that is put to us.

I begin by thanking Madam Speaker for allowing me this debate. When I made the request last week, the decision on Mike Tyson's application to enter the country had not been made. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made his ruling. Regrettably, it is not the one that I would have liked. The issue is attracting a lot of public attention and it is therefore still relevant.

Last year, the Government published an important document, "Living without fear: an integrated approach to tackling violence against women". Its opening statement was that violence against women is a serious crime with serious consequences. The document stated that one in four women in the United Kingdom experience domestic violence at some time in their lives and that the number of reported rapes has nearly doubled in the past 10 years, a steeper rise than for any other crime. At the same time, the conviction rate for rape has dropped from 24 per cent. to 9 per cent. Seven out of 10 women aged between 16 and 29 fear rape. They fear rape and personal attack more than any other crime.

In my opinion, and that of many others, the document set out in an intelligent and coherent fashion how the Government would tackle violence against women. It was welcomed by all sectors of society. Many felt at last that we had a Government who would give the issue priority. The document was followed by a review of sex offences legislation. The newspapers anticipate a paper being published later this month by the working body reviewing sex offences. Changes to rape trials to try to increase the conviction rate have been trailed by the papers.

People's expectations of the Government have been raised. However, a high-profile convicted rapist has been allowed into the country for the sole purpose of commercial gain—not once, but twice—and under an immigration rule that I believed was designed to prevent people convicted of serious offences from entry. Mike Tyson is not only a convicted rapist. His violence towards women is well documented. I shall not mention every story that the national press has printed about him. One, however, does sum up his attitude towards women and the evident problem he has controlling his violence towards women. A national paper in America once asked him what was the greatest punch he had ever thrown. He joked that it was the punch he gave his ex-wife.

In allowing Mike Tyson into the country, the Home Secretary exercised the discretion given him by our immigration rules. What signals does that decision send out? I feel that it has weakened the Government's determination to deal with violence against women. The fact that Tyson has been let in mainly for economic benefit sends out the message that tackling violence against women may be less important than making as much money as quickly as possible. Is rape to be taken seriously, or is it only to be taken seriously provided it does not cost too much? What weight was given to the Government's policy on violence against women when the Home Secretary made his decision?

I turn to the Home Secretary's reasons for allowing Tyson entry, which were printed in the written answer to the House on 18 May. The Home Secretary said that Mr. Tyson's behaviour on his previous visit to the United Kingdom was satisfactory and asserted that

any risk to the public…would be minimised by…his high media profile, the presence of his trainers and other supporting entourage, and the limited duration of his visit.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 210W.]

What happens if a member or members of that supporting entourage have committed or been convicted of worse offences than those committed by Mike Tyson? On 18 January, The Express published an article on Mike Tyson's first visit. It stated that one member of his team, Steve Fitch, had served a five-year term for manslaughter, which is a more serious offence than rape.

Will the Minister tell us what steps immigration officers will take to examine every member of Mike Tyson's entourage and to establish whether any of them have been convicted of a serious offence, as Steve Fitch was? If it is discovered that a member of the entourage has been convicted of such an offence, will that person be allowed into the country under the discretion that the Home Office has exercised under rule 103?

I am fairly certain that Mike Tyson would not set out to harm anybody on his first few visits to the United Kingdom. After all, he is trying to impress on people here that there is another side to his character. Last time, he turned up with a formidable public relations machine, which set out to give an impression of him that was slightly different from that which had previously prevailed. As he has twice been given permission to enter this country, it seems likely that he will able to travel here with impunity.

Having said yes twice, it is most unlikely that the Home Secretary will say no on a third or fourth occasion. The risk of the mask slipping on Mike Tyson's behaviour in Britain will increase with every visit that he makes. It is likely that he will at some time in the future start to demonstrate here the behaviour for which he is infamous in the United States. It will be interesting to see how the Home Office reacts when that happens.

As to satisfactory behaviour, it is true that Mike Tyson did not engage in any violence outside the ring when he was in Britain. He did, however, climb over the gates of the royal parks to go running. I am told that that was technically an offence but that the police chose to exercise discretion and did not arrest him. His offensive remarks about the women's groups and women parliamentarians—hon. Members who sit in the House—who criticised his entry into Britain were slightly more concerning.

I remind hon. Members that he described us as a bunch of frustrated women who wanted to be men, and he went on to express an opinion about the men to whom these women might be married. I am told that the phrase that he used is a colloquial obscenity, so I am loth to repeat it. If I did so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would tell me that I was using unparliamentary language. Mike Tyson did not attack anybody while he was here, but does the Minister agree that making derogatory and offensive remarks about women Members of Parliament is not the sort of behaviour that we expect of somebody who is a guest in this country?

The final reason for allowing entry was that not permitting it would result in a loss of economic benefit to the United Kingdom and would not enhance the UK's standing as a venue for a major sporting event. It is interesting to consider where the economic benefits of the bouts lie. I asked the Library to research some figures in relation to the Manchester fight with Julius Francis. Mike Tyson made £4 million in a two-round fight that lasted four minutes and three seconds. That means that he earned £16,460 per second. His opponent, Julius Francis, received £350,000 for managing to stand on his feet for just more than four minutes. The boxing promoters made a lot of money and, as we know, the sole broadcasting rights went to Rupert Murdoch's Sky television, which broadcasted the event on a pay-to-view basis; I think that these matches can be watched at a cost of £13 a fight. There is certainly a lot of money to be made, but the extent to which it was distributed around Manchester and United Kingdom is questionable.

Sheffield Hallam university estimated that the predicted loss to the Manchester economy of £12 million had the fight not gone ahead was highly exaggerated. The faculty's researchers calculated that the losses would probably only have been about £1.5 million. No evidence was ever produced to show that any business would be bankrupted had the fight not gone ahead. That casts doubt on who gets the economic benefits.

With regard to the UK's standing as a venue for major sporting events, I must tell the Minister that there are mixed views in the boxing fraternity about the Tyson fights, especially the one held in January. It might be wondered why I know about boxing. I have never before expressed views on the sport, which in itself is not the subject of the debate. However, I have two close relatives who were champion amateur boxers in their youth, so I might know a bit more about the subject than some hon. Members have given me credit for.

The view held is that the previous Tyson fight was not of the gladiatorial standards that we used to see with the fights of Muhammad Ali. The same might be true of this fight. One amateur boxer told me at the weekend that such fights are not so much gladiatorial as like a sick circus. Many in the boxing fraternity consider the Tyson fights to be an exercise in making as much money as easily as possible for a few people. We must ask whether the UK really wants to get a reputation as a sporting venue for such events.

I want to consider the point that I raised during Prime Minster's questions last week. Like many hon. Members, I represent a multicultural constituency. A significant part of my caseload is helping constituents who are trying to get close relatives into the country for weddings, funerals or visiting sick relations. We are not always terribly successful at that. It can be difficult to explain to a constituent why a close family member cannot be brought into the country, especially for something such as a funeral. The situation can be distressing. After Mike Tyson was allowed into the country in January, I found myself being asked why, for example, constituents could not get their mother, who had never committed an offence, into the country, when Tyson—rich, famous and convicted of a serious offence—could enter.

Our immigration rules are complex, and different rules apply to people coming from America from those that apply to people coming from the Indian subcontinent. However, the public perception is that it does not matter what crime people commit if they are rich and famous because they can circumvent UK immigration rules. That is an unfortunate message to send out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) wishes to make a short contribution. I am grateful to the Minister and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having kindly agreed to that. There is much public disquiet about the decision second time around. On the first occasion, many people who were unhappy with the decision might have gone along with it because many seats for the fight had already been booked and because we had been told that a lot of money was at stake.

Circumstances second time around are different. Many Members of Parliament are less than happy. When I checked last night, the number of signatories to early-day motion 741 on the matter was 81 and climbing. The total could reach more than 100 by the end of the week. I had never seen some colleagues as furious as they were last Thursday when the decision was made. There was real fury and anger at the decision having been made for a second time. Public opinion and the impressions of Back Benchers must be considered—that is why we are here.

:I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) on gaining the debate and on her excellent work to further the issue. Her seeking the debate and her other activities demonstrate that the affair is not of interest to Scotland alone. Like others, I supported those protesting in England last January, and I warmly welcome the support shown by English colleagues and friends regarding Mike Tyson's coming to Scotland. The United Kingdom Government have retained responsibility for the matter, which is therefore a UK issue. Equally, however, I welcome the many voices in the Scottish Parliament that have stuck to the real issue, which is about violence against women. We must not lose sight of that. Before I deal with that problem, I want to raise a matter that arose from the process by which the Home Secretary's decision was made.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Scottish dimension, which is important. Will she comment on the cynical attempts of the Scottish National party to exploit the issue, in particular its attempt to undermine the devolution settlement that, just two years ago, it fought side by side with other political parties in Scotland to achieve?

Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would confine her remarks to the subject of the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Gale. My hon. Friend made his point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) met the Home Secretary on 3 May. On 12 May, triumphant quotations in the Scottish press from the organisers of the bout said that Mike Tyson's visa was waiting for him. I immediately sought a meeting with the Home Secretary. On 17 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I met the Minister of State with responsibility for immigration and asylum. At 4.30 pm, we were told that no decision had been made and that Ministers had not seen the paperwork. However, in a written response to a parliamentary question tabled that day for answer the following day, it was clear that the decision had been made sooner than we thought. At what time on Wednesday was the parliamentary question planted? What consultations did the Home Secretary have between 3 and 17 May? What was the hurry to reach a decision on 17 May in light of the emerging protest in the Scottish Parliament and in Westminster, on which he was fully informed? The decision is inexplicable. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on that matter.

The reasons for granting the visa that were given on 18 May were greeted with incredulity and derision in Glasgow. We were told in January that the visa was granted because of exceptional circumstances—tickets had been sold and businesses would go bankrupt if the event was cancelled. Exceptional circumstances means not routine, but because the first visit created a precedent, it appears that Tyson must be allowed entry on the second application and, presumably, again and again. Did the Home Secretary realise in January that a legal precedent would be set for a second application? If so, why did he not tell us? The House of Commons and Labour Members of Parliament played fair with the Home Secretary in January. We thought that we understood the position; evidently, we did not.

The Home Secretary said yesterday that he was worried about public order on the streets and was satisfied that there was no danger of that being a problem. That is an outdated attitude. What about private disorder? What about beatings, batteries and rapes behind closed doors? What about the women who hope that their man's team wins on Saturday because they will be battered if it does not? What message does the feting and lionising of this man, whose has a string of violent actions against women and men, send to young men who are growing up? Plenty of other famous boxers must be more credible role models. It has been denied that Mike Tyson committed the crime of rape against Deirdre Washington but, as my hon. Friend said, there is a string of other violent incidents in his adult life, which is too long for me to recount. Were those all based on false allegations?

I am sorry that many women and men will be saddened and sickened by the decision. People are already saying that money talks. The only way to convince them otherwise is to introduce fair legislation that lets people without wealth and influence get into the country for family funerals and weddings and to visit the sick. The current message is that that is a lot less important than a boxing match.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) for securing the debate. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) set out a strong and resolute case. I do not expect them to agree with what I am about to say, but I want to explain the circumstances that led to the debate.

I completely understand the strong feelings that have been expressed in the House, in Scotland and in the United Kingdom generally, which is why I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter.

Would the Minister care to say what consideration she gave to the representations made by the representative of the Scottish Parliament, the Deputy First Minister, who I believe contacted her on the matter? Will she say how those representations were considered by the Department, and whether that could have influenced the Home Secretary's decision?

If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall deal with that aspect.

My hon. Friends have set out clearly their arguments against agreeing to Mike Tyson's wish to enter to the United Kingdom. In dealing with the application for entry clearance, it was necessary for us to weigh all the relevant arguments for and against his admission. In his statement to the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the basis on which we reached the decision to allow him entry. We did not reach that decision lightly, but did so after a careful assessment based on the history of the application and the need for fairness and consistency.

We were strongly aware of the objections that were raised to Mike Tyson's being admitted when he last visited the UK, in January, and of the immediate reaction to the news of his intended return. It is understandable that concerns should be expressed about his well-publicised criminal record. I have strong sympathy with those concerns. As I said last week, like all right-minded people, I consider the offences of which Mike Tyson has been convicted to be deplorable.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the concerns about the criminal records of some of Mike Tyson's entourage, and of others associated with the event?

That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Anyone who seeks to enter the United Kingdom will be considered under the immigration rules.

It was necessary for us to base our entry clearance decision not on Mike Tyson's previous convictions alone but on a careful assessment of the relevant circumstances in accordance with the immigration rules. The primary purpose of the immigration rule that allows entry to be refused to those with criminal convictions is to protect the public from the risk of serious crime. In this case, we were bound to take account of the fact that Tyson's behaviour during his previous visit in January was satisfactory. As on that occasion, he will be subject to close media attention throughout his visit and surrounded by his supporting team. As a result, the opportunity to reoffend will be minimal. It was therefore decided to grant entry clearance for a brief period that will be focused entirely on the fight.

Mike Tyson's case has been dealt with on the basis of its exceptional circumstances. Given that there would be no significant risk to the public in allowing him to enter, the benefits of allowing the fight to proceed appear to outweigh the arguments for preventing it.

Consultation was raised. We consulted the Administration in Scotland and took account of their views in reaching a decision. I spoke to Jim Wallace, the acting First Minister, before the decision was taken.

Did that discussion with Jim Wallace take place because he telephoned the Minister of State, or did she get in touch with him first?

I am trying to remember; I think that I telephoned him. Certainly, we knew that he was anxious to talk to us, but we placed the call because I wanted the Administration's view, particularly about the implications for public safety. My recollection is that I placed the call to Jim Wallace on the Thursday.

Order. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, where personal names are used, but we are still in the House of Commons, where we refer to Members by constituency. The acting First Minister is the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland.

That is certainly correct, Mr. Gale, although I cannot promise to remember his constituency precisely. I think that I have been affected by the refreshing informality of the new Parliament, something that I warmly welcome.

On the matter of precision, will the Minister tell us the exact date and time of her conversation with the acting First Minister?

Yes, I can be precise. It was on the Thursday—[Interruption.] I spoke to him twice. The first occasion was on the Wednesday, from my office in the Home Office. On the Thursday, I was on a visit and I spoke to the hon. and learned Gentleman that morning after he had obtained some information from me.

I am looking for the date, not the day. There are many Wednesdays in the month.

Last Wednesday was the first time I spoke to him and I did so again on the Thursday morning.

When exactly did the Home Secretary take the decision?

If my hon. Friend can contain his impatience, seeing that I have about three minutes left, I shall deal with that point, which was raised earlier.

I saw my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West and for Maryhill on the Wednesday afternoon. I told them that a decision was imminent and that neither the Home Secretary nor I had seen the papers. Those came up in the early evening and a decision was taken. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary personally advised the acting First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland of his decision.

I emphasise that Mike Tyson's entry clearance is strictly for the purpose of the proposed fight and for a single entry only. He will come here to prepare for that fight and leave once it is over. We have made it clear to him that there is no automatic presumption that he will be allowed entry again. If he wants to return, any application will be considered on its merits at the time. As we said, we are considering the rule again. My right hon. Friend published a consultation paper on the subject.

Our decision to admit Mike Tyson had no bearing on the abhorrence with which we regard violence against women. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was kind enough to point out activities undertaken by the Government, and our commitment to combating violence against women remains resolute. She also raised the important question of family visits, and will know that the Government—

Order.

I am privileged to have the opportunity to debate electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland.

When voting recently in the London mayoral election, I visited a mainland polling station for the first time. Only one man was standing outside; no Labour, Liberal Democrat or other party representative was present. The man was wearing a blue rosette, which I assume showed his membership of the Conservative party, and he spoke nicely to everyone who arrived. On my entering the polling station, there was no sign of the polling agents, as we call them, who mark off voters as they arrive. I was asked simply for my name and number—no one tried to check my identity beyond that. The atmosphere was calm and quiet, and I said to myself, "How different elections on the mainland are from those in Northern Ireland."

In Northern Ireland, every vote counts, so parties must work extremely hard to ensure maximum turnout, and there is always the temptation to indulge in electoral malpractice. Indeed, after the 1997 local government elections and general election, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee issued a report that accepted the existence of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland and the need to do something about it. The Government also established a committee to consider the matter, which published a report on administering elections in Northern Ireland. It, too, acknowledged the existence of, and need to address, such malpractice.

Both committees recommended an enhanced household form, a postal vote and proxy vote application forms. Significantly, they established that electoral smart cards using signature verification are the most effective way to prevent fraud and malpractice in Northern Ireland.

The latter report was published in October 1998. In replying to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's report, the Secretary of State said:

Although it has not been possible for me to give any firm commitment to the introduction of select proposals at this time, this should not in any way indicate that I do not take the issue of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland seriously.

He went on to say:

The Elections Review will be submitting its final report in the summer of 1998, and I am intending to publish its findings at the earliest possible opportunity. However, as you acknowledged in your report, it is unlikely that any substantial changes will take place before the elections to the European Parliament in 1999.

Those elections have long since passed, and we in Northern Ireland want to know what has happened to the report and what progress is being made. There is a general feeling that the Government are dragging their feet. In a letter dated 15 May to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the Prime Minister stated:

We will bring forward early legislation on electoral fraud. I would hope to find parliamentary time for this before the general election.

I welcome that.

In Northern Ireland, local government elections are held every four years. The next elections are due to take place in May 2001, and it is possible that there will be a Westminster election at the same time. Under Northern Ireland's system of proportional representation, which nowadays is not much liked on the mainland, it is possible for results to be very close—in fact, close in decimal figures. Any malpractice or fraud is therefore liable to have extremely serious consequences, in that it may lead to a result that is not true to the views of the electorate.

The problem must be dealt with before the local government elections—and, potentially, the Westminster election—in May 2001. The history of Westminster elections in Northern Ireland reveals that some constituencies are very closely contested, especially those in the west of the Province. That often results in an extremely high number of postal votes. In the 1997 Westminster election, the total number of absent vote applications was 38,885, which would be unheard of over here on the mainland. In my constituency, the figure was 4,372. Postal vote applications rose by 38 per cent. in Mid-Ulster, 37 per cent. in Belfast, North, 43 per cent. in Belfast, East and 45.84 per cent. in Belfast. West. It is believed that up to 10 per cent. of postal vote and proxy vote applications are fraudulent. It is vital to try to ensure that such malpractice does not happen, because malpractice may seriously affect election results, especially in closely fought constituencies.

The hon. Gentleman may recollect from the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the chief returning officer told the Committee that he had received four applications for postal votes from people who had died. Information about deaths from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Northern Ireland is passed to the chief returning officer, but he could not legally refrain from issuing the papers for postal votes.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

The presiding officer, electoral officer or deputy electoral officer may not be notified of a death that occurred, and he could not refuse a ballot paper even if it was known on election day that the person had died before the election. That shows the necessity for a legal change.

The recommendation for an electoral smart card utilising signature verification is an expensive solution and could not be introduced for some time. It is unlikely to be available for the elections next year, so I shall suggest some changes that could be made immediately to reduce malpractice next year.

At the beginning of October, every household in Northern Ireland receives a form on which to state the number of electors in that household. Those forms are not satisfactory because some people include all their family, although some members of that may not be resident in the household. Objections can be made to a court, but it is almost impossible to prove that someone is not resident if the household form states that he is. Names remain on the register when they should not be there, with the result that the register is not as accurate as it should be. I suggest that changes should be made to the form this year and there should be time to do that. The form should ask for the date of birth and national insurance number of each elector, the elector's mother's maiden name and the number of rooms in the dwelling. There should also be a little box in which each elector states whether he possesses a driver's licence. The majority of electors in Northern Ireland hold a driver's licence with a photograph and they could be required to use that as identification at the polling station.

The application forms for postal votes and proxy votes at next year's elections should reflect the changes on the household form. They should ask similar questions so that, when the form is returned to the electoral office, a check can be made on whether it accurately reflects the records held in the electoral office. That would help to prevent people from submitting proxy vote or postal vote application forms for those who are unlikely to vote.

I also recommend that the marked register be done away with. Surprisingly, it is possible to buy in Northern Ireland a set of registers naming all the people who voted at the last election. One can normally do that, but such registers are not cheap. Although normal political parties do not have the money to pay for marked registers, Sinn Fein seems not to be short of money and can readily avail itself of them.

When one accumulates a number of registers over time, it becomes clear that those people who never bother to vote and have never visited a polling station can be identified. As a result, false proxy votes can be cast or false postal vote applications made on their behalf. A large number of applications arrive on the chief electoral officer's desk a few days before an election, and it is virtually impossible for him to sift through 38,000 votes to establish which applications are legitimate and which should not be upheld. If the marked register were done away with, it would be harder for someone to discover the identity of a person who had never voted. It would then be difficult to vote in that person's stead through proxy voting or postal voting or through voting at a polling station by pretending to be someone else.

Changes should be made at the polling station itself. The presiding officer should be empowered to refuse a ballot paper if he, his staff or a polling agent have reason to suspect malpractice of any kind. As I understand it, a ballot paper cannot be refused unless a polling agent objects. A polling agent sits in a booth and must be sure of his facts before making such an objection. He does not see the identification documents, and it is difficult for him to object, so it is the presiding officer who should be so empowered. If, according to his judgment and good offices, he suspects malpractice, and if his staff or a polling agent objects to a vote, he should be empowered to intervene and suggest that the police make an arrest.

The polling station electoral register should state whether a voter holds a driving licence, so that it could be used for identification purposes. The register should also show a voter's date of birth and mother's maiden name, so that relevant questions could be asked where an application for a ballot paper was suspect. A ballot paper would then be provided only when satisfactory answers were given.

Throughout the United Kingdom, the police seem to have forgotten that their duty is to prevent, as well as solve, crime. Voting twice, or voting in an election in which one should not vote, is a criminal offence, so it is the duty of the police to make an arrest if they suspect that a criminal offence has taken place or is likely to take place. In Northern Ireland at the moment, the police say that it is nothing to do with them and that they cannot intervene. That is contrary to the rules that govern the conduct of police constables. The police should act if they think that a crime is about to take place.

We should consider the possibility of giving each elector a personal identification number. Such numbers are in common use with Visa cards and smart cards. Electors would receive a PIN, which they would bring to the polling station. There, they would have to state their number, which could be checked against the electoral register. There are difficulties with such a system: PINs might not be delivered or people might say that they had not received a number. None the less, such possibilities should be considered.

Local government elections will take place in Northern Ireland in 2001 and are likely to be followed by a general election. Malpractice must be reduced to the lowest possible level, and the Government have a duty to act expeditiously to see that that happens before the next election.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) on his choice of subject. It is an important subject, as was illustrated by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said during his recent appearance before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. We are in regular contact with the chief electoral officer, Mr. Pat Bradley, who is widely respected throughout Northern Ireland. I have every confidence in him. He is about to retire, but the process of appointing his successor is under way.

We share some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I do not think that it is fair to say—normally, he is a fair man—that we are dragging our feet on the issue. The hon. Gentleman put forward ideas that he would like us to consider. I do not intend to go through each in sequence—for one thing, there is not enough time—but I will carefully consider his points. We are committed to having a Bill on the subject, but the question is whether there is sufficient time; I shall return to that. The Bill may cover some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, I give a warning: although we agree that it is important that electoral procedures should be robust enough to prevent them from being abused too easily, we do not want to make access to the vote so difficult that it puts legitimate voters off. That is a difficult balance to strike, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, but we must strike it, none the less.

Both the report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which has been mentioned, and the Northern Ireland Office report "Administering Elections in Northern Ireland" noted that there have long been concerns about electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. However, the Northern Ireland Office review concluded that

elections in Northern Ireland are efficiently and fairly administered, often in very difficult circumstances.

What I am unable to do—the hon. Gentleman had a stab at it—is quantify the problem. There are very few arrests for electoral malpractice, but not, frankly, because the police do not take the matter seriously. I entirely accept that that is not a sign that all is well or that there is no need for change—far from it. Electoral abuse is difficult to prove, not least because many people who appear to have had their votes stolen may be afraid to speak out or to give evidence, or they may not know that their vote has been stolen.

Whatever the difficulties of attaining evidence, it is important to ensure that we act in a way that is proportionate to the problem. Electoral abuse is an affront to democracy, but we do not want to introduce measures that would deny innocent people their vote or make them feel that the system was so oppressive or off-putting that they would not go to a polling station, bother to apply for an absent vote or register in the first place.

The fact that the Government have recognised the difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland means that the measures that had been introduced in pilot schemes elsewhere in the United Kingdom—they are designed to facilitate and encourage absent voting, and may use more flexible voting times—will not be extended to Northern Ireland. We recognise that moves that are intended to encourage and assist voters in Great Britain may serve only to aid those who are intent on electoral abuse in Northern Ireland.

It is important that we have extended the legislative provisions on rolling registration to Northern Ireland—it means that people can put their name on the register throughout the year rather than during a narrow time frame. That should ensure that the register is more accurate.

We hope to introduce early legislation on electoral fraud. Many of the measures that we want to introduce, including those that were recommended by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and in our review, will require legislation through a Bill. The hon. Member for West Tyrone referred to the letter that passed between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we hope to find parliamentary time for such a Bill before the next general election. However, no Minister would give a firm commitment about the contents of Her Majesty's Loyal Address before it was delivered.

Could not the Government introduce such measures through an Order in Council?

The hon. Gentleman spends much time urging me not to use Orders in Council, and I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not readily accede to his request on this occasion.

I want to discuss some of the recommendations of the Select Committee and of our report. Electoral cards remain, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, our long-term objective but, frankly, current technology is unlikely to provide a satisfactory system at a reasonable cost. In the meantime—before the eventual introduction of electoral smart cards—we hope to develop measures that will help to combat electoral abuse.

Signature verification, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, would be an important means of providing authentication of absent vote applications and it could possibly be used to provide additional identification at polling stations. The necessary process is under consideration and the approach is technically possible. I shall not discuss that in detail because time is short. We are also considering the investigatory powers of the chief electoral officer. We should have detailed consultations in that regard.

There are various steps to be taken, and there is the prospect of introducing legislation before the next general election. We take the matter seriously and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it in this debate.