What his policy is on the decommissioning of warships and submarines that were built less than 20 years ago. [122639]

The life of each vessel is planned carefully at the design and procurement stage, but requirements change over the course of a ship's life and we must maintain an affordable front-line capability to meet the current and predicted strategic requirements.

Jane's Fighting Ships is not my usual reading, but I found it worrying that the editor of that august manual fired a broadside at the Government, saying that we were flogging off at a knock-down price ships that were perfectly serviceable and were commissioned only 12 or 13 years ago. More worryingly—I cannot believe that this is true—he said that, in the lifetime of the Government, we have failed to order a single warship for construction. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.

During the strategic defence review, it was clear that the requirement for major surface vessels had altered. As a result, six older and, more importantly, less capable vessels were to be replaced by three type 23 frigates. One of the reasons for the delay is that, under the previous Administration—as we and others pointed out at considerable length—the Horizon project was in considerable difficulty. We had to terminate that project and move to the capable type 45, for which we have already awarded the design contract and look forward to awarding the manufacturing contract later this year.

In 1997, the previous Government left one of the youngest naval fleets that had been available to the Navy since the war; frigates and destroyers at 35 and submarines at 15. Now, we have 27 frigates and destroyers and 10 submarines available to the Navy. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the early sell-off of certain ships—"early sell-off" being the key phrase. What new orders for warships have the Government placed since they have been in power?

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not responded to the point that I made. I will happily quote from the editorial of Jane's Fighting Ships, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred. It stated that the UK

has finally withdrawn from the always ill-conceived air defence destroyer project with France and Italy, and a new national design has a prime contractor ߪ The hidden cost of a decade—

I wonder who was in power during that decade—

of the wrong sort of collaboration lies in the prolonged delays of introducing a modern capability in this most vital of all warfare disciplines.

That is why the projects are delayed and why we are awarding the design contract. That is why, later this year, we will award the first-of-class contract for the type 45 and why we have already awarded the design contracts for the two new aircraft carriers which the hon. Gentleman and his Government did not think to order either.

We have now had the usual from the Government, which is no answer. I asked a simple question: how many new orders have they placed? As Captain Richard Sharpe, the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, has said, this represents

the biggest gap since the days of Henry VIII.

That is the condemnation of the Government. Given that we are to have fewer ships with less capability—in addition to seamen saying "Bang!" instead of firing real bullets—will the Minister tell us why, at the height of the Kosovo war and with all their cuts planned for the Navy, the Government reduced the budget for the fuel allocation to the fleet by one third?

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that fuel prices were moving at that time. I am surprised that he describes the fleet as less capable, particularly following the fitting of Tomahawk cruise missiles to all British nuclear-powered fleet submarines, which demonstrated their extreme capability during the Kosovo war. I am surprised also that he describes the type 45 as less capable. The previous Government left us with a considerable mess with a project that had been hanging on and which they refused to terminate. This Government had the courage to terminate that agreement with the hon. Gentleman's European allies. As a result, we have now ordered the type 45. The Conservatives left us with a mess, and it is extraordinary that they come here and pontificate in this way.

What progress the Government have made in promoting defence diversification. [122640]

What progress the Government have made in promoting defence diversification. [122641]

We set up the Defence Diversification Agency last year, with a permanent director appointed last summer. The agency is already making a substantial contribution to the transfer of technological know-how between the Ministry of Defence and small to medium-sized businesses. With seven offices already established across the country, and with a further seven to follow later this year, the agency has already handled about 300 company inquiries.

Apart from the existing Defence Diversification Agency offices in Rosyth, are there any plans to open more offices in Scotland? To what extent is the agency's objective not merely to seek profitable civil spin-offs from military production but to expand our civil production base?

I am very pleased to be able to inform my hon. Friend that it is our intention to open an office of the DDA in Glasgow before the end of the year, as part of the next phase.

Surprise, surprise.

Indeed.

Civil spin-offs are a major priority for defence diversification, with a view to securing as much additionality as possible from our defence military production and research.

As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, small businesses are the most likely to be able to take advantage of technology transfer and to use the Defence Diversification Agency for research. That must certainly be the case in my constituency. What is he doing to target those businesses and ensure that they can take full advantage of the opportunities available?

We have quite a few initiatives in progress that will be of direct benefit to small businesses. For example, a couple of weeks ago I was fortunate enough to speak at a seminar on opportunities in defence for small and medium-sized companies; we are encouraging secondments from the defence industry to the DDA; we conduct technological roadshows and exhibitions; and business support partnerships have been established, connecting to Business Links, Scottish Enterprise and similar agencies in Northern Ireland and Wales, working in partnership with existing business support networks and initiatives. We believe that an effective working partnership with intermediary business support networks is critical to the success of the Defence Diversification Agency.

So what is the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)? Is it true that no ships have been ordered and that sailors now shout "Bang!" instead of using live rounds? Is the idea of the Government's diversification programme to replace offensive weapons with offensive language?

You will be well aware, Madam Speaker, that I never use offensive language, especially in the House.

I am very much afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I can add nothing to the full reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces gave some moments ago.

Given the enormous importance of the defence industry to the west country and our disproportionate exposure to the sector, how many times have the Minister or his colleagues met representatives of the South-West regional development agency to discuss diversification?

I have absolutely no idea what my hon. Friends have done, but I have not yet had the opportunity to hold such meetings. Were I to receive an invitation, I would be very happy to meet those people and discuss our plans.

Can the Minister reassure the House that any proposals for diversification are better thought out than the plans to diversify the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which have caused so much uncertainty and hostility among those who work for it, such as the people at Fort Halstead in my constituency? How can the Government be so sure that exactly three quarters of the staff will be diversified to the private sector yet be so hazy on all the details?

One of the problems with conducting a process openly is that it leads to certain doubts and discussions about what one's plans are and what the results are likely to be. This is a complex process. Of course, the figure of 75 per cent. is an approximate one, but we believe that that proportional split between those to be retained in the agency and those to be privatised is approximately correct, and we will introduce plans to put it into effect later this year.

If he will make a statement about the purpose of RAF Fylingdales. [122642]

RAF Fylingdales provides the United Kingdom with early warning of potential ballistic missile attack against the United Kingdom and western Europe, and the United States with early warning for north America. It has performed that function since 1963.

Does the Minister agree that many people believe it to be foolish and dangerous to allow RAF Fylingdales to be used to make the UK a sitting target by basing a national missile defence system there that will protect US but not UK airspace? Why does he say that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is solely a matter for the parties who have signed it? If UK land is to be used to break that treaty, surely it is a matter for him. Will he confirm that the decision to allow the deployment of the national missile defence system at Fylingdales is a matter for him, and not for the US Government? Will he rule out that deployment today? If not, will he give us a date when the decision will be taken?

The hon. Gentleman makes a considerable number of points, some of which, I regret to have to tell him, are quite wrong. I will not go through them in detail, save to say that, clearly, if two parties are signatories to a treaty, it is for them, and not any other nation, to interpret it. He is right to this extent: it is for the United Kingdom to decide what should happen at RAF Fylingdales. As yet, there has been no specific request for the use of those facilities from the US, not least because it has made no decision about whether to deploy national missile defence.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if such a request is made, RAF Fylingdales will have to be upgraded to perform that role?

If such a decision were made by the President of the United States and if, as a result of that decision, a request were made to the United Kingdom for the use of RAF Fylingdales, yes, the facilities would have to be upgraded.

How many men were at battalion duty on 15 May with (a) 1 Para, (b) 2 Para and (c) 3 Para. [122643]

The trained strengths of 1 Para, 2 Para and 3 Para as at 1 April 2000—the latest date for which figures are available—were 584, 551 and 620 respectively. These figures are for UK trained army personnel only and include attached arms.

I take it that that answer does not reflect the deployment to Sierra Leone, which I asked about in a question on 15 May, or the fact that more than a company of the 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, had to reinforce the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, in Sierra Leone. That reflects the woeful state of understrength infantry battalions, not just in the Parachute Regiment but across the board. What does the Minister expect the undermanning to be in the Scottish Division in six months' time? Will he undertake not to try to blame the previous Conservative Government, because Labour has now been in office for more than three years, which is longer than a soldier's standard engagement?

I am more than happy to blame the Conservative Government, and will continue to do so, for leaving us a deficit of more than 5,000 in the Army. We have had to add 3,000 additional posts to fulfil the strategic defence review and our assessment of the requirement. The total trained strength of the three regular Parachute Battalions is 1,755, and that is 153 higher than at the same time last year. I shall announce later, in answer to other questions, the increase in the Army overall. However, we are not complacent. We are pleased by the levels of recruitment, especially at a time—thanks to the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of record employment. We are considering the issue of retention and we have made some improvements, but we can go much further.

After the Americans had to scuttle out of Somalia and the French left Brazzaville to burn, is not it a matter of some pride that British paratroopers can go in and restore order in Sierra Leone, working with the United Nations? Is not it a matter of some shame that all the Conservatives can do, having left the Army grievously undermanned for this Government to put right, is to undermine the Army in every way with constant criticisms of what our men are achieving abroad for the Government and for the international community?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. In spite of the Opposition's earlier performance, they have improved a little recently, probably in response to the spectacular success of our armed forces and the great national pride that is taken in their performance. As my hon. Friend knows, the Parachute Regiment has returned to the timetable that we initially announced and its job is now being performed, equally professionally, by the Marines. We are proud of them and, in our discussions with our international counterparts, we have learned that they have been impressed by the speed with which our forces reacted and the professionalism with which they perform their jobs.

I am glad that the Minister had the opportunity to visit the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, on Thursday morning and to take breakfast with it to congratulate the men on their magnificent achievements in Sierra Leone. I am only sorry that he was not able to inform me in advance, because I would have been happy to have joined him in that trip to my constituency. The Minister will know, from his close connections with that regiment, of the enormous pride that it has, so it is unfortunate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out, the 1st Battalion recently had to be reinforced. I understand that a Gurkha company is also with the Paras. Does the Minister agree that it would be advisable, and beneficial to the Government, if the Parachute Regiment could be brought up to full strength?

Certainly, the Parachute Regiment is working on that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are always more applicants than there are places available, and the training regime is extremely rigorous. When I spoke to officers of the regiment on Saturday, I was pleased to see the work being done to rectify the problem.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to get a free breakfast on Saturday, and I apologise for the fact that my officials did not notify him of my visit. However, given the speed of the withdrawal of our troops from Freetown, he will understand that the timing of my visit was slightly uncertain until the last moment.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the skills of the Parachute Regiment. I only wish that he would not overlay the constructive points that he makes with so much carping criticism. Members of the Parachute Regiment are enormously, and justifiably, proud of the role that they played in the crisis.

What logistical support his Department is continuing to offer KFOR in Kosovo. [122644]

We have some 650 personnel deployed to provide support for our own forces, including logistic, medical and equipment specialists.

In addition, we are providing the commanding officer for KFOR in Macedonia, we are responsible for operations at the airport near Pristina, and we are assisting KFOR with the movement of its personnel and equipment within Kosovo.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It underlines the nation's great pride in the success of British troops in KFOR in maintaining an even-handed approach in Pristina and in apprehending war criminals in the area. However, does he agree that one of the problems during the conflict was the lack of surveillance and intelligence information on the ground? Will he therefore look at improving our reconnaissance and surveillance capacity as a matter of urgency? That is important, given the local elections to be held in Kosovo in the autumn and the fact that, as is reported in today's edition of The Guardian, moderate Serb leaders have already asked European officials to beef up anti-terrorism measures in Kosovo.

It is certainly a matter of some pride that the upsurge of insurgency in the Presevo valley has been dealt with very well by allied forces there. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to support and assess information. We have deployed Phoenix to the area to conduct observation for that reason, and the Astor programme, which the Government have ordered, in due course will enhance enormously our capability in that respect.

May I commend the Government on their exercise of open government with regard to today's publication of the report entitled "Kosovo: Lessons from the Crisis"? Is it not clear that many of the shortcomings identified in the report result from systematic reductions in the defence budget dating from about 1989? In truth, when the then Conservative Government made the proposals, neither Labour nor Liberal Democrat Members sought vehemently to oppose them. However, if we are to have an expeditionary strategy and assert the moral obligation to intervene on humanitarian grounds, is it not clear that we must be able to intervene in the first instance with sufficient capability? Also, must not we be able to sustain the forces that we deploy so that they can cope with what, inevitably in some cases, will be a long haul? As long as the shadow of the Chancellor continues to threaten the Ministry of Defence budget, how do the Government think that they will achieve that?

I am always in favour of pleas from Opposition Members for additional funding, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's analysis closely resembles that of the strategic defence review. The effectiveness of the SDR was demonstrated clearly in Kosovo, where we were able to respond rapidly. We have also managed to sustain that operation with forces in Bosnia and Kosovo, and they are doing a tremendous job extremely professionally.

With reference to an earlier question, I should like to point out that, at the same time as running those operations, we were able to intervene in Sierra Leone with spectacular speed—more rapidly, I believe, than almost any other country in the world. Obviously, we need to enhance that capability, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the heavy-lift programme, which will start with leasing four C-17 aircraft and include the A400M. Naturally, a programme of that size will have been agreed with the Chancellor and the Treasury. That demonstrates the commitment of all Departments to the implementation of the SDR.

Is the Minister aware that German soldiers in Kosovo have been told not to eat local produce after fears that deposits of uranium from NATO's use of depleted uranium might have contaminated the soil? Similarly, there have been reports that the United Nations has warned its officials that the water supply could be contaminated. What warnings have been given to the civilian population and to British troops serving there?

I have had no indication of any of that. The problems of water supplies are more to do with traditional pollution, which is why our forces have substantial supplies of bottled water. The argument about depleted uranium seems to have been greatly exaggerated. As for pollution, the United Nations investigation demonstrated that most of the problems stemmed from before the military engagement in Kosovo, and are down to the reprehensible policies of the Milosevic regime.

Progress in Kosovo for both the military and the civilian populations continues to be hindered by the danger from unexploded ordnance. I understand that there have been 100 deaths and 400 other casualties as a result, many of them, regrettably, from unexploded allied cluster bombs. However, 40 per cent, of the area at risk has still not been cordoned off. Given the Government's commitment to humanitarian de-mining, why did NATO not co-operate with the United Nations mine action co-ordination centre in Pristina, when last August it asked for help in locating cluster bomb drops? Why did Kofi Annan have to write last month begging Lord Robertson for help? Why, after all this time, have only 4 per cent, of the minefields in Bosnia been cleared?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be congratulating our forces which, as a priority on entering Kosovo, cleared many public buildings, notably schools, so that some 90 per cent. of children were able to get into their schools. I should have thought that extremely important.

In Kosovo, we are undertaking, as we do in all countries with similar problems, a lot of work in alerting people—not just our own troops, allied personnel and non-governmental organisations, but the local population—to the dangers of unexploded ordnance. Our troops are also working with local organisations to deal with clearing them. It is a major job, as we have found in all such countries. Indeed, as we all know, even today we are still finding unexploded ordnance in this country. We should recognise the considerable work that has been undertaken to enable Kosovo to return to a degree of normality, rather than simply carp about what still requires to be done.

What the current strength is of the Army. [122646]

The current strength of United Kingdom trained Army personnel as at 1 April 2000—the latest figures available—is 96,475, an increase of some 175 since 1 April 1999.

That answer does not tell us what the adjutant-general told the Select Committee on Defence—that it will take 31 years to reach the target set by the strategic defence review. Will the Minister tell us three practical measures that he has taken that will accelerate this woeful progress?

Yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman of more than three practical measures. Let me say first, however, that an increase of 175 is a considerable improvement on previous figures, when there has been a steady run-down of forces numbers. That increase is a movement in the right direction.

Rightly, we are looking at the problems of retention. Many of those are down to communication with families. That is particularly the case in a time of full employment when other options are available. That is why we increased the time that can be taken to make telephone calls from three to 20 minutes a week. However, there is no point in having additional time if the telephones are not of an adequate quality. That is why we have introduced Project Welcome, which is of enormous benefit to our troops. When I was in Kosovo last week, the improvements were widely recognised. Similarly, in Sierra Leone we responded within two weeks.

Secondly, there is an increase in leave at the end of an operational tour so that personnel can spend more time with their families. There is also the bonus for those who have been on an extended operational tour. We have seen the introduction of e-mail—[Interruption.] It is interesting that Conservative Members can sit comfortably in the Chamber and be dismissive of improving communications between our service men and women and their families. That will be noted. Our troops work in difficult conditions and do a tremendous job, and Conservative Members could not give a damn.

My hon. Friend will recall that the Cheshire Regiment was one of the first to go into Bosnia some years ago. At the same time, the Staffordshire Regiment was located in the Dale Army camp in Cheshire. This situation brought to my attention a number of issues that my hon. Friend has raised, and especially the provision of telephones. I am pleased that that particular issue has been addressed.

The interesting feature in terms of the Staffordshire Regiment was the lack of support that the Army was then receiving in dealing with social problems—for example, children's special requirements. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is taking action to ensure that there is proper co-ordination so that the social support that Army families are entitled to receive will be available to them, unlike the provision under the previous Administration?

As I have reported previously, there has been a considerable improvement in a number of areas that have been raised by the Army Families Federation so that we might improve conditions in the United Kingdom and those that apply to overseas postings, especially where the peculiar nature of service life and the demands that we put on service personnel and their families lead to their being disadvantaged when compared with the rest of the community. The feedback is that these improvements are having a considerable impact and beneficial effects on family life for service personnel.

We recognise that, with our increasingly expeditionary armed forces, television, telephones and e-mail—all of which the Opposition dismiss in their comfort—matter considerably to personnel. These facilities contribute very much to the greater welfare of our forces as part of the welfare package.

One of the consequences of the historic reduction in the size of the Army is that the Ministry of Defence has been able to dispense with and sell both land and property. One such example in my constituency is the town of South Wigston, where the Ministry, through Defence Estates, is getting rid of some real estate. However, before the contract has been completed, the residential developer has moved on to the site and is destroying trees and woods, for example, much to my concern and that of my constituents. Will the Minister please look into this matter to ensure that the developer is not doing what he should not before he has proper possession of the land? I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to give me a detailed answer now, but I would be most grateful if he wrote to me quickly.

rose—

Order. That question hardly relates to the original Question. Minister, I am sure that you will give not an answer but a commitment to consider the matter. Is that right?

How Neanderthal are Conservative Members? They have not even heard of e-mail. It would have been helpful to have notice of the supplementary question of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who deals with Defence Estates, has taken note of the question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will provide him with details, my hon. Friend will be more than pleased to take up the matter.

What assessment he has made of the potential threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [122647]

We assess that there is no significant threat to the UK from nuclear weapons at present, but developments continue to be monitored closely. We remain committed to limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons through our international treaty obligations and national programmes.

Despite the Secretary of State's assessment of the threat, does he agree that our best deterrent against the aggressive use of nuclear weapons remains our nuclear capability? If so, how does that sit with the policy, to which the Foreign Office has signed up, of a nuclear-free world? Would the Foreign Office policy have delivered the successful conclusion of the cold war?

I agree, perhaps surprisingly, with the hon. Gentleman's first proposition, but the non-proliferation treaty agreement—the process towards which we conducted negotiations on behalf of the entire Government and into which previous Governments, including the Government that he no doubt supported, entered—is an aspiration; it is not likely to produce results in the short term. Nevertheless, I hope that the entire House would welcome circumstances in which the world was rid of nuclear weapons.

How concerned is my right hon. Friend, therefore, by reports, chiefly from Richard Butler, the former head of UNSCOM in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein may be starting to rebuild his arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?

The Government are concerned about that, which is why we, together with our allies, have spent so much time trying to achieve an international situation in which Iraq accepts the paramount importance of permitting the inspection of facilities inside Iraq as a means of restoring Iraq to the international community. We have made it clear that an effective inspection regime is a prerequisite of any such restoration.

On what possible moral basis can we argue against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, when we insist on having them ourselves? If the Secretary of State believes in a nuclear-free world, should not the Government give a lead in that direction, as his own leader advocated in the 1980s, when the situation was much more dangerous?

In the strategic defence review, we carefully set out the importance of nuclear weapons to the United Kingdom, as long as other countries retain them. Nothing has changed in the interim, but in New York the Government, together with other Governments such as that of the United States, recognised that, as an aspiration in a civilised world, it would be sensible—if we could achieve it—to rid the entire world of nuclear weapons.

When he will announce decisions on orders for auxiliary vessels for the Royal Navy. [1226491

An invitation to tender was issued to five UK companies in early April to bid for the contract to supply two alternative landing ships logistic, which will support amphibious operations by carrying troops and their equipment into theatre. We expect to place the contract before the end of this year. In addition, we hope to announce a decision on the provision of a strategic sealift service later this year

Is my hon. Friend aware that some yards, including Cammell Laird, felt obliged to withdraw from the tendering process for the ALSLs because they thought that the points system did not allow them to compete fairly? Is he satisfied that the tendering process was fair and right? Is he also satisfied that the tendering process for the ro-ro vessels will be equally fair and right, that it will give UK yards every chance to bid successfully for those vessels, and that it will do so equitably between the yards?

I can confirm that our tendering process is fair and right. It is always disappointing when companies feel unable to remain in the process, but we cannot as a rule devise our specifications on that basis. With regard to roll on/roll off ferries, I confirm that no decision has yet been taken on who will be awarded the contract, and bids from the four consortiums involved are still being assessed by the Ministry of Defence. As my right hon. Friend has already announced, the intention is to place the contract later this year.

Is the hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied with the process used by the Ministry of Defence for the tendering for and the procurement of vessels for the hydrographer's department? Will he examine the process, and let me know whether he believes that it was thorough and entirely fair not only to the yards that tendered, but to the owners who wanted to become involved?

So far as I know, that is the case—but I shall happily consider the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of any other EU or NATO country that has placed orders for naval vessels, naval auxiliary vessels or roll on/roll off ferries with military application—if he can find such an example—other than with their own shipyards?

It appears that the pro-European member of the Opposition Front-Bench team has caught the disease from the shadow Secretary of State; every time he stands up, he is becoming more anti-European by degrees. I confirm that all ships with a military application are sourced in this country; those without are subjected—as is correct—to the EC tendering process.

What recent representations he has received regarding deployment of United Kingdom armed forces in Sierra Leone. [122650]

I have received a number of representations from a variety of sources, including right hon. and hon. Members, regarding the deployment of our armed forces in Sierra Leone. I am sure that the House will want to join me in sending congratulations to those members of the forces who have been and continue to be deployed in Sierra Leone, on the skill and professionalism they have shown.

I am sure the House will concur with the Secretary of State's views on the excellent job that our service men and women are doing in Sierra Leone.

Can he tell us how many serving British soldiers are in Sierra Leone at present? Does he believe that he will be able to pull them out by Christmas?

There are up to 4,000 British forces in and around Sierra Leone—not all of them are deployed on the ground; a number are in ships offshore. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we remain absolutely committed to our timetable for withdrawing the bulk of UK forces currently in Sierra Leone by mid-June.

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Kurt Schork? He was a brave and brilliant writer-journalist who was ambushed and killed in Sierra Leone two weeks ago, and his death causes me to wonder whether the Secretary of State is satisfied with the idea that a substantial contingent of troops are out there without any significant armour to protect them.

I am confident—relying on the military advice that I have received—that the forces deployed in Sierra Leone are appropriate for the job that has been undertaken, and that they continue to undertake.

Given the nature of recent speculation about changes to the profile of British armed forces in Sierra Leone—especially the idea that 300 Royal Anglians may find themselves substituting in the role currently being undertaken by the Marines—will the Secretary of State take this opportunity categorically to deny that any such deployment is being considered? Does the plan for withdrawal remain that, hopefully—give or take one or two slight problems—the Government will withdraw British troops by mid-June?

I make it clear, as I did in answer to the substantive question, that we remain absolutely committed to the timetable of withdrawing the bulk of UK forces by the middle of June.

However, we have always made clear to the Government of Sierra Leone our commitment to training in that country. As long ago as 27 March, the Prime Minister announced longer-term assistance to the Government of Sierra Leone in the form of a UK-led international military advisory and training team. Ultimately, we expect that that training team will consist of about 90 people, with the UK providing half the total. To ensure that the training team gets under way effectively, we are considering deploying a team from the UK for about six weeks from the middle of June. However, I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that it will not substitute for the Marines in any way; it will provide training.

After the Secretary of State's most recent statement to the House on Sierra Leone, has he given any further consideration to the way in which arms can be provided to the Sierra Leone Government without jeopardising matters or intensifying the conflict?

Further to the answer that I have already given, we have for some time been concerned about the lack of effective training available to the armed forces of the Government of Sierra Leone. It thus follows that, in providing training, we believe it appropriate that those trained troops should have access to weapons. I announced that decision to the House about two weeks ago. If we are providing effective training, it seems sensible that those forces should have weapons to accompany it.

What savings have been identified as a result of the smart procurement initiative. [122651]

As part of the strategic defence review, we set ourselves a target of saving £2 billion on equipment procurement expenditure over the 10 years to 2007–08 through the introduction of smart procurement. We are on track to achieve that target in that the sum of cost reductions identified and made in successive planning rounds is approaching the £2 billion mark, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement last month about the strategic air lift and future missile for the Eurofighter aptly demonstrates, we are delivering the programme set out in the strategic defence review.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, is he aware that, according to the National Audit Office, the Government inherited a cost overrun of £3 billion and a three-year delay in the Ministry of Defence's 25 most expensive projects? When he considers the strategic defence review and present commitments, will he undertake to the country and to our defence services that he will take no advice from the Conservative party, which proved itself incapable of handling the defence finances of this country?

I share my hon. Friend's shock and dismay at the incompetence of the previous Administration, of which he has given us another dismal example. I certainly agree with him that smart procurement will deliver real savings while preserving our capacity to meet the challenging targets of the strategic defence review.

I call Mr. Bercow.

Question 16, Madam Speaker.

I was calling the hon. Gentleman on question 13. I shall call the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) instead.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given that the F22 fighter in the United States, which is similar to the Eurofighter, has had to be equipped with a cannon, surely it is not very smart not to fit a gun to the Eurofighter.

All such decisions are taken on the basis of advice from the armed forces concerned. I agree with you, Madam Speaker, in that I, too, find it difficult to distinguish between those two hon. Gentlemen.

I do not, actually.

What contribution UK forces are making to security in former Yugoslavia. [122652]

We, together with our partner nations participating in the KFOR mission in Kosovo, face a challenging security situation. Ethnic intimidation and violence continue, albeit often orchestrated by a small number of extremists without the support of the majority of the population. However, British forces, along with our allies and partners in KFOR, are making a major contribution to solving those problems and the security situation is improving. British forces undertake a wide range of tasks designed to reassure and protect minorities while continuing to encourage refugees to return to their homes. They also provide support to non-governmental organisations, international organisations and other governmental bodies throughout Kosovo, helping to secure a safe, multi-ethnic and democratic society. Currently, we have some 3,500 troops in Multinational Brigade Centre in KFOR.

In Bosnia, SFOR provides a stabilising presence, allowing for civilian reconstruction and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons to a secure and peaceful environment. Currently, we have some 2,700 troops in SFOR, primarily based in Multinational Division South West, and will reduce this to some 2,000 by the end of this year.

That was a very interesting answer. Will my hon. Friend pass on the appreciation of the House of Commons, expressed at Question Time today, to all our troops in the former Yugoslavia for the courageous effort that they are making in trying to keep the peace in very difficult conditions? However, will he also tell us whether it is true that some countries are not pulling their weight in terms of protecting the Serbs?

I shall be pleased to pass on that appreciation. Indeed. I was able to do just that when I met some of our forces in Pristina on Wednesday and Thursday last week They are doing an excellent and professional job and playing a considerable role in many areas to help to reconstruct the country.

Sometimes, the cause of peace in Kosovo is not best served by the media, which focus very much on the areas in which there are difficulties and ignore the wider picture. Not only are many refugees returning, but there is greater stability, and, equally important, the reconstruction of economic life is taking place. Our forces are playing a major role in helping to reintroduce a proper system of law and order. Indeed, 56 MOD police are due to fly out this week to reinforce the international police effort, to which the Royal Ulster Constabulary has already contributed considerably. As my hon. Friend says, we pay tribute to the work being undertaken, but we also recognise that there is some way to go.

Has the Minister seen any sign that the dwindling band of Serbs in Kosovo is likely to enjoy security and safety after the troops withdrawal?

First, I must correct the hon. Gentleman, as some Serbs are returning from Serbia, not least because of the problems in that country. When I was in Pristina, it was a pleasure to talk to members of our forces who are playing a significant role in protecting Serbs, both individually and in groups. That situation is not ideal. It is by no means perfect, but it is certainly better than a year or so ago. At the same time, people in that country are starting to establish a pattern of co-existence. As I said in response to the previous question, we should examine positive developments. We should not ignore, underestimate, or fail to take action on negative elements, but we must get them into perspective and achieve a balance.

I fully supported the action in Kosovo. Indeed, everything seems to have justified what was done by the international community, which includes this country. Will further action be taken to try to secure protection for those Serbians who are undoubtedly being harassed and persecuted by ethnic Albanians? Does my hon. Friend agree that further arrests of those responsible would give the Serbians far greater confidence that Kosovo is as much their part of the world as it is that of the ethnic Albanians?

That is very much the message from our forces, who, as I said, are playing a significant role in providing protection. Ultimately, that is not a substitute for a proper system of policing and law and order. We are making a contribution to policing, but penal institutions in Kosovo must be enhanced, and the judicial system must be reinforced. My hon. Friend is right to say that actions outside the law must be arrestable and punishable. Again, I am not saying that we have achieved a perfect solution, but we have made considerable progress.

I endorse what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about the importance of British forces in the former Yugoslavia. However, does the Minister agree that the situation is still very tense? Last Friday, a car on a British-controlled road just outside Pristina hit a land mine, killing two men and injuring a woman and two young children. What credence does the Minister give to reports from the United States that America may consider withdrawing its troops from Kosovo? Does he agree that the presence of US forces on the ground in Kosovo is an important contribution to KFOR? As we approach the first anniversary of the UN mandate in Kosovo, does he accept that the withdrawal of US troops would send a very bad signal indeed?

We need to see in place the right number of troops from all countries. We also need a broad spread of forces in a range of international operations, and countries must fulfil their commitments. The way in which international forces are working together in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina is an example of that, and has developed well.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the former Yugoslavia, and it is important that we focus on the steady progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina, not least the electoral support for moving away from sectarian parties towards centre parties. A lot of that has been driven by encouraging developments in Croatia, such as the election of a leadership that wants to be part of the European household and consequently is examining how to modernise its own country, and putting considerable pressure on Bosnia-Herzegovina to withdraw support from extremists.

As has been recognised, all that requires an on-going international presence which, yet again, is having an impact, creating co-existence and starting to encourage those who want to play a positive role in the reconstruction of their countries—as opposed to those who merely seek sectarian division—so that they can start to advance. That is progress, but there is still a long way to go.

What is the total warhead capacity of the Trident fleet. [122654]

As announced in the strategic defence review, our minimum nuclear deterrent requires a stockpile of fewer than 200 operationally available warheads. The submarine on deterrent patrol carries 48 warheads.

Does the Secretary of State accept that even 48 warheads—about half the possible capacity—represent a huge proliferation of weapons compared with the previous Trident submarine system? Does he not follow the thinking of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and agree that, having signed up to the principle of nuclear disarmament, we should at least take Trident off patrol, ending the use or consideration of the use of such weapons, so that we may set an example to other countries that are thinking of acquiring or developing nuclear weapons?

Perhaps my hon. Friend inadvertently referred to Trident when he meant Polaris. Nevertheless, the size of the United Kingdom's minimum deterrent depends not on the size of other nations' arsenals but on the minimum necessary to deter any threat to our vital interest. That was set out in the strategic defence review, and remains the Government's clear position.

Would the Secretary of State like to reconsider his rather complacent answer about the possible nuclear threat from third-world countries? In view of the first conclusion of the American presidential commission on defence that that country faces a severe potential threat from the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of third-world countries, is it not time that we thought about some of the other measures that the Americans are taking besides Trident—a system of ballistic missile defence and a proper system of civil defence, which has almost disappeared in this country?

I do not need, at this stage at any rate, to reconsider the answer that I gave only a few moments ago. As I made clear, we keep threats to the United Kingdom under continuous review. A threat consists both of the ability to deliver a ballistic weapon to the UK—capability—and of the intent to do so. We assess, for the moment, that no country in the world has both the capability and the intent to attack the UK with a ballistic weapon.

What discussions he has had with the French Defence Minister about the European security and defence identity. [122655]

We continue to make excellent progress on the European defence initiative, in the course of which my ministerial colleagues and I have had several discussions with the French Defence Minister.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, complacent though it was. Given that President Chirac, supported by the Germans, Italians, Portuguese and others, said as recently as 30 May that the development of an EU defence and foreign policy was fundamentally a "political project", and that the American ambassador to NATO has warned that the European security and defence identity threatens to damage and rupture NATO, are Ministers just too dozy to perceive the threat that exists, or are they determined to hoodwink the rest of us into thinking that it does not exist?

It is because we do not see this as a political project that we have concentrated on the question of capabilities. Throughout all the agreements into which we have entered on behalf of the UK, we have emphasised the need to improve Europe's military capability. A number of UK Governments have sought to achieve that, and I am delighted to say that this Government are doing something about it. By improving Europe's military capability, we are not in any sense undermining or weakening NATO, but strengthening its capability. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been sufficiently awake to realise that.

If one is to fight successfully in any army, however, should one not be quite clear to whom one owes one's allegiance? Is it not therefore very worrying that the Government should be assuming that it will be possible to create a unified force without accepting the idea of political control over its objectives?

May I reassure my hon. Friend? None of our proposals contains the slightest suggestion that we are creating a unified force. The proposal that we are dealing with is no different from any of the multinational military organisations that have existed in the past and will continue to exist in future. In reality, each country will, rightly, remain responsible for its own forces, but those forces will operate together in multinational operations.

I beg to move,

That the Order of the House [9th February) be supplemented as follows:

Will the Economic Secretary remind the House of the running total so far of Government amendments to this well-thought-out Bill?

I am happy to do that—in fact, I was about to discuss that very topic. However, before I do so, I should like to draw the Opposition's attention to a related matter; they clearly have short memories. The Financial Services Act 1986 was extensively amended during its passage through Parliament, even though it was a much less far-reaching Bill. Unlike the Financial Services and Markets Bill, it dealt only with the investment sector and not with banking, building societies, insurance and Lloyd's, yet the Government of the day made 582 amendments to that smaller Bill in the second House.

It is right that legislation as important as the Financial Services and Markets Bill should be subject to intense scrutiny. Opposition parties tabled almost 1,300 amendments; we have considered those amendments and listened to the arguments put to us in almost 200 hours of parliamentary debate and in wider consultation. That process has been constructive and co-operative in both Houses. There is a consensus on our underlying policy aims, and a shared determination to get the detail right.

Several improvements were made in the other place, and are explained at some length in explanatory material made available by the Treasury on 24 May, which hon. Members will have had plenty of time to study in advance of today's debate. They should be reassured that we have not introduced new policy in the other place. The majority of our amendments are to meet commitments made in this House, or are in one way or another consequential on changes made before the Bill left this House in February.

Those changes generally follow up recommendations of the Joint Committee, or respond to developments during the passage of the Bill, notably the stock exchange's decision to demutualise. Some improvements arose out of earlier debates in this House, such as those to the Financial Services Authority's procedures and accountability. Other amendments that had to be made in the other place are purely technical or drafting amendments, such as corrections to definitions.

The nature of the Bill means that a single, insignificant change may require scores of separate amendments, which I am sure need not detain the House.

What!

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is asking me a question or making an exclamation.

The Minister has just said that the amendments need not detain the House, as if that were a statement of fact. I suggest that that is a decision for the House to make, not her.

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman believes that he is the keeper of the soul of this Chamber, but I reiterate that the nature of the Bill means that a single, insignificant change may require scores of separate amendments. Those amendments are basically the same, so they need not detain the House. That was my point.

The Government make no apologies for the extent to which the Bill has been improved in the other place. That is how the revising process is supposed to work. I hope that my explanation helps to clarify the nature of the task involved in considering the amendments, and that we can proceed to consider them as expeditiously as possible.

Does the Minister's first experience of taking a Bill through Parliament over the past nine months lead her to conclude that it may have been a good idea if the Government had introduced the Bill in better shape in the first place?

My experience of taking the Bill through Parliament since July last year is that, because of the Joint Committee scrutiny of the draft Bill—a process with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar—we were able to tackle enormously complex subjects. As I explained, the Bill replaces three main separate pieces of legislation and covers a wide range of financial services. It has received the degree of scrutiny that it ought to have received. It has been scrutinised in great detail in this Chamber, in Committee and in the other place, so we have before us a much improved Bill that I believe is now ready to go on to the statute book.

The Economic Secretary has failed to explain why the Government have tabled almost 700 amendments, new clauses and new schedules at this late stage in the Bill. The volume of amendments that hon. Members will have received from the Vote Office is like a substantial paperback. It runs to more than 90 pages, but none of it has been scrutinised by this House—these amendments have been passed in the other place. The Government are pushing through this paperback under a guillotine in one day.

The Economic Secretary dismissively said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that most of the amendments are trivial and need not detain the House. That is for us to decide. It is not up to a Minister to tell us what we consider important, especially as many Opposition Members have been engaged with the subject for rather longer than the Minister. There have been three ministerial changes since the Bill began its rocky passage through Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and I are two Members who have been present right from the start.

My right hon. Friend has served in the Treasury. Does he recall a time when such substantial changes were made to a Bill at such a late stage? Does not this demonstrate—as with the Utilities Bill—that the Bill was ill thought out in the first place?

Yes. Indeed, I would go further—I think that this Bill bears increasingly little resemblance to the Bill that received a Second Reading last year. It has been constantly redrafted, and that can in no way be described as a response to consultation. Tabling nearly 700 amendments at such a late stage has nothing to do with consultation; it is simply bad legislation. Good legislation is produced when the Government know what they want to do, consult on how to do it and then produce a Bill for consideration by both Houses. As my hon. Friend says, in this case the Government have abused the process by substantially rewriting parts of a Bill. Indeed, in some instances—such as the provisions relating to the new competition regime—they are beginning to amend their own amendments. The Bill is diverging from the measure to which the House thought it was assenting last summer.

There is no excuse for the guillotine. As the Economic Secretary acknowledged, the Opposition have co-operated fully, and have given the Government no provocation whatever. Why, then, should the Government slam on a guillotine and push through all the Bill's remaining stages in one day? That is no way to treat an industry that employs more than 1 million people and is such an enormous foreign exchange earner for the United Kingdom. Many people's livelihoods will be affected by the Bill, and it needs proper, careful scrutiny.

The casual way in which the Government have treated the House goes back some time. The Bill was published nearly two years ago, and was examined by a joint Lords-Commons Committee chaired by Lord Burns. We supported that procedure. The Government said that they would support most of the Committee's recommendations, and would present a Bill in good order. I attended a meeting of Ministers, parliamentary counsel, draftsmen and House authorities, at which I asked whether the Bill was in a suitable state to be debated and scrutinised by the House of Commons. I was assured that it was in such a state, but I am afraid that that has turned out not to be the case.

On the basis of those assurances, we allowed the Bill to be carried over from the previous to the current Session. However, the Government not only constantly and consistently amended it in Committee, but tabled more than 300 amendments on Report in the Commons. That is exactly what they are doing today—at a very late stage, they have tabled pages of new amendments that have not been subjected to proper scrutiny in either House.

Changing a Bill after it has completed the stages that allow proper debate and scrutiny does not constitute consultation. This is now the most amended Bill in the history of the House, I am advised. The Economic Secretary tried to draw a parallel between the Bill and the Financial Services Act 1986. The arithmetic is on our side. Hundreds of amendments of a substantial, not trivial, nature have gone entirely unscrutinised.

On the comparison with the 1986 Bill, that legislation first regulated the Financial Services Authority. We have had 14 years of experience since then to ensure that the current Bill builds on that experience and gets it right, so it is an even worse scenario that we have more amendments now than we did when we came to the matter afresh in 1986.

My hon. Friend is right. Given also that the Burns committee looked at the matter and gave the Government a lot of advice and recommendations, there is even less excuse for treating Parliament in this way.

Two other matters are relevant to the motion. Two additional matters have come up in recent weeks, to which the Government have not fully responded. The first is the proposed merger between the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges. No one from the Government side will tell us how or whether the Financial Services Authority will regulate the merged exchange. It is a very important matter. It is not good enough for the Government, who presumably had warnings of that merger, to have no real response to the question about which rules and regulations will apply to the merged exchange.

The second matter that has caught the Government on the hop is the issue of the overlap and possible conflict between the Financial Services Authority and the takeover panel during bids and mergers. The Government were defeated on that matter in another place. The amendment inserted there will provide that if the parties to a bid comply with the City code issued by the takeover panel, that will be a defence against allegations of market abuse. In other words, that will provide a safe harbour against market abuse.

The Financial Services Authority will still be in charge. It will be able to issue the statement and its own code, which provides that safe harbour, and it may include conditions and limitations on it, so it will still be the league regulator, but that is an enormously important issue that has not yet been properly debated in the House. It is made worse by the fact that, instead of accepting that improvement to the Bill in another place, the Government apparently will seek to reverse it. Apparently, they do not like the fact that it is the takeover panel that will determine whether the behaviour of the parties to a bid actually complies with the City code and so gives a safe harbour against market abuse.

The Lords amendment is a good one because it provides a clear demarcation between the responsibilities of the Financial Services Authority and that of the takeover panel. Without that clear distinction about who does what, there will be endless scope for confusion, delay and litigation during a bid, which will undermine the role and success of the takeover panel. That is acknowledged in all parts.

It is also rumoured that the Liberal Democrats will collude with the Government in another place in overturning that amendment. If there is any party in the House of Commons that has few credentials for determining the future of the Bill, it is the Liberal Democrats. As my hon. Friends will recollect, the Liberal Democrats failed to provide anyone at all to attend the proceedings of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. I see that we are now graced by the presence of one Liberal Democrat. I do not recollect him attending any of our previous debates. He has obviously been co-opted at a late stage to try to put up some defence for that collusion, but it is a shabby deal.

While listening to my right hon. Friend's honeyed words, I briefly consulted the list of Lords amendments. Is he aware that there are no fewer than 35 groups of amendments and that, even if we were to work on the dubious assumption that the House would not divide on any of them, that would mean an allocation of approximately 12 minutes debating time to each group?

My hon. Friend is an assiduous parliamentarian, and he has already done some work showing the outrageous nature of this allocation of time motion. He will know that many of these groups of amendments concern very sensitive and contentious issues indeed, such as whether the whole issue of competition has been given adequate prominence in the Bill. There is also the fact that people and market makers can be convicted of market abuse even if they did not intend to commit the offence. That someone can be convicted of something that they did not intend to do is a new and most unwelcome departure in British law.

Opposition Members have tried in this place, and my noble Friends have tried in another place, to correct and improve those parts of the Bill. Now, however, the debate will be compressed into the space of a few hours.

I should like to clarify one point: is the right hon. Gentleman planning on forcing a Division on the Bill?

The Bill has already received its Second Reading. It is pretty extraordinary that the Liberal Democrat spokesman apparently thinks that we are debating its Second Reading. May I refer him to the Order Paper, which shows that we are debating a guillotine motion? It is that guillotine motion that we shall be opposing.

The motion is an abuse of the House. The Government should take the Bill away for a proper and full debate on all the outstanding issues, and come back with a properly prepared Bill that the House can consider.

I should start by correcting my intervention, which was on the allocation of time motion. I simply wanted to clarify whether the official Opposition planned on dividing on that. If they do force a Division on it, at this stage in the debate Liberal Democrat Members would be quite happy to join them in the Lobby, to make it quite clear that allocation of time motions—[Interruption.] Who knows who will join me when the Division Bell goes?

We are now three years into a Government who were elected after claiming that they wanted to modernise our democracy and the way in which the House does things, such as scrutinising legislation. I do not, however, recognise what is so modern or fundamentally different about this allocation of time motion.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the motion's modern feature is the fact that the Minister made no case for it whatsoever? She did not address at all why there is a need for a guillotine motion to curtail free speech. That is what was modern about it.

That feature has been quite common in this place. The situation in previous Parliaments may have been different from the situation in this one, but, based on my experience of the past few years, that feature has been quite common in this Parliament.

I am extremely disappointed and concerned that the Government, with such a large majority, are so frightened of debate. If they use their Whips efficiently and effectively, there is not a chance of overturning legislation. Debate is the only instrument available to us to persuade them to reconsider legislation. If legislation is properly scrutinised, there is a chance that Ministers will recognise that it is flawed and requires amendment. Debate also provides an opportunity to those who are outside the House not only to recognise the parts of the legislation that are causing us concern, but to see their concerns expressed in this place.

A vast number of amendments were made in the other place.

If the hon. Gentleman agrees with Conservative Members that the procedures under which the Bill is being examined are pretty disgraceful and certainly substandard, why have Liberal Democrat Members done a deal with the Government on a crucial clause? We would have had a chance on that clause if they had not sold out. Why have they sold out to the Government on an issue as fundamental as that of market abuse and the takeover panel?

That is a matter for the debate on the Bill. We are currently debating the procedure to consider the Bill and the importance of time being properly and effectively allocated to it in the House.

The Minister claimed that many of the amendments were minor and consequential. It is open to Ministers to explain all the amendments that they consider to be minor and consequential and let the House make a judgment. An allocation of time motion means that that is highly unlikely.

The Minister said that we were having an extended sitting. It has been extended from the normal 10 o'clock deadline until 11 o'clock, but the Government have subtracted 45 minutes for the debate on the allocation of time motion, so in reality the sitting has been extended by 15 minutes, which could be taken up by a Division on this motion. We might have only two or three extra minutes over a normal sitting day to consider all these Lords amendments.

For the House to judge whether there is adequate time for debate, we need to have some idea of the level of contributions that we can expect. Will the hon. Gentleman advise the House—as he has not so far been able to do—whether we shall have contributions from the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)?

The hon. Gentleman will have to sit in his place, watch the debates and see who takes part. I do not understand why he needs to know in advance who wishes to take part in the debate. Anyway, it is up to you, Madam Speaker, to decide who takes part in the debate. It is not for any of us to choose. That is probably enough interventions for now.

The Government also prayed in aid the record of the previous Government, which is a tedious and boring argument. It can place some things in context, but if their aspiration is always just to replicate the record of the previous Government, there was not much point in the electorate turning out at the last election and removing the previous Government from office.

Time is running out if the Government really want to modernise the House. They cannot do so just by guillotining debates, ignoring arguments and allowing them to go away. They have to look carefully at the procedure of legislative scrutiny. They cannot avoid problems just by tinkering with one or two aspects of the House. That way lies a great danger that, in the frustration of occasionally having to stay up late at night, they will decide to curtail debate without finding other avenues for scrutiny of legislation. If they do not find other avenues, they should be willing to stay up late and accept scrutiny that way.

The Government should also think about their management of legislation. This is a major Bill that has been heavily amended in the other place. They should ask whether they have too much legislation in the pipeline for this year and whether they have managed their priorities right. They talk about wanting to reduce waiting times and end queues in the health service. If they apply the skills that they use in managing legislation here to the health service, I am not optimistic.

The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the adequacy of the scrutiny. Why, in Committee, did a Liberal Member attend on only two occasions?

Presumably there were reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Cable) could not be there. The whole House is entitled to scrutinise legislation at this stage. We are not in Committee. The whole House must consider what the other House has done to the Bill. It is up to this House to decide how much time we want to spend on it. The Government should have the confidence to let the House scrutinise the Bill, range freely over it and expose its flaws in debate, rather than trying to rush through it without debate or proper scrutiny. I urge the House to recognise that when we come to vote.

This is an example of the Government somehow managing to combine incompetence and arrogance. That might be considered quite an achievement, but we have become rather used to it from them.

I wanted to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, so I went through the Government's amendments and tried to spot the trivial ones that she claimed were none of our business and which we should not be so impatient as to want to deliberate. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt and without being an expert on the Bill, in my cursory reading I calculated 80 substantial amendments at the minimum. If that is the case—I suspect that there are more than that—the Government believe that we can deal with them in just over five minutes each.

That would be bad enough in itself, but I have had a look at the amendments. Amendment No. 61, for example, is one of those to which the Government presumably believe the House should give but five minutes attention. It involves a new clause entitled "Exercise of own-initiative power: procedure" and contains 12 subsections. Amendment No. 82 contains two subsections and nine paragraphs, amendment No. 87 contains 14 subsections, and amendment No. 90 contains 7 subsections. Amendment No. 107, which also caught my eye, seeks to add a new clause entitled "Appointment by competent authority of persons to carry out investigations." That contains considerable detail.

It is one thing for the Minister to claim in a glib and superficial fashion that we do not need to waste our time on the 675 items of trivia placed by the Government on today's Order Paper, but, even granting her that—which I would be very reluctant to do—she is really saying that this House of Commons should accept a new principle. She is suggesting that we allow ourselves, or that the Government give us, five minutes to consider large and often controversial new measures in a Bill. That is the extent of the Government's arrogance and of their wish to ignore the traditional proceedings of this House and the other place.

It is a measure of the Government's sheer incompetence that we are faced with the absurd situation that, in this sitting—which can last only until 11 o'clock—we are expected to give the most cursory consideration to law that could affect the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people. These are the depths to which the Government have sunk and this is the extent to which they are seeking to minimise or eliminate the role of this House in the legislative process. It is totally unacceptable.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons that Ministers seem to think that such truncated consideration is adequate is that they believe that unless a Member has sat on the Standing Committee considering a Bill, he or she has a bit of a cheek to try to contribute on Report? Does he agree that they need now to understand what new Ministers in particular have hitherto failed to learn—that the Bill is being reported to the House for proper consideration by it?

Indeed. In addition, there are two Houses of this Parliament, and what one does is properly to be scrutinised by the other. The fact that a matter may have been dealt with in another place—with all of the expertise that resides there—does not mean that this House of Commons can either take that for granted or ignore it. This motion is an outrage and a disgrace, and I hope that the House will reject it.

There are few points that I wish to make, as the matter has been covered adequately by my right hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). I was cheered to note that the Liberal Democrats are actually weighing how a procedure motion addresses the issues that we want to address.

This motion is a product of a rollover process following modernisation. It is an indication that my Front-Bench colleagues agreed to such an arrangement; it could only have gone forward on that basis. Therefore, this is an important process. That the Government are abrogating proper investigation and examination of the many clauses in the Bill is inappropriate and it may discourage my Front-Bench colleagues from ever agreeing to any future rollover. That would be a real loss in terms of the serious consideration over a longer period of detailed and highly complex Bills such as this. The Government should take on board the fact that a guillotine on a rollover that has allowed two parliamentary Sessions to deal with the detail of a Bill is inappropriate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that what we shall be debating are Lords amendments. I have been in the House long enough to remember—as you will too, Madam Speaker—when it was unthinkable to guillotine that which came from a Chamber that may not be democratic, but has equal weight in our legislative processes.

The Government have now guillotined 34 Bills. That is a historic high, and no other Government have ever approached it. Previous Labour Governments since 1945 seldom used the guillotine, but now there is a crescendo applied to the second Chamber and what it says in its amendments. This guillotine demonstrates the power of a majority to deny freedom of speech. I do not know whether the time is adequate, as the whole debate could implode, but the Government have allowed less than five minutes for each of 80 substantial amendments—again taking the figure supplied by my right hon. Friend—and that is not including votes.

Parliament should not be muzzled in this way. We have enough bad legislation as it is. Sometimes, Conservative Governments have been hung by having inadequate discussion of detail. This Government should not go down that route, which is a denial of the very purpose and function of this Chamber.

The Bill is not exactly the stuff of red-hot party politics. Because of that, and because it affects our biggest industry and the prosperity of the whole of the south-east, the Opposition have endeavoured throughout to be wholly constructive, to get complicated matters legally right and to end up with a piece of legislation that is not damaging to our key industry.

It is extraordinarily disappointing to me that, when the Treasury is aware that there are many key issues on which we are advised that the Government and their legal advisers have got it wrong, the Government are unwilling to listen further and are railroading this stage through with a guillotine motion.

It is easy to take for granted the prosperity of the financial services industry of the City of London, but it depends on Britain being highly competitive in terms of tax, regulation and accommodation and staff costs. I am afraid to report that I have encountered several business people in the past few weeks who, having seen the final proposals on market abuse, are considering moving their businesses elsewhere, whether within the European Union or to other major financial centres.

The Bill comes from the Lords wrong, and we are being given inadequate time to consider it in the key areas of the obligation to preserve our international competitiveness, market abuse, proper practice in line with corporate governance required elsewhere, avoiding being ultra vires in respect of the European Court of Human Rights and, indeed, the new situation regarding what is to happen to stock markets. Did the Government even imagine, when rushing through the change of the listing authority from the stock exchange to the Financial Services Authority, the implications if the London stock exchange were to merge?

I declare an interest as not only the non-executive chairman of a financial services business but probably the only Member of Parliament who has worked in the industry for 30 years. As such, I stand back from the Bill and am seriously concerned that it creates a body that is too powerful and inadequately accountable and that there remain too many areas in which the legal balance is wrong or tilted against the industry.

It is wrong that the House should have only one evening to go through nearly 700 further amendments. We welcome the amendments that were introduced in response to issues that we raised, but we believe that the Bill remains wrong in certain key areas. That is why I oppose the motion. When a piece of key legislation is not right, the House of Commons should have time to get it right.

The importance of the financial services sector is well recognised by the Government, and I trust that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) did not wish to imply that the Government do anything other than attach as much importance to that sector as he would claim to do. We believe that the Bill is a crucial part of securing the future of that industry. Without the Bill and the new regulatory arrangements that it will introduce, the future of that industry would increasingly be at risk.

Hon. Members have raised the issue of scrutiny of the amendments. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) suggested that the amendments before us today had not received sufficient scrutiny, but they received extensive scrutiny in the other place. Only one additional Government amendment has been tabled for consideration this afternoon.

Will the Economic Secretary give way?

No, I have limited time and I wish to—[Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. The right hon. Member for Wells claimed that we faced a paperback of amendments, but the amendments made to the Financial Services Act 1986 in the other place covered some 135 pages, which is more than 40 pages more than the amendments before us today. No difficulties appear to have been experienced as a result of that earlier legislation. It is also important to recognise that 582 amendments were tabled by the then Government to that Act at a comparable stage in 1986.

Opposition Members have also neglected to mention the fact that there were 1,300 non-Government amendments discussed both here and in the other place. The Opposition have made a lively contribution to the debate and, as a result, in some cases we have tabled Government amendments to implement the changes that the Opposition have requested. The Bill is better as a result. The publication of the amendments on 24 May, and the report of the Bill's progress in the other place, have enabled those hon. Members who wished to do so to take an interest in the amendments long before they came here for debate. I trust that Opposition Members have done so.

The Opposition argue that we have not accepted their points, but in some cases that is because we do not agree with them, and hours of debate will not change that. In other cases, we have accepted the Opposition's arguments and tabled amendments to that effect. The fact that so many of the Lords amendments were passed with all-party support is further proof that we have listened. That is why they are before the House this afternoon.

As a result of the scrutiny it has undergone, we have a good Bill. Hon. Members will wish to discuss certain matters during the remaining hours of debate, but I reiterate that many of the amendments before us are purely technical, drafting or consequential on one main change in the Bill. Hon. Members can do the arithmetic on the number of amendments, but their case is not as substantial as they claim. With the possible exception of one area of discussion, I believe that it would be quite surprising if I were to hear anything in the Chamber this afternoon that I had not heard several times before, in more than 200 hours of parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. We have already reached the point where many debates have become exceptionally repetitive.

I therefore urge the House to accept the supplemental allocation of time motion on the remaining consideration of the Bill.