asked Her Majesty's Government:

When they expect to report to Parliament on the progress of work at Porton Down on vaccine interactions and the health effects of the multiple immunisation of troops deployed in the Gulf War.

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence's vaccines interactions research programme is studying whether the combination of vaccines used to protect UK personnel during the Gulf conflict can give rise to adverse health effects. As I made clear to my noble friend Lord Morris on 12th November last year, interim findings will be made public when known. The Ministry of Defence hopes that further results will be available later this year through publication in a scientific journal.

My Lords, can there be any surprise that Gulf veterans are so deeply concerned that it will be 2003—13 years on—before they are told whether it was safe in 1990 to be given up to 14 inoculations all at the same time? Is my noble friend aware of the depth of concern also that we lag behind the United States in recognising a higher prevalence of motor neurone disease among Gulf veterans and the rising death rate among those exposed to sarin and cyclosarin by US bombing of the Iraqi chemical weapons depot at Khamisyah? At this time of mounting speculation about a further deployment of British troops against Iraq, when can we expect the same recognition here?

My Lords, I recognise the long interest of my noble friend in these matters. I am also aware that he speaks with particular authority as regards the United States due to his membership of the congressional inquiry which is looking into Gulf War related illnesses. As regards the specific point on the relationship between motor neurone disease and Gulf War service, I believe that my noble friend knows that our approach is always to try to find a scientific basis for any decisions that are made. We very much hope that the United States research to which he referred is published as rapidly as possible in the scientific literature. I assure my noble friend that our unit liaison officer for the Gulf veterans' unit, who is based in Washington, will maintain the closest contact with our American friends on this issue. As regards Khamisyah, my noble friend tabled a Question for Written Answer on 21st March. We are hopeful that the US reports on Khamisyah will be made available to our Gulf veterans' illnesses liaison officer in Washington as soon as they are approved, which I understand will be at the end of May. As soon as we are able to respond, we shall, of course, write to my noble friend and put the information in the Library.

My Lords, what action is being taken to speed up the final production of this report? Why cannot a full, up-to-date interim report be issued now as opposed to in the autumn? Furthermore, will the Minister say what action has been taken to protect our troops from the dangers of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons with new vaccines which will not have any after-effects? Are they available for use now?

My Lords, as regards the length of time that these matters take, I believe the noble Lord will acknowledge that in order to obtain accurate information—I refer, for example, to experiments on animals—it is some considerable time before the effects of multiple vaccinations can be ascertained. It is also a question of the right dosage with regard to the vaccinations. It is our intention to publish the results as rapidly as possible. We have said that the completion date will be in 2003. The House will recognise that it is important that the findings are published in scientific journals and that they are robust. No one wants to operate on the basis of information and research which cannot be sustained. As regards future conflicts, we have learnt a number of lessons from our experience in the Gulf, not least that of ensuring that vaccinations are routinely given to avoid the mass vaccination that occurred at the time of the Gulf War and to maintain far better record-keeping so that our troops have the very best protection, which is no less than the House would expect.

My Lords, what specific notice is the MoD taking of the evidence being put before the US Congress and in particular the evidence that the French were issued with protective suits and were not given the cocktail of drugs that British and US servicemen were given? The incidence of illness among French servicemen is far lower than that among UK and US servicemen. Is that information being used in the litigation that the MoD faces?

My Lords, the principles on which the Government operate are impeccable: first, to obtain the best possible scientific information, evidence and research, on which over £5 million—not a niggardly amount—has been spent already; secondly, to be as open as possible about the findings of any research; and, thirdly, to ensure that all Gulf veterans who have any anxiety about their health are able to apply to the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme in which all the indications show a high level of satisfaction. There is the widest possible dissemination of information; there is close co-operation with our allies; and every attempt is made to ensure that the Gulf veterans themselves know precisely where we are, not least through the Gulf update document. However, I am advised that I am not allowed to discuss that. The Gulf update document is extremely informative. All the indications are that veterans appreciate that.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vivian made the point about the importance of this matter in relation to operations in Afghanistan and possible future operations elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will assure us that there is a clear understanding in the Ministry of Defence that a major issue of morale is also involved. This applies to the veterans themselves and to all soldiers who observe that, despite all the years that have passed and all the suicides that have taken place, we are still looking at the matter as an interesting scientific examination. I appreciate that the science has to be right but we need to see much more clear evidence that the troops feel that this time there will be proper records and that proper attention will be paid to the troubles of those who, for reasons still unknown, returned from the Gulf sick and dying men.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, is absolutely right. It is vital that the morale of our forces is as high as possible and that the Ministry of Defence does everything possible to maintain and sustain that. The establishment last year of a Minister specifically responsible for veterans' affairs and the establishment in turn of the Veterans Forum in which all veterans' groups are able to bring matters of concern directly to Ministers are important steps forward. If anyone has medical concerns there is the assessment programme. More generalised concerns can be taken to the Minister through a veterans' association. Those are two substantial points in relation to morale.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will introduce legislation giving third parties rights of appeal in planning cases in which those parties have interests defined by the legislation.

My Lords, as we said in our planning Green Paper, published on 12th December last year, a third party right of appeal against the grant of planning permission could add to the costs, delays and uncertainties of planning. We believe that the right way forward is to make the planning system more accessible and transparent and to strengthen the opportunities for community involvement throughout that process. Proposals to achieve that were set out in the Green Paper.

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, perhaps I may point out that if we treasure our environment, as we all do, what is set out in the Green Paper does not do enough to protect it. Is it not right that if a parish council, for example, is deeply upset by the effect that the grant of planning permission could have, it is prevented from appealing? Is not the right of appeal by the parish council—and by other people who are affected—well worth paying for and waiting for?

My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord that it is important that third party rights, in any planning application that concerns them, are given the fullest possible consideration. However, the Government differ from him in believing that it would be much better for the concerns of third parties about what they believe would be the effect of a planning development to be thoroughly considered before a decision is taken. The Green Paper goes to considerable lengths in that regard. First, it insists that there is better consultation and involvement of the public, including parish councils, in plan-making processes. Secondly, it insists that developers are required and expected to consult the public even before a planning application is submitted, particularly in relation to major applications. Thirdly, it seeks to ensure that the relatively small proportion of local authorities that currently do not allow the public to address a planning committee before it makes its decision change their practices so that before a committee makes a decision anyone who feels that he has a legitimate concern is given the fullest possible opportunity to express it. The Government are committed, subject to consultation on the Green Paper, to bringing in those changes. We believe that they will achieve the objective that the noble Lord seeks without the cost and delays that a formal right of appeal would give.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the absence of third party rights of appeal dates from the early 19th century—and outmoded—view that a landowner has the right to do anything that he likes with his territory with the minimum of restriction? Surely today it is an accepted principle that the rights of neighbours and parish councils, which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned, and the rights of others in the area should be at least as important. The absence of third party rights of appeal means that those rights often go by default.

My Lords, I am pleased to be educated about the alleged origin of the absence of third party rights. A characteristic of the planning system since 1947 has been that, in relation to an application, the rights of individuals and organisations that are not the landowner are considered by the local authority as part of its duties. We should consider the effects of introducing the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Based on the experience in Ireland, we should expect at least a doubling in the number of planning appeals. One can easily see that planning appeals would be submitted by people who wished to frustrate a development vexatiously or were trying to benefit their own commercial advantage. I am sure that that would not be so in all cases. However, the system would be open to abuse, as has been evidenced elsewhere.

The central issue is to try to ensure that the public are properly involved in a planning decision before it is made and that local authorities act in a most open and reflective manner that builds public confidence. In that way decisions are kept at local level rather than being taken to the courts, which we do not consider to be desirable.

My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the widespread perception of the proposed reform of the planning system is that it puts the needs of business ahead of both environmental and social considerations? Does he accept that under those circumstances some third-party right of appeal would go a long way towards reducing that fear?

My Lords, I believe that such fears are misplaced. We shall have a better opportunity to discuss these issues at more length next Wednesday when we are to debate the planning Green Paper. The Government are not biased towards developers; they are biased towards good development. Development is not necessarily bad. The Government are seeking to bring about appropriate development which local communities believe is in their interests, as judged by locally elected councillors.

With regard to the specifics, for example, a number of changes are set out in the Green Paper which would limit developers' powers: the end to twin-track applications; the end to repeat applications; a new requirement for openness; and an expectation that they consult the public seriously before they submit applications. These are not measures that a government biased towards developers would introduce.

My Lords, I welcome what the noble Lord said about comments being received before and not after decisions are made. Therefore, will the Government resist anything that would delay still further the planning process? Does he accept that the existing law on property, through its concept of injurious affection, already provides substantial protection?

My Lords, yes, I do. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is absolutely right. The delay by some authorities is one of the thrusts of the Green Paper. It tries to achieve more expeditious planning considerations while strengthening the public's right of involvement and appeal.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their assessment of the consequences of the collapse of ITV Digital.

My Lords, ITV Digital decided to place the company into administration with funds to keep services going for the time being. This was a commercial decision for the company, and the company alone, to take. Viewers will continue to receive all the free-to-air and pay services which they are used to while a solution is sought. The administrator is negotiating with suppliers, including the Football League. We cannot speculate on the outcome of those negotiations.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, if ITV Digital collapses, would that not be rather like awarding a disputed penalty at extra time to BskyB in order to add commercial digital domination to its satellite and cable stranglehold? Would that not give it almost complete control of pay-per-view services after it has priced companies such as ITV Digital out of the market?

My Lords, I am not sure about the "penalties in extra time" analogy. At this stage, it is very difficult to anticipate the outcome of these negotiations. It will, of course, be a matter for the ITC, as the independent regulator and the body which provides licences, to take these matters further. However, any acquisitions would, of course, be subject to UK and EU competition law in the usual way. Competition legislation gives strong powers to ensure proper competition, and that would be a matter for the competition authorities.

My Lords, how much blame for the crisis at ITV Digital does the Minister lay at the door of BskyB because of its refusal to carry ITV Digital's sport channel at a reasonable cost? What influence will that have on the Minister's approach to the provisions in the forthcoming communications Bill for the must-carry rules?

My Lords, in the rather complex set of issues involved in these circumstances, I do not believe that all the blame can be put on BskyB. The contract which Granada and Carlton signed with the Football League involved extremely high payments. Their income has not been sufficient to allow them to pay the Football League at that level. I believe that that is as far as I can go.

My Lords, my noble friend referred to the negotiations with the Football League. She will be aware that, if the contract collapses in the way that it appears it may, the effect on the finances of certainly the smaller clubs could be catastrophic with perhaps as many as 30 going out of business. While one would not suggest that the Government should do anything to help, can my noble friend reiterate the points that her ministerial colleague, the Minister for Sport, made yesterday? He said that this is a very good moment for football to reassess its costs and its income and to avoid the problem of spending money before it receives it on players' wages, transfer fees and other unreasonable costs. Did she, for example, read the comment in Saturday's Guardian by the owner of Birmingham City, who admitted that his club had spent too much money on signing too many players on too high wages? Is not the answer, as Mr Caborn said yesterday, a cap on players' wages and the introduction of some performance-related pay?

My Lords, my noble friend has raised many issues. I did not see the article in the Guardian about Birmingham City. However, the Government do not believe it is likely that as many clubs will find themselves bankrupt as a result of the current position as is sometimes claimed. But I want to support what my noble friend said about the importance of football clubs operating within their means, as is the case with any other business. Some nine clubs in Divisions 2 and 3 are paying wages which exceed their total turnover. Many clubs are paying wage bills which are more than 90 per cent of their turnover. That is not a situation which any business can properly sustain. It is important that football clubs try to put their house in order in that respect, although the Government sympathise with the predicament in which many clubs find themselves.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that when previous crises occurred in the media industries, such as those of The Times and British Satellite Broadcasting, the government of the day were bounced into solutions which were not necessarily in the broader national interest? Will she assure the House that the Government will keep their nerve over the future of this digital platform? Will she assure the House that they will not take short, sharp solutions but will look, for example, at the possibility of the platform being used as a free-to-air platform? Can she also tell us whether the development in ITV Digital will in any way delay the planned legislation?

My Lords, I see no reason whatever why the planned legislation should be delayed. In fact, I believe that there is all the more reason to continue and make progress with producing the draft Bill, as has already been indicated, to a timetable close to that already suggested. With regard to whether or not the Government will keep their nerve, of course they will do so.

Perhaps I may return to the issue of football raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Over the past 15 years, football has survived a number of crises, including the one which was said to be likely as a result of the need to upgrade grounds in response to the Taylor report into the Hillsborough tragedy. At that time, many commentators said that large numbers of football clubs would go into liquidation. That did not happen.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What plans they have to deploy peace monitors to the Middle East.

My Lords, the Government believe that third-party monitoring, accepted by both parties, would serve the interests of Israel and the Palestinian Authority in their search for peace. A monitoring mechanism could support ceasefire implementation and Palestinian Authority action against the terrorists, as envisaged in the Tenet security work plan, and help the parties implement the Mitchell recommendations. We stand ready to help in any way we can.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she not agree that any monitoring would have to be based on a peace plan that is acceptable to both sides, and that no peace plan could work under the present situation of occupation?

My Lords, I agree that there would have to be an effective ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal from the towns on the West Bank and a real Palestinian effort on security issues, including the actions of suicide bombers. I am sure that no one in your Lordships' House underestimates the seriousness of the crisis in the area at present. Indeed, we are facing a potential catastrophe, but it means that there is an added incentive and duty placed upon all governments to work as hard as we can at present, both in concert with each other and with those on the ground to try to provide a way forward.

My Lords, we all agree that monitors can only observe; they cannot act to protect a country's citizens from terrorism. While supporting the US calls for Israel to withdraw its troops, how do the Government propose Israel should act to defend its citizens from terrorism? What alternative security mechanisms to prevent further terrorist attack does the Minister propose?

My Lords, this is an enormously difficult question. If it were easy to answer, everyone would provide the solution. I am sure that we all wish Colin Powell the very best in his deliberations. He has today met with the quartet in Madrid; that is, also with the United Nations, the EU and the Russians. The main ingredients of future action have been put forward, which Her Majesty's Government strongly support, and which would mean a ceasefire. The noble Baroness rightly stresses the proper implementation of real measures for the security of the Israeli people who have yet again, this morning, suffered another ghastly outrage in Haifa.

My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will agree that negotiated agreement and implementation of UN resolution after resolution should have priority. The second step should be to deploy monitors to the Middle East and to rebuild the state of Palestine.

My Lords, I agree, as do her Majesty's Government, with the comments of my noble friend. The priority must be the implementation of recent UN Security Council Resolutions 1397, 1402 and 1403. That means establishing a proper ceasefire, a withdrawal of Israeli troops and the implementation of the Tenet and Mitchell plans. These are enormously difficult issues being faced in the area at present. I am happy that many of our allies, people of good will, are now putting so much effort into attempting to find a solution. I am sure that all noble Lords wish Colin Powell well in his mission to the region.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the kind of international framework into which the Government envisage British troops would be hooked in taking part as peace monitors in the Middle East? Will that be a UN, NATO or E U exercise or some other international framework? In his speech the other day the Prime Minister referred to "the international community". We need a more precise definition.

My Lords, the noble Lord made the assumption that this would involve military monitoring. Perhaps I may say that he is rather ahead of the game in that respect. A number of plans are under discussion. Papers are now being considered, both within the United Kingdom and with our allies, which are based on the concept of a civilian monitoring mission for a ceasefire. It is also important to point out that any such monitoring would not be of just a ceasefire but also of the important issues to which the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred in relation to security, and would involve Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory.

As I stressed in my initial Answer, it is important that any monitoring arrangement must be based on the agreement of Palestinian and Israeli authorities. To try to impose a monitoring arrangement simply would not work. In drawing up these type of plans and proposals, it is enormously important that proper consultation takes place. We are, indeed, at a delicate stage in such consultation.

My Lords, can my noble friend advise what specific action should be taken to stop the kind of attacks which she has today condemned? A number of Israelis have been killed and a number injured. Although I believe it is important that dialogue should take place, surely it cannot do so unless that kind of attack is condemned by her.

My Lords, I condemn those attacks unequivocally and wholeheartedly. We must all acknowledge that the spiralling violence in the Middle East is in no way being stemmed by what the Israelis have done in an attempt to stop the violence by going into the Palestinian areas, as the outrage this morning demonstrated all too clearly. For our part we welcome the peace initiative proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. In the speech made by the Prime Minister in Texas last weekend, he said that in parallel with a ceasefire, the principles set out by the Crown Prince should be incorporated into a further UN Security Council resolution as the way forward politically. It is important that we all recognise that it will be only a political, negotiated solution that will win through; violence simply will not.

My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels that in the exceptional circumstances of today, the House will adjourn during pleasure until 3.40 p.m. after the two Business Statements standing in the name of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House. Then, my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the Flouse, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Middle East. Once discussion on the Statement is complete, the debate on Iraq, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, will commence.

I emphasise that this unusual departure from our normal practice is concerned only with the particular circumstances of today. It is not to be regarded as a precedent to be quoted in future concerning the organisation of our timetable.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision relating to admission to borough freedom. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Mustill.)

On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

My Lords, before I move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, perhaps your Lordships would allow me a moment. Noble Lords will want me to record our appreciation of and admiration for the work done these past days by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, Lieutenant General Sir Michael Willcocks. He has been characteristically modest, and I am sure will be extremely displeased with me, about his part in the operation. As we all know, his role was crucial. He had overall responsibility for all the parliamentary arrangements. He led his team with authority, precision, foresight and dependability. The operation was therefore carried out with dignity and a tactful appreciation of the mood and emotions of the public and the Royal Family. We are all extremely fortunate.

He was assisted by a high-calibre team of staff from all around the Parliamentary Estate. I am sure we would want to thank the security staff who made it possible for Westminster Hall to stay open all night; the staff of the Parliamentary Works Directorate, who put in place all the scaffolding, tents and other building works, including the building of the catafalque; and the Clerks and other staff of the House who ran the information room and provided us with the words of the humble Address last Wednesday. We thank also the Doorkeepers who guided us through the various ceremonies with their customary gentle authority; and the catering staff who planned and provided refreshment for us in very unpredictable circumstances. Perhaps I may thank most particularly the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, Brigadier Hedley Duncan, who was a most able and reliable deputy to Black Rod. He co-ordinated many of the fine details of the operation and all the extensive contacts with the media. All worked extended hours under great pressure and delivered quite marvellous results.

I know that the House will join me in expressing our thanks for the way in which the job was done which allowed that sad occasion to be marked with such dignity and grace. I beg to move.

Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath to advance the Committee stage of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill from Thursday 18th April to tomorrow.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

My Lords, I wholeheartedly support everything that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has just said. It is entirely right that our thanks and congratulations as a House should go to Black Rod. Of course this was an event that had been a long time in the planning. It went without a hitch.

The noble and learned Lord used the word "dignity". He was quite right to do so. I witnessed some of the queuing that took place. There was no trouble in the very long queues. The operation was expertly controlled. The decision at this sad time to allow access to Westminster Hall for nearly 24 hours a day was utterly right and demonstrated the flexibility of the House authorities. The supplying of tea and coffee and other help in Victoria Gardens also worked extremely well.

I think that there is huge appreciation, not just from this House but throughout the country, for the way in which the operation was managed. It was seamless. Our wholehearted thanks go not only to Black Rod, as the noble and learned Lord quite rightly said, but to him and his team, for running this excellently executed operation.

My Lords, perhaps I may add the thanks of these Benches. There is no question but that Black Rod, his deputy and the staff of the House caught in a most remarkable way a national mood. It was a national mood of respect, dignity and affection, but also one that showed an extraordinary level of self-restraint. Anyone who saw the way in which the British public behaved would recognise how its respect for the Queen Mother was reflected fully in the attitudes and the extraordinary dedication of the staff of this House. I should like to echo what the noble Lord the Leader of the Official Opposition said about, in particular, the ability to keep the House open for 24 hours a day in order to allow everyone who wished to do so to pay their respects.

Perhaps I may finally pay tribute to the excellent bearing of the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms and the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard who did this House proud in the way that they guarded the catafalque. I am sure that we would all want to be associated with thanks given to them.

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I echo the words of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. On behalf of all Cross-Benchers, I thank Black Rod and his team for their work. I hope that the House will agree that Sir Michael's background and knowledge was a contributory factor in the quite outstanding success and pageantry of the past 10 days. They have been days of great historical importance, emotions and national unity. We give our congratulations to him and to all his team who so willingly and enthusiastically devoted enormous time and effort in ensuring the success of the arrangements made for the lying-in-state of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. We thoroughly support what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said.

My Lords, I associate these Benches very much with the words of the noble and learned Lord. A huge amount of extra work was done. It was widely appreciated. I know that I speak for many clergy of all denominations all over the country in saying how good it was to know that Westminster Hall was open while we gave interviews or preached sermons and were able to refer to that unique piece of history. Congratulations to them all.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Williams of Crosby and the Baroness Sharp of Guildford set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.40 p.m. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement following my discussions with President Bush in Crawford, Texas. Normally, an informal bilateral meeting would not be the subject of a Statement. Exceptionally, because of the situation in the Middle East, I thought it right to come to this House and give honourable Members a more extended chance to put questions than Prime Minister's Questions affords.

"Of course, at Crawford we discussed many issues, including bilateral relations, trade issues, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Africa and energy policy. I am very willing to answer questions on these issues. But it is on the Middle East that I will concentrate. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House will also deal with this issue in the usual way in tomorrow's Business Statement, and there will be a further opportunity for debate next week.

"There are many situations, both at home and abroad, that are called a crisis when in truth they are not. In this case, it is hard to overstate the dangers or the potential for this conflict to impact far beyond the region itself. It is indeed a genuine crisis, and one on which all of us, in whatever way we can, small or large, have a duty to act.

"In the past few days, I have discussed the situation not just with President Bush but with President Putin, President Mubarak, President Chirac, Prime Minister Jospin, Prime Minister Aznar and others. I look forward to discussing it in depth with Chancellor SchrÖder of Germany this weekend. And my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been in constant contact with his counterparts.

"No one who has been following recent events on television could fail to recognise not only the seriousness of the situation but the scale of human suffering. In the past fortnight, there have been at least 55 deaths in six suicide bombings in Israel. Just this morning, at least eight people died in a suicide attack on a bus near Haifa. In the West Bank, at least 230 Palestinians and 34 Israelis have died. More than 1,500 Palestinians have been injured. A million Palestinians live under curfew.

"There have been terrible human tragedies on both sides. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims, whether Israeli or Palestinian: the two Israeli women who went with their families to a cafe in Haifa and lost their husbands and children in an appalling suicide bomb attack; the Palestinian bell-ringer of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem who was shot and killed in Manger Square; and the 12-year old Palestinian boy who went out when the curfew was lifted to buy some milk and never returned—he too was shot and killed.

"Amid the suffering, there appears to be no strategy to end it, therefore no hope. Both sides must see that violence is not and never will be the answer. The solution to this crisis will never be reached if it is seen purely as a security or military question. There must be a political process too.

"I believe that the whole House will welcome President Bush's statement last week calling on the Israelis to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian Authority to tackle the terrorism. Without those basic minimum steps and without a proper ceasefire that sticks, we cannot even begin to get a political process restarted.

"What can be done? In summary, I can tell the House that we are taking the following steps. We are in close touch with the Israelis and the Palestinians, with the United States, with our European Union partners and with governments in the Arab world in the urgent search for a way of stopping the bloodshed and getting a political process restarted.

"We shall be seeking a UN Security Council resolution, based on Crown Prince Abdullah's plan, to promote such a process following Secretary of State Powell's visit to the region this weekend.

"We stand ready to help with monitoring both of detainees and of a ceasefire when one is established. I am convinced that this is a role that the European Union is well placed to undertake.

"We are also ready, together with our European partners, to help the Palestinian Authority to rebuild the infrastructure of the West Bank and Gaza, and work with it, too, in reconstituting its administrative structures. We are also ready to help it establish an accountable and transparent security structure that can co-operate with the Israelis and the wider international community to ensure peace and security in a Palestinian state and so underpin the stability of the region.

"In respect of stability in the region, let me say a word on Iraq. There will be many occasions on which to debate Saddam Hussein's flagrant breach of successive United Nations resolutions on his weapons of mass destruction. For the moment, let me say this.

"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable. He is developing weapons of mass destruction and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop those weapons, a threat to us also.

"Doing nothing is not an option. As I said in my speech in Texas, the international community should through the United Nations challenge Saddam to let the inspectors back in without restriction—anyone, any place, any time. If he really has nothing to hide, let him prove it.

"I repeat, however, that no decisions on action have been taken. Our way of proceeding should be and will be measured, calm and thought through. When judgments are made, I shall ensure that the House has a full opportunity to debate them.

"Returning to the more pressing matter of Israel and Palestine, at some time both sides will realise that no matter how much blood is shed and no matter how many lives are wasted, Israel will still be there and the Palestinian Authority will still be there.

"The initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, agreed by the Arab nations, is based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 1397. It is the only realistic basis for a solution—land for peace. The Israelis must allow a state of Palestine, secure in its own borders and, in exchange, the Palestinians and the whole Arab world must recognise and respect Israel's borders. A UN Security Council resolution restating those principles with firm international backing is the best way forward politically.

"The House will know that in the region, especially from the Israelis, there is much hostility to the idea of outside intervention. But the sad, simple truth is that the hatreds are too deep, the wounds too raw, for the two sides to be able to resolve this alone. The US is right to be engaged and to press both sides to change, and I am clear after my visit to the US for talks with President Bush that the focus and engagement that is required will be forthcoming. Colin Powell's visit to the region is welcome evidence of that.

"Both sides have heard many words of condemnation. I do not need to add to them here. I understand the anger of the Palestinians who see the steady encroachment of Israeli settlers who take their land from them in defiance of international law and successive UN Security Council resolutions. This must stop.

"But so must the appalling suicide bombings that have taken so many Israeli lives in the past few months. Palestinians have supporters the world over for their cause, but that support is weakened every time the suicide bombers act. Chairman Arafat must speak to his people and do everything in his power to stop these murderous outrages.

"Both sides know what needs to be done and they should get on and do it now. Real leadership is tested by tough decisions, not easy words. No matter how strong the feelings, no matter how deep the hatreds, now is the time to pull back, to stop and to realise that the current strategy is going nowhere, that the time for violence is over and the time to get a peace process going overdue. The international community is ready to help. People the world over are willing us to do so. Whatever we can do to help, we will."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It was right and appropriate that we should adjust our procedures to allow the Statement to be made before the debate on Iraq. I also welcome the fact that the Statement was made to Parliament by the Prime Minister.

All of us will have heard the further news this morning of another appalling and inexcusable attack on civilians in Haifa and of further distressing violence around the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. When the perpetrators of violence fail to respect the sanctity either of innocent life or of sacred places, then more than ever it is the moment when statesmanship is needed from those in a position to lead.

We agree with the Prime Minister that there must be a stepping-up of efforts to help both Israel and the Palestinian people to find a resolution of this conflict. There is only one just outcome to this dispute: one in which two states, Israel and a viable democratic Palestinian state, can live together in peace and security. It will not be easy to get from here to there, but the alternative to an attempt to do so is too stark to envisage.

So like the Prime Minister, we wish the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, well in the round of negotiations that he is conducting in the region. We agree with him, with President Bush and with the UN Secretary-General, that Israel must end its incursions into cities in the Palestinian Authority territory without delay. However, we also agree that Chairman Arafat must use all his power and authority to end terrorism against Israel and to do so determinedly and unremittingly.

There can be no purely military solution to the dispute, whatever short-term successes may be achieved. We must acknowledge, however, that it is the duty of any government to protect their citizens from terrorism. The Israeli people are being subjected to a vile and orchestrated campaign of terror. Day after day, suicide bombers have killed innocent civilians, even children. There is no martyrdom in such bestial crimes. All those with spiritual and political influence must declare that the only reward for suicide bombing is eternal infamy.

In the light of what the Statement says about Iraq, can the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House say anything about the possible links between Iraq and terrorism against Israel? In view of the debate that is about to take place, I shall add nothing about Iraq, save to say that I note that the Statement says that no decisions have been taken on Iraq. Can the noble and learned Lord shed any light on a broad timetable of events, especially in respect of the role of the inspectors, against which Saddam must respond?

In line with our unequivocal demand for Israeli withdrawal, we believe that there is also a heavy responsibility on Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. They must play their part in creating the conditions in which meaningful negotiation can begin. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the key to the peace process must be the short and long-term guarantee of Israel's security? What is the Government's assessment of Mr Arafat's willingness to guarantee Israel's security against future attack and of the ability of Arab states to assist in that crucial task? What is the Government's assessment of Mr Arafat's ability to influence the terrorists at all?

We support the Government in their readiness to consider the possibility of underpinning a ceasefire by holding out the prospect of significant economic aid to the West Bank. However, such aid must be dependent on a complete and unequivocal end to terrorism.

We agree that, following an end to the violence, the basis for any resumed dialogue should be the proposals put forward by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The plan contains the guarantee for long-term security for Israel, but, before we reach that stage, we need measures to ensure Israel's interim security. The two cannot be divorced.

The crisis will only get worse, unless two things happen without delay: an end to violence and guarantees of security. On these Benches, we will continue to support the Government and the Government of the United States in pursuit of those objectives.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and the usual channels for enabling the Statement to he made, with some delay, before the forthcoming debate. That is the most logical way of doing things. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for being willing to innovate in that way. On these Benches, we appreciate the sensitive, thoughtful and responsive Statement that was made. Broadly, we share the position taken by the Prime Minister on the Middle East.

The tragedy is all the greater because the deeply gifted people of Israel could make a huge contribution to the prosperity and development of the whole region, were this terrible war to be brought to a conclusion. That conclusion must be reached on the basis of security for both sides and the recognition of the need for a state of Israel, protected and guaranteed by the international community, and a new state of Palestine, with the same kind of guarantees.

Can the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government of Israel have taken any further steps in response to the plea made by President Bush and our Prime Minister to pull back from the occupation of the Palestinian territories? Will there be recognition in that pull-hack that, if President Arafat is to be held responsible—as he should be—for trying to deal with the causes of suicide bombing, as well as the offence itself, he must have at least some authority over a Palestinian police force and over the headquarters of his security staff, so that he can take the action that the international community rightly demands?

Can the noble and learned Lord say something about whether the concept of a ceasefire can be linked directly to the Saudi Arabian proposal for joint recognition of the right of each state to exist and to the more detailed agreements reached in the past two years at Camp David and Taba? Those agreements deal with virtually all the outstanding current issues relating to the Middle East but have been allowed to slip because of the growing violence resorted to by both sides. What was achieved at Camp David and Taba came so close to a settlement acceptable to both sides that it would be a tragedy for the world if the international community were to make no attempt to revive the agreements reached by the two sides—excepting only the issues of the settlements and the future of Jerusalem—and put them together again.

The Prime Minister referred to the settlements. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether consideration has been given to asking Israel to desist from further building of settlements? Each settlement makes a final solution more difficult to attain and makes it more difficult for the Palestinians to accept that Israel has a genuine and serious desire to make lasting peace.

The Prime Minister made a welcome reference to the possible use of monitors. The European Union monitors are vitally necessary, as the European Union is perceived, to some extent, as being a neutral party between the two sides. General Powell, the Secretary of State, has already referred to the use of United States monitors. However, can the noble and learned Lord say whether consideration could be given to the possibility of bringing in monitors from moderate Arab countries? That would give the Palestinians a sense that their interests were being borne in mind by the monitors. The success of monitoring depends on the recognition that it is even-handed. The make-up of the monitoring team is crucial to the success of such a strategy.

My Lords, I am grateful for the tone adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It is essential, if we are to have the continuing influence that both party leaders specified, that we present a front that not only appears to be united but is indeed united on fundamentals and principles.

Undoubtedly, Iraq has connections with various terrorist organisations. Some of those organisations are no longer active, others are still extremely active and causing mischief in the Middle East. There can be no doubt about that in the mind of any rational person. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, a precise timetable for inspectors. It is true, as a matter of historical record, that Hussein has been dilatory and evasive for some years. That is why President Bush and the Prime Minister are right to be as firm as they are in saying that doing nothing is not an option and that action is necessary. If, as he claims, Saddam Hussein is not developing weapons of mass destruction, the easiest way to demonstrate that is to have independent inspectors.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether I agreed that the key to the process was a short-term guarantee and a long-term guarantee, including contributions from the Arab states. The noble Lord is right. The initiative launched by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is a small ray of hope. There is no doubt that what he is contemplating includes guarantees of the existence of two viable states—to use the noble Lord's phrase—a viable Palestinian state and a safe and secure Israel.

I turn to economic aid. One of the purposes for Secretary Colin Powell's attendance at Madrid, which has been wholly misunderstood and substantially misrepresented, was to have a meeting of a quartet of powers and organisations—the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. A full press communiqué was issued today and part of that deals with the rebuilding of Palestinian structures and institutions.

Secretary Powell said that he is discussing those questions with regional leaders. "The tools of governance", to use his phrase, will need to be rebuilt, as will, similarly, the security apparatus to work with Arafat's own population and the Israelis. He made the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that investment will be needed. I believe that that is a positive communiqué from the Madrid meeting.

Secretary Powell will not be arriving in Israel until Friday of this week. Therefore, I have no further material to answer the first question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams; namely, have the Israeli Government further responded beyond what I believe would be described by most people as a very limited and partial pull-back? I have nothing more definite that I can give, and it may be that there will be nothing more definite until 12th April. I simply do not know.

I have dealt partly with the noble Baroness's second question—namely, will it be necessary for Mr Arafat to have some authority over the police force—in the citation which I gave from Secretary Powell in answer to the wider question put by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked whether the ceasefire could be, or ought to be, linked to the Saudi Arabian proposal and whether detailed matters are under discussion. They are and it seems likely that if one could have a United Nations Security Council resolution on the broad basis of the Crown Prince's proposal, that might be a fruitful avenue to explore.

As regards the further building of settlements, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have made it perfectly plain that many of the settlements presently in existence are unlawful. Her Majesty's Government have also made it plain regularly that no further unlawful activity ought to be carried out by the Israeli Government in the context of further settlements being built.

I believe that the last question related to monitors. It is certainly true, as the Prime Minister said and repeated in his Statement, that we are perfectly happy ourselves to provide monitors and perfectly happy to work with an EU monitoring force. Speaking for myself, I believe that the noble Baroness's suggestion that monitors from Arab countries could perform a useful function, is certainly an imaginative and thoughtful one which ought to be given further consideration. I see the virtue of apparent evenhandedness in the selection of monitors.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has spoken of the need for future investment. However, can he give an estimate of how much of the European Union's past investment in the Occupied Territories, in terms of both physical investment and training, has been destroyed by Israeli incursions over the past few weeks?

My Lords, I cannot give those details because the passage of time is so short. I can give an "of the order or figure—I am not pretending that it is detailed. We have complained in writing, via the Presidency, to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Perez, expressing our concerns as regards the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. In that Presidency correspondence, the right is reserved to claim reparation for damage to EU-funded infrastructure and the estimate for damage to property funded by EU members states is 17.254 million euros. I know that that is not an entire answer to the question, which was a wider one, but I would stress that it is very early days in which to come to conclusions. Undoubtedly, from what one has seen with one's own eyes and from news reports, there has been substantial damage to material which has been funded by EU funds.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the only hope to an end to the tragedy for both sides is a return to negotiation and the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state which is prepared to live in peace with its Israeli neighbour? In that context, does he accept that those who negotiate must be both willing and able to deliver results? Does he consider, in that context, that Chairman Arafat's failure to control either the suicide bombings or the terrorism against civilians was because he could not stop it or he did not want to stop it? It must be one or the other.

My Lords, I have no definitive answer to which alternative is right. The fact is that the Prime Minister plainly reiterated in the Statement, which I repeated to your Lordships' House, that Arafat must demonstrate by actions, not words, that he is willing to control the criminal acts carried out on nationals—often, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on innocent civilians, women and children included—by the suicide bombers. I agree with what was said earlier: that it is nothing to do with martyrdom; it is criminal murderous activity.

I agreed entirely with my noble friend Lord Janner when he spoke about negotiation for a Palestine state. I believe that that echoes the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. There must be a guaranteed state of viability which is called the "Palestinian state". Equally, it has been a constant in governmental policy, ever since the foundation of the state of Israel, that the safety and security of the state of Israel is also necessary. It is not capable of being negotiated away and, in my opinion, not capable of being questioned.

My Lords, will not my noble friend—the noble and learned Lord, rather, even though he is nay friend —accept that terrorism does work? That is a very unattractive comment to make. It worked in Ireland in 1922; it worked in Kenya; and it worked in Nairobi. Above all, it worked to establish the state of Israel which was established by the forcible eviction of 1 million people from Palestine, started by the Dir Yassin massacre where 258 women and children were killed by Menachem Begin and the Irgum Zwei Leumi.

Israel was invented on the basis of hanging British sergeants in an orange grove in Beersheba and blowing up the King David hotel, and it achieved its objective by terrorism. Unfortunately, that is the way of the world, unattractive though it may be. The Palestinians have given an undertaking that they will accept a state of Israel which they felt, originally, was a canker introduced into their country.

We have to deal with the facts as they are and the only thing that has made Colin Powell go to the Middle East is terrorism, as defined. We must not kid ourselves by saying that terrorism does not work. Unfortunately, it does. Unfortunately, spilling the blood of innocent women and children does work. We must not pretend that it does not, however unattractive that may be. We have to address the results of this terrorism and try to ensure that we can achieve, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, an established Palestine state. That must mean the dismantling of all settlements and a compromise over Jerusalem —and that is what the Palestinians have agreed.

My Lords, recently I was in a troubled part of the United Kingdom and was reminded that there are two curses about memory. One is having a memory that is too long, and the other is having a memory that is too short. With all respect to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I believe that to focus one's attention on the destruction of the King David hotel more than half a century ago will not solve, or assist in solving, our present problems. The fact is that the state of Israel has an absolute right in international law—and, I would have thought, decency—to exist. The policy of Her Majesty's Government will always be to reiterate that and stand by Israel.

However, that cannot be a blank cheque for wrongdoing. If there has been activity which is unlawful, first, that must be criticised. Secondly, we must do our best to ensure that the sovereign government of a friendly state—namely, the state of Israel—are assisted in their present travails. Equally, those who live in what ought to be a state of Palestine have their individual rights. They have their rights in humanity; they have their rights under international law.

I think that we can both say that we are noble friends, but the noble Earl is being a little too simplistic by saying that terrorism works. That means the end of the rule of law and it means the end of the rule of international law. It means that the events of 11th September can be in some way justified or tolerated. I profoundly disagree.

My Lords, I was very pleased to hear my noble and learned friend say that there would be recourse again to the United Nations Security Council to secure a resolution which firmly expresses the substance of the Saudi Arabian proposals. I assume that on this occasion the United States will support a resolution of the Security Council, unlike on many occasions in the past when it has not done so. Is there any indication at all that the Israelis would accept a future resolution of the Security Council, any more than they have accepted Security Council resolutions in the past?

My Lords, I cannot pretend to give definitive answers in a situation that is moving very rapidly; indeed, it is changing by the hour. However, what I can say is that I am grateful for my noble friend's support, not least bearing in mind his very substantial experience in the United Nations. I think that the Government are absolutely right to try to build on the Crown Prince Abdullah plan, and to give it validity, legality and authority through the United Nations Security Council. I believe that the Government of Israel ought to recognise that the future is longer than next week and is longer than a few days of military incursions. Actions will resonate far into the future. One should remember that the people killing innocents in Israel are themselves quite young people. They are people who have come to the conclusion that these are actions which they can justify. Occasionally one has to ask oneself what has brought them to this state.

My Lords, given what the Prime Minister and the noble and learned Lord have said this afternoon—wisely, I believe—and given that what we are seeing hour by hour is the Prime Minister of Israel and the Palestinian Government again testing to destruction the futile doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, is there not now a strong case for the United States and Europe, and perhaps the other members of the quartet, the United Nations and the Russians, to raise their ambitions? The United States in particular has a very powerful financial and political influence over Israel, which I have seen used in the past—for example, in 1957—and more recently, while we all have influence over the neighbours of Israel. Instead, as has happened in the past, of focusing on a ceasefire—which perhaps could be achieved verbally with great difficulty but which we all know under the present circumstances would collapse after a week or two—is there not now something to be said for putting forward a European Union/United Nations/United States/Russian peace plan covering all the substantive issues? It would have to go rather deeper than the Saudi plan; I agree with what the noble and learned Lord said about that. We could then use what in the past we have often been inhibited about using—I think in particular of the Americans here—that is, all our financial and political strength to press such a plan home.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, the question of sanctions, which formed a part of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was not, so far as I am aware, discussed at Madrid. It seems to me that the question of United States muscle—I put that rather gracelessly in words not as finely tuned as those of the noble Lord—is a matter for the United States Government. However, I would say that it seems to me that the determination of President George W Bush appeared to be adamant: if he does not get a suitably proportionate response, then the answer lies within the power of the United States Government.

The United States has already stated at Madrid that it is ready to provide some monitoring presence. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is pressing Lebanon, Syria and Israel to respect the Blue Line. I take the point made by the noble Lord that a ceasefire is only for the moment and is not an answer to the long-term problem. But, as the Prime Minister has said, the situation is so grave and one of such crisis that we need to look immediately to a ceasefire and then to a longer term peaceful resolution on the basis of Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative.

My Lords, as everyone knows, innocents on both sides have suffered from terrorism, increasingly so since more violent leadership has taken hold on each side. Has that not arisen because of the failure to implement resolutions of the United Nations Security Council? Should not most of the blame for that failure rest at the door, I regret to say, of our allies in the United States of America? That being so, has the Prime Minister obtained from President Bush undertakings that, in the future, United Nations resolutions concerning Israel will be backed by the United States?

My Lords, I am not sure that I myself would say that "most of the blame" should lie at the door of the United States. I do not think that that is a fair historical summary. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said plainly that there is blame on both sides. I doubt that any President of the United States would say that the US would always support future UN Security Council resolutions without studying the texts. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—which echoes a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd—that the United States is a very significant participant in these matters. The more closely it is involved with the European Union, and with the assistance of our Government, the better it will be. I also agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that innocents are dying on both sides. I do not think that death chooses with any scruple.

My Lords, it was good to hear from the noble and learned Lord about the proposal for international monitors. However, the presence of international monitors assumes an agreement to be monitored. I wonder whether the Minister could go beyond that and ask whether there could be any role for an international force in order to help diplomats trying to broker an agreement. One of the most distressing and depressing features of the present situation is that policy on both sides is driven by a sense of desperation and despair. That will not lead anywhere. There must be some hope and I think that there can be hope only through decisive intervention from outside. I wonder whether there might come a time when there could be a role for a much stronger international force.

My Lords, I shall deal with the points made by the right reverend Prelate in order. At the moment we are looking to civilian monitoring. Of course he is quite right to say that, unless we have Israeli and Palestinian agreement, a course of monitoring simply cannot work.

On the question of the imposition of yet further armed forces into the Middle East, I shall certainly take that on board with care and transmit it to my colleagues, although I do not really need to do so because my noble friend Lady Symons is seated next to me. At this stage I think that we ought to concentrate on seeing whether we can arrange a monitoring force which will depend on the consent of those who are to be monitored and some agreement about the cessation of violence. Otherwise there will be nothing to monitor.

My Lords, while I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord said about the absolute necessity to be even-handed, is there not a slight danger that what the Government have said about settlement does not go far enough? Surely it is not simply a question of no further settlement? It is a source of real aggravation that there are now 500,000 to 600,000 illegal settlers both on the West Bank and in Gaza? This has been encouraged by the Sharon government and it has been a source of enormous provocation. It ought to be policy to encourage not only no further settlement, but the dismantling of some existing settlements.

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord may have in mind the recommendation of the Mitchell committee; namely, that at this stage Israel should freeze all settlement activity, including the further growth of existing settlements. However, to go back to his point of fundamental principle, if the settlements are unlawful—illegal under international law—then it is plain that they ought not to be allowed to continue and undoubtedly they are an obstacle to peace. I imagine that any Prime Minister of Israel, over whichever coalition he might preside, would find that there will be very significant internal domestic difficulties, but I do not dissent from the general thrust of the noble Lord's remarks. The difficulty here is that events are changing very quickly. It would be legitimate for the noble Lord to say that I am being weasel worded, but I am trying be as cautious as I can in order not to exacerbate the extremely critical situation that exists at the moment.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is unacceptable that one party should look at the other's proposals and then walk away immediately? That is precisely what Chairman Arafat did about two years ago. Does my noble and learned friend further agree that Chairman Arafat has to exhibit more than mere condemnation of what has occurred in Israel and must take active steps to ensure that no other provocation exists? In that way, discussions could take place—but not until such steps are taken.

My Lords, there is no point in having discussions to which parties do not go in good faith and with the intention of at least making an effort to reach common ground. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked about Mr Arafat's power to impose discipline on those within his territory. If he does not have the infrastructure, the police and security forces to do so—and if tanks are destroying dwellings at the moment—it is very difficult. What I am saying may not be popular with everyone, but the fact that it is unpopular does not make it untrue.

My Lords, is not Israel in breach of international law in another important respect—that is, its army's attacks on civilian members of independent non-governmental organisations such as the Red Cross, Médicines sans Frontières and others impartially involved in the conflict, who are unable even to drag the wounded away? Will there be a Statement by Her Majesty's Government on this issue? Does anyone listen to Statements by Her Majesty's Government?

My Lords, people do listen. The reason for the debate is that people realise that the United Kingdom Government have a genuine interest in bringing about peace in this part of the world. The voice of the United Kingdom—I do not limit it to the Government—still has a good deal of power, respect and regard in the Middle East. Obviously if activities of the kind specified by the noble Earl are being carried out—I say "ir—they are plainly unlawful under international law.

rose to call attention to the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and to the case for resuming United Nations inspections there; and to move for Papers.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are now moving on from the Statement to a debate about Iraq. Having very much welcomed the Prime Minister's Statement on the crisis in the Middle East, the question of an approach towards Iraq to deal with the problems thrown up by that country raises huge and uncertain issues which need to be discussed in Parliament. We on these Benches have therefore decided to give up a part of our normal debate time in order to discuss this issue. We believe that it is crucially important that Parliament should debate the matter because there are so many profound uncertainties and because the consequences of getting decisions wrong will be extraordinarily grave for the whole world, not least for the area that we have just been discussing. Indeed, given the chaos in the Middle East at the present time, to extend the existing military actions to include Iraq could well plunge the whole of the region into a serious and major international war, with the most profound repercussions on any prospects for peace and the effective maintenance of the coalition against terrorism, of which we are a part.

Nothing I propose to say should in any way cast doubt on the terrible record of Saddam Hussein. We all recognise that what he has done to his own people, quite apart from people in other parts of the world, cannot be defended by any conscientious man or woman. That is not what is at stake at present. What is at stake is how we deal with the challenge posed by Iraq in a way that most limits the repercussions on other parts of the world—riot least the Middle East—and that effectively deals with the concerns that have been rightly raised at the UN and elsewhere.

I do not want to take up more of the time of the House than I should. I shall therefore set out five issues and say a little about each. The first issue is whether the Iraqi problem throws up an acute crisis at the present time. I can say straightaway that the present crisis in regard to Iraq leads on to issues relating to the relationship between the moderate Arab governments and the governments of the western world. It is disturbing that over the past month one moderate Arab government after another has given warnings about the possible consequences of a military attack on Iraq.

It is of great significance that several of those Arab governments and one that is not an Arab government but a crucial ally in NATO—Turkey—have linked that directly to what is currently happening on the West Bank, as they see it, to the Palestinians. Indeed, the Prime Minister of Turkey used extreme language when he spoke about genocide. I do not believe that kind of language to be justified, but it shows how far even relatively moderate governments have been pushed by the events that have unrolled in the past few days.

My first question concerns whether this is a crisis to which Parliament should devote its time. I believe that it is. The evidence of rising public opinion in one key allied Arab state after another means that we need to think very carefully about the way in which the whole issue should be handled. In the past couple of days there have been riots in the area of the Gulf states of a kind that have not been seen for many years. There have been statements by Mr Mubarak, the President of Egypt, and by the Crown Prince of Jordan which show how troubled they are by public opinion, which increasingly asserts itself loudly in favour of a solidarity with the Palestinians and, beyond that, even with Iraq. So this is an issue which profoundly justifies debate.

Secondly, what evidence is there that Iraq is consistently linked to terrorist causes? The Leader of the House said that there was evidence that Iraq was linked to terrorist movements concerning the Middle East, but he did not list what they were. I, for one, have looked extremely carefully at all the information available to us through the Internet and other bodies to which we belong—in my case, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in Harvard and the International Crisis Group, of which I am a member of the board that met at the weekend—but I cannot find any decisive evidence to link Iraq to the Al'Qaeda network. I believe that Iraq is far too cautious to allow itself to be caught in that way. That is not to say that it may not be linked to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist movements in the Middle East.

Anyone who looks into the huge amount of information available at the present time will find that it is consistently contradictory and that one person's word or piece of evidence is denied by another. One of the most difficult things to do in regard to this issue is to find out what is going on. Members of this House will recall, for example, that an announcement of the discovery of an advanced biological laboratory in Afghanistan, providing biological weapons, was gainsaid only a few days later by no less than the American intelligence services, who said that they had not found such evidence. So, even among our own intelligence sources, there appears to be considerable conflict as to what can be relied on and what cannot. In that situation, the test of deliberation is extremely significant and important.

In this context, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the excellent study—one of the most detailed and careful studies undertaken—on behalf of the conference of the Bishops of the Church of England. Even that study, which is expressed in the most moderate terms, concludes that Iraq has actually obeyed to a great extent or to a considerable extent seven of the eight resolutions laid down in the ceasefire agreement that followed the Gulf War. Our distinguished Minister has pointed out that the Iraqis have flouted one UN resolution after another. She is correct. The Church of England report is correct too. It simply demonstrates again how extraordinarily difficult it is to find out what is the actual solid fact in this extraordinary miasma of information.

Thirdly, what is happening presently in terms of the build-up of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Again, if we go back to the 1999 report of the inspectors of the United Nations Secretary-General at the point at which the UNSCOM inspection effort was wound up, we find that UNSCOM claimed that it had largely stopped the Iraqi nuclear programme, that in its view it had gone a long way to damage the chemical programme, but that it could not report similar success with regard to biological weapons.

No one doubts that the retention of weapons of mass destruction by a country as evil in its intent as Iraq—at least, under the present administration—presents to the world a major threat. But, fourthly, how is it to be dealt with? Here, we enter areas of profound uncertainty. The first concerns international law. As Jessica Matthews, the chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has pointed out in a powerful article, there is no concept of "regime change" in international law. Indeed, if we think about it, there could not be—because every country can imagine several regimes that it would like to see changed. An example in our case is that of Zimbabwe. It is simply an open door through which all kinds of grievances can go.

However, there is certainly international law in terms of the demands on Iraq to accept, without condition, the return of the inspectors. That is solidly based on United Nations resolutions. It would be right and proper—I hope that the Minister can assure us of this—that the very first step must be to see that every possible pressure is brought to bear on Iraq, not least by her Arab neighbours, to accept the return of the inspectors without condition. Incidentally, that means inspectors much more sophisticated in their techniques and much more independent in their contracts than was the case with the previous inspection regime. UNMOVIC is by any standards an impressive operation, and Mr Blix, who is in charge of it, believes that it could do a very effective job. So, yes, there must be inspection if we can possibly get it. If we cannot, there must be an approach based on international law, which is at the heart of a counter-terrorist attack. That must mean a United Nations resolution.

I have two final questions. First, do we have a thought-through strategy as regards what might be done, assuming that it could be brought within the law, to topple the present Iraqi regime? I must confess that I am extremely frightened about the plan that I have heard advanced in American quarters, or at least in some American quarters, for using the Shiah in the south and the Kurds in the north as a kind of pincer operation on Iraq. The potential for breaking Iraq open on ethnic lines is put at the highest level by such an approach. Frankly, to take only one example, it is quite hard to believe that Turkey would welcome an approach that broke open Iraq and produced out of it a huge demand for an independent Kurdistan, which would almost inevitably flow from such an effect. The Iraqi opposition forces carry nothing like the conviction that was carried by the opposition forces, for example, in Kosovo or, before that, in Bosnia.

Lastly, I am troubled by the increasing neglect of the second element of the Government's strategy. I do not particularly blame the Government for that, because it is an alliance strategy. The strategy against terrorism was always a combination of two parts: military attacks and an effective peace-building process. Over the weekend, at the International Crisis Group, we heard a number of reports from Afghanistan which showed all too clearly that order outside Kabul had not been established; that parts of Afghanistan were reverting to the warlords and that there was feuding between them; that, increasingly, crime and disorder are to be found in that country; and ISAF, the British-led security force, has great problems due to lack of resources and lack of manpower.

An effective strategy must be based on an ability to reconstruct and build the peace in the nations that we have rescued, we may feel, from terrorism; otherwise, terrorism will simply breed again in the shards of destruction that have been left behind. Those with a classical education will recall the famous phrase:

"They made a desolation, and they called it peace".

If there is to be something greater than desolation, it has to be the building and construction of peace. That requires at least as much effort as any military attack that might be made. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, as usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has shown political skill, as well as some good fortune, in bringing us back to real politics after yesterday's superbly managed ritual, by considering one of the most central and dangerous problems in the world. The Motion has particular relevance in view of the Statement that we have just heard. The fact that the Statement was brought forward so that we could hear it before this debate indicates how the problem of Iraq is tied up with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Although most people would agree that the return of UNSCOM—now UNMOVIC—to Iraq would be a desirable goal, current US suggestions that any weapons inspection team in Iraq should be allowed to go where it wants, when it wants, and without prior notification, is mistaken. Not surprisingly, so far, this approach has met with flat rejection by the Iraqis, even under the not-so-veiled threat of war as the alternative. Such a rejection may be exactly what the hawks in the United States administration want, since it would then be easier for them to justify a military means of achieving a "regime change", to coin a phrase, as discussed by the noble Baroness.

Unfortunately, the view that Iraq's cruelly harsh regime can be changed through military means is held by a sizeable proportion of public opinion, particularly in the United States. But I suggest that to make flat demands for no-holds-barred inspections is a dangerously simplistic approach. The return of UNMOVIC is much more likely to be achieved through a more sophisticated approach to Iraq, offering carrots as well as sticks. For that, intensive negotiations would be needed, but with good will they might well be productive. The forthcoming meeting—to be held next week, I gather—between Iraq's Foreign Minister and Kofi Annan might well be crucial in setting such negotiations in motion. I hope that the Government will give all the support that they can to facilitate that important meeting and not simply cheer at the sidelines.

In considering the basis for such negotiations, it is worth looking at why Iraq forced UNSCOM to leave in 1998. The Iraqi position is clear: certain members of UNSCOM were giving classified and sensitive information directly to their governments rather than to the United Nations and some of that information was then being passed to Israel through Mossad and possibly the CIA. Scott Ritter, the American director of UNSCOM who resigned in 1998 and was replaced by the Australian Richard Butler, admitted that UNSCOM was being used for espionage purposes. He stated this at a meeting here in the Palace of Westminster and in his book Endgame, published in 1999. He also said that by 1998, 93 per cent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the facilities for manufacturing them had been destroyed, that the purpose of the sanctions regime had been largely achieved and that Iraq's capacity to replace them was crippled.

There is no definite evidence so far that weapons of mass destruction are now being made by Iraq. However, supposing such weapons of mass destruction are being stockpiled, it is worth asking against whom Baghdad would use them. To attack the USA or one of its allies, such as Kuwait or Israel, would be guaranteed beyond doubt to bring destruction on Baghdad.

A major problem, as perceived by Iraq and many other Arab states, remains the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, as well as its powerful army and its continued occupation of Palestinian territories—not just the currently occupied cities and towns, but the whole of the West Bank and Gaza—in violation of Security Council Resolution 242. To insist on Iraq completely fulfilling all the Security Council resolutions that relate to it while Israel does not is surely hypocritical.

Unfortunately, there can be no hope of Israel giving up its nuclear advantage while it senses that it is surrounded by hostile Arab states. Even if it were not, it would probably not give the weapons up. That is why it is necessary to take a wider view of the problem of Iraq, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has done, and consider its solution as part of achieving a just settlement for the Palestinian people. Only when they and the Arab nations that support them feel that they have had a fair deal might it be possible for Iraq to agree to some step-by-step disarmament and a full inspection of its weapons—conventional weapons as well as those of mass destruction.

That would have to be part of a general agreement throughout the Middle East to restrict arms, preferably leading to a measure of disarmament. As was said several times during questions on the Statement, that just settlement for the Palestinians could be based on the terms of the recent Saudi proposal, which includes the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and Gaza and fair compensation for the families of Palestinian refugees who had to leave what is now Israel proper 50 years ago.

The alternative of a military attack on Iraq, which would be of doubtful legality without a fresh Security Council resolution, would have dire consequences for the Iraqi people, who have still not fully recovered from the effects of the destruction of the country's infrastructure caused by the Gulf War and the sanctions that followed. It would also break up the carefully constructed coalition against terror and cause lasting harm to Arab-Western relations, perhaps encouraging international terrorism rather than stopping it, as well as having a serious effect on our oil supplies.

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for initiating this important debate at such a topical time. The Secretary of State for Defence said the other day that the Government were willing to use nuclear weapons in the right conditions against "the states of concern". That clearly included Iraq. He even appeared to imply that we might make a first strike. No United Kingdom Government to my knowledge have gone that far in the past. I am puzzled as to why he said it and I think that perhaps he was unwise. However, the Prime Minister has been wise to stand by the United States in his attitude towards Iraq.

President Bush seems to have reversed President Teddy Roosevelt's maxim, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" with his new policy, "Speak loudly, but act with care". That has certainly been his approach in Afghanistan. When judging how we should act towards Iraq, I prefer to take the cautious view. We know that Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction. We cannot be sure whether he has them now, because the inspectors have not been there for four years, but we know from the reports of the inspectors before they were forced out in 1998 that he had biological and chemical weapons capabilities. That forcing out of the inspectors is an indication of his state of mind and his plans. We know that he used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, which he started, and he used them against his own people inside Iraq. We know that he has attacked Iran and Kuwait.

There is a difference of opinion between the British and American Governments about the links that Saddam Hussein may or may not have with Al'Qaeda. That question is immaterial to the immediate question of whether we should state our intentions with regard to Iraq in robust terms, as we have done.

Given Saddam Hussein's record, he is capable of aggression again, even alone. He is capable of aggression against us in the United Kingdom. The means of delivery will not for long be a problem, even if there are now certain difficulties about delivering weapons of mass destruction. To rule out military action would be as foolish as President Clinton's decision to rule out ground action in Kosovo. Such statements take the pressure off the other side.

Another consideration that adds to the force of a threat of military action is that the American administration—the world's leading democracy—is again willing to risk military casualties. The previous administration's refusal to tolerate any possibility of military casualties was a grave handicap.

I agree that the first step is for the United Nations to put into force smart sanctions and, if possible, to reinstate the inspectors. The question will come up again in the United Nations in June. I shall be grateful to hear from the Minister about the present situation and prospects. The prospects are likely to be more favourable now because, as I understand it, the Russians have changed their posture on the issue and are prepared to act as we are proposing.

One of the advantages of imposing smart sanctions is that we will be better able to make it clear to the world that the sufferings and privations of the Iraqi people are the fault not of a UN resolution, but of the actions of President Saddam Hussein— although he has managed to mislead the world about the cause.

If military action is to be taken, various tests will have to be applied. We must be sure that military action will be effective and that it will lead to the removal of President Saddam. It must result in a competent and moderate government in Iraq. We must also avoid splitting Iraq; the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the dangers of such a possibility. Most important, action must not be taken until there is a good prospect of gaining at least acquiescence to it from the Arab world. However, such a situation will not be achieved until the situation of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is transformed for the better. Unless that happens, there will be very severe damage indeed to the coalition against terror.

It is significant that Iraq has recently had diplomatic successes in Beirut, in the conference of the Arab nations, where it obtained a statement of support from, I believe, every other Arab country present. It has also achieved a reconciliation with Kuwait. It has achieved those successes because of the Arab world's disgust at the failure of the West, particularly the United States, to restrain Prime Minister Sharon or—until last week—to make a serious effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

I very much welcome last week's dramatic and very important change of policy by the United States. Although the change is belated, it could be of fundamental importance. However, I have a couple of questions on the United States' policy. Is this reversal a tactical move to reduce Arab opposition to firm action against Iraq, or is it the first step in a long-term plan to produce a lasting solution to the Middle East problem? I hope very much that it is the latter. The Americans have said encouraging words in that context, but, as we know, it is very easy for the situation to change. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point.

In other words, is the policy change a sideshow or the start of a whole new strategy by which the United States will do what is necessary for peace in the long run, even if that means defying the Israel lobby? United States aid to Israel, the majority of which is military, stands at about 3 billion dollars annually. As has been said, that provides the United States with a strong lever, if it has the will, to influence Israel in the direction of peace.

Finally, should not the main focus for western foreign policy, including United States foreign policy, no longer be Russia? Russia is no longer a military threat to us—it is almost a partner of the West. Russia cannot be a military threat; its GDP amounts to only 2 per cent of that of the United States. Instead, should not the focus of attention in foreign policy be the Middle East and southern Asia? In present circumstances, those regions seem to hold more relevance to the future peace of the world.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the opportunity to debate this important subject at such an opportune time. I wish to stick closely to the actual wording of the Motion, which I wholeheartedly support.

Despite repeated attempts by the Iraqi Government to undermine UNSCOM's activities, by 1998 some progress had been made towards the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Most progress was made in the nuclear realm. Iraq's uranium enrichment and other nuclear production facilities were identified and destroyed early in the inspection programme. In 1997, UNSCOM reported that,

"There are no indications of any weapons—usable nuclear materials— remaining in Iraq",

and,

"No evidence in Iraq of prohibited materials, equipment or activities".

Significant steps were also taken to eliminate Iraq's ballistic missile programme. By 1998, all but two of the 819 SCUD missiles known to have existed at the start of the Gulf War were accounted for, and no evidence was uncovered to suggest that Iraq was secretly manufacturing or testing indigenous ballistic missiles. Large volumes of Iraq's chemical weapons capability had also been destroyed by 1998. In 1998 a report by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed that UNSCOM had destroyed 38,000 chemical weapons and 480,000 litres of live chemical agents. Despite those results, however, important elements of Iraq's chemical programme remained unaccounted for. According to a statement in March 2002 by the British Foreign Secretary,

"The weapons inspectors were unable to account for 4,000 tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of weapons, 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of nerve gas and 31,000 chemical weapons munitions".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/03/02; col. 744.]

Much less progress was made in destroying Iraq's biological weapons capacity. A panel of international experts reported in 1998 that Iraq's disclosures on biological weapons were,

"Incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed".

Yet even here some progress was made. UNSCOM supervised the destruction of Iraq's main biological weapons production and development facility, Al Hakim, and destroyed equipment at four other facilities. However, the 1999 experts panel report noted that Iraq retained the capability for producing biological warfare agents "quickly and in volume", although it also observed that, "Some uncertainly is inevitable" in such a verification effort.

The record is therefore a mixed one. Within the two categories of Resolution 687 relating to weapons dismantlement, three of the four objectives have been partially met. The most dangerous programmes—nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles—were effectively contained. Indeed, in recognition of this progress, a number of member countries on the UN Security Council have urged a formal certification of Iraqi compliance and a closing of the nuclear, ballistic missile and chemical inspection files.

More recently, however, the United States Government have been arguing that, since December 1998, Iraq has steadily rebuilt its WMD programme, and that it now poses a threat to regional and international security. This policy has been fuelled by reports provided by two Iraqi defectors to the USA suggesting that President Saddam Hussein has a,

"Network of bunkers where chemical and biological weapons have been made and where attempts are underway to create a nuclear bomb".

That needs to be contextualised, however, within the recent nuclear posture review conducted by the Pentagon which allows pre-emptive nuclear strikes, against countries such as Iraq.

The argument that Iraq has acquired substantial weapons of mass destruction is difficult to reconcile with previous UN reports that showed that, up to December 1998, Iraq's WMD programme had been effectively neutralised. Indeed, in November 2000, Peter Hain, the Minister of State with responsibility for Iraq, wrote:

"Sanctions have not been counterproductive to the disarmament objective. On the contrary, sanctions have kept a brutal dictator contained for ten years and blocked his access to equipment and parts to rebuild his WMD arsenal".

I have deliberately not talked about the possibility of using military force to ensure compliance with Resolution 687. Not only is it premature for that, but, if the possibility did come to be seriously discussed, a whole range of other considerations would have to be taken into account. However, one thing which it is important to get crystal clear at this stage is the distinction between Saddam Hussein's WMD programme and the awfulness of his regime. His regime is indeed awful, but that in itself cannot be used as justification for launching an attack on Iraq Nor should the desire to change the regime there lead to an exaggeration of the extent to which Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, the capability to deliver them and the will to do so. Those matters need to be considered in their own light carefully and objectively. A number of countries have weapons of mass destruction and the capability of delivering them, but we do not threaten military action against them simply on that basis.

We need to weigh carefully the evidence about what Saddam Hussein does and does not have in the way of weapons of mass destruction. We need to press hard for a resumption of inspections. We also need to make it worthwhile for Saddam Hussein to comply with the new inspection regime. Like most rulers, he is driven by considerations of self-interest and survival. There is still scope in the sanctions regime for offering a combination of stick and carrot which will on the one hand deny him access to material he needs for his weapons programme and on the other hand enable much-needed goods to enter Iraq, which will increase his prestige within the country.

Finally, I wish to put before the House a proposal which I owe entirely to Sir Michael Quinlan and Lewis Dunn. They suggest that at the moment widespread international agreement is needed, leading to a new United Nations Security Council resolution which would invite nations to make a commitment,

"a. to treat any use of weapons prohibited by the 1972 Convention as a crime against humanity, not to be excused or palliated by any claim of justifying considerations;

b. to regard any regime guilty of the crime, or of sheltering or supporting perpetrators, as having forfeited legitimacy;

c. to pursue individually as criminals, by international process, any such regime's leaders and any others participating in the crime; and

d. to reverse any advantage secured by its commission, and to succour its victims…

Action on these lines could not ensure that the biological weapons threat vanishes—there can never be an absolute guarantee of that. But it would both heighten and broaden the deterrent barrier (and reduce the attraction of biological weapons acquisition)".

I have no illusions about the terrible nature of those weapons, nor about the ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, we need to be clinically objective about the existence of such weapons and the likelihood of his using them. We need to continue using pressure to get at the truth of the matter. Those steps need to be kept separate from any thoughts we might have about the desirability of changing the regime in Iraq, especially through military action.

My Lords, I also welcome the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in moving this debate on a crucial issue likely to have far-reaching implications for the security of the Middle East and indeed for all of us. I listened with interest to the Prime Minister's Statement as repeated in the House and I am grateful for its clarification of the question we are debating.

I note that the first and immediate priority for the Americans and for the British Government is to proceed through the United Nations in order to resume weapons inspections in Iraq. I have no doubt that that is the right way to proceed. But if the Americans are still determined in due course—as their public statements seem to indicate—to remove Saddam Hussein by force, I have the gravest reservations about whether that is wise or likely to be effective. I am disturbed to note that President Bush was quoted as saying on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to Texas, that,

"even Iraqi compliance with UN demands on weapons inspections might not be enough to avoid war"—

hardly a statement designed to produce a diplomatic solution to the problem of resuming weapons inspections.

I have noted the Prime Minister's assurance that no decisions have yet been taken on military action against Iraq. But I question whether, in present circumstances in Israel and the occupied territories, it is wise even to discuss military action against Baghdad. I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams; I am in no doubt whatever about Saddam Hussein's terrible record as the dominator of Iraq for a long time.

There has been much talk of the need for President Bush to,

"complete his father's unfinished business from the Gulf War".

But the sole business of the Gulf War was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait: that business, at least, was successfully completed, although we must remember that the Kuwaitis still have unfinished business, such as some 600 citizens still unaccounted for in Iraq, and compensation for the damage caused by Iraq's invasion.

The successful removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991 depended heavily—and rightly—on the cohesion of the international coalition, and on intensive diplomatic activity to ensure its continuing support for a series of Security Council resolutions. Had there been any serious attempt to follow through that successful campaign by attempting to unseat Saddam Hussein, the coalition would immediately have collapsed, just as the coalition against terrorism is now in danger of being lost through the failure of United States diplomacy over Palestine.

There are several reasons why we should not even be contemplating an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein by force. First, there must be strong doubts whether any such attempt by the United States, with or without our support, can be effective. If Saddam Hussein's humiliation from Iraq's ejection from Kuwait and the rain of cruise missiles on Baghdad were not enough to unseat him, why should military action or the threat of military action now succeed?

Secondly, talk of military action against Iraq at a time when the Arab-Israel situation is at its most dangerous, seems to me—I measure my words carefully—almost obscenely irrelevant. There have even been fanciful suggestions in the press that the removal of Saddam Hussein might facilitate a solution of the Arab-Israel problem. I am glad to note that a great deal of attention was given in the Prime Minister's meetings with President Bush to the current crisis in the Middle East. But if the Americans are unable—as has been evident in the past week—to restrain what they call their "closest ally" in the Middle East from the appalling round of intimidation, massacre and humiliation of the Palestinian people, and the inevitable retaliation by Palestinian suicide bombers, how can they be expected to have any support in the region for military action against Iraq?

Have they forgotten that it was Ariel Sharon, in a grotesque and cynical electoral gimmick, who provoked the latest intifada which has devastated both Israel and the occupied territories and has led to the tragic deaths of nearly 1,500 Palestinians and more than 400 Israelis, over the past 18 months?

Some noble Lords are old enough to remember—I was in the Middle East at the time—the appalling savagery which followed the fall of the Iraqi monarchy in 1958, when the corpses of the late King Faisal and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said were dragged through the streets of Baghdad. That is surely another reason for hesitation before attempting to provoke a change of regime.

This is not Afghanistan, where at least there were rival forces ready to help in supplanting the Taliban. And the United States still had sizeable international understanding—even in the Arab world—for its motives in removing the Taliban by force. There would be no support or understanding, either from the Arab world or from our European partners and allies, if the Americans were now to try to supplant Saddam Hussein by military force.

Furthermore, who would replace Saddam Hussein if, contrary to all expectations, the Americans succeeded in removing him? Either another member of the infamous Takriti family would take over or there would be a bloody revolution with a Shia fundamentalist government trying to take over from the present Sunni minority Government, with all the security implications that would pose for the region, particularly for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. If that were to lead to the break-up of Iraq, it could have serious and worrying implications for all Iraq's neighbours, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said.

Finally, and, in my view, crucially, I do not believe that we should any longer be in the business of changing or choosing other people's governments, even if we were able to justify this under international law. In the context of Israeli attempts to exile President Arafat, I note that the Foreign Secretary has said:

"None of us can choose who leads Governments or Administrations in foreign countries. We have to deal with the people who are there".

I ask the Minister: does this not equally apply to Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Iraq?

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene after some extremely well-thought-out and constructive speeches. I believe that a little humility is required from the British Government over the question of the Middle East. Let us remember that the decisions taken in the 1920s and thereabouts led to chaos—the conflict between the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the promises made to Emir Faisal and those made to the Saudi family. All four of those policies were mutually exclusive and we are now suffering from their consequences.

As was recently said, foreign policy changed in 1989. Up until that time and the fall of the Berlin Wall, foreign policy was relatively simple: you had one enemy on one side, with the good guys on the other side. Now we are back into three-dimensional chess with foreign policy where it is miles too complicated to be simplistic. I see from my notes that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, made that point. I listened with attention to his remarks. We should also remember that we rather appreciated the Iraqi attack on Iran because we thought, "Let both of them keep fighting each other; we can keep well away, and two nasty guys will cat each other's throats". That was a fairly unattractive but, I suppose, completely realistic piece of cynicism.

I should like to underline a point that has already been mentioned; namely, the difference between capability and intent. France has nuclear weapons, but we do not threaten to re-occupy Calais, to retake Guyenne, or, indeed, to ask my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury to command British feudal levies in Gascony. We accept that the French capability is no threat. China has a nuclear capability. I read in newspaper reports today that the Japanese are becoming considerably worried about the situation. One Japanese political party is advocating that Japan should go nuclear. However, they are not advocating the use of nuclear weapons against China; they are just getting frightened. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, but we do not propose to resurrect Clive and Hastings. We have to live with the situation.

Israel also has weapons of mass destruction and is using force against her neighbours, not only on the West Bank but also, under that friendly and gentle gentleman Mr Sharon, against the Lebanese and those in the refugee camps. We do not say that we are going to use force against Israel, because the last time that we tried to do so it ended in tears.

We must ask ourselves what capability Saddam Hussein has. Before any use of force is considered, the evidence in that respect must be overwhelming. There are reports that he has built nuclear factories under schools and hospitals and that he has chemical weapons facilities in similar places. If any air action is taken against the country, this means that he will be able to show the dead bodies of patients and children, as well as those of orphans and widows. However, that may just be the intelligent placing of information that the gullible among us are supposed to take into account.

Before the Government take any action, the evidence of capability must be absolutely overwhelming. However, I suggest that capability alone is not a good enough excuse for using military force. We must prove beyond peradventure that the force will be used and that it will be used against American and British interests. Providing that that can be proved beyond let or hindrance, it must be possible to consider military force. But what happens—I return to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright—if the regime in Baghdad collapses? Will it split into the old Turkish alliance of Basra, Baghdad and Moselle, with the Kurds splitting off in the north and destabilising the Kurdish part of Turkey? Will the Shia Muslims join the Persians on the eastern side of Mesopotamia, leaving a rump Shia-state-run Baghdad? If that happens, the boundaries of all the Arab states are up for grabs, with all the instability that that will bring forward.

Alternatively—and, again, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Wright—the possibility of a fundamentalist regime in Iraq is very unpleasant to contemplate. We should remember that the Ba'ath regime is intellectually a successor to the corporatist/fascist regimes of Europe. The Muslim world faces a terrible difficulty, and has done so since Napoleon landed in Egypt; namely, that of coming to terms with the modern world and finding a satisfactory method of governing itself. I am in danger of boring your Lordships to tears, but that is so because people in the Muslim world have no concept of:

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".

They have this terrible difficulty—and, indeed, have had for hundreds of years—in producing a satisfactory secular regime.

Therefore, I say this to the Government. We should proceed if, and only if, it can be proved beyond peradventure to everyone that there is a very genuine and real capability and that that capability will be used—not may be used, or kept aside. As a little historical meander, we should remember that Frederick the Great's father created the greatest army in Germany and never used it, but Frederick the Great did. Frederick the Great's father was no threat, but Frederick the Great was. As in all good military intelligence, there must be a combination of capability and intent.

My Lords, like many in this House, I find deeply worrying the idea of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of President Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The purpose of the debate is to look at ways of limiting his ability to develop those weapons further. We should not forget that the one effective means of retarding the ability of Saddam Hussein to develop those weapons was through the work of UNSCOM, as was pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.

My knowledge of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons was gained through my training as an NBC officer in the Territorial Army. One of the fear factors involved in that was the fact that people were not trained how to survive a nuclear, biological or chemical attack. We dressed up in protective suits and followed all the drills not in order to prepare ourselves to survive such an attack but to fight invaders for a longer period of time. It is difficult to survive such an attack.

Why is Saddam Hussein developing these weapons? The area in which he has major difficulty is not only in the development of the weapons but in the fourth part of the equation; that is, the delivery system. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, one of the reasons he is developing these weapons is to threaten his own population. The weapons are used to repress them and to arouse fear and also to threaten Israel. However, these are weapons of last resort. I echo the view expressed by many noble Lords that in limiting any room for manoeuvre of the present regime by talking about a regime change, we are threatening the life of Saddam Hussein. To him, that is conceivably a ground for the use of weapons of last resort.

Military action is seen as a way of reintroducing controls on the development of these weapons. However, military action has far-reaching implications. As many noble Lords have pointed out, one of the major implications could be the implosion of Iraq. We have only to look at the recent situation when Zaire collapsed to appreciate how dangerous it can be when a diverse nation implodes and draws in many other neighbours to fight in the ensuing conflict. There would also be a regional effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out, there would be major implications for Turkey, with the possibility of the formation of a Kurdistan which might well destabilise the region.

I do not believe that many Arab states agree that an attack on Iraq is a logical conclusion of the war on terrorism. I believe that many of their attitudes have hardened due to the situation in the West Bank. They would view an attack on Iraq more as an attack on an Islamic nation. A military assault would have massive humanitarian consequences for the people of Iraq. Women and children who survive at present on the oil-for-food programme would be severely affected by disruption in the movement of food across Iraq. Iraq does not have the agricultural capability to support its own population.

Pointing out those implications of military action does not imply that we support the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, pointed out, who would replace Saddam Hussein? The end of his regime would lead to bloody consequences. There would be a great deal of blood letting and score settling. It is unlikely that a stable democratic regime would replace the present regime.

We would support any means to stop the development of weapons of mass destruction. However, I believe the purpose of this timely debate is not to suggest solutions, which is perhaps beyond the remit of Members of this House, but to highlight the real risks involved in the action which we could undertake.

My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It is always better to discuss such matters as peace or war early on in a calm atmosphere when the Government have made no commitment, rather than wait until British forces are about to be deployed when you feel that you must give them full support and encouragement for whatever hazards may lie ahead.

At the moment I doubt whether there are many in your Lordships' House who do not feel concern over what may happen in or over Iraq. As one who is still supporting our commitment to Afghanistan, where we are reinforcing comparative success and have a clear strategy and end plan, I feel that a distinction should be drawn between that particular action against proven supporters of terrorism and taking on the so-called "axis of evil", which raises altogether different issues.

Unlike many in Whitehall, I was once upon a time swept up in the Suez crisis. Although it was over 45 years ago, I remember all the details of that extraordinary period as if it was yesterday. Although no doubt we shall be told, with mutterings about "11th September", "war against terrorism", "weapons of mass destruction", "evil people with evil intent", that the circumstances this time are different, there are some ominous similarities between the two scenarios.

Then there was no clearly defined political aim. Were we aiming just to topple a dictator, or temporarily to take over the whole country, remembering that the original plan was for a D-Day like operation against Alexandria and a march on Cairo? Or, as later emerged after collusion with Israel, were we merely intent on reoccupying the Canal zone? Certainly, a clear cut political aim and end plan are essential for any successful military operation. Then one of the incentives for repossession was that Egypt would be incapable of running the Canal on its own. That was clearly a flawed parameter and intelligence at the time proved faulty in other respects as well.

Above all, it was a British Prime Minister who convinced himself that the President of Egypt was "an incarnation of evil", a re-run of Hitler, who could not be and should not be appeased and, if not dealt with and removed, the world would be on a totally unacceptable and dangerous slippery slope. Looking back those 45 years, all that sounds rather absurd, but one has heard similar arguments being advanced at the moment and in the event taking action was more damaging to our interests than not doing so.

Now I, and I imagine others in your Lordships' House, have no brief whatever for Saddam Hussein. He has done some terrible things in his own country. He has illegally attacked Kuwait and Iran. He has defied UN resolutions—as, of course, manifestly have others—and he appears to be trying to get together weapons of terror and mass destruction as, sadly, others have done. Sadly, one of the many casualties of the outrageous attack of 11th September is that strategic thinking about balance of power and deterrent seems to have gone out of the window. In the past any such potential threat has been met by manning at instant readiness an overwhelming deterrent, nuclear or conventional, which would largely invalidate the threat by posing such dire consequences if it was ever to be implemented. I can see no compelling reason why Saddam Hussein could not similarly be deterred.

Moreover, it could be argued, and argued pretty cogently, that Iraq would be far more likely to use some of these weapons if overwhelmingly attacked and with nothing to lose than if it had been contained more sensibly and constructively by other means. In that respect I like the phrase attributed, whether correctly or not, to the Foreign Office of "aggressive containment". I do not know exactly what it means, and I doubt whether they do either, but it seems to put the emphasis in rather a better place.

So I hope that when trying to maintain our proper support for America, the Government will analyse and cross-check most carefully all the intelligence; try to get the United Nations observers back into Iraq and try to establish a dialogue with other Arab neighbours so that they too can put pressure on Iraq to allow that to happen and not to do anything which would bring further discredit to the area. As a loyal partner of America, I hope that the Government will make sure that our views are strongly represented rather than following in its wake whatever the circumstances. Forty-five years ago it was the Americans who perhaps not surprisingly pulled the rug from under us, as perhaps they ought to do to Israel now, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. How much better for us, however, to counsel them wisely, well in advance, so that no misunderstanding can occur later.

In your Lordships' House we are not naturally privy to the very latest intelligence or to future plans. However, one thing, which has been said over and over again, is certain; that is, that if a land invasion on any scale took place against Iraq, there would be no support—and possibly considerable hostility —from all Arab countries in the area. They have never been that keen on Iraq being broken up as a country; and certainly no such action could be countenanced unless and until there was far more positive and sustained American backing to bring about a peaceful and just solution to the Palestine problem.

These terrible suicide bombers have inflicted death and anguish on many innocent civilians, to whom our hearts go out—we should think about what it would be like if that happened in this country. Because those bombers are more specifically motivated and of a different ilk from those who carried out the 11th September outrage, the crisis in Palestine cannot be looked on simply as an integral part or an extension of the wider war against terrorism. The problem is in Palestine itself. If Israel is ever to win back the moral high ground and the respect of the world, she must withdraw from the West Bank.

When I gave the Balfour Memorial Lecture not long ago in Tel Aviv—my opposite number was Ehud Barak—I reminded the audience of Milton's famous line that peace has its victories no less renowned than war. In Israel's case, I genuinely believe, as do others who have much closer knowledge of the problem than I do, that peace would not only bring it much more credit but would be far more productive than its present policy in terms of achieving its goal—s our goal and everybody's goal—of a safer, securer and permanent Israel to which the entire world could give its good will and support, both military and moral.

I certainly hope that in the months to come, statesmanship and clear-headedness will continue to prevail over any emotion and revenge. But when you get any whiff of that over-simplistic philosophy that we are the "goodies" and those out there are the "baddies", and that whatever the goodies do to the baddies must be right, that attitude has a habit of generating its own momentum. And, my Lords, as other noble Lords have said, we all know that in this modern world life is considerably more complicated than that.

My Lords, for more than a month, I have been deeply concerned about President Bush's statement that the next stage in the war against terrorism would be an attack on Iraq. I thought for some weeks that I was—Cassandra-like—a voice crying in the wilderness. The metaphors that spring to mind come appropriately from Greek tragedies and the Old Testament. But the chorus of disquiet about the dangers of sowing dragons' teeth is now widespread. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for this opportunity to express my concerns.

The reality of what is happening in Israel is already having the consequences that would arise from attacking Iraq. As has already been said, the moderate Arab states in the Middle East and North Africa are increasingly alienated. Sudan has already offered training camps for Palestinian terrorists and there have been attacks on synagogues in France. Those consequences would be exacerbated by military action against Iraq. Terrorism would become more, not less, widespread.

Terrorism is a response to grievance, where there are no alternative channels for protest. Of course Yasser Arafat's tragic endorsement of the young suicide bombers has been desperately provocative, but their resort to terrorism is fuelled by underlying and genuine grievances. Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the illicit building of settlements should have been tackled by the international community, especially the United States, a long time ago.

President Bush is allegedly surprised by the antagonism of the surrounding Arab states to Israel's behaviour. I hope that he will now begin to understand the likely consequences of an attack on Iraq. The various military scenarios that have been promulgated include 10,000 civilian casualties and possibly the need for an invasion force of 250,000 military personnel, with many more dead on both sides. Iraq is not Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein has 350,000 troops and military conflict on that scale would effectively amount to a third world war as other states were drawn in.

Much as the governments of the moderate Arab states may dislike Iraq, many of their young people, in countries as widespread as Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia, see Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as heroes because they stand up to the might of the United States. The disaffected youth of many of those countries are posing an increasing problem because of the sheer numbers. Forty per cent of Morocco's population of 45 million are aged under 18. Of Saudi Arabia's population of 23 million, 43 per cent are under 15. There are in consequence increasing numbers of unemployed youths, to whom terrorism may seem like an attractive alternative career, which would be justified by an American attack on Iraq. Saudi Arabia has 100,000 young people coming into the job market each year, of whom only half find jobs.

Terrorism is a hydra-headed monster—the more heads that you chop off, the more will grow in their place. Terrorism is easily exported, as America knows to its cost. As the French learnt in Algeria and as we learnt in Northern Ireland, military measures may contain the problem in the short term but are no long-term solution.

A worrying aspect about both Ariel Sharon and George Bush is that their actions appear to be dictated by a sense of unfinished business. For the United States to be so indignant about a country's failure to comply with UN resolutions comes uncomfortably from a country that has not enforced UN resolutions on Israel, that has failed to pay its UN dues on occasion, that breaks international treaties on trade and arms without compunction and that declines to take part with the international community in combating global warming and the setting up of the international criminal court.

If the United States' argument that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is legitimated by self-defence, why not attack North Korea, which is an equally repressive regime and which has nuclear weapons and missiles that could reach the western seaboard of the United States?

I hope that when the Minister replies, she will confirm that no military attack is intended to change the regime in Iraq without an explicit resolution from the United Nations. Moreover, I do not accept that failure to conform to previous resolutions or the vague necessity of self-defence are sufficient justifications for launching what would effectively be a third world war.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. She referred to Cassandra; nobody would ever think of applying that term to the noble Baroness. I should apply a six-letter word to her: she has a good bit of wisdom.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for introducing this timely debate. Noble Lords may wonder why I am speaking in this debate. Just about 30 years ago, on "Derby Day" and in a House that perhaps was marginally less populated than it is this afternoon, I made my maiden speech on, of all things, chemical warfare. I do not have one O-level in science and people asked why I chose that subject. I thought that it was of relative importance.

I hope that I shall be forgiven for breaking several conventions and for referring to participants in today's debate, although some of them are not, for one reason or another, in their place. I appreciated what the right reverend Prelate said about the 1972 treaty. Things have moved on since I made my first contribution on this subject, let alone on a particular geographical area. The scene has developed. That is interwoven with the Statement that we heard earlier today. Unfortunately, we see that through electronic and printed media on a daily basis.

The political and military scene in the Middle East is complicated by the presence of President Saddam. I refer to the threat, and the perceived threat, that he presents overtly and covertly—a threat that ebbs and flows. He has his part to play, sometimes peripherally and sometimes as a main player, in the conflicts in the Middle East. In the past week or so I have read that it was perhaps unreal of us in the West to regard Israel as a western country. One diplomat—a wise man—in Israel, although he may have been somewhat politically incorrect, said, "We are a Middle Eastern nation. I hope that our friends and allies elsewhere in the world might think that we behave as another Middle Eastern nation, perhaps like Iraq".

We know—your Lordships have spelled it out very clearly—that Iraq has already used chemical weapons on its own people. It has used them on the Kurds, on the Iranians and, I believe, on the marsh dwellers of south Iraq. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Blaker referred to that far more clearly and succinctly than I could possibly do.

I was more than impressed by the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. He and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Blaker have spent their lives and pursued great careers in gaining friends and allies in the United Nations and elsewhere in the world for the cause that we and our American friends may be pursuing in various strands and various guises. They have also tried to ensure that resolutions in the United Nations and elsewhere are backed up with support, and practical support if needed.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who is temporarily away from his seat, remembers the events of 45 years ago, as perhaps does my noble friend Lord Onslow. He and I are near enough contemporaries. I remember—it was in my last year at school—the traumatic events of the Suez adventure at the end of October/beginning of November 1956. Indeed, even at the age of 17 I remember wondering whether those events were necessarily wise. Your Lordships and, indeed, the noble and gallant Lord, when he returns, may remember that the Suez adventure was tied up with another fascinating event of that time; namely, the Russian invasion of Hungary. Those two events caused much discussion in the United Nations and elsewhere. Did we perhaps take our eyes off the ball? Did the British and American governments take action because of those two intertwined and perceived events? I simply do not know.

It was most encouraging to hear from the noble and gallant Lord. I also look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Vivian has to say on what I call the "picture of practical action" which could be taken militarily. That has been spelled out very clearly by the noble and gallant Lord.

I have some tiny knowledge of weapons of mass destruction and experience of writing on such subjects as I served for four years as rapporteur of the Scientific Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly. Such weapons presented a continual threat and were a subject on which I was asked to provide a report. I stress to your Lordships that I have no qualifications in science. My knowledge is gained quite often from help in your Lordships' House, through the Library or from other material that I obtain here.

I have gained some knowledge of the two appalling substances which I seem to remember are called Tabun and sarin. They are now very much "O-level" products. I also had concerns about the pharmaceutical industry. I began to think that if a certain pharmaceutical were boosted 100 times or in various progressions, one could find some fairly ugly substances. I appreciated the comments of the right reverend Prelate on precursor chemicals. I believe that he spelled out the figures quite beautifully and far better than I could.

I conclude by hoping that all the words that we read from Texas and Washington, from our friends in the United States will perhaps be taken with a—to use these wicked three words—pinch of salt. I wonder whether all those remarks are made totally without support and without thought. I do not necessarily believe that they are.

However, I hope that at some stage the Government will make clear our intentions—I apologise for using that term; I am always waiting to hear whether the noble Baroness will say that things are "abundantly clear" or "relatively clear" and how many times she will use that term—not necessarily to me, but elsewhere to President Saddam if he chooses to use any weapons of mass destruction in a conflict with any of his neighbours or against anyone. I reiterate the comments of my noble friend Lord Blaker who said that we should state our intentions in robust terms. I cannot think of anyone who would do that better than the noble Baroness, and I hope that she will do so.

My Lords, there is no question that my noble friend has produced a Motion which has taken the serious attention of many Members. There have been some thought-provoking speeches and I enjoy following my noble neighbour. However, I considered in particular that the speeches of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, put the points properly and certainly far better than I could.

It is also fascinating and right and proper to see that the actions of Israel are now receiving the condemnation that they should have had many years ago. In the past, I have been a great supporter of Israel in times of attack by the Arab nations. But the actions of that country since have turned me the other way, and I believe that that is the case for many people.

One of the great hopes is that events are now forcing President Bush and the American people to realise that the largest part of their unpopularity throughout the world is certainly due to their unqualified support for Israel in some very improper actions and repressions in which Israel has engaged. Without any doubt, the United States and President Bush must see that a resolution of that problem is absolutely essential. All the speeches today have reinforced that point.

When it comes to the actual resolution, it is essential that a proper and powerful inspection team goes into Iraq. Her whole record, which everyone has mentioned, indicates that, given the chance, Iraq will do anything for greed. She initially attacked Iran because she believed that there was a splendid chance to grab the oil in the neighbourhood. The same was true when she conquered Kuwait and had to be ejected, and, as has been said, Saddam Hussein has attacked his own people with chemical weapons. There is no doubt that, given his record, unrestricted ability to develop other weapons would constitute a great danger to the area. Therefore, all possible pressures must be put on him to facilitate and encourage an inspection team of ability and size to stop his undoubted efforts to produce terrorist weapons.

I am afraid that argument and persuasion towards Iraq and Saddam Hussein need to be backed by something else. It must be said that the fear of a unilateral American attack on him is probably the strongest persuasion that he will have to do what is absolutely necessary for the peace of the area.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has placed Iraq firmly in the wider context of the Middle East and others have supported that. I am grateful for that. Iraq has an ancient history in its own right, an ancient civilisation. Its people are proud of their past achievements, although not of their present tyrannical rulers. If Iraq is to return to the family of nations we must look beyond its appalling regime to the young people who will shape the future of that community.

Iraq is a potentially rich country. Its people are well educated and have been used to a relatively high standard of living. It is a sad commentary, not only on Saddam Hussein, who our Government keep insisting is solely responsible, but on the architects of 10 years of sanctions that so many people now live in poverty, deprived of proper healthcare and sanitation. As someone who has never had to work in government, I reject all official excuses, including the one that Saddam is entirely to blame, which we hear frequently, when there is so much more that the United Nations could do to improve its own sanctions.

Even before the latest threats of war, there was a strong case for targeting sanctions more effectively. Now that Iraq has been declared part of the "axis of evil" and was again the ogre of the Texas summit, the necessity for proper safeguards for vulnerable groups is stronger than ever.

I have worked with several NGOs which are active in Iraq today and have consulted them as experts on the condition of ordinary Iraqis. Those NGOs should not be in Iraq at all; there are so many other priorities in much poorer countries. Yet Iraq, despite the benefits of oil, remains low in the human rights index. For example, a household survey carried out by Save the Children Fund last year in northern Iraq showed that three in five families have to live on only 6 US dollars per week over and above the standard food ration, and one in five have only 3 US dollars per week on which to live; that is for a whole family. Figures for Baghdad and Basra are hard to come by but it is well known that poverty and malnutrition are much more severe in the centre and south of Iraq in the Shiite areas. Despite UN Security Council Resolution 986, which was supposed to relax sanctions, Iraq's mortality and morbidity rates are still among the worst in the world.

Since the Gulf War and the imposition of sanctions there has been a steady deterioration, not only in the standard of living of the poorest, but in the quality of healthcare, water, sanitation and other vital services. At the same time, sanctions and financial restrictions have stifled the economy and private enterprise so that there are few means for families to generate wealth for themselves. Salaries cannot be paid on time or in full, with resulting unemployment and family hardship adding to existing shortages.

Last week I spoke to a charity coping directly with shortages of equipment in Iraqi children's hospitals, which said that it can still take months to obtain spare parts and even as long as two years if any components are manufactured in the United States. Staff cannot even replace light bulbs or carry out routine repairs because of the accumulated effect of sanctions on hospital administration. On top of that is the recent sudden increase in cancer among children in the south, which is said to be linked to depleted uranium fragments from the Gulf War. It is hard to get medicines for that cancer because of their short shelf life. The director told me:

"It is really heartbreaking to see birth defects arising from this condition and the sickness these children have to endure".

The extended oil-for-food programme has so far averted a humanitarian crisis, but it has not altered the parlous state of Iraqi institutions and services or the underlying economic crisis. Those in the West who have felt complacent about containing Saddam Hussein in the past 10 years have conveniently ignored the plight of the Iraqi people. They have decided to overlook the effects of this policy of containment on vulnerable groups and its failure to have a marked impact on the ruling elite. Even the so-called smart sanctions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, proposed under Security Council Resolution 1284, are evidently not yet designed to target the elite. Can the Minister explain how the goods review list will help the poorest among the Iraqi population, for example? Can she confirm that this Government will continue to consult the NGOs, such as the Save the Children Fund, about the most effective forms of embargo and ways of designing sanctions to protect the poorest?

The NGOs are becoming impatient with a UN system which cannot deliver either on material goods or on its own resolutions and promises of support. That problem is familiar to students of the West Bank and Gaza today and, indeed, of much of the Middle East. It cannot be blamed on the failure of the UN. It is clear that a few powerful countries, for their own political reasons, have the ability to control the express will of the entire family of nations.

The UK is one of those countries, although, as the noble and gallant Lord hinted, in the context of antiterrorism it is a follower rather than a principal. What began as a legitimate campaign against terrorism could now become another dangerous western crusade, with all the racism which that implies. Despite our historic responsibilities, despite the efforts of individuals in our foreign service, this Government have been unable to show any independence of the United States or, indeed, to reflect any European or international view. Instead, we have been a willing accomplice of a deliberate strategy of cherry picking, divide and rule and outright aggression in the Middle East.

This week we remembered the Holocaust, the Dir Yassin massacre of Palestinians and the genocide in Rwanda—three occasions when the world was apparently powerless to act. The past few days, while we have been a nation in mourning, have also seen the most brutal onslaught so far on the West Bank, and we have done nothing about it. We have hardly made a Statement about it until today. Who would have thought a month ago that Palestinians could be so humiliated and terrorised as they have been in Jenin and Nablus; that the holiest shrine in Bethlehem could be under siege; and still the great powers seem unable to stop their friend, the tiny state of Israel? Which is the tin pot nation: the little bully that does the damage or the cowardly one which lets it happen? Where are the rules of engagement? We have gone way beyond the Good Samaritan when ambulances are being attacked, Red Cross and Red Crescent workers are denied access to the dead, and peace monitors become legitimate targets.

I am talking about something happening in Israel, our old military ally and trading partner. This is not defence against suicide attacks. Who can any longer dare to make that comparison? It is a brutal occupation, which the "civilised" world watches on television and allows to happen.

I hope that General Sharon tunes into the wisdom of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, tonight. How can the Arab world, let alone the Palestinian people, ever forget the unholy alliance which is conspiring ostensibly against terrorism but in fact against the survival and credibility of an oppressed people whose land and future we have guaranteed? What have we to say about American hypocrisy in the past few days? Colin Powell says that he does not even think he can get a ceasefire. How much time does Israel need before it believes that the spirit of Palestinians is crushed and the prospect of a peaceful settlement is gone for ever?

Leaving aside Iraq, which I know is the subject today, and which is making its own capital out of this, how can any government any longer justify standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States over a campaign against terror when we condone and tacitly support the same terror among our own allies, the people who we say uphold the same standards of democracy and decency?

My Lords, this has been a powerful debate. It is entirely justified that we should spend time on our first clay back talking about the importance of the dispute. I am therefore grateful that we have had such useful interventions from so many sides of the House.

As a Liberal Democrat it has puzzled me that for much of the debate there have been more noble Lords on our Benches than on the Conservative Benches. We have lacked speeches from what one might describe as "heavyweight" former Conservative Ministers.

This morning I attended a meeting about Gibraltar with a much larger contingent of heavyweight Conservatives from both Houses. I know that Gibraltar is an important issue of British foreign policy but I would suggest cautiously to my Conservative colleagues that under current conditions Iraq and the Middle East are perhaps rather more important in the scheme of things than the protection of the people of Gibraltar.

The focus in this debate is on weapons of mass destruction and on Iraq. But we should recognise that we must place that in the context of the Middle East as whole; of links to the Arab-Israeli conflict; of international energy dependence and supply; of the current debate about US foreign policy in Washington and elsewhere; of US/European relations; and of course of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to form a bridging role between the United States and its European allies.

We all accept that the present Iraqi regime is a dreadful one. None of us wishes to defend anything that Saddam Hussein as head of it has done. But, sadly, it is not the only dreadful regime in the world. We have to look at the evidence on where it is now on weapons of mass destruction. The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said in evidence to a Select Committee of the other place some weeks ago that there is a real threat to this country that Iraq might be able to have weapons of mass destruction which could reach this country "in a few years' time".

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford laid considerable emphasis on the doubts that we have from all available evidence that there is a likely threat within a relatively short period. I looked in my briefing at the report of the Monterey Institute of International Relations on where Iraq is on weapons of mass destruction. It states that on delivery systems it is possible that there may be a few scuds left with a range of 650 kilometres and that there are some other missiles available with ranges of between 45 and 90 kilometres. That is not a very direct threat to this country and even less of a direct threat to the United States.

I am very sorry that the Government have not yet produced a paper on the evidence for weapons of mass destruction and the threat from Iraq. But from the best available evidence it seems that the danger from Iraq is neither clear nor immediate. It is certainly not sufficient to justify an attack during the next 12 months, which is what is being discussed within the United States.

Of course there is the problem of international terrorism. But we have again seen no evidence that the struggle against international terrorism—which is a different issue—and the question of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction are linked. Two weeks ago I read a long piece in the New Yorker which attempted to put together the best evidence possible for linking the two. Frankly, it was incredibly weak. That case has not been made out.

So what is our appropriate response? I worry most that the United States and now the British Prime Minister have shifted from focusing on the weapons of mass destruction issue to a regime change as our objective in Afghanistan. In his speech in the George Bush Senior Presidential Library the Prime Minister talked about "regime change" as an acceptable objective. I regret that he made such a concession to the Bush Administration's view.

In February, in a Wall Street Journal article there was the suggestion that there is a legal justification for America's point of view stemming from Saddam's,

"dedicated efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, combined with his open hostility to the US and its allies".

If that is a justification for taking military action, with very little difference that could provide a justification under current conditions for India to make a preemptive attack on Pakistan. We must be very careful about that kind of pre-emptive attack.

The legality of the removal of regimes was covered very powerfully in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. We have to recognise—I want to move on to the American foreign policy debate—that what we see in the United States is, in effect, a demand that, having sorted out Afghanistan, it should move on to sort out the rest of the world.

On 1st February in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, stated:

"First, Afghanistan to the east. Next, Iraq to the west … After Afghanistan, where do we go from here? Stage Two … is the reaching out for low-hanging fruit … Philippines, Boznia, Somalia; pressuring former bad guys like Yemen (or Sudan?)

But this is all prologue. Stage Three is overthrowing Saddam Hussein".

That may be what many people in the Bush Administration want. It is not something which this Government necessarily need to support. "Aggressive containment", as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, is a far better response.

There is an evident link to the Israel-Palestine dispute. We recognise that that is now the absolute priority for western action. We also recognise the impact on Arab governments and opinion of a conflict that is in severe danger of getting out of control. There was another worrying element in the Washington Times, which is the journal of the hard American right. It was an open letter to President Bush published last Thursday from the project for the New American Century. It directly linked support for Israel with getting rid of Saddam Hussein. It is clearly linked in with what the American right wishes the US to achieve. Again that is not something which we should support.

We are all painfully aware of the divisions over foreign policy within the Bush Administration and of the efforts of a deeply partisan ideological right in Washington to push it into a unilateralist and imperialist approach to world politics. The "axis of evil" speech was very much a victory for the "terrible simplifiers of the right", that alliance of Jewish and Christian fundamentalists and of those who never came to terms with the American support for multilateral international institutions.

What then should be the British response to this bitter debate within Washington? I noted in one of the American newspapers that I was reading a reference to the "expectations of unconditional support from Britain". That would be a great mistake. Britain should be a firm supporter of wise American foreign policy, but always within limits. Our support should always be conditional.

In that respect the Prime Minister's speech on 7th April was a great missed opportunity to give some cautionary messages to informed American public on the importance of working within the framework of the United Nations and of international law as in the long-term interests of the United States as of the rest of the organised and institutionalised international community; and of the need to look at peace and development across the Middle East as a whole, not just the Israel-Palestine dispute, but also better relations with Iran, which is wrongly demonised in the American Right-wing debate. Although the Prime Minister made a passing reference to energy policy, there was nothing about the link to reducing the profligate use of energy within the United States which has led it to be the world's leading importer of energy, with all that that implies for its complicated relations with the Middle East.

There is the need for the United States to maintain a clear partnership with Europe. I felt that the Prime Minister's language wavered sadly between talking about US/British partnership and US/European partnership. There was a failure to say fully and clearly that the war on terrorism and containment of weapons of mass destruction are different issues which should not be run together. There was a failure also to point out that the issue of getting inspectors back into Iraq is not yet lost. I understand—perhaps the Minister can tell us more—that the UN discussions on the reintroduction of inspectors into Iraq are to start again on 18th April.

The United States is our most important ally. But we should avoid adopting a position of "my ally, right or wrong". Intervention now to remove the Iraqi regime would be illegal, unwise and unnecessary. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, when the United Kingdom and France embarked on the disastrous mistake of the Suez expedition, the United States rightly refused to support them. In this situation, Her Majesty's Government should offer the strongest support to the United States and to international institutions in the war on terrorism but should at the same time press the United States to be more active in the Israel-Palestine dispute and to hold its own hawks in check on removing the current regime in Iraq.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for bringing this debate to our attention today. Your Lordships will be well aware that my contributions normally concern military affairs and I speak with due humility on this subject today, as my noble friend Lord Howell is detained elsewhere.

The debate has discussed complex matters, clarified many highly relevant issues and enabled your Lordships' House to consider these important matters in a frank and open way. I agree that we need a debate in your Lordships' Chamber in government time.

We on these Benches support the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America in their determination to tackle the issue of the growing threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We agree that robust action must be taken to deal with that problem and that we must not shy away from it, as some would wish. The Government and Her Majesty's loyal Opposition reflect world opinion. We speak for it and are prepared to act on its behalf and we support the United States of America because she speaks and acts on the same principles.

Few people will disagree with that, but concerns arise over how and what action should he taken to resolve this grave and dangerous problem. At this stage, while no decision has yet been made to resolve this alarming situation, we support the Government in pursuing the most effective course of action—whether it be containment, diplomatic, economic, deterrent or military action. However, whichever type of action is taken should be preceded by an intense but gradual measured escalation of diplomatic and political measures to show the world—not least the Arab countries—that the West is offering Saddam Hussein every opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions.

As your Lordships have emphasised, it should be remembered that Iraq is continuously in breach of UN resolutions concerning the ceasefire and Saddam Hussein has failed to assure the world that he is not engaged in developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and their launcher and delivery systems. Some countries and their cities are already within range of ballistic missile bases in the Middle East and in a few years' time most of Europe will be in range. However, although Iraq is a sponsor of state terrorism, as has been said frequently throughout the debate no credible evidence has so far been discovered that links Iraq to Al'Qaeda.

It is known and confirmed by a United States Congress report and a Central Intelligence Agency report released on 9th January that Iraq is pursuing ambitious plans to increase the range, reliability and accuracy of its ballistic missiles and only a significant change in its political orientation will stop it from doing so. That creates even greater risks to Europe, the USA, our military forces and our allies throughout the world.

Before the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq had a frightening range of weapons of mass destruction. The eventual admission by Iraq of biological holdings is terrifying—consisting of about 20,000 litres of concentrated botulinum, some 8,500 litres of concentrated anthrax and 2,200 litres of aflatoxin. The UN is especially worried about 600 aerial chemical bombs and on ballistic missiles it said that it could not account for at least seven Iraqi-made missiles and two Russian made Scud missiles. Furthermore, thousands of tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of chemical weapons and some 31,000 chemical weapons munitions are also unaccounted for.

It is clear that Iraq now possesses the holdings and capability to use weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein and his Government nave obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, of which Iraq is a signatory, not to proliferate nuclear capabilities. The fear of his doing so is of great concern. Nine United Nations Security Council resolutions have been passed, none of which Saddam Hussein has complied with in full, and 27 separate obligations have been placed on him, of which he is in blatant breach of at least 23. There is an urgent need for weapons inspectors to be readmitted in compliance with United Nations Resolution 687 to verify and destroy those holdings.

Saddam Hussein will not comply with the United Nations resolution and allow the inspectors to return—presumably because he has something to hide and because his objection to free inspection finds support among his Arab neighbours. The argument about inspection is about Saddam Hussein being willing to receive inspectors, pre-approved by him, to look at what they are shown on a prearranged timetable, as opposed to the UN being able to send in people of its choice to look at whatever they want whenever they want.

The international community's most pressing demand is for Iraq to allow UN inspectors to return to Iraq to verify and destroy Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of those weapons of mass destruction. That is the action that Iraq must take to return to the international community, for what lies at the heart of the issue is the rule of international law. No half-measures or rhetoric should be accepted as a commitment by Iraq to meet its obligations under the security resolutions.

There is no doubt that action must be taken if the West is to pre-empt the use of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. However, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that any course adopted must be morally right, legal and comply with international law. Some say that direct military intervention is the answer to the problem. However, while no option should be ruled out, it would surely be wise to ensure that every measure has been brought to bear before military action is taken. Some options that have been referred to are containment by sanctions, greater diplomatic pressure, deterrence and military force.

First, as far as I am aware, the goal of containment was to prevent Saddam Hussein from rebuilding Iraq's military power and weapons of mass destruction through sanctions. Containment has been operating for a number of years and it is generally accepted that it is insufficient and no longer a realistic policy to pursue.

Secondly, much greater and stronger diplomatic pressures are required. One of those should be to dissuade neighbouring Arab states from giving support to Saddam Hussein to prevent full and free weapons inspections. The other is for the USA to force the Israelis to recognise the state of Palestine and in return to ask the Arab states to support western policy for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to force Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions.

Thirdly, there is the policy of deterrence. A number of military options can be deployed if Iraq fails to respond to diplomatic pressure. That should involve a steady and progressive application of realistic military pressure on a proportionate basis, which should enable the West to carry most of its allies with it—including the more reluctant of the coalition partners. It can be tailored into continuing diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis and it should make post-conflict reconstruction and settlement easier, should it come to that.

Finally, with containment not working, and should the policies of increased diplomatic pressure and deterrence fail, the application of military force must be examined if the West is to achieve its aim of freeing the world of the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. The West must also be prepared to act in order to persuade the Israelis not to strike with their nuclear weapons. They may be tempted to do so if their intelligence sources suggest that Saddam Hussein may be about to use weapons of mass destruction against Israel.

There is not time in this debate to discuss the types of military action that could be used. However, a nuclear-armed Iraq would be a disaster waiting to happen and any military attack on Iraq must be carried out by a very large-scale allied forces operation using overwhelming ground forces. An approach similar to the employment of air power, the use of special forces and the enlistment and deployment of local opposition groups from the Shia and Kurds to do most of the fighting, as has been used in Afghanistan, is highly questionable and may not produce the rapid and conclusive result required, especially by the Arab states. It must be clearly understood that, if Saddam Hussein realised that the West was intent on a regime change, he would fight back with everything that he had. That could include a ballistic missile attack on Israel. Whichever course is adopted, it must be robust and be seen through to the bitter end.

The Government of Iraq have already used weapons of mass destruction against their own people. They have the capability to use them again, and that is the most serious threat to society as a whole since the first atomic bombs brought a sudden end to the Second World War. Arab opinion will not tolerate a long drawn-out campaign but demands, if it is to tolerate any action, a rapid and decisive conclusion. Effective and conclusive action would constitute liberation, not invasion. Unless President Bush matches resolution towards Iraq with firmness towards Israel, the international coalition may break up.

We on these Benches welcome and support the Prime Minister's assurances that he will stand by America as a staunch and strong ally to end the production of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq and that no course of action should be ruled out. If we sit back and do nothing, we may find that those horrific weapons are used against us.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, is the fourth or fifth noble Lord to mention the fact that Saddam used gas—a chemical weapon—against his own people. That was, of course, beyond any kind of redemption, and we all condemn it. However, our Government's position on that is not all that good either. We did not complain about it at the time—1988—when we thought that Saddam was more on our side. Further hack, we used chemical weapons against Kurdish tribespeople in northern Iraq in 1928. We should be careful about condemning what happened too wholeheartedly.

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. I was trying to concentrate on matters that are up to date, not matters from some time ago that are now, probably, irrelevant to the debate.

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for introducing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Our discussion takes place at a time when international concern about Iraq's programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction is rising and it coincides with renewed calls by the United Nations for Iraqi compliance with its disarmament and monitoring obligations. Many points were raised this afternoon, but I shall concentrate on the subject of the debate, the development of weapons of mass destruction and the case for resuming the activities of the UN inspectors in Iraq.

Last Sunday, in Texas, the Prime Minister set out succinctly the United Kingdom's objective. He said that Saddam Hussein,

"has to let the inspectors back in, anyone, any time, any place the international community demands".

That is not a new statement. It is what Security Council resolutions have always demanded.

Iraq poses a real, unique threat to the security of the Gulf region and the rest of the world. Saddam Hussein can lay claim to a grotesque distinction among the world's dictators. As the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Lyell, said, his is the only regime to have used weapons of mass destruction against its own people and neighbours. I must answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, by saying that, once Saddam had the capability, the intent and the actuality were horribly demonstrated—as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, reminded us—at Halabja, where 5,000 died, elsewhere in Kurdistan and in Iran, to say nothing of the invasion of Kuwait, although he did not use his weapons of mass destruction there.

Iraq now possesses WMD that it concealed from United Nations weapons inspectors throughout the 1990s. Not only does that contravene United Nations disarmament and monitoring obligations, it breaches the spirit and the letter of some of the world's most important arms control agreements.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford reminded us, the United Nations Special Commission was, between 1991 and 1998, able to identify, locate and destroy significant elements of Iraq's WMD programme, despite the almost total lack of cooperation from the Iraqi authorities. However, a final report submitted by the chairman of the United Nations Special Commission in December 1998 stated that UNSCOM had continuing concerns about the declarations made by Iraq.

The report showed that United Nations inspectors had been unable to account for large quantities of documents, materials and equipment relating to Iraq's chemical, biological and ballistic missile programmes. The gaping holes in the Iraqi inventory are a great cause for concern. UNSCOM was unable to account for thousands of tonnes of precursor materials used in the production of chemical weapons, hundreds of tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of VX nerve agent and tens of thousands of chemical weapons munitions. UNSCOM was also unable to account for a significant quantity of long-range missiles, a fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, referred. Those are matters of real concern to the international community; the materials that UNSCOM was unable to account for form the raw material for horrific capabilities that threaten the security of the entire region.

One of the most bizarre suggestions made in recent years was that UNSCOM was merely the tool of the West and that its conclusions merely reflected thinking in London and Washington. Not only is that a slight on the reputation of UNSCOM's inspectors, it ignores the conclusions of distinguished arms control experts world-wide. I remind my noble friend Lord Rea that the UNSCOM executive chairman, Richard Butler, made it clear that he always instructed that all UNSCOM activities be carried out strictly in pursuit of its disarmament mandate and not to the benefit any of individual state. I heard what my noble friend said about Mr Scott Ritter, who worked for UNSCOM. I remind my noble friend that, at the time, Mr Ritter consistently reported Iraqi concealment and conceit. As his then boss, Richard Butler, has pointed out, everything that Mr Ritter has said since then contradicts what he told Mr Butler at the time about Iraqi disarmament.

In 1999, a United Nations panel of 22 independent disarmament experts confirmed UNSCOM's findings. That reinforces my point. They concluded that serious gaps remained in Iraq's declarations on chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. We have no reason to question their conclusions or to question UNSCOM's integrity.

My Lords, I apologise for asking the Minister to give way, but it is vitally important that we know what Iraq actually has and what evidence there is. If we are persuaded by that, those of us who doubt will give the Government a fair wind. However, we must be persuaded that Iraq has a certain number of missiles and that it will use them.

My Lords, if the noble Earl had contained himself a moment or two longer, he would have heard my next sentence, which was to be, "I now turn to the developments in Iraq's programmes since the withdrawal of the inspectors in 1998".

Based on the Iraqi regime's track record of deceit in the period between 1991 and 1998—something about which there cannot be much doubt—it would be naive to take Iraqi assertions of a clean bill of health at face value. Despite the difficulties in forming an accurate picture of developments in the absence of UN weapons inspectors, all the available evidence points to a concerted effort by Saddam Hussein to revive his weapons programmes. For the past three years, Iraq has rejected the international community's demand for a resumption of inspections. We judge that Saddam Hussein has used that three-year period to pursue his weapons of mass destruction ambitions unconstrained by any inspectors.

There are now several areas of major concern. For example, since 1998, many of the facilities damaged by the United Kingdom and the United States military strikes during Operation Desert Fox have been repaired. Iraq is persisting with its chemical and biological weapons programmes, and is developing missiles capable of delivering such weapons not only to Iraq's immediate neighbours but to targets well beyond. There is also recent evidence of an increased effort to procure nuclear technology, and research and development on the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme has restarted. Remember, without United Nations controls, Saddam Hussein would have a nuclear weapon by now.

Therefore, we strongly suspect that Iraq still has large stocks of mustard gas, VX, sarin and aflatoxin. We are all very familiar with the devastating effects of mustard gas, which was widely used in the killing fields of Flanders during the First World War. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, sarin and, even more so, aflatoxin are phenomenally potent substances. A single teaspoon of sarin, carefully deployed, has the capacity to kill tens of thousands of people. We assess that Iraq has substantial stocks of that deadly substance. Even the briefest exposure to aflatoxin is almost invariably fatal.

Iraq has the technical expertise to incorporate those deadly substances into its weapons systems: into artillery shells; into free-fall bombs; and possible even into warheads for use with its ballistic missiles. UNSCOM inspectors found evidence of the presence of chemical agents in shell fragments in Iraq during their inspections in the 1990s.

The question of a delivery system was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Redesdale. Iraq still possesses missiles with the capability of striking well beyond its own borders. We are sure that Saddam Hussein is working on the development of longer-range missiles which go beyond the 150-kilometre limit prescribed by the United Nations. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, rightly said, that gives him the potential capability to target population centres in countries of the region with chemical and biological warheads.

Finally, we do not judge that Iraq currently has a nuclear weapon. We believe that it could acquire such a device within five years if sanctions were lifted. That timeframe would shorten considerably were Iraq to acquire sufficient fissile material from an external source. That is a deeply disturbing picture.

Therefore, as many of your Lordships have acknowledged, the case for a resumption of weapons inspections could not be clearer. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 offers Iraq a clear route out of sanctions in return for co-operation with weapons inspectors. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, reminded us, Iraq has refused to accept the key terms of UNSCR 1284.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benchie, said that we have to find a way through this. The first step must be for Iraq to allow the United Nations weapons inspectors unrestricted and unconditional access to all sites which the United Nations believes are being used for the production of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that that is a demand which comes from all members of the Security Council, all members of the European Union, and all Iraq's neighbours. That is a subject on which all are agreed. It is not just the United States and the United Kingdom, but all those key partners.

I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we in the United Kingdom remain at the forefront of the efforts to introduce new arrangements which focus UN sanctions on Iraq's attempts to obtain weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said that we hope that the Security Council will be putting these into place by the end of May. Yes, the negotiations with our friends in Russia have gone well, with much thanks to the abilities of Sir Jeremy Greenstock who has worked so effectively and tirelessly on that issue.

Once implemented, those proposals will mean no sanctions on ordinary imports, only controls on military and, of course, weapons of mass destruction-related items. That will step up pressure on the Iraqi regime by showing once and for all that we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people and that Saddam Hussein alone remains responsible for their suffering.

At this point I must address some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. Iraq has cut its spending on health by more than 50 per cent—

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting but the Minister has given us an impressive account of the Government's estimates and assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and of Iraqi intentions. In that case, why have the Government not produced the promised dossier?

My Lords, I very much hope that the dossier that has been referred to will be produced very shortly. I cannot give your Lordships a timeframe on that; I wish I could. However, I realise that that is something for which many of your Lordships have pressed. Indeed, many on the Government Benches would also like to see that published. Therefore, I hope I shall be able to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on that point.

I should like to address some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—in particular, the point he made concerning health spending. In the past year, Iraq has cut its health spending by more than 50 per cent, compared with the 2000 allocation. The noble Earl spoke very movingly of shortages that were being experienced by ordinary Iraqi people. However, what he did not tell you Lordships was that Iraq has submitted cover for contracts, for example, on 2 billion cigarettes; 181,000 televisions; 500 tonnes of neck ties. Billions of dollars are available. There is no reason for the Iraqi people to want, except as a result of Iraq's callousness in dealing with the needs of its own people. I was sorry about the noble Earl's implication: that the countries of the West which wished to see an effective regime do not have any feelings or care at all for the suffering of the Iraqi people. That suffering can be laid solely at the door of Saddam Hussein.

Many have been asking, especially in the media, why the Iraqi threat has become an issue now. It was, indeed, a point that the noble Baroness made in her opening speech. The simple point is that it has not only just become an issue. Since I have been a Minister—almost five years—in the FCO, the MoD and, again now, in the FCO—one of the major themes of government speeches has been the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction developed by that regime.

As the Prime Minister said last week, to,

"allow WMD to be developed by a state like Iraq without let or hindrance would be grossly to ignore the lessons of 11th September and we will not do it".

Doing nothing is not an option.

I now turn to the question that many of your Lordships have raised about military action. In recent weeks there has been a great deal of media speculation about the prospects for military action. However, let me be explicit to my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon who I know is very concerned about those issues. Let me emphasise now not only to her but to all your Lordships that no decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. As the Prime Minister underlined on Sunday, nobody should fear what he called "precipitate action". We will proceed as we did in the aftermath of 11th September in what the Prime Minister has described as,

"a calm, measured, sensible and firm way".

Speculation about an imminent attack is just that—it is speculation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised the question of the legality of any military action. I repeat that there is no decision to take any such action. However, I would emphasise that the Government have never acted outside international law and never will. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, our view on the legal position will depend on the exact circumstances at the time of any decision. To speculate while the question of military action is really a hypothetical issue is, quite honestly, a pointless exercise. However, I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that under NATO treaties we are bound to defend not only ourselves and not only the United States, but also our NATO allies.

I now turn to the question raised by many of your Lordships about whether policy has now changed and whether what we are really interested in is a regime change in Iraq. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, by the right reverend Prelate, and by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. On that question, we are all agreed that it would be best for the Iraqi people, for the security of the region and for the world as a whole, if Saddam Hussein went. That has always been the view of the Government.

However, the objective of Her Majesty's Government is to address the threats posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In answer specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, I cannot do any better than quote the Prime Minister last Sunday when he said:

"We must be prepared to act where terrorism or WMDs threaten us. Since 11th September the action has been considerable in many countries. If necessary, the action should be military and, again, if necessary and justified, it would involve regime change"

On the question of Iraq's links to terrorists, I thought that the noble Baroness was a little unfair to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House. The Government have consistently made it clear that at present we have seen no definitive evidence of a link between Iraq and Al'Qaeda. That is the position at the moment. But the question put earlier this afternoon to my noble and learned friend concerned Iraqi support for terrorist organisations. Iraq does, indeed, have a long record of supporting terrorism, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups and the activities of the MEK against Iran, as well as the assassination of political opponents. I believe it was that to which my noble and learned friend referred.

Many noble Lords have, quite understandably, again referred to the great and terrible difficulties of the crisis in the Middle East, a situation which I referred to earlier as a potential catastrophe. Of course there is much Arab anger on the streets in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Bahrain and a number of other countries. We have all listened with increasing anxiety to what is happening. However, it is important to remember that Arab leaders also express their detestation and apprehension over what is going on in Iraq and about some of the methods used by Saddam Hussein. Although inevitably we connect these matters, they are separate issues. Although I fully understand that on the streets such issues may spill one into another, we have to approach them as separate matters.

I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that of course we believe that the American initiative is a sincere effort to restore the Middle East peace process. We also believe that the effort being made as late as this afternoon in Madrid in seeking to bring together the quartet of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States represents another extremely important building block in putting together that alliance.

I reject the accusation made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the United Kingdom has not asserted itself. It has done so. We have engaged very effectively indeed. We do not grandstand; we make our arguments to our friends and, indeed, to others in the EU, in the Gulf and in the United States in measured tones. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that diplomacy can be delivered in a firm, quiet voice as a very clear message as well as through a loud-hailer.

I shall pick up on some of the points made by the noble Baroness on what is happening in Afghanistan. I think that the noble Baroness painted a rather gloomy picture and I remind her that ISAF has made an excellent job of establishing security in Kabul. In so doing, it has allowed children to go back to school. My goodness, young women are now being educated for the first time in years. The economy is reviving and shops are thriving. Furthermore, for the first time since the Taliban came to power, people are going about their daily lives. No one is under any illusion that this is anything but art enormously difficult task, but none the less it is one that is going reasonably well.

I agree with much of what was said by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in his customary measured and effective way. The United Nations is the only body that can provide an independent regime for monitoring, verification and, if necessary, the destruction of Iraq's illegal weapons systems and the facilities for their production. It is essential that UN MOVIC and the IAEA are allowed to fulfil the mandate that they have been given by the Security Council. That is because only full Iraqi co-operation with those conditions will give us the assurance that Iraq no longer has the capability to threaten the Middle East and the wider world with these dreadful weapons systems.

Other would-be proliferators around the world have been following the international response to Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes for the past 10 years. If we dare not tackle Saddam Hussein's programmes and effectively move to disarm Iraq, that will send a signal to those countries that crime does pay and that the international community is not prepared to make difficult choices in order to stop proliferation in its tracks. So for this reason we cannot afford to fail in the task to which we have set our hand.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to the debate and other noble Lords for what they have said. I wish to make only one remark before concluding the debate, and to say that this is a matter to which I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise that the House will wish to return.

In my view, the battle against terrorism must include winning hearts and minds. If I may say so, I thought that the noble Baroness was rather hard on the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who made a fair point that when people shoot at ambulances, however great the strain they may he under, it does not win support for the battle against terrorism. We must address the effects of such actions. However, I accept what the noble Baroness said, although some of the definitions might give rise to quarrels. For example, are 95-kilometre missiles long-range weapons? Endless arguments of that kind can be put forward, and no doubt we shall return to them.

Once again, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

rose to call attention to the state of the public services; and to move for Papers.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I took advantage of the Easter break to travel abroad. On this occasion I visited Andalucia in southern Spain, a land of olive groves, sheep, goats and pigs being herded by the side of the road. In many senses the trip reminded me of the early visits I paid to France in the 1950s as a schoolgirl and a student. In those days we were told to be careful about drinking the tap water. Unless you travelled first class, you sat bolt upright on uncomfortable leather-cloth seats in the trains. We shared buses with chickens and geese. Public conveniences for women were few and far between and were always dirty and smelly. The schools we visited as exchange students had large classes and were poorly equipped, in particular for the sciences and the arts. Roads in the towns were often potholed and poorly maintained, and some noble Lords may remember that to make a long-distance telephone call meant queuing for hours at the post office.

I would return home happy about the exchanges that I had made and the wider experience that I had had, but also pleased to come back to a world of hot baths, flushing toilets, fast and reasonably comfortable suburban trains and working telephones.

Some 45 years on, it seems that the roles have almost reversed. Ours is now a country in which tourists, rightly or wrongly—I think probably wrongly—are told to be careful about drinking the tap water. The trains are often late, frequently dirty and covered in graffiti. If you can find a public toilet, it will be dirty and smelly.

A new train service runs from Madrid to Seville. The journey takes two-and-a-half hours instead of what used to be an eight-hour journey. However, it still takes a very long time to travel to Manchester, an equivalent journey. New roads sweep across the mountains, opening up many little white hill-top villages, creating ever more traffic, but also bringing tourists and prosperity. There are new schools which, from what I could see of their sports fields, are well equipped. The staying-on rates through to 18 are higher in Spain than they are in Britain. If we are to believe those writing to The Times, new hospitals and medical centres offer treatments and facilities which are at least as good, if not often better, than those available in this country. However, I am glad to say that I did not have to avail myself of any medical treatment while on holiday.

I know it is easy to exaggerate the differences. In such countries there remains a degree of rural poverty which we do not see in Britain today. There are many aspects of life which remain primitive and unsatisfactory. However, overall there is a question to be asked: how is it that a country like Spain, a latecomer to growth and still considerably poorer overall than the UK, manages to provide a quality of public service that often exceeds that available in our country? In effect this is the subject of today's debate and I shall suggest that the answer lies in three different issues.

First, I suggest that it lies in our failure to spend enough money on public services. Noble Lords will know that that is the theme song of the Liberal Democrats, one that we have sung for a long time. We advocated a penny on income tax for education. That symbolised our recognition, long ago when it was first introduced in our 1992 manifesto, that we need to improve the quality of our public services and that that could be achieved only by spending more money and, if necessary, by raising taxes to meet that expenditure. Britain is not a heavily taxed nation and, in our view—now vindicated by a great deal of focus research work—people are prepared to pay money up front for better public services if they can be assured that that money is going to those services.

My second theme is linked to the first but is significantly different. It is that we have specifically starved the public services of capital investment with the result that the public sector infrastructure in this country has been disproportionately squeezed and that this has had a detrimental effect on the delivery of public services.

My third theme is that, while the sums spent can make a significant difference, money is not the only problem. The public services today face a major issue of morale. The answer lies not in more public service agreements and yet more performance targets and indicators, but rather in decentralisation and restoring to the services, and to those who work in them, a sense of pride and ownership.

As to my first theme—the failure to spend enough money—successive governments in this country have failed to put resources into the public services to maintain satisfactory standards. I shall illustrate this theme by looking at two different areas. First, the area of health, a matter which will be picked up later by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. In the UK we now spend 6.5 per cent of GDP on health compared to France at 9.6 per cent, Germany at 10.7 per cent and the USA at 13.9 per cent.

In terms of practising physicians—that is both GPs and hospital doctors because there are differences between countries in this respect—we have 1.7 practising physicians per 1,000 members of the population, precisely half that of Germany, which has 3.4 practising physicians per 1,000, France 2.9 and the USA 2.6—which illustrates one of the things that we do know in this country; that is, that USA medicine is extremely expensive and that Americans do not get good value for money. In terms of nurses, we have 4.5 nurses per 1,000 of the population, France has 5.9, Germany 9.5 and the USA 8.1. We have 4.5 in-patient beds per 1,000 of the population compared to France's 8.7 and Germany's 9.6.

In the light of these statistics, it is not surprising that we are now exporting patients to hospitals in Germany and France to relieve the backlog on waiting lists in the UK. What is impressive is that France, which spends roughly half as much again on healthcare as we do, seems to manage to get a lot more than half as much again out of its expenditure.

There is a further set of statistics that I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention. Surveys relating to satisfaction with health services indicate that two of our European partners, Denmark and Finland, who respectively spend 8 per cent and 7.4 per cent of GDP on health compared to the UK's 6.5 per cent—so not that much more—nevertheless gain a very high satisfaction rating for their services. This possibly is something to do with the way they are organised. Their health services are decentralised and run locally in conjunction with social services. It may be a lesson that we should look at.

As the House knows, I have a considerable interest in the area of education. It is another area where, in comparative terms, the UK spends relatively little. OECD education indicators for 2001, which actually reflect the 1998 statistics, put the UK as spending 4.9 per cent of GDP on education compared to Germany at 5.5 per cent, France at 6.2 per cent and the US at 6.4 per cent. Class sizes in primary and secondary schools in the UK were larger than in nearly every other European country and, significantly, early years provision was much worse than in most countries.

Considering that the Major government in the years 1990–95 spent on average 5 per cent of GDP an education, it was immensely disappointing to those of us who put a high emphasis on education that this Government, when they came to power, managed to spend during their first four years a lower proportion of GDP on education than the Major government. I know that more money is going in now and that we should give credit where it is due. New money is at last flowing into the classrooms and the recent PISA study from OECD, as well as the chief inspector's report, congratulated the UK on its improving educational standards. I believe that educational standards are now beginning to improve. The concentration on early years schooling and the new emphasis on literacy and numeracy seems to be paying off.

But, as in the medical field, the problem now is n at money but people. We have not been training enough teachers and we have frightened away far too many from the profession to be able to meet the ambitious targets for smaller class sizes. We are not recruiting enough new teachers, especially at secondary level, to replace those who have left. A staggering 40 per cent of those who start teacher training have dropped out after three years. As many of your Lordships know, this issue has now reached crisis proportions, particularly in London and the South East, add threatens to overwhelm other achievements.

Nor should recent successes make us complacent. Long years of under investment means that Britain has one of the highest illiteracy rates in Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Moser, indicated in his report, one in five adults in this country has difficulty in reading and writing. Belatedly we have increased the numbers going into higher education, but we still have far too many youngsters leaving school at 16 with little or nothing by way of qualification. It should be a matter of shame to us all that each year as many as 30,000 youngsters leave school in this country with no qualifications at all. We remain a country where far too many people have low skills and far too few intermediate and higher level skills, and where it s expensive and difficult for those who have low skills to acquire higher level skills. Sadly, Britain remains a country where education divisions are still too great and where money flows, and continues to flow, to those who have.

I turn to my second theme which is the failure to invest in services—I refer to capital spending as distinct from current spending. Health and education are both labour-intensive services where the quality of service provided depends on the quality and number of people working in them. As to the issue of capital expenditure, it is a question of looking at the capital provision and the run-down of the social infrastructure. It is my contention that throughout the last 25 years of the 20th century the state failed in its minimum duty to maintain the public sector infrastructure and that this has had a knock-on effect on many aspects of life in our country.

Let me turn again to some statistics. I apologise for introducing so many. I am indebted here to some work undertaken by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which has published a booklet, Twenty-five years of Falling Investment?—Trends in capital spending on public services. This documents the fall in gross public sector capital investment from an average of 8 per cent of GDP in the 1960s to an average of 2 per cent in the 1990s. The period encompasses three major changes. First, the collapse of local authority investment, mainly associated with housing, which ranged from 3.5 per cent to 4 per cent of GDP in the 1970s but dropped to less than 1 per cent in the 1980s. Secondly, the inclusion in the early figures of nationalised industry investments—particularly BT, British Gas and electricity investments, all of which shifted into the private sector with privatisation. Again, these constituted between 3 per cent and 4 per cent of GDP. Finally, central government investment, which until the 1990s had been maintained at just over 1 per cent of GDP but by the end of the 1990s had collapsed to less than 0.5 per cent of GDP.

Looking at these figures by programme, the most noticeable casualty has been housing, where in 1972 local authorities and social housing groups together completed 172,000 dwellings, whereas in 1998 the comparable number was 30,000. My noble friend Lady Maddock will speak further about the housing figures. Another major casualty has been the transport sector, where investment fell from 1.6 per cent of GDP to 0.5 per cent of GDP. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw will pick up this issue.

Few sectors escaped unharmed. The backlog of maintenance on school buildings in 1997 was calculated to be some £20 billion. A similar figure has been mooted for hospitals. It is notable that in spite of the very considerable effort on the part of the Government and the Wellcome Foundation to upgrade the scientific infrastructure, the JMC report published last week as part of the Government's transparency review in the run-up to the Comprehensive Spending Review has estimated that a minimum of £4 billion needs to be spent on university laboratories to bring them up to scratch. I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, will speak on this issue.

My third theme is that the problem is not just one of money; it is one of morale. Sadly, in many public services we have now reached a point where more money alone does not solve the problem. We see it most poignantly in the health and education services, where we are now pumping in more money but cannot recruit staff. Salaries in both sectors are beginning to catch up, but the long-term effects of low investment, poor working conditions and an ethic of blaming the public sector workers for the ills of the service have made careers in these services unattractive to the young. Perhaps most disturbing are the poor retention rates of those who are recruited.

I have talked to some of the young people who have left these professions. The big turn-off has been the unnecessary bureaucracy. Teachers do not resent the time that they spend on lesson preparation; but they do resent the vast increase in the amount of time required for record-keeping and endless form-filling. The fun and creativity is being driven out of teaching by these increasing demands from the centre for conformity to norms dictated by the centre.

Last October, we had a fine debate in this House, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, about the concept of public service. One point to emerge was that there still exist in this country many for whom the concept of public service is extremely important, but they have found themselves turned off by the managerialism that is now dominating the centre. The new managerialism that has come to dominate government—with its targets, performance indicators and public service agreements—is doing precisely that.

Perhaps I may conclude by quoting a statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, in one of her Reith Lectures. When asked why she was giving the lectures on the subject of trust, she said:

"I had come to think that our new culture of accountability was taking us in the wrong direction. We are imposing ever more stringent forms of control. We are requiring those in the public service and the professions to account in excessive and sometimes irrelevant detail to regulators and inspectors … We need to free the professionals and the public service to serve the public".

My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, on securing this debate. Debating the state of the public services gives us all a broad canvas on which to paint. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I concentrate on one particular public service, our railways, rather than attempt to range across the whole field of subjects to which she has referred with such eloquence.

This is a good moment to take stock of the Government's transport policy, and to consider whether the ambitious targets they have set for the growth in rail passenger and freight usage over 10 years—targets reinforced by the SRA's strategic plan in January—can still be met given the difficulties of recent months. It is also an opportunity to consider whether we can have any reasonable expectation that the quality of service—punctuality, reliability, cleanliness—will improve over the coming months and years.

Clearly, on many parts of our railway system the quality of service desperately needs to get better—although perhaps I may be allowed one slight word of criticism of the noble Baroness's remarks. It really is not fair to compare the worst aspects of one country's rail system with the best of another. In each country there is a mix of quality; in some areas the quality is excellent—as it is in parts of the British system—and in some it is appalling. That is true of the continental railways too. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that there is definitely a need to improve the quality of the service.

Only this week, I have heard Americans in London complimenting us on our ability as a nation to organise great national pageants with consummate skill, and at the same time expressing utter amazement that, although we can organise those, we cannot get our trains to run on time. It was put to me on Monday that, if Black Rod were in charge of the railways, they would never be late, the trains would go where they were told, and everyone involved with the industry would be immaculately turned out in the smartest uniforms imaginable. I fear that it will take us a little while to achieve perfection on that scale, but are we heading in the right direction? My view is that we are, and that there are two reasons why that is so.

The first is that the Government—here I mention specifically the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers—have grasped the Railtrack nettle. I can think of no recent case where a Minister has been subjected to such vitriolic and substantially unfair criticism in the media and elsewhere as Mr Byers has. Therefore, I was interested to read Simon Jenkins' column in The Times on 27th March. Mr Jenkins is not known as new Labour's strongest supporter in the media. He wrote:

"Mr Byers is not finished. He may well be remembered as the man who brought sanity to a rail industry which the Tories crippled".

He went on to comment that from the moment the 1993 Railways Act was passed,

"fragmenting British Rail into Treasury-friendly pieces, renationalisation was only a matter of time. Now it has come to pass".

Mr Jenkins said that Mr Byers,

"must find a structure that lets managers manage. He must find capital that is secure, cheap and vet has a built-in incentive to efficiency. This is hardly rocket science. Private procurement works in local government under a regime of which arrogant central government seems oblivious. [Herbert] Morrison sought the same goal and came up with the same body, a not-for-profit arm's-length public corporation. It rebuilt the postwar railway, re-equipped it for diesel and cut it to a viable core-and-branch network".

I have no doubt that there is substantial support on these Benches at least, and certainly in the railway industry, for the approach that the Government have adopted towards Railtrack, for the steps that have been announced to get the company out of administration as early as possible, for the appointment of John Armitt as chairman, and for the establishment of Network Rail as a not-for-profit successor company.

The statement from Network Rail on 25th March contained a number of commitments which those of us who care about the railways had been longing to hear for many months. First, any operating surplus will be invested in the rail network. It will concentrate on the maintenance and renewal of Britain's railway, in a spirit of co-operation and partnership with industry stakeholders. It will offer a fresh start for the industry—an opportunity to endorse a better way of working, bringing the industry together for the benefit of all rail users. There will be an early exit from administration. There will be investment funded al a low cost of capital, the avoidance of any suggestion of putting profit before safety, and delivery of engineering excellence. So, sorting out Railtrack—the most disastrous legacy of the 1993 privatisation—is the first reason for optimism.

The second reason is the new direction being provided by the Strategic Rail Authority. Here, I express my support for the leadership that is being given by its chairman of only four months, Richard Bowker. I am conscious that, so far as the media and the industry are concerned, Mr Bowker is still on his honeymoon. He would be wise to recall one of the sayings of a distinguished former railways boa:7d chairman, Sir Peter Parker, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will recall; namely, that,

"a halo is only nine inches away from being a noose".

Yet we can but admire the range of initiatives that have come from the SRA in the short time that Mr Bowker has been in charge: the publication of the strategic plan on 14th January; the new 20-year Chiltern Railways franchise, which will lever in £371 million of private finance, and the two-year extension for GNER; a commitment to reduce the number of franchises; the signing of a "concordat" between the SRA and the office of the Rail Regulator, which should bring an end to the ill-informed suggestions that the two organisations should be combined and that the role of independent economic regulator should be abandoned; and, most recently, Mr Bowker's visionary concept of a new north-south high speed line, with a line speed of over 300 kilometres an hour, transforming journey times between the major cities of England and to Scotland, and based on the evidence already established by W S Atkins that the growth in rail travel will continue beyond the strategic plan time-scale.

Despite these positive developments, which I believe can lead us to be hopeful about the future, our railways continue to be bedevilled by a combination of negative and ill-informed press comment on the one hand, and by the industry's capacity to shoot itself in the foot on the other. I shall take a couple of examples of the latter first. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Rail Passengers Council begging support for a last-ditch campaign to stop the train operating companies from changing the current conditions of the Network Railcard from 2nd June. I should declare an interest as one of the 360,000 holders of those cards, which encourage off-peak travel in the south-east of England. The change, which is being pushed through with the most minimal consultation with passenger representatives, will make the railcard virtually useless on Mondays to Fridays within a 35-mile radius or central London, principally through the imposition of a £10 minimum fare. There is no doubt that the new conditions will reduce the number of people travelling by train. They will add to congestion on the roads and will make it harder to meet the Government's target of a 50 per cent increase in rail passenger numbers by 2010.

That is the first of the industry's own goals that I wish to mention. The second is Railtrack's crazy decision to close completely a 25-mile stretch of the West Coast Main Line between Milton Keynes and Hemel Hempstead every weekend between 10th August and Christmas. Chris Green, the chief executive of Virgin Trains, is right to compare this blockade to shutting the M1. He says that it is being done to suit Railtrack engineers rather than passengers. Surely it is not too late for the new management of Railtrack and its successor company to have another look at the issue and perhaps follow Mr Green's advice by shutting the tracks at night and leaving two open during the day.

Those of us whose memory goes back to the days of British Rail know that it is almost impossible for our railways to get a decent press, but today it seems that there are more examples of unfair, ill-informed media comment than ever before. For example, the reality is that railways are 15 times safer than car travel, yet we are rarely reminded that 3,000 people are killed every year on our roads. If we were serious about reducing casualties we would be looking at ways of investing in new track and new trains and in increasing capacity in ways that encourage people to leave their cars at home. Yet to read some newspapers, you get the impression that you are taking your life in your hands every time you get on a train.

Much more can be said on the subject and I am sure that we shall return to it before long. Meanwhile, I conclude by reiterating my support for the efforts that the Strategic Rail Authority under Mr Bowker's leadership, the not-for-profit successor of Railtrack and the Government are making to undo the damage caused by the fragmentation and privatisation of the industry.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lady Sharp and Lord Ezra on initiating today's important debate. My noble friend Lady Sharp has outlined the facts that have given rise to a crisis of public confidence and self-confidence in our public services. The NHS is a classic example. I shall deal with several elements in the current debate on the NHS and healthcare: first, the need for adequate and predictable funding; secondly, effective delivery; thirdly, properly devolved structures; fourthly, the achievement of high and consistent standards; and fifthly, and most importantly, responsiveness to patient needs.

Since the last general election, parts of the media and, of late, the Conservative Party, have vociferously argued that a new system of funding for the NHS is needed and that without it the NHS will not be able to deliver the quality of healthcare that we require. Before we consider the merits of that argument, let us get the debate in proportion. The OECD has indicated that the key problem in the outcomes that the NHS delivers compared with continental systems is due not to methods of funding, but largely to a historic lack of investment in the NHS. After extensive study, the Liberal Democrats have concluded that the health insurance provided through taxation remains a better model in terms of efficiency, equity and outcomes than continental social insurance and contribution systems and best enables us to continue to ensure universal access to medical care irrespective of ability to pay.

Clearly, Derek Wanless came to the same conclusion in his work. For that agreement with the Government we must be thankful, faced with Tory threats to dismantle our current funding system.

However, it is clear that we need a better and more visible linkage between the overall government tax take and the bill paid for the NHS. As my honourable friend Matthew Taylor has recently said, we are working on proposals that will provide that linkage in a way that is sustainable in the long term, through some form of hypothecation with a source of taxation that is predictable and transparent to the taxpayer.

Even with a more transparent system of funding and more resources, we need to improve the way in which we deliver healthcare. While my party does not accept that private sector management is vastly superior to that in the public sector, we recognise the benefits of diversity of provision where appropriate, if it helps to improve rather than to restrict capacity and if quality can be maintained. That does not always have to be via the public sector, but public service standards of quality, transparency and accountability need to be maintained. In looking at new ways of delivery, the fixation of the Government—and in particular the Treasury—on the private finance initiative has been particularly inglorious. PFI has never been properly evaluated. The Public Accounts Committee and the Institute for Public Policy Research have looked at PFI hospital schemes and found little innovation or value for money and a lack of genuine risk transfer in those schemes. We have also now found that there are accounting problems. There is no such thing as off balance sheet financing for such hospitals. Potential windfalls well beyond anything that could originally have been anticipated are available to the consortiums that build PFI hospitals.

To cap it all, as my noble friend Lady Sharp has said, there is the effect on people—their terms, conditions and morale. To stack up the financial justification for a PFI scheme often involves fewer facilities, beds and staff and worse conditions for them.

So why do the Government consider support for PFI to be a test of financial probity or political credibility? Why do they persist in favouring such schemes over publicly financed schemes, or even alternative PPP schemes? It is vital the there is a choice of procurement models in the modern NHS. It can be by various forms of PPP, provided they are properly evaluated to show value for money. We badly need to enhance the procurement skills of staff in the NHS to do what is right for their trust, rather than expecting them slavishly to follow Treasury models, which cannot and should not be one-size-fits-all.

On organisational structures, the truth is that cultural change is far more important than structural change in achieving results. The recent thought-provoking King's Fund report The Future of the NHS, produced by a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, rightly claimed that the current system is over-politicised, over-centralised and lacks responsiveness. The report is particularly convincing when advocating the need for decentralisation of real power to trusts and PCTs. Clearly, we need a genuine scheme of devolution for the NHS. However, the current scheme proposed by the Government under the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill gives more rather than less power to Ministers.

For devolution to be effective and genuine, we need strong, accountable bodies supervening between government and local delivery responsible for health service strategy, which would include the essential aspects of capacity planning and capital investment. There need to be geographical entities with recognisable boundaries that enable joined-up strategy with the whole range of other public services—housing, education, transport, environment and social services. That will not be the case with the new strategic health authorities. However, those conditions are clearly met by regions. When regional assemblies are created, a further condition of accountability will be met. Regions would have the critical mass to ensure sufficient expertise in specialist commissioning and public health.

It is also crucial to ensure that in any structure there is the maximum integration between health and social care. Devolving to that level would have the advantage of being able to keep delivery bodies in place at lower levels, such as primary trusts, hospital trusts and care trusts, without further major upheaval.

One of the aspects highlighted by my honourable friend Dr Evan Harris today that militates against adequate models of devolution is the current target culture, in which the Government insist on setting hundreds of centrally driven targets that distort clinical priorities and focus efforts on systems instead of patients. At the same time as devolving delivery, however, there has to be in the very structure of devolution a clear commitment to continuing national standards of both treatment and professional competence. Devolution may imply different priorities region by region, but there should be a set of common national minimum standards.

In debating the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, I referred to the chart recently issued by the BMA showing the sheer complexity of the NHS and professional governance system, part of which is already in place and part of which is due to take effect in relation to quality definition, monitoring, reporting, quality assurance, maintenance, improvement, lapses and disciplinary systems. The system includes more than 21 different elements.

In its recent "Quality Initiatives" booklet, the BMA charts all the various initiatives. Disappointingly, however, while saying that,

"we risk being overcome by initiative fatigue",

it does not propose a concrete scheme of simplification. The current regime is undoubtedly excessive. Alongside devolution, therefore, there must be a simultaneous commitment to simplification. The Kennedy report on the Bristol Royal Infirmary recognised that there is confusion in monitoring the quality of care, but it recommended the creation of yet another body—the National Patient Safety Agency.

In addition to simplification, the setting of clinical governance and performance standards should be separated from the delivery of healthcare. Yet the Government plan to take more and more control over professional bodies such as the GMC, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and even the council for the regulation of healthcare professionals. The latter council will essentially be the Health Secretary's surrogate in controlling the health professions. In his recent British Medical journal article, Sir Denis Pereira Gray, chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, pointed out the dangers.

Even when it comes to inspection and bodies such as the Commission for Health Improvement, the Secretary of State calls the shots on the criteria by which hospital trusts are to be judged. The regulatory system must be publicly accountable and transparent. For that reason—and with an increasing number of healthcare professionals, not least Professor Kennedy in his report into the Bristol Royal Infirmary—we are advocating that those regulatory bodies and CHI should be subject to direct overview by Parliament through a Select Committee and not by the Secretary of State.

I should like, finally, to say a few words on responsiveness to patient needs. Because of the nature of the NHS, responsiveness is not achieved through market mechanisms. Rather, as the Kennedy report pointed out, it must be achieved through partnership between patients and healthcare professionals. That entails openness, honesty about risk and proper information for patients. The Audit Commission established that poor data, whether about costs or outcomes, are a key problem in the NHS, making valid comparisons of performance almost impossible. Yet the structure for patient representation and consultation proposed in the current NHS Bill represents a backwards step. The new bodies will be fragmented and potentially ineffective.

Despite increased funding, current government plans for reorganisation Of the health service are inadequate and will not deliver accountability, consistency, high morale or high-quality services. The new NHS reforms will have to be unscrambled almost before the ink is dry on the Bill. It is hardly surprising that most health professionals live in dread of the next government initiative.

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for securing this debate on the state of the public services. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has spoken extensively on the National Health Service, but I shall confine my observations on the NHS to a personal perspective. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Birkenhead and Wallasey primary care trust. Previously, I served a three-year term in a similar position in the Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust. I am also a member of three NHS modernisation task forces in the North West. I have gleaned the material for this speech from those connections. I should also like to focus on three specific issues: structural change, standards of service, and shifting the balance of power.

The NHS, our largest public service, is again undergoing major structural change, the most significant of which was the establishment, 10 days ago, of more than 420 primary care trusts in England. PCTs have the power to commission secondary care services and they are also responsible for public health functions. Those responsibilities were formerly exercised by the 93 health authorities which were abolished at the end of March. Other changes include the creation of 23 strategic health authorities to manage the performance of PCTs and the merger of our eight regional NHS offices into four, each with a new director of health and social care.

The new primary care trusts have comprehensive powers and responsibilities to provide both clinical and public health services, and they have been welcomed both by staff and by community groups. A welcome has been extended also to the fact that the Secretary of State will directly allocate funding for PCTs. However, the structural changes have at least two negative consequences. The most significant consequences are the stress levels affecting NHS employees and the fact that budgets are being provided directly to PCTs.

Increased stress levels among health professionals and other employees are due partly to changes in the employing authorities and the consequent need to cope with new relationships in a restructured NHS. For some, those stressful adjustments have had to be made after 20 years of continuing structural changes within the health service. NHS staff complain of insufficient time to adapt to successive cycles of change, and some have asked for early retirement at a time when the service desperately needs their skills. I hope that the Minister will have something to offer to alleviate the high stress levels experienced by NHS staff.

The direct allocation of budgets to PCT boards creates opportunities for local innovation and rapid response. However, this financial year will be particularly difficult for some PCTs in needy areas because they must work with deficits inherited from health authorities. I belong to the board of one such PCT. Surely such deficits are the worst way of starting a new and promising structural change. Moreover, they add to the stress felt by NHS staff.

There is no doubt that standards of services have improved significantly because of the introduction of national service frameworks for key diseases—notably coronary heart disease, cancer, diabetes and mental health—and for groups such as older people. There will soon also be a framework for children. General legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 have started and will continue to contribute to better standards of care. Similar benefits will come when the Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill is enacted.

Those policies have been of the highest standard, but their implementation has been patchy. In mental health, local implementation teams have been established in partnership with the community and with encouraging results.

Promoting good practice for adoption in public services requires time, training of staff, public cooperation and community participation. Partnership with community and voluntary bodies with an interest and expertise in improving health services is being developed locally in local strategic partnerships and with leadership from local authorities. Local initiatives succeed when partnerships including community and patient groups are truly equal and all parties receive respect for their participation.

Bureaucracy should therefore be kept to a minimum, and partnerships should be given time to develop and blossom. Politicians and civil servants should resist the temptation of being impatient for quick results and of interfering by issuing new targets from the centre. Technical jargon should be kept to a minimum. When it is used, it should be clearly explained. "Franchising", for example, is a new term being used in the NHS. For the public, however, "franchising" is something to do with establishing fast-food outlets. Such terms need to be explained.

"Shifting the balance of power" has provided the rationale for the most recent structural changes in the NHS. While no one would argue against the principles of the policy, one dimension has not received much publicity or emphasis. That is a greater emphasis on public and patient groups participating in public health initiatives such as quitting smoking and preventing our children from being pressed into taking drugs at dance clubs.

To that list should be added the need to be responsible for sensible intake of alcohol and the avoidance of binge drinking. The misuse of alcohol contributes to a significant proportion of the use of our health services. It also contributes to disorder on the streets and crime. Should it not be a priority for public health education in primary care in the local community—all the more when we have fewer doctors than our European neighbours?

Complaints by patients have been mentioned by other noble Lords, but I assure your Lordships' House as a complaints convenor in a community trust that more letters of compliment and thanks than complaint are regularly received in the NHS.

The state of our public services, particularly the NHS, is like the proverbial curate's egg: some very good, some not as good as they should be. The way forward requires structural changes in the NHS to come to an end. Time must be given for health professionals and other staff to implement good policies and to seek patient and community participation. Interference and targets from the centre should be kept to a minimum and local flexibility permitted. Patients' expectations need urgent attention. Above all, adequate funding for primary care trusts is essential for a better health service.

Those suggestions are supported by the group mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—the King's Fund—in the discussion paper, The Future of the NHS—a framework for debate, published in January this year.

My Lords, in addressing the problems of the railways alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, we should turn to the setting up of the company limited by guarantee which is to be the successor of Railtrack, and the future of the Strategic Rail Authority. We should try to avoid the confusion and delay which have beset investment in the London Underground.

The Labour Government have been in office for five years during which an immensely complex scheme has emerged for modernising the Underground. I will not dwell on that issue except to say that time, money and effort have been expended in financing the future of the Underground while the operational capability of the system has substantially worsened. We need to avoid at all costs a similarly flawed proposal for the future of the railways.

From the very outset of the privatisation process we have witnessed the development of a system where lawyers, accountants, merchant bankers and every form of consultant have waxed fat while investment in the infrastructure has declined. It has reached the stage where rolling stock construction—where a competitive international market exists—costs in real terms about the same per seat provided as at privatisation. Infrastructure work, on the other hand, costs between two and three times as much as it used to. That is a significant change, well supported by available figures.

As well as the dead-weight costs of the performance regimes, the safety culture, and Railtrack itself, the bidding system for work is anything but clear. We need from the new system a clear direction of management—to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred—whose basic task is to maintain and improve the network. It is far from certain that a company limited by guarantee will provide that service. If it consists of only a few people how is it proposed that they should be appointed?

It is not obvious that a stakeholder board with diverse interests would provide the clear direction and asset management desperately needed in our railway system. On the other hand, a few executive or non-executive directors, appointed by government or through an agent such as the Strategic Rail Authority, would look surprisingly similar to the board of a nationalised industry; for example, the former British Railways Board. That would not necessarily be a bad thing as high salaries are not necessarily accompanied by good management, but the source of its funding is crucial to whether its borrowings will count as part of the PSBR.

As sources of funding, the new body will receive track-access charges from the train operating companies. Those charges may or may not be raised as part of an interim review by the rail regulator. We need to ask ourselves whether it is appropriate that a personalised regulator should decide, through a charges review, the amount of money to be paid from the taxpayer to the railways. That is not the job of a regulator; it is a matter of pure economic regulation, as is the case with the Civil Aviation Authority. The flow of track-access charges, if certain, may be securitised.

The body will also receive grants of the type provided in the 10-year plan. It may decide to allow contractors to raise funds for isolated schemes securitised against future revenues, but probably backed by some form of government guarantee. Without an equity base it is difficult to envisage any other form of funding which will cost what is regarded as an acceptable amount of money without a government guarantee.

Perhaps we should consider an option where franchises are let on a vertically-integrated basis with the franchisee taking responsibility for maintaining and developing the infrastructure. That will requite long franchises which provide for rolling the franchise forward as time progresses, subject to performance criteria. It opens the possibility for the franchisee to approach the market to fund improvements.

There will no doubt be objections from those who say that it would be impossible to safeguard the rights of other operators, particularly freight operators. There are two answers: first, freight funding through the Strategic Rail Authority will be tied to the provision of adequate rights of way for freight. Secondly, while my proposals see no place for a regulator, they see a place for an arbitrator to decide upon allocation of space according to the priorities of government if the parties do not agree.

So what is left? First, the Strategic Rail Authority the principal source of funds and landlord or franchises. It should be a strategic authority and plan for the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned. Secondly, we have the new owner of Railtrack: a company limited by guarantee. It is important that it should have a managing board appointed by the Strategic Rail Authority with a clear remit to manage the infrastructure. It may have a council which meets occasionally but such a council should not have the responsibility of managing. The difficulty is in finding the money and ensuring that it is well spent. The board may need, for example, to revisit group safety standards where the costs of enhancement are being driven ruinously high.

Once we are satisfied the money is well spent, we must ask ourselves whether pre-planned engineering delays, to which reference has been made, should give rise to payment because the work is carried out for the ultimate benefit of the train companies. Beyond that, extra funds should be provided by the Treasury as this is by far the cheapest source of funds. But, first of all—and very urgently—we must satisfy ourselves that the money is well spent.

I must mention the matter of strikes on the railway. I do not believe that strikes sit easily with the concept of public service. Employees and their trade union representatives may feel that they are not well rewarded or even adequately rewarded. However, I do not believe that the users of public services—who, in the end, are you and me—deserve to be inconvenienced, sometimes severely, as a result of strikes in pursuance of wage claims or other disciplinary matters.

Unions and employers should be obliged to take their disputes to a form of binding arbitration. We live in the 21st century, not the 19th century where working conditions were primitive. I suggest that the Government should tell trade unions that arbitration is the modern, civilised way to settle disputes, not by the crude instrument of strikes. If trade unions will not agree to this change, the way should be opened for those affected by strikes to seek redress for such damages in the courts. Protection for trade unions for the effects of their actions should be withdrawn.

In the last resort we seem to face a choice. We either manage the railway infrastructure properly through a board that is appointed for its engineering and operational skills and we fund it properly and accept that a part of its funds will come from the public sector, or we moulder on with the present expensive collection of consultants, lawyers, merchant bankers, and others, who do not run the railway, demand very large fees, and, in the end, come running to government for salvation. Enough is enough. We want clear, straightforward answers from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from the Government.

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, on initiating this debate. As a public servant for 35 years in the police service, obviously I can talk about that service and the qualities that I believe it has in this country. My experience also stretches to other public services with which the police service works. Over 35 years I came to know many people in the ambulance and hospital services, and in all the public agencies that provide the important services that we all value. It is a tradition in the police service that you join not to make money but to provide a service. That was the reason for my joining many years ago in the 1960s; it certainly was not a case of wanting to make money and receive a fat wage. I do not believe that members of the police service have ever been overpaid.

The police service has been a public service since 1829 in the Metropolitan area, and since the 1940s in the counties and boroughs of England and Wales. As president of the North East Police History Society, I feel qualified to comment on the crises that the police service has been through over the years. Rather surprisingly, police officers were denied the right to vote until 1887. So, in a sense, I have come right round in a circle because I do not have the right to vote at present.

In 1918, the Desborough Committee was established. The crisis at that time led to the police strike of 1919. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about strikes on the railway. Members of the police service do not have the right to strike. Quite honestly, I do not believe that they would want it. Indeed, it would be a disaster beyond imagination if members of the police service, on whom we all rely, withdrew their labour. However, as I shall outline, we have crises from time to time.

The Lord Oaksey report of 1949 resulted in the Police Council being established in 1953 in an effort to try to resolve differences. Such arguments usually revolved around income, payment and salaries. As a result of the 1960 crisis, which I well recall, the Willink Royal Commission was established. At that time, police service pay had fallen behind by something like 30 per cent compared to average industrial earnings, but that shortfall was put right. In 1977–78 we had the Edmund-Davies inquiry, which was established for the same reason. It was set up by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. Again, the problem was resolved, albeit temporarily. So, for various reasons, public services pass through what seem to be cyclical crises. That is the point that I am trying to make.

Under the previous Conservative government in 1992 we had the Sheehy inquiry, which was set up to look into the remuneration and conditions of service of the police. Again, this resulted in a massive demonstration of opposition at Wembley Arena, which noble Lords may recall. Most of the provisions in the Sheehy report were dropped. I heard comparisons made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, with public services abroad. I believe certainly in this area—that the British police service compares admirably with any police service in the world. I speak as someone who has spent a good deal of time in America with the FBI and with many services in Europe. For all its faults, the British police service certainly ranks among the best in the world. More importantly, I am sure that the British public appreciate that fact.

The Police Reform Bill, which is currently going through its various stages in this House, has been seen as a problem area in terms of the police service. I am playing host to some police officers this evening. I believe that we should put this matter into perspective. I have been discussing the legislation with the Police Federation. I have been reminded that it is important to remember that the Bill has 79 clauses. The federation whole-heartedly supports 48 of those clauses; it supports, with some amendments, Clause 21; there are a further 10 clauses that it would wish to delete. Overall, support from the Police Federation is there. We should not run away with the idea that there is massive opposition to the Government's proposed police reforms.

It is also important to remember that, by 2003–04, we shall have spent £9 billion on policing, which is a massive amount of money. Indeed, there has been £1.6 billion each year over the past three years, which is a 21 per cent increase. Manpower in the police service rose by 3,066 to January 2002, making a total in the service of 128,748, which is the largest annual increase for 20 years. This is not a service in crisis.

The criminal justice system, which is part of the public sector, obviously affects the policing service. The Government's pledge to reduce by half the time spent between arrest and sentence has been achieved—a pledge redeemed, as was the case with the method for dealing with anti-social behaviour. Again, 466 anti-social behaviour orders have been brought into effect since September 2001. That is not a great number, but it is increasing. If we make the procedures easier to follow, I am sure that more of them will be used to reduce such behaviour on some of our estates.

Moreover, the crime rate is down by 21 per cent since 1997, which is quite a dramatic reduction when one compares it with the rises over previous years. These are important statistics that arise as a result of the British Crime Survey. The figures as regards victimisation are the lowest for 20 years. Therefore, the perception that crime is a major problem is quite often not the truth. I am not minimising the problems of street crime and all the terrible cases about which we read, but statistics are important and the facts are well worth considering. Domestic burglary is down by 35 per cent, vehicle crime is down by 24 per cent and violent crime is down by 23 per cent since 1997. Those are important points of which noble Lords should take account.

The police service is not composed of wreckers, as has been suggested in some newspapers. It requires, and has, the support of the public generally. We must remember another factor which is often forgotten; namely, that the British police service continues to be unarmed in the face of violent crime and crime involving arms, whereas many other police forces throughout the world are armed. Certainly, I understand that the police wish to remain unarmed, unless they are driven to become armed due to an increase in violent crime. However, the police are armed on specific occasions. Occasionally things go wrong when firearms are used. We must accept that, from time to time, mistakes will he made but we should pay tribute to the vast majority of officers who go out unarmed on the streets day in, day out throughout the year to face whatever is involved in doing their duty.

In conclusion, the funeral of the Queen Mother constituted the finest example of public service and, in a sense, its power. I refer to the organisation over eight or nine days of, for example, the events in Westminster Hall. The majority of that was carried out by loyal public servants devoted to their duty who provided a service timed absolutely perfectly to a "t". It was the epitome of public service. The police should not be a party issue. The danger is that we may be viewed as denigrating public servants. We should not be viewed as doing that. I am sure that noble Lords would not dream of doing that. However, there is a danger in criticising all the time. The police consider that they are not being given adequate support. We need to give them support, not denigrate them. We should celebrate public service.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharp for securing and opening this important debate on our public services. A great number of our public services are provided by local councils, parish councils, district councils, unitary, county and metropolitan authorities. It is to local authority provision of services that I wish to address my remarks.

In the 19th century and early in the 20th century local authorities provided many more services than they do today. They often provided gas, electricity, water, sewage disposal and also limited health facilities. Today citizens expect local authorities to provide much more than they do, or have the power to do. Many of us who have been local councillors or Members of Parliament know how confused the general public are about who provides what locally.

When I was a councillor in Southampton, Top Rank closed the ice rink as it could make more money by developing it for housing. Everyone asked why the council had closed the ice rink. The then council leader thought that he could do something about that. A big meeting was held and he promised everyone that the people of Southampton would be skating again within a year. There is still no ice rink but the council leader is now a junior Minister in the Government. I am net quite sure what that means.

One facility traditionally provided by local authorities was the bus station. However, the bus station in Southampton was also closed. Since transport deregulation that has been a rather difficult issue for local authorities. In town after town we have seen bus stations sold off for development and buses have to use stands in the streets. Local authorities have no power to make operators use bus stations or to contribute to the costs of provision of those facilities. Indeed, they often do not want to. When a bus station is closed the letters page of the local newspaper is full of letters in which people ask why the council has closed the bus station. That is an important point when we are trying to provide good, integrated local transport. Given that the Minister who is to reply to the debate has transport as part of his portfolio, I hope that he will be able to enlighten us a little on what the Government think they may be able to do about that.

While I am on the subject of transport I want to touch on two other connected areas. One concerns another service provided by local authorities; that is, transport to and from school. I now live in Northumberland. The local authority says that it does not have the money to provide school transport for 16 year-olds staying on at school. I refer to a big rural area. Yet the North East underperforms on practically every indicator one wishes to look at, particularly as regards pupils staying on at school and skills. I understand that the local authority now thinks that it may be able to provide funding of £1 a head in this regard. This is not a rural area where one can get into a car and take one's child on a short journey to school or pay a small bus fare. The journeys involved may comprise 10 or 15 miles in an area where the number of children staying on at school is low.

Secondly, on the theme of roads and transport in Northumberland, there is a huge network of roads to maintain. At this time of the year potholes are obvious. Often letters appear in the local papers in which people complain about the state of the roads. Those letters became somewhat hysterical last year when the local county council was awarded a charter mark for its road maintenance department. Letters appeared in the local papers and it transpired that the charter mark was awarded for the way in which the department was run on its limited budget and for the way in which it carried out its duties, not for the state of the roads.

The areas I have highlighted demonstrate how a lack of funding for essential services holds back many of the desired outcomes we want in other areas. Local authorities are held back by central government control and by various regulations. That means that they cannot make sensible decisions and choices for their areas. That is why we on these Benches have for many years repeatedly called for a power of general competence for local authorities and for an ability for local authorities to raise funds themselves to provide local services for those who elected them. The latest round of council tax rises shows the dilemma of local authorities. As we all know, most of the funding for local authorities comes from central government. However, they are told that if they want to provide extra services they can do so but of course they have to put up the council tax. The gearing effect is such that the amount of council tax people pay is disproportionate to the amount of money raised.

A few weeks ago we debated local authorities in this House. Other pots of money can be obtained from government. My noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland referred to them as "special offers". That is a rather good description. However, if local authorities devote a lot of time to special offers, they devote much less time to delivering the services that people need.

Finally, I turn to housing. My noble friend Lady Sharp pointed out that the real area of underspend in recent years has been housing. We have huge levels of disrepair in the private sector and in the social housing sector. We have large numbers of homeless families in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation and a huge under supply of affordable housing. Local authorities have been unable to spend much of the money that they obtained from the right-to-buy scheme and from stock transfer. In this area as in others local authority morale is poor. There is a perception that central government are keen to give local authorities responsibilities—indeed, I support some of that before I am accused of saying one thing and doing another—but are not prepared to fund, or allow local authorities to fund adequately, such services and blame councils when matters go wrong.

Concerns are now being raised that the decent homes standard is about to become the latest example of that approach to public spending. As a policy the standard is an enlightened one. It states that poor quality homes should be improved to a specified level by a specified date delivering to tenants a home of at least adequate standard. But now the Government believe that 98 councils may struggle to reach the standard by 2010. Indeed, Roy Irwin, the chief inspector of housing, stated last week:

"I suppose based on the evidence, it's debatable at the moment"—

that is, whether the councils can reach the standard—

"because the performance of authorities on repairs and maintenance is not always as good as it should be, by quite a long way in some cases.

At best they can keep the property in the state of repair it is today but that's not good enough to meet the decent homes target".

Where is the money going to come from to allow local authorities to do that? The Government could free up capital receipts and money from the right-to-buy and stock transfers. However, the news this last week was that tenants in Birmingham have voted against stock transfers, which means that not all is going swimmingly in that area, either. Many fear that capital from the right-to-buy and from stock transfers is being earmarked by the Government for an £8 billion fund for the housing market renewal fund. That is for private sector housing in areas of poor repair, particularly where there has been mass abandonment of houses.

If we want decent local public services from our local authorities, we cannot go on as we currently are. As my noble friend Lady Sharp said, the Government cannot run everything from the centre. Local authorities should have much greater freedom to manage their affairs locally and raise money locally. They should also have access to capital markets in relation to their own council credit rating, not in relation to a rating that is inspired by the Government or which involves rules that are laid down by the Government. If we really want the people of this nation to engage in the political process, we need to be clear about who runs what and where the money comes from. We must ensure that we do not have the fudge and muddle that we see gathering pace all the time.

My Lords, 50 years ago, when such things happened rather more often than they do now, a young man from Christ Church was being "viva-ed" for a fourth in theology. He was asked, "Have you a vocation, Mr Smith?". He replied, "Yes, but I was out at the time".

The public services are beginning to resemble that situation because they seem to be becoming the services in which no one wants to work. We are 40 per cent below complement for nurses in a number of London accident and emergency departments. It is not surprising if occasionally people are not able to do all that they should.

I recognise and am deeply grateful for the amount of dedication that I have observed among those still working in the National Health Service. Most of them tell me, especially if I see them off duty, that they cannot go on doing what they do for very much longer. That includes people as diverse as my own GP and a number of nurses.

I recently happened to get into conversation quite casually with a serving police officer. He and his sister had started comparing notes about what it was like working under Mr David Blunkett. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who I regret to say is no longer in his place, and who complained about treating this issue as a single problem. If one talks to people in any branch of the public services, it becomes clear that they recognise that they are all going through the same experiences and that those experiences mean that they no longer wish to go on working in their job.

I declare an interest as a serving public service worker and I do so in thankfulness that this is the last Session in which I shall have to do so. I thought that I should never live to hear myself say that. That sense of vocation that distinguishes the public services was valuable in terms of making public service workers go that extra mile. Without that, I should not be alive—that has been the case in several situations that I have been through. It is also worth many pounds to the Treasury. If the Treasury destroys that sense of vocation among public service workers, it will find that it has committed a very expensive error.

When we talk about a single field, we are also talking about the question of centralisation, to which my noble friend Lady Sharp drew attention. It is highly likely that large parts of her speech will form part of our next manifesto—I certainly hope so, but that is yet to be determined.

My GP was questioned vigorously by a representative of NICE—who, to increase my GP's indignation, happened to be a nurse, not a doctor—about why he was prescribing what she thought were the wrong sort of antibiotics to people with chest infections. Doing so costs more. He replied, "Will you compare the rate of death from pneumonia in my practice with those in practices in comparable areas?" The differences were enormous. In my GP's practice, there was not a single case.

I have not supervised a PhD thesis since 1984. The question whether a PhD thesis is fit for submission is between the candidate, the supervisor and, in cases of disagreement, senior colleagues who have the confidence of them both. That is not something on which Her Majesty's Government are competent to hold an opinion. The longer that I have investigated that question, the more certain I have become that a PhD in one subject is not the same animal as a PhD in another and should not take the same length of time. Moreover, one does not know what one is going to find out. Who knew that he would find gold in Klondike, and how could he forecast how long it would take before he did?

Accountability is another matter that causes trouble. It is used as if it were a single thing, but it is not; it is a whole lot of different things, which can be exercised in a whole lot of different ways. The important point about it is that one should be accountable to someone who is capable of judging the thing that is being accounted for. For example, let us consider making a person who repairs car engines accountable to me. Unless I happen to be the customer and have the right as a free citizen to take my car elsewhere, there is no way that I can be a competent person to account to regarding the repair of car engines. Equally, if the repairer of car engines is put in the opposite position and is trying to hold me accountable for my academic work, I doubt whether he is going to do very much better than me.

The Government must take into account the fact that they are not competent to recognise an improvement in education when they see one. They simply do not have the necessary skill. That is ultra vires in the plainest sense of that phrase. Nor can the Government claim to be a proxy in judging the standard of teaching for the consumer, the patient or anyone else. Those people know what is done to them and the Government do not.

When I was at Yale, the great weapon of accountability for teaching was the Yale course critique, which was published by the undergraduates for the undergraduates. I was to a large extent accountable to them, and I was happy with that arrangement. Their judgments were on the whole consistently fair, well informed and balanced. One could often see the result of a very lively debate within the class. I am not happy with the Government setting themselves up as a proxy in that regard, when they have no idea what the relevant people think and in many cases imagine that they think the exact opposite of what they really think.

However, I am properly accountable to Her Majesty's Treasury for the spending of public money and with regard to the motives and purposes for which it was granted; but I am accountable in that way only. The sickening stripping away of the ability to decide how one does one's job is at the heart of the loss of vocation among our public services.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, is not in his place any more. But I have also heard policemen complain about their inability to do their job either because too many people are looking over their shoulder—I do not complain of that if it is the law looking over their shoulder because that is what the law is for; if it is the Minister, that may be a different matter—but also much more often because they simply do not have the funding to do the job.

Mr Nigel de Gruchy remarked last weekend that we are told to do one thing, then we are told to do the opposite, but never with enough funding to do it. The Department for Education and Skills unwisely described him as "intemperate". If the people at that department believe that those remarks are intemperate, they should come and have lunch in my college and listen to anyone from Nobel laureates down to first-year undergraduates. They will hear from any of them remarks a great deal more intemperate than those.

Unless the Treasury can give up its obsession with accountability, we shall not have anything that works. There must be more money. Money is not the answer to everything, but where it comes from and how it is distributed does matter. The least correlation between the money spent on health and satisfaction is in the United States, where 40 million people have no health insurance. That is not very surprising. The greatest correlation between spending and satisfaction and the highest level of satisfaction from spending is in Denmark, where health spending is controlled by 14 counties and two cities. It is local enough for genuine public opinion to be genuinely heard by real people. I believe that that is an instructive contrast.

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for bringing this debate before us today. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if, rather than touring the horizon as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, did, I concentrate on one area only. I want to address the state of higher education. In doing so, I declare an interest as the chief executive of Universities UK.

The main point I want to make is that universities provide a vital public service. However, it is one that has been for far too long overlooked and it is now, indeed, a public service in financial crisis. Perhaps I should indicate in what ways our universities provide that public service. Most obviously, universities educate our doctors, our nurses, our teachers and other professionals without whom the delivery of almost every other public service of which we have spoken today would be impossible.

Universities also help to drive the UK's competitiveness by turning out highly qualified graduates for an employment market that increasingly demands the skills that only a university education can provide. Universities also improve UK competitiveness through the research that they undertake. The knowledge generated by that research is at the heart of a productive economy. Universities work with business to transfer new technologies which ensure real-world application of their research findings.

Finally, the public service vocation of our universities has led them to play a leading part in striving for a fairer and more inclusive society. Universities UK is working towards a society in which the family in which you are born does not dictate the opportunities that are open to you in life.

Many noble Lords came to the launch last month of Universities UK's publication, Social Class and Participation in Higher Education. That report showed just how hard universities are working to attract students from non-traditional backgrounds—the very students who, in the past, might never have considered that university was for them. But the irony of all this success is that universities have become a Cinderella public service.

Of course, universities are autonomous institutions that derive funding from a variety of sources. They can attract investment from industry and raise money by marketing services commercially. But they have an important role in delivering a variety of public services and they rely on government to fund them for this side of their activities. Unfortunately, universities and those who work in them have often not received the recognition that they deserve. That is the case despite universities offering outstanding value for money to the UK. Figures can show that the sector now generates something like £35 billion each year across the economy. That, of course, is in addition to the many social and cultural benefits that the sector creates. Proper investment will be repaid many times over. Continuing neglect will have dire consequences.

How might the Government enhance this public service? I should say straight away that universities work hard to avoid the "Oliver" criticism that they are always holding out the begging bowl, saying, "More, please". But there is no getting away from it. Universities need more investment if they are to perform the public service functions that the Government expect of them.

The forthcoming spending review is the Government's opportunity to show that they value higher education; certainly that they value higher education as highly as they do any other public service. Higher education staff certainly need the same sense of pride and appreciation that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, urged us to offer other public services. In its submission to the spending review, Universities UK has shown, and backed up with evidence, that the HE sector needs more than £9 billion over the next review period. That is, indeed, a very large figure. But it is not a figure chosen at random; nor is it a deliberate exaggeration of the sector's need. It is a hard-nosed assessment of what it will cost to meet the Government's own priorities.

Perhaps I may give your Lordships five key points showing why government need to invest in this public service. First, they need to do so to ensure wider participation in higher education. If we are to reach the Government's target of increasing and widening participation to 50 per cent by 2010, universities will need to provide an extra 30,000 student places each year. Recruiting and retaining students from nontraditional backgrounds costs money. One way in which the Government could recognise that would be to increase the so-called "postcode premium" to 20 per cent.

My second point is that investment is needed to enable universities to fulfil their part of the Government's National Health Service plan. Universities will train the medical and health professionals whom the Government want to recruit. There needs to be adequate funding for that work or those professionals will simply not be available to the National Health Service.

Thirdly, as many noble Lords will know, the state of some of the teaching and research facilities in our universities is deplorable. Under-investment over the years means that the sector now needs to repair, modernise or replace outdated or crumbling buildings and equipment. In addition to that investment, the shortfall in funding for the research assessment exercise outcome must be met. It has been enormously demoralising that the effort put in to produce the substantial increase in performance in research has been met by what has effectively been a cut in resources for hundreds of departments. Not only that, but the consequences of under-funding the RAE would be enormously damaging to the longer-term development of UK research.

My fourth point is that, like many other public services, as several noble Lords have already emphasised today, universities desperately need to be able to reward staff properly if they are to avoid the type of shortages already being experienced among school teachers and nurses. That is especially true in fields where the private sector and other parts of the public sector offer stiff competition.

Finally, universities are looking to the future and wish to nurture their links with business and communities. But they need help from the Government to build on their success in opening up their work to increased collaboration with industry. We all know that there will be many strong competing pressures for the limited resources available in this spending round. Today's debate has helped to highlight many of those needs. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the Government, having clearly identified the importance of higher education for the long-term prosperity of the UK, should now have the courage of their convictions and invest significantly for the future.

I was delighted that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister only recently reaffirmed the Government's belief that higher education was essential to the country's economic well-being. I cannot think of any area that will give better returns or better value for money—"something for something", as the Treasury mantra goes. In my view, investing public money in higher education will no doubt be money well spent.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford for instigating this debate. We all want better public services for our local communities. One of the most important of those services is policing. It impacts directly on the feeling of well-being and quality of life in so many different ways.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, reminded us—I am sorry that he is not in his place—at present we are in the middle of discussing an ambitious programme of reform of police services. We are having interesting and vigorous debates about the Bill's content and there will be more opportunity to examine and criticize the Government's proposals next week. Therefore, I do not intend to rehearse the issues today, which are more properly reserved for debate in your Lordships' Chamber. However, I want to look at some of the broader issues around police reform.

I want to put on record my welcome and support for much of what the Government are seeking to do, although I am not convinced that they are implementing their proposals in the right way. Other aspects of their proposals give me considerable cause for alarm. From my years of chairing my local police authority and also being a deputy chairman of the Association of Police Authorities (APA), I hope that I can bring practical knowledge and experience of the state of our policing services and the scope and need for reform.

First, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work done by our police services throughout the country. I have first-hand knowledge of that in my home force of North Yorkshire. While, indeed, there is scope for reform, let us not forget that in the face of constantly rising demands and increasingly difficult decisions we have a police service which is still admired, and rightly so, throughout the world, for its professionalism and expertise.

Underpinning that service is the democratically-elected and partly-appointed system of police authorities which scrutinise and hold to account the work done by police officers on behalf of our communities. They too deserve our thanks for the professionalism they bring to their role and their commitment to delivering an efficient and effective policing service. I am particularly indebted to one of the APA senior policy advisers, Fionnuala Gill, and to the clerk of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, Jeremy Holderness, who have furnished me with some relevant facts and figures which I shall share in a moment with your Lordships.

If there is one thing which all our public services have in common, it is that their most valuable resource is their staff, the people who provide those services on behalf of us all. The quality of those services, including policing, is crucially dependent on those who deliver the service. I believe that it is fair to say that successive governments have failed to recognise the significance of valuing those who provide our public services. Certainly, that is the case in the police service.

I shall give your Lordships an example of that. Successive reports by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary have confirmed that leadership is a critical success factor in good policing. There is still much to be done in terms of ensuring that we identify and select the right people as leaders, not just in the highest ranks, as chief constables and assistant chief constables, but also those charged with delivering policing in our neighbourhoods at basic command unit level. Equally important is the support which we give to those leaders by making sure that they have the training, assistance and resilience they need to carry out their demanding role.

Of no less importance is the need to ensure that those who work at the sharp end, on the ground, have the right training, the right skills and the right equipment, to enable them to do their job effectively. Under-investment in policing over many years means that that is not always currently the case. I know; I have been a reluctant party to some of those decisions over the years, which later I came bitterly to regret.

In so far as the Government's proposed reforms seek to address those issues, they are welcome, but if we want high-quality policing, we must invest in those on whom we rely to deliver it. The new duties on public authorities under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which come into force in May, represent a further step forward in ensuring that those of minority ethnic backgrounds are given the same job and promotion opportunities in our public services. This Government's commitment to that agenda is strongly supported by these Benches.

The integration and cohesion which is desperately needed in some of our communities, as witnessed by the disturbances last summer, can be furthered only if all sectors of the community have equal access to the employment opportunities available within the public sector as well as to the services delivered.

If there was one issue which was a constant concern throughout my time as chair of my local police authority, it was the availability of resources for policing. Difficult choices always had to be made about priorities and allocation of resources. I recognise that there is not a limitless pot of public funding—and the demands for money for policing are matched by similar demands across the rest of the public sector, whether it be health, education, social services or another area. However, in North Yorkshire this year the police authority will use almost 21 per cent of its revenue budget to pay for pensions. The authority has some 1,400 contributors paying 1,800 pensioners, which puts North Yorkshire somewhere near the top of police authorities in terms of the ratio of pensions liabilities to total spend. That simply cannot go on. That is rather like having a bath full of water, but with the plug out: measly amounts of water trying to top it up make absolutely no difference, and the water flows out continuously.

Another particularly frustrating factor over the past five years has been the increased central control over resource allocation through, as we have heard, the proliferation of ring-fenced challenge funds, bidding rounds and various streams of funding for a plethora of initiatives such as the Crime Fighting Fund. Yes, the Government are putting in more money nationally, but the majority of that money is for specific additional initiatives and does not help core funding at all; nor does it meet the full cost of the extra officers it is supposed to create. Thus the call on the local council tax payer is more pronounced.

It also involves the completion of endless form filling and considerable bureaucracy. That all takes officers off the streets and away from their real task. Instead of getting our public services to compete with each other for various pots of money, would we not do better to go back to basic principles and allocate resources according to need? Now, there is a novel idea! Should we not, in accordance with the Government's principles, allocate resources and then delegate responsibility and control over them to those who are accountable to local communities?

This creeping centralisation is a feature not just of funding but of the Government's wider approach to the public sector, including policing. Certainly, it is a worrying feature of the police reforms. The Government have stated unequivocally that they want more levers, more control over how the police operate locally.

We recognise that there are some issues where there must be national standards or consistency throughout the country, but we also want policing which is sensitive and responsive to the communities it serves. That can be achieved only if the style, nature and priorities for policing are set locally by the police authority in partnership with the chief constable.

It is time that we recognised absolutely that local communities should determine the nature and style of policing in their area. After all, that is what our system of policing by consent is all about. We have found in North Yorkshire that residents are beginning to identify and resent the Government's shifting of responsibility for funding these essential public services on to them through local taxation. We are not having an open and honest debate about this at national level. Policing cannot and does not work without the support of local people. They must have a say in what is proposed if confidence is to be rebuilt.

In all aspects of reform of our public services, we need to see a shift away from control by Whitehall towards greater local decision-making and accountability to local people. That is the only way to empower our communities and to ensure that local services meet local needs.

My Lords, I have time and the intention to make only one point. With our ability to organise national events better than any other country in the world, why, oh why, can we not organise simple things in our hospitals?

It is now years since in another place I made an impassioned plea for sick people, lying in hospital beds, to be treated with courtesy and allowed to keep what dignity they had left. To put people in mixed wards is very upsetting and offensive, particularly to older patients, but often to younger ones too. The only acceptable place to have a mixed ward is in an intensive care unit. Patients there are too ill to know what is going on around them or who is lying next to them. But for alert patients it really is degrading and deeply uncomfortable.

I thought that mixed wards ended a long time ago. I was horrified to find that that is not the case. When I realised earlier today that I had a small opportunity to make this point I grasped it. This practice must be ended if we are to have any thought or care for the patient's feelings.

There is one other linked matter. I ask the Minister to stop staff in hospitals calling patients by their first names. For older people it can be extremely offensive to be called Jim or Mary by doctors or nurses young enough to be their grandchildren. When Mary is in the next bed to Jim, the sick person is robbed of every shred of dignity and modesty.

Is it not enough that people have to wait so long for treatment, and possibly even have to go abroad for it; that wards and corridors are too often filthy and unclean; and that a cancer patient's life span is shorter here than in every other country in Europe? At least we should have the decency to treat sick people with politeness and sensitivity.

I say to the Minister: "You are very powerful, my Lord, you could stop this happening. Please do it—at once".

My Lords, after hearing that admonition to the Minister—of which I am sure that he has taken full note—I am pleased to congratulate my noble friend Lady Sharp on having initiated this most informative and wide-ranging debate. She introduced it with a speech which was well constructed and extremely well informed and which formed the backdrop for what other noble Lords have said today.

The state of the public services has now moved centre stage both in public and political consideration. Today's debate is, therefore, very timely. During the course of the various contributions, we have had a number of criticisms. There have even been some plaudits. But above all, and what is most important, there have been a large number of constructive suggestions. I saw that the Minister was taking copious notes. I am sure that he will bear all those points in mind and no doubt speak about some of them when he winds up.

We all know what the problems in the public services are due to years of under-funding by governments of both complexions. I do not identify any particular government for that. But what struck me as far worse than the under-funding, which was a problem with which everyone in the public sector had to contend—and I had many years of it in a nationalised industry—was the stop/go approach. That was really worse than anything else. It was the unsustainability of inadequate funding that really made it all very difficult.

There are therefore two ways in which this has to be put right. First, the funding must be adequate; but, secondly, and above all, it must be available on a sustainable basis. I believe that this is the intention of the Government. If so, I welcome it. I hope that they and successive governments will keep to it.

We are at present going through a transitional phase in our public sector. We are moving, I hope once and for all, from the under-funded stop/go regime of the past into a new regime of adequate funding and sustainability. But, like all interim measures, it is fraught with difficulty. Many of the difficulties now being experienced in this transitional phase have been mentioned today.

I do not underestimate the problems which any government face in trying to change a whole system. If there is any criticism it is that perhaps they aroused too many expectations, particularly in the heady period of elections because these things do take time as the Government are now learning.

Today we have heard positive suggestions about improvement in a number of the main public sector operations—in education, health, railways, police, local authorities and housing. I shall try to identify some of the ideas where there seems to have been some consensus on what needs to be done. I have referred to the level of funding and to the need for sustainability. My noble friend Lady Sharp referred specifically to capital expenditure in the public sector, a vital element on which we have also suffered as well as on day-to-day funding.

The other issues that have come out are those of centralisation and decentralisation. The Government's view on that has been clearly stated in their recently published document entitled Reforming our Public Services. They make no bones about the fact that they favour decentralisation and flexibility of public services. But what has been said by many today is that, while that might be the stated objective of government, it is not in all cases so far being achieved. So we must perhaps expect, and we hope that we shall get some reassurance from the Minister, that the Government are determined to bring about thin decentralisation.

The question of hypothecation has been raised. That has always been a matter for major debate in which the Treasury and governments generally have shown that they were opposed to it, whereas many people involved in specific sectors have argued for it I think that there is a case for reconsidering this issue If the country is going to be asked to dedicate more taxes for public services, I think that they must know where the money is going, at least to some degree. No one would argue for total hypothecation. There would be serious drawbacks in that. But some degree of it seems to be desirable in the present situation.

The participation of the private sector is also one that has created a fair amount of debate and even controversy. It is a question of whether the provision of essential services should be totally provided by the state or whether there should be a mixed provision. There is a strong argument for saying that there should be a mixed provision, so long as it is clearly thought out. Some doubts were expressed about the way in which some PFIs and PPPs have been engaged upon. Many of us have had serious doubts about the application of the PPP to the London Underground where we do not believe that there is justification on financial grounds.

Management structures have been mentioned. This is an area where there is a good deal of concern. It is tied of course to the question of centralisation and decentralisation; the number of decisions that get remitted from the various departments to the services concerned; and the doubts which have entered the minds of management in the public services as to what role they really should be playing. There is in no doubt that the role of management needs to be reinforced. I was much struck by a phrase in the positive contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, when he said that structural changes must now come to an end.

Perhaps I may give a word of advice to the Government based on many years of service in the public and private sectors. Major structural changes create real problems in an organisation. To have too many of them successively is demoralising and takes the eye off the ball. The objective should be, having established funding on an adequate and sustainable basis and set up a decentralised and accountable management structure, to leave people to get on with the job.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for initiating the debate and for the manner in which she opened it. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it was an impeccably constructed speech. When I first started this job, I was told that it was important that, after one had given a speech, in the Bishops' Bar they would be able to answer the question: what did he say? In the case of the noble Baroness, it was crystal clear.

She introduced a debate the importance of which cannot be in doubt to any of your Lordships. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it concerns the central stage of the political debate. Perhaps I may also thank the noble Baroness for the timeliness of her debate. It takes place exactly a week before the Budget, which will deal with many of the most crucial issues concerning our public services: taxation, spending, linkages, earmarking, hypothecation—some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that he wanted.

The noble Baroness made three clear and simple points. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, she said that she wanted more current spending on public services. Secondly, she said that she wanted more capital spending on public services.

On those first two points, perhaps I may ask the Minister, when—as I am sure that he will—he tells us of the munificence of the Government's spending plans for the public services, to consider the case of health. Whatever measures are likely to be introduced in the Budget next week, how will the real gap between spending on health in our country and that in the average of the Eurozone be made up? It will certainly not be made up in any way by what may be announced next week.

That is because the actual gap between spending on health in the UK and the average of the Eurozone is three percent of GDP. Our spending is about 7 per cent; their average is about 10 per cent. Three per cent of our GDP, which is about £1,000 billion a year, is about £30 billion a year. If anyone is in any doubt about the mystery of why what appears to be a stream of new spending on the public services has little impact on their quality, it is because the sums being spoken of are a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the problem.

The third point made by the noble Baroness was that money alone was not enough—I think that was her phrase. She said that in order to achieve improvement in morale and a return to the public service ethos—the vocation mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—there will have to be reform, decentralisation and so on. She wanted to know that the extra money to be spent was to be well spent, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said. We certainly echo that view.

At the beginning of her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, went back 45 years to illustrate her three points. If I may, I shall ask her to allow me to take her back a little further to reinforce her points. Next week, Budget week, will be the 90th anniversary of the night of the sinking of the Titanic in which 1,500 people died. During the past few weeks, in a compelling analogy, Dr Mary Shaw and her colleagues from the department of social medicine at Bristol University compared the present situation in our public services to that on the deck of the doomed Titanic.

In their study published in The Lancet, the researchers from Bristol remind us of the shocking fact that during the sinking of the ship the first-class passengers were more likely to survive than the rest. That was not because the rich passengers were fitter and stronger, but because their social position meant that they were located on higher decks and had better access to lifeboats. The third-class passengers, on the other hand, were less likely to survive because their access to lifeboats was more limited. According to the Bristol team, so it is in our public services today.

They found that middle-class people who are better off and more highly educated than their working-class counterparts are more likely to escape from areas with low-grade public services. They were likely to leave such areas en masse because of the literally deadly combination of low income, poor housing, poor health care, poor schools and low-paid jobs. Only those who were relatively well off could afford to move out of such areas, while poorer people had to stay put and endure the conditions, according to the research.

If proof of this is required it can be found in the differential death rates from cancer. Thousands of poor people are dying from cancer because they do not have the same chances in our public services as the rich. So says the first major study of cancer and socio-economic factors, Professor Michael Coleman's report, Cancer Survival Trends in England and Wales, 1971–1995. That was a massive study that followed 3 million adults and 18,000 children in England and Wales diagnosed with cancer between 1971 and 1990 and followed their progress until 1995.

The research shows that more than 12,700 deaths could have been avoided in patients diagnosed between 1986 and 1990 if inequalities in cancer care did not exist in England and Wales. The director general of the Cancer Research Campaign said that the report highlighted,

"what appears to be a catalogue of terrible injustices".

The research suggests that the reasons may be that poorer patients go to the doctor when their cancer is more advanced, have worse access to treatment and are less likely to follow recommended treatments. Apparently, they also tend to get more aggressive forms of cancer—possibly because of poor diet and a greater propensity to smoke.

The report found that England and Wales had a worse survival rate for most cancers than the USA and Europe. However, extraordinarily, the most affluent people in England and Wales had similar survival rates to the European average. It found that the disparity in survival rates between rich and poor was between 5 per cent and 16 per cent for adult cancers including breast, bowel and malignant melanoma. The rich were 16 per cent more likely than the poor to survive for five years after getting tongue cancer. The list goes on.

What is worse, that fact is well-known to the public and is the reason why there is now such a depth of disquiet—shown in practically every survey that we read. Most people now believe that they will be required to pay for private health insurance, private pensions, and so on and they are nervous about what that means.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke about the morale of people in the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke about stress suffered by NHS staff and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to what he called the sickening stripping away of the sense of vocation. I hope that what I have added to that feeling is that it is an appalling fact that the poorest people receive the worst services—not for them any of the dignity and courtesy to which my noble friend Lady Knight of Collingtree referred.

That would be bad enough, but the poorest people also pay the most in tax for the services that they receive. That is the most appalling injustice of all. The poorest 10 per cent of the population—3.6 million—earn less than half the national average. They are below the Government's official version of the poverty level. They pay a record figure of between 57 and 63 per cent of their income in tax. The least well-off pay the highest rate. It is a mad world in which the poor pay higher taxes than the rich.

The requirement to pay income tax has never reached so low down the income scale. Some 3.6 million people of working age earn less than half the national average. They suffer not just because their incomes are too low, but because they are then taxed on them. The poorest people have the heaviest tax burden for the worst services. Next week, we will hear that the Government's solution to the problems in the public services will be more tax. I doubt that people will find that convincing. The problems in our public services are now, as many of your Lordships have said, so deep-seated that only radical thought can solve them. Our political leaders have a great national task to perform. They must rescue poor people from the lower deck of their "Titanic".

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will not be in too much of a hurry to say that money is not the answer. Unit costs have been reduced for 26 years, I think. We cannot put that right overnight.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. I did not say that I thought that money was not required—of course it is. I hope that I have pointed out that the scale of the sums required to bring our standards up to those of others is so vast that it makes the tinkering that takes place completely inadequate.

The poor people whom I have described pay the most tax and receive the worst services in return. They should not have to accept for another day that deadly combination of high tax and the worst public services.

My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for this debate on the state of our public services. It has been a useful exchange of views, highlighting once again the volume of experience and sweep of knowledge that we have in the Chamber. I shall try to cover the major points raised but, given time constraints, I shall not be able to deal with all of them. I shall write in reply to any material points not addressed.

I accept immediately that we have a great deal more to do to improve life in this country. Thanks to the decisions taken since 1997, there has been real progress. I shall try to persuade your Lordships of that. That progress will accelerate in the coming months and years.

Our first job was to put the economy right. A strong and stable economy has produced over a million more jobs. Because there are more people than ever in work and action was taken to reduce the national debt, the country can now afford record and sustained investment in our public services to employ extra staff and modernise equipment and infrastructure. So the Government are committed to creating accessible high-quality and properly funded public services during this Parliament to ensure that we provide equality of opportunity for all our citizens. That is our goal for this Parliament, and we are pursuing it with, I hope, a relentless focus.

We need responsive high-quality public services that visibly provide value for money. They should be locally accountable, transparent and built around the needs of the users or consumers—our citizens—who pay for them through their taxes. We must provide people with the best value for their hard-earned money.

I shall pick up some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. I enjoyed her impressionistic tour of European horizons but, as was said by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, it is never easy to find the right comparisons. In France, for instance, doctors earn about half of what they would earn in the United Kingdom. French nurses are much underpaid in comparison with ours. Operational costs there are higher than ours. As for the trains, to which my noble friend referred, there is not the regularity and convenience of service in France that can be found on British railways. If noble Lords would like to try a trip on the Berlin metro or go through Switzerland, through Zurich or Geneva, they could admire the surprisingly creative graffiti on those railways.

Noble Lords ask why are our public services poorer. Surely, we can agree that it is because of decades of under-investment. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, referred to the 6.5 per cent increase for health. That is slightly below the figure that we would use, 7.3 per cent. I hope to address some of the other issues that were raised, such as the morale of staff and recruitment problems, when I talk about the principles of reform. The noble Baroness is wrong to say that we cannot recruit more staff because of the decline in morale or because of conditions. In fact, staffing throughout the public sector has increased by 140,000 since 1997, and it is rising. In the health service, we have recruited 31,000 more nurses since 1997. We achieved our targets for nurse recruitment two years before the deadline that we had set. We are making progress. The Budget next week will no doubt be a tight settlement for some departments, as ever, but we will see that progress sustained.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, I have taken copious notes. What I cannot reply to now I shall share with colleagues and reply to noble Lords. I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his wide experience of business. He has been a distinguished public servant. I listened to him with great respect. He was right to draw attention to the problem of stop-go investment and the lack of sustained investment over the years. The most effective services will come not just from investment but from investment and reform. We must have both, and that is what the Government are pursuing.

Investment in the key services is now at record levels but, as the noble Lord said, it must be sustained. In the past, halting investment and progress, only to jump-start it when things improved, caused all the damaging dislocation that we have seen, nowhere more markedly than on the London Underground. As a result of the sound economic management that the Chancellor has imposed, we have been able to provide much additional investment for our public services. For example, we have the biggest, most sustained four-year increase in health spending, with the highest ever percentage of GDP—7.3—going in in 2001–02. We have increased UK education spending to 5 per cent of GDP for 2001–02. Those levels of investment mean that there are more resources and more people to serve the public, including the 140,000 that I mentioned.

My Lords, the Minister talks about the extra public servants, but we are aware that many teachers and nurses leave their profession rapidly. Many trained teachers go to do other jobs. Do the Minister's figures include people who are leaving the professions?

My Lords, I shall turn to some of the details of recruitment into teaching, for instance, where not only do we have more teachers but we have more teachers in training as well. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said that we have more police now than ever before and more local government employees.

My Lords, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister, not again, to quote that figure about recruitment for teacher training. Most of the people who come to ask me to write letters for them for that profession say, "I do not intend to do it; it is only just in case I cannot get anything else".

My Lords, I shall note that less than scientific observation from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. However, let me point to the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I have listened, obviously with some trepidation, to the scale of funds that she felt were required. Of course, I am unable to anticipate the Budget or the spending review, but I am sure that we would all support the Prime Minister in his emphasis on the importance of higher education. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education will be locked in discussions about how to try to satisfy some of the needs which will have been put persuasively by the noble Baroness and by Universities UK.

As regards the achievements so far, I would ask your Lordships not to underrate what has been achieved. I listened with admiration to the gloomy elegance of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and, indeed, to the remarks about the "Titanic" from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I believe that there is in the United States a National Association of Pessimists which holds its AGM every year on the anniversary of the sinking of the "Titanic". I am told that its motto is, "Behind every silver lining there is a black cloud". I believe that that has loomed behind many of the speeches that we have had today.

On a positive note, in education we have been focusing on standards, choice and behaviour, and we have improved the standards in numeracy and literacy in primary schools. There are now 75 per cent of 11 year-olds reaching the required standard in English, compared with more than 50 per cent in 1997. We have reduced class sizes—fewer than 1 per cent of children between the ages of five and seven are now in classes of 30 or more. We have 11,000 more teachers in post and there are record numbers of students in higher education—87,000 more than in 1997. Participation in adult basic skills courses has risen more than 600,000, surpassing the targets that we set in the Learning Age Green Paper. Therefore, there are positive aspects in education and we must not be so doom laden.

I now turn to health. We have been putting the National Health Service on the road to recovery with increased investment, increased resources and better treatment. We are two years into the National Health Service Plan, but I would recommend to noble Lords the report of the chief executive of the Department of Health which came out today. The report indicates that average waiting times for in-patients and out-patients have fallen, as has the maximum waiting times. Last year 80,000 patients waited more than 15 months for an operation; today, only two people are waiting more than 15 months. However, I am told that the Conservative Party has challenged that and claims that there are four people waiting rather than two.

Another figure suggested in the report is that only 500 patients are waiting more than six months for an out-patient consultation. Last year there were 400,000 patients. There are shorter waiting times for patients with serious conditions such as cancer and coronary heart disease. In the ambulance service, 28 of the 32 services have hit the target of responding to 75 per cent of the most urgent calls in eight minutes. I could go on; I have a couple of pages of examples like that—positive changes that have happened in the National Health Service.

I welcome the supportive comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the work being done by Derek Wanless. I hear what noble Lords say about the hypothecation, but we believe that it has drawbacks which outweigh its advantages. We recognise the benefits of diversity of provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that there would be fewer beds and staff because of a fixation on PFIs and PPPs. By my figures, that simply is not true. There are more staff available now than ever before and we have more beds. Therefore, that is just not so.

I agree that there should be better procurement skills. We have set up an Office of Government Commerce, very well led by Peter Gershon from the private sector. We are trying to build in procurement skills and management skills right across the Civil Service, as well as across the rest of the public sector. Therefore, we, too, in government worry about targets, and targets that perhaps are not as exact as they should be, just as one would in business. Again, let me say that if you cannot measure things it is very difficult to manage them. The Treasury did reduce the number of targets quite markedly between its first spending review and the second. Therefore, I believe that a process of refinement is going on there. I shall turn to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord when I deal with the question of public sector reform later.

I shall just skip quietly over my pages and pages of examples of progress in the health service and turn to the issue of crime, which was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate. Even in crime, one of the most intractable areas faced by any government, as your Lordships will have heard we are making progress. Surely, it is as striking to noble Lords as it is to me to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, say that crime, according to the British Crime Survey, has fallen by 22 per cent since 1997. Burglary has fallen; car crime has fallen; and, indeed, violent crimes have fallen. All have fallen quite markedly.

That clearly is not the general view held outside, and we in Government will certainly have to work much harder, especially in high profile areas such as street crime. We are trying to bring together those who have a stake in that problem and work with them to try to tackle the problems—working closely with the police in the areas which are suffering worst.

As the noble Lord said, police numbers have risen by the largest amount for the past 20 years. A Police Standards Unit has been set up to measure performance accurately and to tackle variations in performance between police forces. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, would point to the areas of pensions and early retirement as matters where the variations between forces are rather bewildering. National standards would, I am sure, be welcomed by the police as much as by the Government and local government.

I accept that there is too much bureaucracy and that the police suffer from it. As the Minister responsible for deregulation, I work with the Regulatory Impact Unit and its public sector team, trying to ensure that the police are allowed more time to work out of the station, where at present they spend almost 50 per cent of their time locked in unproductive paperwork and other matters. I agree that much has to be done together and I welcome the noble Baroness's support for the generality of the present proposals.

Turning to transport, again I am delighted to say that no longer do I have any ministerial responsibilities. However, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester pointed out, we have taken decisive action over Railtrack. I understand the problems of the closure of the West Coast Main Lire and the Network Railcard. However, I believe that the much improved atmosphere within the industry will help us move towards resolutions of those kinds of problems. The work being done by Richard Bowker at the Strategic Rail Authority will aid in that, as will increasingly the work of Ian McAllister and John Armitt. I know to my cost that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is an expert in these matters, but I am sure that he would accept that, whatever may be his reservations with regard to the new structures, we now have in place people who are deeply committed to the priorities of engineering and adequately resourcing the railways in a way that perhaps was not the case in the past. For that reason, I too welcome the new expertise being brought to bear on why the costs of construction have risen so grotesquely and why they seem so disparate when compared with the charges made for a mile of rail improvement in other countries.

We look to transport as an area where the biggest effort and investment must be made. Some £180 billion is still committed over the next 10 years. The Transport Plan, of which I was a part author, has within it mechanisms which allow it to be repositioned year on year. Obviously that work is under way at the moment.

I hope too that we shall see a resolution to the problems of London Underground in the near future so that the proposed £16 billion of investment for enhancement over the next 15 years can begin to move forward. However, again there are important areas of progress even in transport. Some 1,700 more train services are now running each day compared to 1996. We have seen a 22 per cent rise in the rail passenger kilometres travelled over the past four years. Journeys on the London Underground went up by 25 per cent between 1997 and 2001. Furthermore, noble Lords will be interested to hear that the satisfaction ratings of passengers using the London Underground are as high as they ever were. In some ways the Government are victims of their economic success. If a million more people are put into work, they then have to travel to work every day and that has exacerbated our problems.

I listened with great interest to the balanced and informed contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Chan. I accept that stresses are inevitably caused by structural change. We shall certainly bear in mind all of those issues and look to his areas of the national frameworks and the benefits that they can bring, as well as to shifting the balance of power towards greater involvement on the part of citizens and patients.

I shall conclude by pointing out that our programme of reform, which we believe must accompany our increased investment plans, will be based on both national standards and greater accountability. It will also be based on devolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out. It will encourage flexibility and an end to the rigid practices of the past. It will also try to increase choice.

I listened to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with great interest. Clearly his vocation is one of prophecy, but the pervasive gloom and profound anomie which he sees for the future is not a landscape that I would share. If he wants to talk about nurses working in accident and emergency departments, I should tell him that I was recently at the Homerton Hospital. There cannot be many tougher areas in London in which to run an accident and emergency unit. The staff there have been making splendid progress and I thought that their morale was high. The sense of vocation that the noble Earl wishes to encourage was surely encouraged by the Prime Minister in his speech at Newcastle, which resounded through the public service sector. So we can devolve and delegate more power locally as long as it delivers high national standards. Clearly, there will be tensions between the two, but we hope to keep those tensions in balance.

I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, that mixed wards are an unfortunate situation that we inherited from the party previously in power. We are trying our best to remove them. I cannot share her stand against over-familiarity and friendliness. I find that even civil servants are now calling me "Gus". I am sure that if staff are asked civilly they will be very happy to call people by their proper names. I take the noble Baroness's point.

Perhaps I should end by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that I welcome his conversion to the cause of the poor and the underprivileged. I believe that the policies of the previous government acted as agents for much of the social squalor we inherited. His conversion is welcome but it is not yet to me convincing. I believe that there has been an attack of political amnesia, which was redeemed by the elegance and diffidence of the noble Lord's delivery.

The Government's priority is to improve public services during this Parliament.

My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now expired. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wish to withdraw her Motion?

My Lords, I thank all those who have participated and the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

moved the amendment:

Page 4, line 39, leave out "to (8)" and insert ", (6) and (8)"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name, the names of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Astor of Hever, and the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today because he has been delayed in Moscow. I understand that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is not as well as we would like him to be.

In the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provision is made for the exemption of the Armed Forces. However, under the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, that exemption would cease to exist. As I mentioned in Committee, it is my contention that that would be a mistake. I hope that the House will agree to my amendment.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said:

"While including them in this Bill, we can ensure that, for the Armed Forces in particular, there should be nothing to interfere with their operational effectiveness".—[Official Report, 23/1/02; col. 1533.]

I am afraid that the Bill would interfere with their operational effectiveness. That is why I am bringing forward this amendment for a second time.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said:

"but as modern wars are fought largely with computerised equipment and communications, the British Army would be in a sorry state if it had to call on butchers to operate those computers".—[Official Report, 6/3/02; col. 359.]

It is not a case of getting butchers to operate computers. It is a matter of getting trained soldiers to operate computers.

I speak mainly about the Army because I served in the Army a number of years ago. Other noble Lords will know more about the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Servicemen are trained as servicemen first and foremost. It is only later that they go on to their specialised training, whether as cooks, computer operators, mechanics, storemen, or whatever else the Armed Forces need—and, in modern warfare, they need a great many skills and trades. Wherever a soldier serves, whatever his trade, he is, and must be, first and foremost a soldier prepared to fight.

Any general worth his salt who is fighting a campaign will endeavour to knock out his opponent's headquarters. That is where a number of the clerks and computer operators work. They must be prepared to defend those headquarters; and our servicemen must be prepared and properly trained to defend our army headquarters. Any enemy will also want to cut off the lines of communication and supply, so that those fighting in the front line are starved of ammunition, food and fuel. It is up to those in the lines of communication, at headquarters far in the rear, to be able to fight and defend those headquarters if called upon to do so. I suspect that if the noble Lord's Bill goes through unamended, sadly, our Army's efficiency will be affected.

It is also the case that if by any chance the enemy does break through, it is the cooks, the computer operators, the drivers, the mechanics and the storemen who have to pick up their weapons and make a counter-attack to save the situation.

The Armed Forces already sometimes bring in people who do not have total agility—who do not have total movement in their arms or legs. They bring in some with a degree of colour blindness and possibly some with a degree of hearing loss. I am sure that that practice will continue. But it is my contention that the Armed Forces must be allowed to set the standards that they demand to make certain that we have the Armed Forces that this country deserves to defend the nation and to carry out what the politicians want them to do overseas.

I said in Committee much of what I could go on to say. Many noble Lords will have heard my remarks or will have had the opportunity of reading them in Hansard. Therefore, I shall not delay the House. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment moved so eloquently by my noble friend. The first duty of any elected government is defence of the realm. The Government are right to insist that the Armed Forces should not be brought under the remit of the Act. They must have full fighting capability and should not be compelled to discriminate against existing servicemen and servicewomen. I do not believe that the disability lobby, which I support enthusiastically, has anything to fear from this amendment.

My Lords, I support the amendment. Perhaps I may begin by expressing my admiration for the determined and doughty way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, has espoused the interests of people of all ages who are, in one way or another, deemed to be disabled.

But I also deem it important—I am sure that the noble Lord does too—that the defence of the realm is entrusted to those who are best able to undertake the duties expected of them. That is in the interest of every one of our countrymen and women, whether they are in the services or not. The ability of our Armed Forces to carry out their physically and mentally demanding, and at times dangerous, roles must never be compromised. The armed services are not a group of individuals, even if at times the bravery or dash of a single man or woman is recognised and honoured. Teamwork, with each member being able to contribute, is a key element of service life and operations.

The measure of that capability so far as clinical judgment is concerned is a matter for the Armed Forces themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has argued. They are best able to make the judgments about the levels of hearing, eyesight, physique or whatever that are appropriate to the role or trade for which the individual may volunteer. To set other standards, however worthy their aim, for the services' clinical or medical use with which to judge the suitability or acceptability of an individual volunteer is to put the cart before the horse. It would seem akin to making it law that anyone who wishes to be a teacher has to teach maths, regardless of their limited mathematical capabilities.

I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will accept that there is a finite limit to the good that he is trying to achieve. There are many alternatives for those who wish to serve their country that enable them to contribute to its good and its security but do not amount to seeking to impose on the Armed Forces medical standards that do not accord with the roles and responsibilities of our servicemen and women.

It has been argued that there have been many—and some very famous—individuals who have become disabled after joining their service and have gone on to give continued service. The counter to that argument is that they were already trained. If such people can continue to give service that is acceptable medically, good luck to them. However, it is not reasonable to argue that because a pilot who lost a leg in an accident may be retained in one of the services in a ground role, or possibly even in a restricted flying role, it is therefore acceptable that all one-legged individuals who wish to be pilots should be recruited, trained at great expense and then restricted to the types of aircraft that their disability would not preclude them from flying—and all at the expense of a fully medically acceptable individual who will not start out with a restricted employment category.

Today's services no longer have places for the non-combatant individual in their ranks, if they ever did. Every job and task that could be identified as fitting such a description is no longer filled by a man or woman in uniform. The post will have been civilianised or contracted out, because that is a less expensive way of covering the task. Today, all who are in uniform are potential front-line individuals, even if at times they are filling headquarters or other less exposed appointments. Career development and structures also have a part to play in this argument. Those who are to go on to lead and command their services at higher rank must gain experience from the range of appointments open to them, both combatant and in headquarters.

I think I have said enough to explain why I strongly support the amendment. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will agree with me and the other noble Lords who feel as strongly about the issue as I do. He will thereby strengthen his case, rather than weakening it by going over the top.

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. As your Lordships have heard, it would remove the exemption for disabled civilians to join Her Majesty's Armed Forces. The role of the Armed Forces is to defend the realm and to meet the Government's foreign and defence policy commitments. To do that, all service personnel must be fully fit and combat effective to meet obligations on a worldwide operational liability. They must be able to be deployed at short notice to the trouble spots of the world. It would endanger the lives of servicemen and servicewomen if one of the team was disabled and therefore not combat effective. Furthermore, it could place the life of the disabled individual in peril.

All service personnel, whether they be cooks or clerks, must conform to the basic military training and fitness standards. However, that does not mean that a number of disabled civilians could not join civilian firms that are contracted to the Ministry of Defence. There are many such contracts in existence. Some of the firms into which they could be incorporated are companies dealing with security, clerical and information technology work, catering, electrical and mechanical engineering, driving and maintenance instruction, store keeping and many others. At the same time, many disabled civilians can join the Civil Service and be employed in the Ministry of Defence.

There is no need for the disabled to join the Armed Forces, and if they did so it would reduce combat effectiveness. I strongly support the amendment and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will agree with our proposals.

My Lords, this series of arguments seems to be charging around in a circle. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, himself said that we do not want blind bus drivers. By the same token, he is not attempting now to place in the Armed Forces those who are incapable of doing the job.

So where does that leave us on the amendment, which seeks to maintain the status quo? Most of the objections to the status quo centre on the fact that a blanket ban is being applied to a very wide variety of people with various abilities, precluding them from joining a profession. Over the years, dyslexics have comprised large parts of all the Armed Forces. I have also been told in a private conversation that, because of the current recruitment problems, the chances are minimal that people who are dyslexic would be refused entrance to the Armed Forces as infantry soldiers simply because of their dyslexia. However, when unemployment levels are high, for example, they could be refused entrance because of that blanket ban. That is the objection to the status quo.

I would be happier if the Bill simply stated that those who cannot complete basic training, because of a disability or any other reason, should be excluded. I think that that would be a much more sensible, middle way. I should now, however, put up my hand and say that I have not tabled an amendment to that effect; the rearrangement of the House's business has prevented me from doing so. The issue for us now, however, is the amendment. I do not think that there is much ground between us on the issue. I think that everyone agrees that the concept of reasonableness, as argued in the courts, would cover most of the objections. Let us also be clear that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is not the most perfect vehicle for addressing the issue.

I feel that this issue should not stand in the way of the Bill's passage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will be able to shrug and say, "95 per cent of a loaf is better than nothing". I also think that we shall return to the issue. The Armed Forces change slowly—not so long ago it was unimaginable that women would carry weapons. Other arguments will arise, and technical advances may remove some disabilities. There have been advances in restoring hearing, and other disabilities may simply cease to exist.

I believe that this Bill and the underlying arguments are more important than this one issue. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, but I accept that he has an argument that will have to be answered at another time and in another place. I simply hope that this Bill is passed.

My Lords, this is a good Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is to be much congratulated on promoting it to smooth out issues that were left unsettled in the 1995 legislation. On Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill received general approval, but with one exception—the issue of the Armed Forces and disabilities. My noble friend Lord Swinfen and other noble Lords have outlined the case why disabled people are not suitable for service in the Armed Forces. In one sentence, the case is that they may be expected at any time to serve on the front line.

Disability does not always prevent someone serving. The smartest soldier I have ever known, General John Swinton, lost his leg in the last month of the 1939–45 war. He went on to serve as a Major-General in the Scots Guards. His father had lost a leg in the last month of the First World War in the Scots Guards and went on to serve thereafter. In his case, the loss of a leg did not prevent him doing everything necessary as a soldier.

If the Bill were to be enacted in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, it would enable someone to address himself to the Ministry of Defence and insist that he serve—although the existing system whereby people already serving may continue to serve seems to work extremely well. It is a major problem. On Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who I am delighted to see in her place, said:

"I hope that suitable employment can be found for people who wish to work in their chosen profession. But a realistic and safe framework should be found; they must never put fellow workers at risk because of their disability".— [Official Report, 23/1/02; col. 1549.]

Unfortunately that is what might happen if disabled persons were, by right, to work and serve in the Armed Forces.

This is a good Bill, but it has one misguided aspect. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to accept the amendment.

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I do not like blanket bans, but I better understand since we have had these debates what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has been saying: that a serviceman, whatever his employ in the Army, must be prepared to fight. As the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, this is a good Bill. I believe that the Government have no real objection to anything in the Bill apart from this proposal—perhaps the Minister will confirm with a nod—and that it is a question of timing.

My Lords, I have said on many occasions that the Government are staying neutral on the Bill. We do not agree to it and we do not accept the arguments behind certain of its propositions. We do not propose to engage with them at this time. It is the wrong Bill at the wrong time.

My Lords, I did not mean to lure the Minister to her feet. I believe that it is a good Bill and that, by and large, this is the provision to which most people, including the Government, object. I hope that the Bill will go its full passage with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because it would then be more acceptable.

I hope that there will be more talks with the Armed Forces. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to a blanket right for disabled people. Whom are we talking about in referring to "disabled people"? Are we talking about people who are mildly dyslexic, or those with, say, two fingers missing? We do not know. It is not a blanket right because there are the concepts of justifiable discrimination and reasonable accommodation. If those concepts were better understood, perhaps we could have more chats with the Armed Forces and see whether there is some middle ground. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in his wisdom will feel able to accept the amendment for now.

My Lords, perhaps I may point Out to the noble Baroness that the view I take relates to the current situation whereby disabled persons with certain disabilities are enabled to serve, which is a very satisfactory method. However, I also said that it was not desirable for this to be recorded in legislation.

My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. I believe this to be an issue upon which people are learning. My noble kinswoman Lady Darcy de Knayth has just admitted that she has changed her views somewhat in this respect.

I have two points to make. There has probably never been a period in my lifetime when greater demands were made on Her Majesty's Armed Forces all around the world. Indeed, I am not sure whether we have ever had a Prime Minister who is as ready, willing, and sometimes, almost eager, to commit Her Majesty's forces to a whole variety of tasks around the world. One effect of that has been a constant worry about over-stretch, which is primarily a shortage of resources — financial resources.

There are many jobs in the Armed Forces that disabled people can do, but there are also jobs that they cannot undertake. As my noble friend Lord Vivian pointed out, operational effectiveness is of paramount importance. At this time in our history, there is no way in which the Parliament of this country should be responsible for passing legislation that would reduce the most effective possible use of the limited resources that the Government are able to make available for Her Majesty's forces in the context of the apparently almost limitless demands upon their activities around the world.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will realise that those of us who fully support the concept behind his Bill recognise the importance of disability being accommodated in every possible way. However, I trust that he will also acknowledge that the paramount requirement in this case is operational effectiveness, which means 100 per cent physical flexibility as regards the people who are recruited to serve in uniform.

My Lords, I remind the House that I have an interest as a serving TA officer. I have DDA credentials, as I strongly supported Section 37 of the 1995 Act. I also strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will accept it.

I had not realised the effect of the noble Lord's Bill. Indeed, if I had, I should have contributed much earlier in the proceedings. I am still a serving TA officer, and was recently deployed on Exercise "Saif Sareera" in a headquarters situated in Oman. It was an exercise, but also a deployment overseas. At one point I was involved with the management of an emergency situation; namely, a serious road traffic accident.

All officers expect their subordinates to act in a pre-determined manner: they are trained to do so. I know what minimum levels of physical performance I can expect from all the soldiers. If I tell a soldier to run somewhere, I know that he will be able to do so; if I tell him to pick up a piece of kit and run with it, I know that he will be able to complete the task.

One of my previous officers commanding had miniature fingers—they were about half the length of normal fingers. But, obviously, he could complete all his physical tests; and, therefore, he was accepted for service. But the decision as to whether or not he should be accepted for service was purely a military decision and one that was made by a medical officer who understood the military requirements.

I have a great fear that we are constantly but slowly reducing our military effectiveness not by one significant change in policy or legislation but by a process of salami slicing, each thin slice bearable but the totality damaging to military ethos. It is also tempting to think that a lot of military employment opportunities could be away from combat areas and therefore suitable for persons with some disablement. That is quite true, but what about servicemen who become disabled as a result of their service? Surely those "soft" postings ought to be reserved for existing servicemen who are no longer able to carry out the full range of military duties. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, seriously to consider accepting the amendment.

My Lords, it seems a great pity if a trained soldier who becomes disabled cannot be found a suitable job in, say, administration so that he does not have to be invalided out and leave his regiment. That would be a very expensive exercise. Nelson had one arm and one eye and still remained in the Navy. I still abide by my view that no one should be put in the position of endangering a colleague. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I feel strongly that there should be flexibility.

My Lords, I was sorry to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was unable to attend the debate as he is unwell. I send my best wishes for his full recovery. I was also sorry to learn that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, was unable to attend the debate due to being delayed in Moscow. I looked forward very much to hearing the noble and gallant Lord speak. His comments would have added a great deal more weight to the weighty and marvellous debate we have had. Some absolutely brilliant speeches have been made.

Instead of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, we heard a contribution from an equally distinguished serviceman, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. His contribution, like those of many others, was significant. Like all of the speeches in the debate it was constructive. I shall try to respond in kind.

First, there seems to be some misunderstanding about what the Bill states. One noble Lord said that the Bill removes the exemption to join the Armed Services. However, it does no such thing. The Bill seeks to extend the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act to disabled service personnel. That is all. It does not seek to interfere with the arrangements for recruitment to the Armed Services or with any exemption.

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, spoke with his usual felicity and fluency, as we have all come to expect. However, I am sorry to have to say that, although some of the speeches were absolutely splendid, I disagree with them. I want to explain why. But first I should say that there is a great deal of legitimate pride in the British Army, Navy and Air Force. Anyone proposing such a Bill, as I do, must not be seen to oppose that concept of fine services in any way. I too am an ex-soldier and I also believe that we have the finest Army, Navy and Air Force in the world and the most professional services in the world. That should and will be unquestioned despite the numerical superiority of other countries. We have brilliant Armed Forces of which we are proud.

One of my great pastimes is reading military history. I tell the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that I have just finished reading the diaries and biography of one of his distinguished predecessors; that is, Lord Alanbrooke, although he was in the Army, not the Air Force. I am fascinated by the great captains of industry—indeed, by captains down to privates. I have a very high regard for the services.

It is utterly wrong to try to expose any disabled serviceman to discrimination. The object of the clause is to protect them. Why should we leave our servicemen at the whim of anyone who decides to discriminate? My position is that I disagree with the amendment but I propose to agree to it. I should explain those two contradictory statements.

My first point relates to the argument that every single member of our service personnel should be available to fight in the front line. That is an outdated concept, which was relevant in the Boer War, in trench warfare and perhaps in the Second World War, but it is of absolutely no relevance in this modern age of sophisticated, computerised warfare. The armed services, despite the dogmatic statements of noble Lords, act as if they support my view in this regard.

I understand—this has been confirmed by noble Lords on all sides of the House—that the services retain some disabled personnel because they became disabled during their service. It is admirable that the services retain such people and I strongly support the practice. However, they would surely not retain those people if they expected every single one of them to fight in the so-called front line. Nor would they retain them if the operational effectiveness—that majestic phrase has been bandied about—of the services was affected. Would the Army, the Navy and the Air Force really retain disabled personnel who were disabled in the services if that interfered with the operational effectiveness of the services? I do not believe for a moment that they would. Noble and gallant Lords who have been Chief of the General Staff could not possibly allow any interference with operational effectiveness. The Army, Navy and Air Force give the lie to the contentions that have been made about the damage that would be caused by the Bill. That is why the basic idea that lies behind the amendment is wrong.

The object of the Disability Discrimination Act is simply to prevent any person or organisation from unreasonably discriminating against disabled people. The idea that disabled personnel who—properly and admirably—have been kept on in the services after they were disabled in service duties should be denied the protection of that Act is grossly unfair to those who have served their country, often heroically. It is a shoddy vote of thanks to those disabled service personnel for their dedication. In a sense, it is a two-fingered salute to their disabilities. That is why the amendment is wrong.

So much for the merits of the amendment. I turn to my reason for agreeing to it. In Army terms, the main strategic objective of the Bill is to secure the widest protection for disabled people. That objective will be most readily achieved if the Government agree to the Bill. The Government are already on record as supporting most of its clauses. By removing a clause to which they object, I shall bring the day closer when they take on the Bill as one of their own.

I am delighted that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Hollis, is listening with her usual rapt attention to our debate. I see her weighed down with those great briefs and I know that she has read all of them because she does her homework so very well. I know that she is a great realist and can recognise a good thing for her Government. I expect her to report to other Ministers the good news about the removal of this clause which so upsets them. Then we can all get together and make progress with Ministers. I accept the amendment.

My Lords, I shall not make a long speech. There is no need to do so at this hour of the night. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for accepting the amendment. I am very grateful to him. I also want to thank all those who supported me.