Commons Sitting of 27 July 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  SIERRA LEONE REPORT
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a report of the investigation into arms sales to Sierra Leone.—[Janet Anderson.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Music and Theatre (Liverpool)
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: If he will make a statement on support for music and the theatre in Liverpool. [50767]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): The arts in Liverpool received £4.1 million in 1997–98. Of this, around £540,000 was for drama and £1.75 million for music. In addition, Liverpool received £16.2 million in arts-related lottery awards.
    Mrs. Ellman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Campaign for the Arts hailed last week's
    2
    announcement about additional funding for the arts as an "unprecedented and visionary move"? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the support that he has already mentioned, together with the additional funds, will enable the Playhouse theatre to reopen, the Everyman theatre to have security and proper recognition to be given to the local, regional, national and international importance of the great Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra?
    Mr. Fisher: As my hon. Friend said, the £290 million of additional funding awarded to this Department last week was the biggest step forward in cultural investment for many years, and includes £130 million extra over the next three years for the Arts Council and the performing arts. Obviously, it is for the Arts Council to decide how to spend that money, but I know that a great city such as Liverpool, with its track record in the arts, will make a very strong case both to the North-West arts board and to the Arts Council.

    Sports Policy
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the Government's sports policy. [50768]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): On Friday, I announced a package that will deliver more grass-roots sports development, wider access to opportunities to take part in sport and more funding for support of sport at an international level. Earlier in the month, I announced a strengthening of the United Kingdom Sports Council and its work with our top sports men and women. In addition—although this is not entirely due to the Government's activities—I am glad to be the first to congratulate our English cricketers on winning the test match this afternoon.
    Mr. Loughton: I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on retaining his position in the Cabinet—but I hope that that does not presage doom for

    3
    the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), whom I had anticipated would answer my question.
    If the Secretary of State is serious about promoting excellence in sport—the scant details of it appeared in a statement on Friday—how does he gel that with the Government's abandoning of the teaching of physical education as a core subject in schools?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that PE will remain a curriculum subject in schools; it will have to be taught. He also ignores the record of the previous Government, who presided over the country's biggest-ever sell-off of school playing fields, which so damagingly set back our potential for sporting achievement. We have now put that right by introducing measures to stop the unnecessary sale of playing fields. Last Friday, I announced the biggest—indeed, the first—real-terms increase in funding for sport for six years.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one problem for sports that do not get a great deal of attention, such as tennis, is that the base is not broad enough? Many potential tennis players never get a chance to get beyond those who run it—the twinset and pearls brigade. Will he bear in mind the fact that there are usually no athletics facilities outside cities and some of the larger towns? There is nothing in smaller towns and rural areas, so we need to broaden the base there, too. It is remarkable that we managed to win the European cup in view of the fact that we do not manage well the transition of school athletes to clubs—mainly because there are not too many clubs in some parts of the country.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's entire policy is based on two fundamental pillars: to ensure international excellence, but also to ensure at grass-roots level widespread availability of sporting facilities and the encouragement of sporting activities. One does not achieve the first pillar without the second. I tell my hon. Friend also that the 44th indoor tennis facility has recently been opened, at Tipton, and that we hope very much to see continued growth of tennis facilities in our communities across the country. He is right also to say that giving people the chance to develop skills at grass-roots level is absolutely the right way forward.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the England test team. It was particularly appropriate that England should have a magnificent fight back under Alec Stewart's leadership, given that the media's normal propagation of doom and gloom, writing off the test team, was continuing even up to the third day of the match. Will the Secretary of State join me in saying that we want our media always to support British sports teams, and that such support will be an important part of supporting sports policy from whichever party? Will he also say whether any tenders have yet been issued for the new UK Sports Institute? Opposition Members are very concerned that—after the blaze of publicity and all the hype over the announcement, and after many months—no tenders have been let.
    Mr. Smith: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I entirely agree. I very much hope that we shall
    4
    have a supportive media for our great sports men and women, particularly with the Commonwealth games being held in only a month or two. On the second part of his question, I am delighted that Opposition Front Benchers have at last been up to Sheffield to talk to the people putting together the UK Sports Institute there, to see what is happening and to hear the good progress that has been made. I fully expect that facilities will be open at Sheffield for the UK Sports Institute in 2000.

    Satellite Television
    Mr. Chris Mullin: If he will introduce measures to bring satellite television within the same regulatory regime as the rest of commercial television; and if he will make a statement. [50769]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Government have no early plans for changes to the current framework of broadcasting legislation, but we shall consider further the full range of issues in the light of responses to our recent Green Paper on the regulation of broadcasting and communications.
    Mr. Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sky Television has so far invested little or nothing in original production, preferring instead to purchase bland off-the-record—rather, off-the-peg—American movies, and that that is dragging down the whole of commercial television? Is it not time that we created a level playing field, and brought satellite television within the same regulatory framework that applies to the rest of commercial television?
    Mr. Smith: I can give my hon. Friend an entirely on-the-record response. Sky Television—indeed, any satellite broadcaster based in Britain—is subject to exactly the same European Union provisions as domestic terrestrial broadcasters in relation to original programming, particularly programming of European origin. Sky is making good progress towards meeting those European provisions. We monitor it very carefully—as my hon. Friend may have seen in recent press reports—and progress is undoubtedly being made. I confidently expect that the 50 per cent. target will be met very shortly.

    Sports (Schools)
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What steps he has taken to encourage sport in schools. [50770]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): The English Sports Council has a number of initiatives under way to encourage sport in schools, including the sportsmark scheme, the sporting ambassadors scheme and the TOPS programme. In addition, the English Sports Council is working up proposals for an activity award for primary schools and looking at the introduction of community sports co-ordinators in schools.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the potential impact on sport of the otherwise excellent literacy and numeracy hour in primary schools? If so, what more could be done to encourage sports activities out of school hours?
    Mr. Banks: I have had a number of discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and

    5
    Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), about physical education in schools. It has to be made clear that physical education remains compulsory for all five to 16-year-olds, and the Office for Standards in Education will examine PE in schools. I am one of those who believe that it is ridiculous to suggest that bright kids read books and thickos do sports, but some element of that stereotyping seems still to exist. Literacy and numeracy are assisted by physical education, so I am not concerned in that sense. I am, however, keeping a careful eye on matters.
    I have completely forgotten the second part of my hon. Friend's question—[Laughter.] These things happen; old men forget, as Duff Cooper once said.
    Mr. Bradshaw: After-school facilities.
    Mr. Banks: Yes, thank you. I am delighted that I am still hanging on in there, holed up in the DCMS with a "Come in and get me, copper" notice on the door.
    After-school clubs will have a significant sporting element. They are one initiative among many to encourage after-school activities. I must emphasise again that sport is very important for an individual's overall development.
    Mr. Richard Spring: We are all crossing our fingers on the Minister's behalf.
    Does the Minister not recognise the damage that the undoubted marginalisation of PE in primary schools will have on sport? Is it not the truth that he has absolutely no idea of what sport is undertaken in schools? May I urge him to institute a proper inquiry—instead of piecemeal offerings—into the true situation so that we can begin to resolve the matter in a truly co-ordinated way?
    Mr. Banks: The new flexibility that has been introduced into the teaching of the curriculum has been welcomed by more than 90 per cent. of all schools, something that the hon. Gentleman has to bear in mind. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), I said that it was something that we needed to keep an eye on from the point of view of sports. It comes back to the problem that so much of sport is, as it were, outside my immediate brief and outside that of the Department. I have had a series of meetings with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, who is herself a former PE teacher. She and I agree entirely on the importance of PE in schools, and I am certainly looking at a more co-ordinated way of trying to evaluate the range and intensity of sports in schools. It is something that we shall continue to work on in close co-operation.

    Disabled Access Logo
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to promote the disabled access logo for (a) restaurants, (b) hotels and (c) other tourist facilities. [50771]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): Encouraging greater access to tourist facilities for all, including those with special needs, will be a core strand in the new tourism strategy, which we shall publish
    6
    later this year. I will take on board the disability rights White Paper published last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Obviously, signs which show access would be a positive contribution.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank the Minister for that reply. Mr. Roy Coulton, a constituent of mine, who is disabled and who is a doughty campaigner for disabled rights, will be encouraged by it. He told me of his personal experience of reading advertisements for restaurants and hotels in the press, and then turning up to find that there was no way of getting into the restaurant in his wheelchair. He came up with the simple idea of requiring restaurants, hotels and other facilities to put the little wheelchair logo alongside their advertisements. It seems very simple, and I do not think it requires another inquiry or report to encourage restaurateurs and others to do that.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend will know from my experience in disability over many years that I agree entirely that what happened to his constituent was totally unacceptable. The Disability Rights Commission that the Government intend to introduce will put an end to such practices. I also believe—as do the widening access working group, the tourism for all group and all others feeding into my right hon. Friend's Tourism Forum—that it is not only wrong to discriminate against disabled people in any sense, but commercially unwise. Disabled customers pay and disabled people in employment are well worth the money that they are being paid. My hon. Friend should accept that, and know that the Government will look closely at those important matters, and follow what our friends in tourism are telling us.

    Arts Careers
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to open up careers in film, theatre and the arts to a broader social range of the UK population. [50773]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The performing arts and creative industries in this country are a thriving economic force, attracting talented young people from across the social spectrum. My Department has set up the creative industries task force and the Music Industry Forum, which are looking at ways of promoting creativity so that young people—whatever their background—can contribute to the continued growth of those important sectors.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend promise me that he will look a little more closely at recruitment and perhaps carry out a survey of young people leaving school or university as to their perception of the accessibility of careers in those sectors? Most of us get the picture that young people believe that a closet coterie of people are appointed to the BBC or the Arts Council and get insider jobs. That puts off many talented young people from the ethnic minorities or from the regions—places such as Dewsbury—who feel that it is a magic world and if one's name is not Dimbleby, it is not worth applying.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid general point. It is important that opportunities in the performing arts and arts administration and even in broadcasting are

    7
    available to everyone and that what ought to count is talent and not whom one happens to know, what one's name is or what social background one is from. We are already taking steps to ensure that that can happen. The establishment of the Youth Music Trust, the new deal work that we are doing with the music industry for talented young musicians and the work that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has been doing with the Department for Education and Employment on dance and drama awards for students are all ways in which we are trying to establish exactly the point that my hon. Friend is making.
    Mr. John Bercow: Although I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that all the plum jobs in the media and the arts tend to go only to close friends of the Prime Minister, will the Secretary of Secretary nevertheless confirm that he is personally, and the Government are collectively, opposed to positive discrimination as a means by which to secure the desirable outcome of an increased range of social participation? Does he acknowledge that information, encouragement and persuasion are of the essence, but positive discrimination not only is undesirable but would be a deeply retrograde step?
    Mr. Smith: Appointments are made entirely on merit, and so they should be. I notice that that does not apply to the Conservative party.
    Ms Jackie Lawrence: We are all becoming increasingly aware of the importance of the British film industry, both economically and in terms of providing opportunities for people to participate in the arts. Will my right hon. Friend outline the progress that has been made in setting up a British film office in the United States with that intention in mind?
    Mr. Smith: I am happy to say that the new film office in Los Angeles for the British film industry is already working. It has received a tremendous welcome from the film industry in Los Angeles and I hope that great things will come of it.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the emphasis on access and quality in the Minister's paper, produced outside the House on Friday, but I was disappointed that so little was said about the training of young talented people and their inability to get to first base as performing artists because their local authorities are not able or willing to fund their training. Is the Secretary of State getting to rips with the problem of such diversities throughout the country?
    Mr. Smith: The announcements that we made on Friday were tabled at 9 o'clock in this House—at least an hour before the press conference was held outside the House. We are getting to grips with the needs of talented young people, particularly prospective students, in dance and drama. They have great difficulty at the moment. There is a temporary scheme that benefits from lottery funding, but that is not a long-term solution. We are working on a long-term solution and will make a further announcement in a few months.

    Domestic Tourism Working Group
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the domestic tourism working group. [50774]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The domestic tourism working group is one of nine working groups formed from the Tourism Forum that are helping me to devise a comprehensive strategy for tourism. We are looking at how best to make use of their ideas, which will form part of the strategy that we shall publish later this year.
    Dr. Ladyman: There are two major seaside towns in my constituency—Broadstairs and Ramsgate. Broadstairs has a well-defined brand image, but needs to build business. Ramsgate needs to go through a more dramatic regeneration. Following the work of the working party, what assistance might those two seaside towns and other similar towns get?
    Mr. Smith: We are working with the tourism strategy working group to produce a strategy document on tourism policy in October. We are looking specifically at the particular needs of seaside resorts. The need to boost domestic tourism—encouraging British people to take at least some of their holiday in Britain—must be one of the central features of tourism policy for the coming decade.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is it not an insult to the tourism industry that the Secretary of State should make his announcements away from the House, particularly when they herald the abolition of the English tourist board? Surely the domestic tourism working group relies on a strong independent central voice as well as the regional development aspects of the Department, which, as the Secretary of State knows, I have long supported.
    The difficulties that I have with my voice this afternoon are a result not of the British hospitality industry, but of the excellence of British dentistry.
    Mr. Smith: Coming from a member of the Government that cut so savagely the funding for tourism in this country—
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): And dentistry.
    Mr. Smith: I forbore to mention dentistry.
    I am afraid that the right hon. Lady's comment is a bit rich. We have ring-fenced the funding to support English tourism. However, we have sensibly asked whether the current structures for delivering that support are the right ones. People across the tourism industry are asking that. It is important that we get the issues right. That is why we are consulting the industry, local authorities and interested people during the next month and a half. We want to get the answers right—the right hon. Lady did not.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on hanging on to his job; nobody is more delighted than I that he has done so. May I join those who are asking him to apologise for failing to

    9
    explain to the House on Friday the consequences of his meddlesome departmental review? If he feels the need to behave like a control freak, we might at least be told why. Will he admit that, in contrast to the bland reassurances that we have just heard, he sounded on Friday the death knell of the English tourist board, against the interests and wishes of thousands of small businesses?
    Mr. Smith: We tabled the written answer at 9 o'clock on Friday morning and provided all relevant documents to the House of Commons Library, as, indeed, would be only right and proper. I am astonished, though, that, after such a major series of announcements on Friday about improvements in the arts, museums, sports and tourism, and a radical change in the way in which we approached those matters, the only point on which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends can fasten is the timing of the announcement. Is it not about time that we had some grown-up opposition?
    Mr. Ainsworth: There is plenty in that document to consider and criticise, such as the abandonment of the arm's-length principle and massive Government interference across the board, but let me return to the tourism industry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the speech made by the chairman of the English tourist board only last week, in which he drew attention to the grave concern expressed by the industry about the then rumours that the English tourist board would be abolished? Did not a recent telephone poll by Travel Weekly—[Laughter.] That laughter from Labour Members shows their extraordinary ignorance. The publication is the leading weekly trade journal of the important tourism industry. The poll revealed 97 per cent. support in the industry for enhancing and strengthening the English tourist board.
    Before the Secretary of State sets out on his flight to Tuscany, still heaving sighs of relief, will he please reflect on the fact that he will be returning later in the year to an industry that has had to put up with not only the lousy weather, for which we do not blame the Government—[Interruption.] It is tempting to do so, but I shall not. However, we shall blame the Government, as will the tourism industry, for the Chancellor's high tide of the pound. The industry will not forgive the Government for trampling on its hopes and aspirations like small boys on sand castles.
    Mr. Smith: What an interesting speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to hear what the English tourist board said on Friday. It said:
    "The ETB welcomes the DCMS' recognition of its Agenda 2000 consultation in formulating clearer priorities for supporting English tourism."
    Just a few weeks ago, the British Hospitality Association said:
    "The industry has never received so much interest from Government and we are happy that we have built up a very fruitful relationship".
    The chairman of the Tourism Society said:
    "It is extremely regrettable that the Select Committee report created such a critical impression when the reality is the opposite".
    I prefer to listen to them than the hon. Gentleman any day.

    Sports (Disabled People)
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: What steps he has taken to encourage the participation in sport of people with disabilities. [50775]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): The English Sports Council is working with the Government to change the culture and structure of sport to ensure that all sports providers offer a wide range of opportunities to people with disabilities. People with disabilities must be able to choose when and how they wish to participate, and opportunities should be provided for people with disabilities to be consulted, represented and employed at all levels of sport.
    Mr. Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating the people who work with the many voluntary bodies, such as Worcester disability sports group and Cheslyn Hay Otters, which not only encourage people with disabilities to participate in sport, but help them to achieve and excel in sport?
    Mr. Banks: Yes, I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the disability groups in his constituency. The English Sports Council works through the National Development Agency for Disabled Sports, which serves as a first-stop shop, providing information and advice nationally and regionally. Encouraging excellence for sportsmen and sportswomen with disabilities is a considerable priority for the Government. On Wednesday, I shall be at the launch of the football task force report on disabled access to football grounds and, on Thursday, I shall be in Leicester to open the world cup football championship for those with learning disabilities—if anyone wants to see some excellent football, they should come along. There are some tremendously skilled sportsmen and sportswomen out there; the mere fact that they have disabilities is no bar to their performing at the highest international level.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Disability Rights Commission, which was announced last week, is a major step forward for disabled people in terms of access to sport, as it will guarantee access, not only to employment, but to goods and services? Will he assure the House that his Department will work closely with the commission to ensure that disabled people's rights to access to sport are promoted?
    Mr. Banks: Yes.

    New National Stadium
    Mr. Graham Stringer: If he will make a statement on the building of the new national stadium. [50776]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I am pleased with the progress to date on the building of a new national stadium, which will be a vital ingredient for a successful world cup bid for 2006 and for a future Olympics. It is still early days but, as all the partners are working productively together, I am confident that they

    11
    can meet the objective of developing a new stadium for football, athletics and rugby league in which the nation can take great pride.
    Mr. Stringer: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and agree that first-rate sporting facilities are a prerequisite for bringing the world cup and Olympic games to this country. Does he recall that, when the Sports Council decided that the new national stadium would be a revamped Wembley, it also announced a new stadium for the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002. May we look forward to a similar response on progress towards a first-rate stadium in Manchester for those games?
    Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend knows that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring a successful Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002—there is no equivocation whatever about that. He will also know from his privileged position in Manchester that considerable discussions are continuing on how to deliver those games and a stadium. We must ensure that the Commonwealth games in 2002 are a great success; they are, after all, still one of the greatest sporting events on the planet and they must work as well in this country as I know that they will in Kuala Lumpur later this year.

    British Films
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: How his Department defines a British film for the purposes of funding. [50777]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): The current statutory criteria are set out in schedule 1 to the Films Act 1985. The film policy review group report recommended the redefinition of a qualifying film for tax benefits and also proposed the definition of a culturally British film for monitoring and marketing performance.
    Dr. Starkey: As a great fan of cinema, I welcome the increasing emphasis on the film industry as part of cultural industries. As my right hon. Friend is aware, film animation companies, such as Triffic Films in Milton Keynes, play a key role in British film production. Will he assure me that any changes in the definition of British film will enhance the role of film animation?
    Mr. Clarke: I am happy to say that the answer is yes. I have had the opportunity to visit the Cardiff international animation festival, and I remind the House that one of the Oscars that we won this year, notwithstanding "Titanic", was for "Geri's Game", which was a great tribute to British animation. My hon. Friend's local animation group, Triffic, is mentioned in the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union's "Animation UK", and she can be absolutely certain that animation is taken as seriously by the Government as it should be.

    Healthy Living Centres
    Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for developing healthy living centres. [50778]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Mark Fisher): The new opportunities fund is now in place and will provide £300 million for the establishment of a network of healthy living centres across the United Kingdom over the next three years. The centres will reduce health inequalities by giving priority to the needs of people in the most deprived areas.
    Mr. Rammell: I warmly welcome the Government's initiative, which is a far more beneficial use of lottery funding than, for example, the £13 million that was spent on the Churchill papers under the previous Government. I urge and re-urge my hon. Friend to ensure that the criteria for funding the centres are drawn so as to prioritise areas of high poverty and tackle one of the remaining real inequalities in society: the fact that people from socio-economic groups D and E are three times more likely to suffer from heart disease than those in groups A and B.
    Mr. Fisher: As my hon. Friend says, the new opportunities fund will target areas of urban and rural deprivation and the people who suffer worse than average health, and will complement the Government's plans for health action zones.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister agree that the best way of keeping people from requiring the services of healthy living centres is a regime of healthy exercise? In that respect, the withdrawal of physical education from the core curriculum is a most retrograde step. Will he take that up with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment?
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. Physical education has not been withdrawn from the national curriculum.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)

    Millennium Dome (Funding)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What use he makes of lobbying organisations to promote and secure funding for the dome and its contents. [50797]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The New Millennium Experience Company is responsible for promoting and securing sponsorship for the dome's contents. The company has not employed lobbying organisations for that or any other purpose.
    Mr. Prentice: I expected a more illuminating reply from a Minister who casts such a long shadow. The right hon. Gentleman, as he will be, told me in a written answer that he never addresses meetings organised by lobbyists, yet The Independent on 9 July reported that he would be briefing clients of GPC Market Access: a fact that he confirmed in The Observer of 12 July. Why are those

    13
    meetings held off the record, under Chatham House rules? What does the Minister say privately that he will not say publicly? Will he invite me along to one of those meetings and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Mandelson: In so far as any of that question related to the millennium dome, I can confirm that I neither procure nor negotiate sponsorship for it, and that I certainly do not use the services of any lobbying organisation for that purpose.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He knows a great deal about trade, although I am not so sure what he knows about industry; we look forward to finding out.
    Will the Minister make clear the difference between private sponsorship that has been indicated and private sponsorship that has been signed up? How much of the £150 million of private sponsorship for the exhibition is the subject of firm legal agreement? Will his new responsibilities mean that he can extract the remaining millions from the private sector without recourse to his cronies in the one industry that he understands really well?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the company's target for sponsorship from the private sector is bang on schedule. I believe that we have raised more than £100 million, and the target is £150 million by the end of the year. That is not bad going, considering that we started in February and it is only July.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: May I remind my hon. Friend that I was among those who lobbied hard from Birmingham and the west midlands for the millennium exhibition to be sited more sensibly at the National Exhibition Centre? Having said that, I visited the site in Greenwich with colleagues last week and it is one of the most impressive pieces of engineering that I have seen. I hope that the exhibition will be an enormous success.
    Mr. Mandelson: I thank my hon. Friend. Increasingly, as people realise what a feat both the construction and the engineering of the dome are and, shortly, as it fills with its contents, the project will inspire and excite the nation. I am confident in it and, in view of today's developments, it gives me special satisfaction to say that the millennium dome will come to symbolise something bold, self-confident and forward looking about Britain and it will say a great deal for Britain to the rest of the world.

    Millennium Dome (HFCs)
    Mr. Robert Syms: What recent representations he has received on the use of hydrofluorocarbons at the millennium dome. [50798]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I have recently received a number of representations from members of the public, via their Members of Parliament, about the use of HFCs in the air cooling system at the millennium dome.
    Mr. Syms: Does not the Minister think that it is a shame that we are using HFCs, which result in global
    14
    warming, in what should be a major flagship project? Natural alternatives are available, so will he reconsider the decision or leave a note for his successor to do so?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am glad to say that I shall be leaving any notes on the dome for myself. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that HFC refrigerants are a widely used alternative to the less environmentally friendly chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons—CFCs and HCFCs. I accept that that procurement, with its use of HFC refrigerants, has not met with universal approval, but the company believes that the chiller units selected offer the safest and most flexible solution, given the time and budgetary constraints under which we are operating. The company has set a target that HFC emissions from the units will not exceed 1 per cent., which more than meets the provisions of the voluntary agreement between the Government and the refrigeration industry, which cites emissions of 10 per cent. So, that is pretty good doing for the dome.

    Millennium Experience (Corporate Sponsorship)
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on progress in attracting corporate sponsorship for the millennium experience. [50799]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The New Millennium Experience Company is to be congratulated on the significant progress that it has made in attracting private sector sponsorship. As I reported to the House earlier, more than £100 million has been secured thus far, including contributions from British Telecom, BSkyB, Manpower, Tesco, Marks and Spencer, British Airways and BAA plc. The company is well on its way to meeting its target of £150 million by the end of the year.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that informative answer. Exactly how many of the corporate sponsors of the millennium experience come from the manufacturing sector of industry, for the devastated state of which he has today accepted responsibility?
    Mr. Mandelson: For pure brass neck and nerve, that probably takes a large biscuit. The hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed to find leading British manufacturing companies represented in the dome because they are providing considerable sponsorship, as will be reported to the House shortly.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend's answer mean that with the corporate sponsorship each zone of the dome will be open exactly as planned and completed in the way predicted a few months ago?
    Mr. Mandelson: Yes, not only will the dome be completed on time to a very high quality, but I am glad to say that, following the Prime Minister's visit to the dome for the topping-out ceremony, when he described it as
    "too good to pull down",
    the Government are inviting expressions of interest in its use after 2000. They will be drawing up the criteria against which bids will be judged. We have in mind three

    15
    sets of criteria: financial criteria ensuring that English Partnerships recoups the money spent on clearing up the site; environmental criteria to ensure that any proposal is sympathetic to wider development of the Greenwich peninsula and the Thames gateway; and criteria to ensure that fitting use is made of the dome, given its unique national status. That is a change from the policy of the previous Administration, who intended to pull the dome down a year after building it, but I am sure that the change will be welcomed throughout the House.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, congratulate the Minister on his advancement? I hope that he will be successful in his new role in encouraging sponsorship, not only for the millennium experience, but for the arts and millennium experiences in other parts of the country, as many of the companies that he has said are involved at Greenwich have a presence the length and breadth of Great Britain.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful for the comments by the right hon. Gentleman. The millennium dome will feature not only the first-class design for which the United Kingdom is becoming famous, but many of our applied arts, too. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the millennium celebrations will mean not only the dome and the associated national programme, but a £100 million nationwide sporting, cultural, heritage and artistic festival that will allow the entire country to have an excellent year-long new year's eve party.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    1997 Report and Accounts
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What representations the Church Commissioners have received following the publication of their 1997 report and accounts. [50807]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners: As I am a modest hon. Member, let me say that the Church Commissioners have received praise for their performance, and support for their investment strategy. In 1997, the value of assets increased by £505 million to £3.48 billion. The performance of the stock exchange and property portfolios has been independently measured as better than the performance of 99 per cent. of other funds.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome the return on assets achieved by the commissioners in 1997, which was in the order of 20.8 per cent., following an increase of nearly 18 per cent. in 1996. Will the commissioner assure us that the increase in assets will be used to benefit parishes directly, particularly the most needy ones?
    Mr. Bell: Yes. The increased value of the assets will enable us to continue to work with parishes to ensure stable and sustainable financial support for the Church into the next millennium. As the hon. Gentleman has said,
    16
    the value of assets has grown strongly in recent years, and that follows a change in investment policy away from a high-yielding, low-growth mix of assets to a fund based-more on stock exchange investments, which offer higher growth prospects in the longer term.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Following that question, will my hon. Friend comment on that proof of good Government practice, which shows that returns will come from a popular Labour Government delivering their commitments, and on how companies can deliver resources on the Church's behalf?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is not at all related to the question.

    Ethical Investment Policy
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What steps the Church Commissioners have taken to communicate their ethical investment policy to the wider Church. [50808]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners: The Church of England's ethical investment working group, which co-ordinates that work, makes an annual report of its activities to the Synod. I recently attended an excellent meeting at York at which the group's work was discussed with a regular to and fro between the commissioners and Church people.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that his job in getting the message of ethical investment over would be made much easier if the bishops gathered at Lambeth spent more time discussing ethics and less indulging in their apparent obsession with what consenting Anglicans do in the privacy of their bedrooms?
    Mr. Bell: On the first part of that question, ethical policy in the wider Church is not likely to be debated at the Lambeth conference, but my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that there will be a debate on third world debt. The resolutions will be debated next week and will be concluded in the final week of the conference.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: As well as communicating their ethical investment policy to the Church, could the Church Commissioners do more to ensure that policy reflects the views of members of the Church? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that there is full consultation with the ordinary people in the pew before the commissioners make their ethical investment decisions?
    Mr. Bell: Yes. There is a full consultation procedure. Our ethical investment working group is always looking at positive criteria. We examine every company portfolio in which we invest and take that back to the Church through the Synod. Not only was there a fringe meeting on ethical investment policy at the Synod, but we made a report to the Synod through the First Estates Commissioner. The debate is on-going, but we always welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments and those of others in this field.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What plans do the Church Commissioners have, in respect of

    17
    investing in their core business, for celebrating the 2000th anniversary of the birth of the Church's founder? Is there any possibility of investment in the millennium dome?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for suggestions on how best we should spend our money. Investment in the dome lies outside the responsibilities of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, but in a personal capacity I have worked with others to ensure that the spirit zone will be a success, be properly financed and built, and reflect our Christian heritage.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Housing Associations
    Mr. David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the resourcing implications of extending the role of the National Audit Office in respect of housing associations. [50810]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 March, accompanied by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Among other matters, we discussed the case for the Comptroller and Auditor General having a guaranteed right of access to all voluntary housing bodies, which are in receipt of central Government grants totalling £1.2 billion a year. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman and the House before, I believe that the absence of such rights of access represents a serious gap in accountability for public funds. The resource implications of a guaranteed right of access to the voluntary housing sector would depend on the frequency and extent to which such rights were exercised. It would be for Parliament to decide what additional resources to provide to meet the needs identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have been conducting a lonely dialogue on this subject for some months, occasionally joined by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Will he scour the ranks of the newly announced Government to find someone who will take the matter seriously and change the system so that we have proper accountability across the whole public sector?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a major scandal that the European Court of Auditors can find out where this £1.2 billion of public money is spent when the
    18
    Comptroller and Auditor General, acting on behalf of the House, cannot. This is a major gap and he is right to keep raising the matter.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have great faith in my right hon. Friend's ability to get this matter examined seriously. While he is about it, will he look at the interrelationship between the National Audit Office and the auditing system for some nationalised industries? It is clear that with the growth of independent agencies, some parts of the Government system are not making clear to Parliament exactly how they spend their money. That is a worrying gap.
    Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is right. I have campaigned for many years to try to give the Comptroller and Auditor General access to the nationalised industries in the same way that he should have access to the Housing Corporation. My hon. Friend is right to pursue this subject, and I hope that she continues to pursue it.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Asset Allocations
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: If he will make a statement on the Church Commissioners' strategy for the allocation of their assets. [50811]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners: During 1997, the Church Commissioners conducted a comprehensive review of their investment and asset allocation strategy, which aims to provide long-term, stable support for the Church's ministry. As a result, they are rebalancing their assets in favour of securities, primarily UK equities, while reducing their property exposure.
    Mr. Pike: Given the recent turbulence in the overseas equity market, will my hon. Friend explain why the Church Commissioners are increasing their investment in equities at present?
    Mr. Bell: There has been volatility in the far east equity markets, and I have said that the global economy has a thatched roof and there is a fire in that thatched roof in the far east. The commissioners were fortunate in that their exposure was relatively low in that area. Having studied independent research, they believe that UK equities provide the best long-term match with their expenditure commitments, and they intend to retain them as a cornerstone of their fund, whatever the short-term fluctuations in the market, to increase their assets from 50 to 65 per cent. of those assets.

Legg Inquiry
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the Legg report.
When I appointed Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs to conduct their inquiry, I asked them to complete their work before the House rose for the recess in order that I might report it to the House. I am publishing their report today, on the first sitting day after I received it.
The inquiry interviewed seven Ministers and 49 officials. Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs had access to all the relevant official papers. A member of their team conducted a random search of the files at the Foreign Office and found no document of any relevance to the inquiry which had not already been disclosed.
One of the first findings of the report is that Sandline International and its arms played little or no part in the removal of the junta from Sierra Leone. It is therefore not surprising that the citizens of Sierra Leone cannot comprehend why anyone looks for evidence of a political scandal in the restoration of a civilian Government, in place of a brutal and savage military regime.
Nor have Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs uncovered any political scandal, after a lengthy inquiry and a search through all the files. Their key findings, in their own words, are that
"No Minister gave encouragement or approval to Sandline's plan to send a shipment of arms into Sierra Leone."
Officials of the African department
"neither encouraged nor approved the Sandline contract".
The report concludes:
"at no time did they advocate or authorise actions in breach of the law."
Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs find no fault with the conduct of the military liaison officers. In the matter of the much publicised repair to the Sandline helicopter by the crew of HMS Cornwall, the report finds that their action
"was not improper and was sensible in the circumstances",
in that
"it helped HMS Cornwall to carry out its humanitarian mission".
The briefings that Ministers received for the debates on 10 and 12 March were "deficient" and did not provide them with the briefing that they should have received on the referral of the allegations of a breach of the arms embargo.
In sum, after an exhaustive trawl of the files and more than 60 hearings of witnesses, the Legg inquiry has concluded that there was no policy by Ministers to breach the arms embargo, and there was no conspiracy among officials to undermine Government policy.
As the Legg report finds, there were a number of misjudgments by officials, largely due to overload. I have therefore asked the permanent secretary to interview each of the relevant officials and to counsel them on the basis of the findings concerning them—[Interruption.] This is a matter of supreme importance to the careers of a large
20
number of officials. It does no credit to those officials to treat it as a matter of levity. Hon. Members may wish to hear that the Legg report notes:
"the officials concerned were working hard and conscientiously and should not be judged too harshly".
I therefore see no case for any further action against officials.
Mr. Penfold, the high commissioner to Sierra Leone, showed great courage and a commitment to staying at his post during the military coup last year. As a result of his consistent support to President Kabbah, he has won high standing for Britain in the country where he represents Britain. However, the Legg report details a number of criticisms of Mr. Penfold. Mr. Penfold should have taken steps to inform himself more fully about the scope of the arms embargo. He showed a lack of caution in his dealings with Colonel Spicer and to that extent gave Sandline a degree of approval for which he had no authority. He should have made more efforts to ensure that the African department had a proper record of his conversations with President Kabbah and Colonel Spicer. I have asked the permanent secretary to write to him drawing his attention to the relevant findings of the Legg report, but in the circumstances I do not think it would be justified, or in the diplomatic interest, to take any further proceedings against him.
Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs state that they hope that the report will help the Foreign Office to close the chapter for officials. I agree with them. There will be no scapegoats, and this should be the end of the matter as far as individual officials are concerned. However, for the Foreign Office as an institution, the Legg report must provide the opening of a new chapter.
As Foreign Secretary, I am responsible for the Department and I am determined that we should find out why mistakes were made and make sure that they cannot happen again. The Legg report concludes that most of the trouble originated from systemic and cultural factors. I am therefore today announcing a sweeping programme of changes to address those institutional problems.
During the period covered by the inquiry, from October last year, the managerial structures of the Foreign Office remained exactly as we inherited them in May last year. The departmental hierarchies were the same. The working practices were the same. The procedures for the handling of intelligence were the same. The time has come to change them. The final chapter of the Legg report helpfully details the lessons that must be applied in the future management of the Foreign Office. I am pleased to tell the House that we accept every one of the recommendations in the report.
The Legg report finds that there was not "a sufficiently high priority" for the enforcement of sanctions. There was a dedicated sanctions enforcement desk in the Foreign Office, but the previous Government abolished it in 1996. I can tell the House that I have instructed that such a central unit shall be restored. It will be led by an official whose sole function is to make sure that the enforcement of sanctions receives the full priority that it deserves.
The Legg report expresses concern at the handling of defence intelligence reports when they arrive in the Foreign Office. It is not acceptable that even one such report should have been destroyed before being seen by the relevant official. I have therefore strengthened the

21
procedures to ensure that all such reports are properly logged and that there are clear instructions for their distribution.
The Legg report concludes that there should be
"more explicit guidance on how to manage relations"
with private military companies. I have issued guidance that there should be no Foreign Office contact with private military firms without permission, and that where such meetings do take place they should recorded in a full, written report.
The Legg report found that
"the demands on some Foreign Office officials meant that they had to work at or beyond the limits of their capacity"
and that
"this was a contributory cause of what went wrong".
During the previous Parliament, my two predecessors at the Foreign Office accepted cuts in their budget of 14 per cent. During the period in office of the previous Prime Minister, the number of staff of desk officer grade in London fell by a quarter. Conservative Members have become fond of describing the Foreign Office as a Rolls-Royce. It is a pity that they tried to run it on two-star petrol.
Only one decade ago, there were 430 staff in the African command. Now there are 328—a loss of about 100 posts. That sharp reduction of staff at the time of an increase in crises in Africa was part of the reason why mistakes were made by staff under impossible pressure. The recent spending review provides the first real increase in the Foreign Office budget for half a dozen years. I have given instructions that part of that increase must be used to strengthen the number of staff on the hard-pressed desks dealing with west Africa and Sierra Leone.
The last lesson of the Legg report is that—[Interruption.] It would have been welcome if hon. Members now chattering had taken some of those actions during the 18 years in which they were in office. After those 18 years, the Legg report finds that there is room for improvement in modern management at the Foreign Office and for fewer layers in the hierarchy. The Foreign Office attracts many of the brightest and most energetic recruits to Whitehall. They deserve a management structure that makes full use of their energy and enables them to rise on merit.
I can announce today that we have agreed on a programme of 60 different measures to improve the management of the Foreign Office. We shall recruit professional managers to specialist posts such as administration, personnel and resources to bring to the Foreign Office modern management methods. We shall increase temporary exchanges to and from the private sector, non-governmental organisations and the academic world, to bring the Foreign Office up to date with working practices and policy thinking in the outside world.
We shall introduce assessment centres to evaluate staff performance to make sure that promotion is made on merit. We shall reduce the hierarchy in the Foreign Office to enable officials to take more responsibility sooner. We shall improve the gender and ethnic balance throughout the Foreign Office—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will observe that Opposition Members do not want a Foreign Office that is representative of all the strengths of modern Britain.
22
In developing this programme, we have drawn on proposals for change from younger officials. I want them also—not only senior management—to have ownership of this project. I shall therefore invite a number of younger officials to form a working group to monitor progress and come up with fresh ideas.
I have addressed those parts of the Legg report that demolish the fantasy of a ministerial or official conspiracy. Before concluding, I want to address the reality of what has happened in Sierra Leone.
Britain was first on the scene with humanitarian aid after the restoration of President Kabbah. Since the last debate in the House, we have provided police officers to help train a new civilian police force, sponsored the United Nations resolution to provide military observers and provided staff to be those military observers. We are providing aid to fund the process of civil reconstruction and military demobilisation.
Britain is, to date, the only donor to the UN trust fund for Sierra Leone. On Wednesday, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), will attend a donors' conference in New York and will urge others in the international community to join us in helping to fund democracy in Sierra Leone.
I have been challenged to produce the report by my hon. Friend the Minister of State after his visit to Sierra Leone in March. I have no difficulty in sharing with the House his key conclusion:
"It would be hard to find anywhere on the planet at the moment where there is more enthusiasm for Britain. Our moral, financial and practical support really is welcomed and appreciated."
That is the reality of Britain's standing in Sierra Leone among the people who know at first hand about our dealings with their country.
I therefore welcome the findings of the Legg inquiry. I shall implement all its recommendations, which will help to give Britain a modern Foreign Office. Now that the report has been published, it is time that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) started to recognise the immense good will for Britain that we have secured in Sierra Leone and tried to understand that that represents a success, not a failure of foreign policy.
Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the access to the report that he gave me this morning, and for the slightly less generous access that he gave me to the statement that he has just made.
This report, although no one would ever have guessed it from the complacency of the Foreign Secretary's statement, discloses a dire state of affairs in one of our great Departments of State. It is severely critical both of Ministers and of officials, and Ministers directly bear responsibility for the most serious failures.
When the Foreign Secretary first came to the House to deal with this matter in response to my private notice question on 6 May, he said that it was a serious matter that should be treated "with great gravity". When Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, was first fully briefed on the matter, he minuted:
"This could be very serious."

23
Both he and the Foreign Secretary were right, as is made clear by the report. Their attitude is in sharp contrast with that of the Prime Minister, who described it all as "overblown hoo-hah".
The inquiry that led to this report was not the inquiry that we asked for. It should have been held in public. If the Foreign Secretary had meant what he said about the need for an open investigation, it would have been held in public. The notes of evidence taken by the inquiry have not been published. Will the Foreign Secretary now undertake to publish them in the interests of open government, so that everyone can reach his own judgment, and will he publish the documents that are listed in the appendices to the report?
The picture painted by this report is of a Foreign Office in shambles. We already knew that Ministers contradicted each other and themselves, that officials contradicted Ministers and themselves and that telegrams were lost and faxes destroyed, but the detailed evidence in the report is almost beyond belief. Letters from the high commissioner go missing, reports from the military liaison officer in Sierra Leone are destroyed, officials are asked to attend meetings to take a note because they
"should be on their guard",
but no note is taken.
In all, the report contains an amazing 30 specific criticisms of the Foreign Office. It attributes those failures to what it describes as "systemic and cultural factors". We do not have to look very far to identify the source of those factors. In a television programme entitled "How To Be Foreign Secretary", the Foreign Secretary made the following boast:
"I have found that you can be a successful Foreign Secretary if you focus on the big questions and not necessarily finish the paperwork."
If officials know that the Foreign Secretary is not going to finish the paperwork, what incentive do they have to take care of it? The Foreign Secretary has told us about all the things that he intends to do to sort out the Foreign Office. Does he not accept that the cultural factors that are referred to in the report are a direct result of his own attitude and of the approach that he boasts that he takes?
The report is not exhaustive. It does not, for example, comment explicitly on the protestations of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has responsibility for Africa, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and of the Foreign Secretary on his behalf that the Minister of State saw papers merely for noting in mid-April and was not fully informed of the allegations made by Sandline until 1 May; but is it not crystal clear from paragraphs 9.50 to 9.56 of the report that the Minister of State knew all the essentials of those allegations in mid-April, considered them in detail and did nothing?
The Foreign Secretary told the House that those papers gave rise to
"no ground for apprehension or concern".—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 160.]
The report describes those same papers as "sensitive and potentially troublesome". Given the complete inconsistency between the account of events in the report and the account given to the House and its Select Committee by the
24
Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, does the Foreign Secretary now accept that his earlier account was completely inaccurate, and will he now withdraw it?
Most damning of all, the report explains very clearly what in essence went wrong and why. The Foreign Secretary said that the report failed to uncover any political scandal. That is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman's culture of complacency. In fact, the report concludes that the Foreign Office should have explained both the arms embargo imposed by the United Nations resolution and the Order in Council more widely and effectively. The report states that their failure to do so created a hazard for all who were affected. The nature of that hazard is clear: it is that British citizens might commit a criminal offence under the Order in Council and risk imprisonment for seven years in consequence.
The cause of the failure to explain the arms embargo more effectively is equally clear. Devastatingly, the report concludes that, although the British framers of the United Nations resolution that imposed the arms embargo on Sierra Leone intended that embargo to be comprehensive in its coverage and had no doubt that it was, British officials and Ministers—and Ministers—played the report down, not accidentally but deliberately. That is the report's finding, and the reason, at least in part, was that Ministers knew that there were those on the ground in west Africa who, in the words of the report, explicitly contemplated the use of force. Paragraph 3.29 of the report states:
"Government has a responsibility to give citizens, and its own officials, reasonable publicity and explanation of the laws it makes under delegated powers, especially laws creating criminal offences."
That was not done in this case. Given that failure and the report's finding that it was the result of a deliberate attempt by Ministers to deceive, how can the Foreign Secretary remain in office?
Mr. Cook: I have to report to the House that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe had six hours in which to prepare that response, in the course of which he could find only five questions. That is despite the fact that his six hours to study one volume was twice as long as the time that I had to study the five volumes of the Scott inquiry. I am bound to say that I came back with more than five questions.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reading of the report does not seem to have been complete. He quoted paragraph 9.55 as showing that my hon. Friend the Minister of State did not closely consider the documents that were given to him because, as it stated in the paragraph "their allegations were sensitive"—[Interruption.] That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. He read that paragraph. I shall read to the House the rest of the paragraph. It states that the documents:
"were also misleading, since they appeared to be saying that the FCO had no prior knowledge of any shipment of arms. In the absence of reference to the full facts …they were substantially incomplete."
My hon. Friend the Minister of State was entirely justified in coming to the conclusion that he reached in mid-April.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe says that the report is severely critical of Ministers. He has the opportunity to speak again at the end of this exchange. I challenge him to find one single paragraph in

25
the hundred-odd pages of the report which is severely critical of Ministers. Of course he complained that this was not a public inquiry, but a private, independent inquiry not held in public. That is a bit rich from a right hon. and learned Member who as Home Secretary never once ordered a public inquiry into the 17 times that he lost cases in the courts. For that matter, he never once ordered an independent Legg-type inquiry either. In reality, he wanted a public inquiry because it would have taken another two years to finish, in the course of which he could have gone around every studio peddling his conspiracy theories without their being knocked on the head as they have been today.
Having found nothing of substance in the report, the right hon. and learned Gentleman fell back on the device of playing the man rather than playing the ball. His attacks on me would be offensive if his own record did not make them comic. After all, he was the Home Secretary who explained that he was not responsible when the IRA escaped from prisons, because that was an operational matter. He was responsible for the policy, which was to keep them inside.
I am glad to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a partner and I am glad that events today have confirmed that we will be together for another year. He is very helpful to me. However, in fairness to everybody else, it is time that he started to show some interest in serious foreign policy questions, instead of making mountains out of molehills, as he has done on this issue.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to see the Legg report in advance, which I commend to other Ministers as an excellent precedent in dealing with Chairmen of Select Committees. Having read the report over some seven hours this morning, I do not recognise the description given by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
Is not the clear message in the report that no Minister encouraged, approved or had knowledge of the sale of arms to Sierra Leone? Although the misunderstandings, accidents and human failings which are detailed clearly in the report need to be seriously addressed, they give no support to those who have consistently tried to pillory Ministers to go for the men and the women and not for the ball, and who tried, unavailingly, to dress up the matter as though it were an arms to Iraq scandal.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend both for his statement and for his thanks to me for making the report available to him six hours before this statement. He has plainly considered the report with his usual close attention and diligence. I confirm that he has come to the absolutely correct conclusion—[Interruption.]—as will every other hon. Member who bothers to read his way through the report.
The report makes it clear that there was no ministerial approval, encouragement or prior knowledge of the Sandline contract. I look forward to my exchange tomorrow with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, when I will be able to demonstrate that to all its members.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Notwithstanding the constrained language of the report and the Foreign Secretary's characteristic and robust
26
defence, is not the truth that the report reveals an embarrassing catalogue of error and inadequate management, which has no doubt substantially dented the Foreign Office's reputation for effortless superiority?
As the report finds that senior officials in the Foreign Office did not give sanctions enforcement a sufficiently high priority, whose was the responsibility for that? As the report finds that Mr. Penfold acted without authority in some matters and showed a lack of caution in others, whose was the responsibility for that? Who was directing his actions in an area of foreign policy of obvious importance to the Government? Where is the evidence of the ministerial scrutiny which the House was entitled to expect?
Why did the Minister of State persist in giving the impression in the House and elsewhere that the arms embargo was confined to the military junta which had seized power, when it clearly applied to any transfer of arms to anyone in Sierra Leone, as the report has found? If, as the report concludes, misunderstanding of the arms embargo was a significant part of the problem, did not the Minister of State contribute to that misunderstanding?
The Foreign Secretary has made substantial proposals for the restructuring of the Department, but the House would be interested to know what lessons Ministers intend to learn from these matters.
Mr. Cook: I can respond straight away to the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point. We have already issued guidance on the briefing for Ministers, in particular that there should be a clear and highly prominent display of those points that are likely to be sensitive in Parliament and among the public.
To pick up one of the wider points made in the Legg report, it highlights that there has been a lack of sensitivity in the handling of a matter that might be of concern to Parliament and the public. That is why I believe that it is important to press ahead with the commitments that I have given the House to increase exchanges to and from the Foreign Office with the outside world, in order to break down what is possibly too closed a culture within the Foreign Office.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about contact and control of the high commissioner to Sierra Leone. In fairness to both sides, it should be borne in mind that he was operating in unique circumstances. He was in an hotel in a country where there was no British mission, and where there was therefore no opportunity for secure communication.
Mr. A. J. Beith: That is not true.
Mr. Cook: As a matter of fact, it is true. The high commissioner was in an hotel in Conakry, where we have no British mission. Therefore, any secure communication he made had to go via either Germany or Nigeria. In those circumstances, the breakdown in communication is understandable, but it should not have happened.
I should like to pick up the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening remark. There are lessons in the matter for Foreign Office management, and I have outlined to the House how I intend to act on them. I hope that I will be able to work with the Select Committee in seeing through those changes and in discussing how we

27
shall apply them. However, I tell both him and the House that, going into that programme of changes, it will not help us to encourage anyone to believe that there is effortless superiority on the part of anyone. It is important that we frankly examine the things that went wrong, work out why they went wrong, learn from those mistakes and show the humility—all within the Foreign Office—to apply the lessons of those mistakes.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Foreign Secretary reflect on the fact that many people are uncomfortable about firms such as Sandline being able to continue operating from the United Kingdom? I wonder whether Ministers will examine the efficacy of such military outfits working from here, and consider whether, as a matter of principle, they should be regulated or banned from operating in the United Kingdom.
We are overstretched not only in Africa but, for example, in the Caspian region and in the former Soviet Union's Asian republics. As a crisis comparable with that in Sierra Leone could occur in other dangerous spots in the world, is there not serious overstretch which has to be dealt with urgently? The Foreign Secretary has already given the example of Conakry, which has no United Kingdom representation. Does not our level of representation stand in stark contrast to that of the Federal Republic of Germany, which has many more diplomatic missions—diplomats and trade officials—around the world, yet does not have the legacy of modern empire and obligations, as we do? Is it not time that we substantially increased both the number of countries in which we are represented and the number of diplomats representing us there?
Mr. Cook: First—in response to my hon. Friend's question about military firms—the Government will continue to keep the matter under review. I am interested in the regulations for such firms that South Africa has introduced. However, I should tell him that the immediate first step is the one that we were right to have taken: to ensure that any Foreign Office contact with such firms occurs only with permission and with a full report on a written record. That arrangement is now in place and should prevent a recurrence of some of the difficulties that arose from incautious contacts with Sandline over this year.
My hon. Friend made a perfectly reasonable point on overstretch. All the countries in the Caspian basin region became independent new countries at the very time when the previous Government were cutting the Foreign Office budget and there were no spare resources to be redeployed. Consequently, we have 13 diplomats in total among five countries there, compared with more than 80 diplomats from Germany. That is the current situation in a region that will very shortly be producing 10 per cent. of the world's oil production—which is why it is so important that we ensure that we have a more adequate diplomatic representation. I can tell my hon. Friend that one of the priority areas where we will be spending our extra resources will be the Caspian region.
Mr. David Wilshire: As a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, my main concern is to know whether the Foreign Secretary has no shame. Does
28
he have no embarrassment at blaming a shortage of officials for his Ministers' failure to read and act on their papers? Does he have absolutely no embarrassment at dumping almost all the blame on Peter Penfold and accepting absolutely none himself? Does he have no embarrassment at publishing the findings of the Legg inquiry while refusing to publish the evidence?
Mr. Cook: It is not I but the Legg report that is pointing out that many of the mistakes that occurred had, as a contributory cause, the fact that, to use the Legg report's words, officials in the Foreign Office had
"to work at or beyond the limits of their capacity."
It was the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported who left us with a Foreign Office in which those officials faced that impossible overload. The hon. Gentleman asks about shame; I am inclined to ask him whether the previous Government have no shame about putting officials in the position of having far too heavy a work load to discharge.
I would perfectly happily accept any criticisms of myself in the report, but there are none. There are some criticisms of Peter Penfold, but I thought that I put them perfectly in perspective to the House. He is a high commissioner who has served Britain well, and I have no intention of taking further formal disciplinary proceedings against him. As I said, there will be no scapegoats. The important thing is that, as an institution, we learn the lessons and make the necessary changes.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of the Legg report has exposed the cynical attempt by Members on the Opposition Front Bench and some members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to create something of substance out of something that simply did not exist? The previous Government are responsible for the cuts in budget, staff and the enforcement desk. Instead of allowing the Select Committee to get on with its real work, the Opposition have tried to use it to concoct a conspiracy. Should not those who continually call for the resignation of my hon. Friend the Minister of State start apologising to the House?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West makes his own points in his own way, and it is unnecessary for me to add to them. However, as he refers to the Select Committee, of which he is a member, I should like to say that I hope that the publication of the report will enable us to close a chapter in the relationship between the Foreign Office and the Select Committee. Having gone through the report, I do not believe that there is any further fact left to be chased about what happened. Where I would welcome a constructive engagement with the Select Committee is in making sure that the Foreign Office and I are harried, pursued and kept up to scratch in putting in place the programme of reform that I have announced today.
Sir Raymond Whitney: The Foreign Secretary has told the House that the Legg report confirms that the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State were briefed on 10 and 12 March. Does that not call into question some of the subsequent ministerial statements? What were the alleged deficiencies in those briefings on 10 and 12 March? Finally, will the reforms to the Foreign

29
Office procedures, which the Foreign Secretary has announced today, include an improvement of the procedure whereby the Foreign Secretary signs important authorisations submitted to him by the Director General of GCHQ, so that in future the Foreign Secretary will not incur the wrath of or any rebuke from the security controller?
Mr. Cook: I did indeed say that Ministers were briefed for the debates on 10 and 12 March—it would have been quite extraordinary if they had not been briefed. However, I also told the House that they were not briefed that allegations of a breach of the arms embargo had been passed to Customs and Excise. For the record, the report says that the briefing in relation to Baroness Symons was "inaccurate, incoherent and indigestible".
The hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the question of the signing of warrants. I concede straight away that there was an error at the end of last year, when the wrong form was attached to a submission for a warrant submitted to me. I read the submission and signed the form, unaware that it was the wrong form. I apologise to the House for that error. As the commissioner very fairly acknowledged, I have put in place procedures to make sure that that can never happen again.
The experience has prompted me to read the back numbers of the reports of commissioners. I discovered that in the last three years of the previous Government, there was not one error, not three errors, but 33 errors, including one when the Secretary of State dated the warrant but failed to sign it. I have apologised to the House for that one error. I hope that the Conservatives will apologise for their 33 errors.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: In the spirit that my right hon. Friend suggests of constructive thoughts as to the future management structure of the Foreign Office, I recall there being a hierarchical, centralised decision-making system. The report describes an alternative structure of autonomous commands, and it seems most extraordinary that information did not come out of the Department, even to senior officials, let alone Ministers. Does that not leave room for thought and reconsideration in the light of the findings of the report?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about one of the key findings of the report—the need to improve communications within the Foreign Office, part of which may be to do with the hierarchy within the Foreign Office. I am anxious that we should consider that very carefully, because I want to minimise the number of steps through which any piece of information must go before it reaches the effective level. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be pursuing that, I hope in co-operation with the Select Committee.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Not being a member of the press, who as ever have had days and waves of spin and information, and not being Chairman of the Select Committee, I have only the Secretary of State' s statement. It seemed to be a breathless account of shameless complacency and buck passing by a Foreign Secretary who invested unprecedented amounts in promoting his ethical foreign policy and launching his mission statement—a coffee-table book on human rights,
30
with more photographs than text, including one of himself shaking hands with President Suharto of Indonesia. Does he now think that all that effort on videos, coffee-table books, spin and hype could have been better spent in ensuring that his Department was running better? Is this not another example of the total preoccupation with style over substance that characterises the Government?
Mr. Cook: If I recall rightly, the launch of the mission statement last May cost exactly £6,000. The right hon. Lady's point entirely overlooks everything that I have said about modern management methods and about the fact that no private sector organisation approaching anything like the scale of the Foreign Office would not have a clear, agreed mission statement from the top.
As for publishing a human rights report, that was one of our manifesto commitments. It may surprise the right hon. Lady to hear this, but we believe that it is a priority to carry out our manifesto commitments. The cost of publishing that report was well below the travel budget of the Select Committee in investigating it.
Ms Diane Abbott: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon, although it is surprising, if the Legg report found nothing seriously wrong, that it should be the occasion of no fewer than 60 changes to the management of the Foreign Office. Does he agree that one matter of particular interest to those outside the House who have a real interest in Africa is the increased scrutiny and control of officials' relationships with mercenaries? Mercenary forces have played a particularly malign role in the history of Africa post-independence. I hope that, arising from the Legg report, there will be more and better scrutiny of how officials relate to mercenaries.
Mr. Cook: I can give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that I do not expect any official ever again to meet a private military firm without first seeking senior permission—and I will wish to know whenever such a permission is given—and without submitting a full written record. I am confident that those rules will make sure that we will not end up once again in the position when, quite frankly, officials were taken advantage of.
Sir John Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman referred to criticisms in the Legg report of the high commissioner apparently failing to inform himself sufficiently of the ambit of the UK sanctions order in relation to Sierra Leone. Does he agree that it would have been fairer to the high commissioner had he not also made it clear that his Department had failed to convey to the high commissioner the complete terms of the UK sanctions order?
Mr. Cook: As I said to the House, there were misjudgments by officials in the African department and that is why they will be interviewed by the permanent secretary. One example was the failure to make sure that the information was properly available to the high commissioner. However, the terms of the resolution are routinely circulated to all posts. In this case, it is likely that there was a problem because of the unique circumstances in which our high commissioner to Sierra Leone was operating—he was not in the post at the time. There is a reason why information did not reach him.

31
However, having considered the matter carefully, the Legg inquiry believed that there was fault on both sides. He should have been informed, but he should also have taken more trouble to make sure that he was informed.
Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, of all the statements that I have heard in the House about arms sanctions busting, this is the only case in which the end result was the restoration of a democratic Government, not keeping in power tyrannies that we have condemned many times. I do not condone mercenaries in any way—as my right hon. Friend said, Sandline's position was clearly much exaggerated—and I recognise the United Nations Security Council resolution, but is not this country's popularity in Sierra Leone based on the fact that we were associated with the democratic forces, not with those who overthrew a democratically elected Government?
Mr. Cook: President Kabbah—there could be no greater authority on the issue—has written at length to express his appreciation of the moral support, financial support and advice that he received from Britain during his period in exile. Throughout that exile, we were a close friend of President Kabbah and the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. We pursued that friendship in the United Nations, the Commonwealth and Conakry, where he was in exile. Now that he has been restored, Britain is foremost in leading the international effort to achieve civil reconstruction and an end to the fighting. We can all take some satisfaction from Britain's positive record in Sierra Leone. Now that the Legg inquiry's report has been published, I hope that that can be seen.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Would not the Foreign Secretary's statement have carried more authority if, instead of reciting the mantra about "systemic and cultural" deficiencies in his Department, he had outlined some of the specific examples of mismanagement by Foreign Office officials? Would we not have more confidence that things were going to get better in his Department if he were to say how, for example, the recruitment of more ethnic or female members of staff would have helped the resolution of the crisis, or why, given that Sandline personnel were instrumental in the efficacious distribution of food aid, he is so ready to apportion blame to specialist personnel on whose services Her Majesty's Government clearly had cause to call?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman talks about a mantra of "systemic and cultural" factors. Those words are quoted directly from the Legg report, which I hope that he will find time to study. I have presented the changes to the House clearly as a programme to modernise the Foreign Office and ensure that it is representative of modern Britain. I have a single figure number of women heads of mission out of 140-odd posts. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand why improving that gender balance should be part of a modern programme, I cannot help him any further.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend believe that, in the light of the report,
32
the attacks made on him and on the Foreign Office by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) can be seen to be
"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"?
To pursue the quotation, they were a tale told by a right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his point well and with great literary knowledge. I shall not pursue him on that. I used to be a teacher of English and I would give him 100 per cent. for that effort.
Mr. Tim Collins: Twice this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted the Legg report, saying that the briefing provided to Ministers in advance of the Adjournment debate in March was seriously inadequate. Given that, does it not follow that—perhaps entirely inadvertently—Ministers misled the House? If that is so, should there not be a formal apology?
Mr. Cook: If the House was misled, of course there should be an apology. I have refreshed my memory by re-reading this morning what was said in the relevant passage by the Minister of State, and did not see any point at which he could have been accused of misleading the House. It is to his credit that he raised the issue in a debate in which nobody else raised it. I think that he should have had a full briefing on the allegations, although I should add that I would have been very distressed had he told the House that a Customs and Excise investigation was about to start. We are not going to get many convictions if we start to insist that Ministers should announce such investigations the moment they are set up.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was in a minority of one on the Select Committee in arguing for the Committee to investigate the Sierra Leone affair following the publication of the Legg report. I argued that case in the interests of natural justice for those who were to be cross-examined by Sir Thomas Legg. The Foreign Secretary referred to officials needing to obtain permission before they engage in discussions and negotiations with representatives of private military companies. Should the process not be tougher than that? Should there not be a code of practice concerning dealings with these so-called private military companies? Did not my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) get to the heart of the matter, when he said that there should be tougher supervision and regulation of groups of mercenaries that go under the rubric "private military companies"?
Mr. Cook: As I said, we will keep very much under review whether further supervision or regulation is required. I assure my hon. Friend that I have circulated written guidance—it goes under the rubric of "code of conduct"—that will require permission to be sought at head of Department level before any such contact takes place. Nobody should assume that, when sought, such a permission will automatically be given.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The report offers no criticism of Ministers, yet does the Foreign Secretary not understand that it should have done so—and for the following reason? Speaking as a former civil servant, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary

33
understands that a strong culture throughout the civil service demands that civil servants direct their efforts towards full and accurate briefing of Ministers? Does he not understand that Ministers might not have received a full and accurate briefing, and, in pursuance of that, neglected or failed to give full, accurate and timely information to Parliament, because of the way in which he and other Ministers conducted themselves in the management of the Department? Before the Foreign Secretary casts out the mote in other's eyes, should he not see whether there is a beam in his own?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman wants to bother to take the time to read the Legg report, he will find that the passage on briefing of Ministers is, perhaps, the longest in the report. If he looks at it, he will find that it is not consistent with his description of conventional practice. As for the rest of his comments, I would say only that the idea that I should have sent back the Legg report because it did not criticise me sufficiently has given me the best laugh of the day.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Am I misguided in being rather uneasy about the treatment of a letter to Peter Penfold? On 11 May, the Prime Minister was widely reported as going out of his way to praise Britain's high commissioner in Sierra Leone, Peter Penfold, who was accused of co-operating with a mercenary operation mounted by Sandline International. According to the Prime Minister, Mr. Penfold had done "a superb job" in dealing with the consequences of the military coup and in working closely with the President. How can a man who was told by his Prime Minister in May that he had done "a superb job" receive a career-ruining letter of rebuke—for that is what it is—and be required to attend an interview with the permanent secretary in July? What differed between May and July?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indeed said that Peter Penfold behaved as a hero during the original coup. In fairness to myself, I repeated that point in my statement when I said that Mr. Penfold showed great courage and commitment during that original coup and that he had since won high standing for Britain in Sierra Leone. He is entirely entitled to have that good record taken into account against the explicit findings of the Legg report on his contacts with Sandline. I announced to the House that I had taken that into account; that is why I do not intend to institute any formal proceedings against him. In the circumstances, a letter drawing the permanent secretary's attention to the report's findings is the least that could be done; indeed, I should expect the House to expect me to make him aware of what was said in the report.
Mr. David Heath: Do not the "systemic and cultural" problems revealed by the report underline the fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee was entirely correct to take a real interest in the matter? Is not the Foreign Secretary slightly concerned at the lack of intellectual curiosity displayed by senior members of his Department when difficult questions on Sierra Leone were
34
asked in March and April? Does he regret that his decision to change the sanctions regime on arms exports was not highlighted in the report published by the Department of Trade and Industry on 1 July?
Mr. Cook: I plainly could not have expected the Department of Trade and Industry to highlight in its report of 1 July something that I am announcing in response to a report that I received on 24 July, but we shall be in contact with the DTI, with which we work closely on this matter, to ensure that everyone understands our new working procedures. I am not sure that I am entirely aware of the difficult questions that the hon. Gentleman says were raised in March. The Legg report certainly draws attention to the failure in February of senior management to act on information, but that is put in the context of what was then a major military engagement in Sierra Leone and of the substantial demand for humanitarian assistance, which management perhaps rightly regarded at the time as the more important priority.
Mr. Howard: May I again direct the Foreign Secretary's attention to the questions that I posed at the end of my response to his statement? He may not have heard them; he certainly made no attempt to answer them. Is he aware of the criticisms in paragraph 3.19 of the report that Ministers played down the fact that the coverage of the United Nations Security Council resolution was comprehensive? Does he appreciate that the report concludes that that playing down was deliberate, as Ministers knew that people on the ground were contemplating the use of force? Has he read paragraph 3.20, which, together with paragraph 3.19, specifically criticises the Minister of State and his answers to Parliament? Is he aware of the seriousness of those criticisms? Does he have any defence to them? If so, will he now say what it is?
Mr. Cook: The most obvious defence to paragraph 3.20 is that it does not refer to my hon. Friend the Minister of State—[Interruption.] I am merely reading the paragraph to which, after six hours of research, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has directed me. If the most damaging paragraph that he could find was one that contained no reference to my hon. Friend, perhaps I should have given him 12 hours to demonstrate how clean the report was.
On paragraph 3.19, much of the presentation was indeed that the UN resolution was aimed at the military junta. In that, the statements were entirely correct—the embargo applied to the junta. It did not apply only to the junta, however, and we shall take on board the recommendation that we ensure that all press lines give the full legal position. In defence of the news department and my officials, I should say that someone in the outside world who took a news line as an authoritative statement of the legal position would be very odd.
Mr. Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot accept points of order until we have heard all the statements. I will take points of order after the next statement.

Immigration and Asylum
4.29 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on immigration and asylum.
I am today publishing a White Paper, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum", following a wide-ranging examination undertaken as part of the comprehensive spending review.
Governments have few more complex and sensitive responsibilities, yet the system has been subject to piecemeal and ill considered changes that have failed to tackle the real problems. Indeed, the changes have often made the problems worse. The arrangements for supporting asylum seekers are a shambles: huge backlogs have been allowed to develop, and additional complexity and regulation have made the system unwieldy to operate.
Despite the dedication and professionalism of immigration staff at all levels, genuine applicants have suffered, while abusive claimants and racketeers have exploited delays in the system. It is time for a new approach. The Government are determined to maintain firm control over immigration, but to do so in a way that meets our international obligations and our commitment to strengthening human rights.
The volume of passenger traffic arriving at our ports of entry has grown very fast in recent years, from 55 million arrivals in 1992–93 to 80 million in 1997–98, and it is projected to reach nearly 100 million passengers in only two years' time. We want to welcome genuine visitors to our shores, and to provide them, and British citizens who travel abroad, with a fast and efficient service.
Our immigration policy will continue to support family life by admitting the spouses and minor dependent children of those already settled in the United Kingdom. It must also sustain and promote racial equality. It is particularly important for us to acknowledge the huge contribution that immigrants and their descendants have made to our society in all walks of life.
The Government have already begun to put in place a fairer and more efficient system. Last June, as promised in our manifesto, we abolished the primary purpose rule; but fairness is not well served by a system of decision making that labours under huge backlogs and outdated methods of working. The White Paper sets out our plans for an integrated approach to the modernisation of immigration control. We are making organisational changes in the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office, backed by new technology, which will result in a new integrated casework directorate.
We also intend to integrate the overseas entry clearance operation with the other elements of control. A core feature of the new approach will be a single management structure, drawn from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, to manage the overseas operation. We will use new technology and more flexible legislative provisions to the best advantage.
Many people resident in this country want their relatives to visit them for important family and other occasions. In our view, the previous Government were wrong to remove the right of appeal to those refused a
36
visit visa in such circumstances. Such a right of appeal provided an element of independent oversight of what are bound to be very difficult and often emotive decisions.
Honouring our manifesto commitment, we propose to introduce a streamlined right of appeal for those refused a visa to visit a family member in this country. We also intend to test a financial bond scheme for visitors, as has been urged upon us by many groups representing, in particular, those from the Indian sub-continent.
Many problems and much confusion are caused by passengers arriving in the United Kingdom without the required visas, or in some cases without any passport. We shall adopt a tough approach to deterring and preventing the arrival of such inadequately documented passengers. One of the best ways to achieve that is through the use of airline liaison officers. We already have five officers placed overseas working with carriers and the relevant authorities to combat document and other frauds. We intend to increase that network to about 20 officers in total.
Fundamental to our overall strategy is the need to speed up the system. There are too many avenues of appeal, so in future there will be a single right of appeal for those lawfully present in the United Kingdom at the time of their application. We recently published a consultation document on that. The aim is to create an appeals system that will provide a fair opportunity to review decisions, but to do so quickly, and to minimise the scope for manipulation of the system.
In our manifesto, we said that we would "control unscrupulous immigration advisers". As many hon. Members from both sides of the House know from their constituency casework, a significant minority of such advisers abuse the system and exploit their clients. We have consulted widely about that, and will introduce a statutory scheme to regulate immigration advisers, which may include those who are legally qualified.
The United Kingdom has long given shelter to those fleeing persecution from other parts of the world. We will continue scrupulously to observe our international obligations to protect genuine refugees. Those who are accepted as refugees or given exceptional leave to remain should be helped to integrate into local communities. To aid that integration, we will reduce to four years the qualifying period for settlement for asylum applicants granted exceptional leave to remain, and give immediate settlement to those recognised as refugees.
The number seeking asylum has increased eightfold in the past 10 years, from 4,000 to 34,000. The reasons for that are many, including political instability, but there is no doubt that the asylum system is being abused.
Around three quarters of asylum applications are refused outright because they meet the requirements neither for refugee status nor for exceptional leave to remain. The vast majority of such failed applicants appeal, but only 6 per cent. of the appeals are successful. Of course, a failed asylum application does not necessarily mean that the applicant has abused the system, but many claims for asylum are made by those seeking to migrate for purely economic reasons, or as a means of prolonging a stay in the United Kingdom without legitimate reason.
That places substantial pressure on a system that is already under severe strain, and it is unfair to genuine refugees who have to wait long periods in the system for a decision on their claim to refugee status. At the end

37
of May this year, there was a backlog of 52,000 asylum applications on which not even an initial decision had been taken. Of those applications, 10,000 were more than five years old. On the same date, a backlog of 32,000 immigration appeals were waiting to be heard, of which more than 70 per cent. were asylum cases.
Modernising the controls and simplifying and speeding up the procedures will help to tackle those problems. However, we cannot create the faster system that we all want without clearing existing backlogs. We are strengthening immigration control, and there will be no amnesty, either now or in the future, for any applicant. We will instead allocate additional resources to deal with that inheritance. We will also adopt a practical approach to the application backlog when an initial decision has been outstanding for some years, and we will ensure that the effect of long delays is properly taken into account, but in ways that will not outweigh other factors such as serious abuse.
The package of measures that I am announcing today will ensure that new applicants can be dealt with more quickly. As part of that process of strengthening our control, I am announcing that, from today, the period allowed for asylum seekers to submit further representations after interview will be reduced from 28 days to five days in port cases. It is already five days for in-country applicants. No one intent on exploiting the system should be under any illusion that those measures to clear the backlog will benefit them.
We shall take further enforcement measures to ensure that asylum seekers who are refused leave to enter or remain are returned quickly to their countries of origin. We have previously undertaken special exercises to tackle sudden increases in applicants, and we will not hesitate to do so again. All told, we aim by 2001 to have average process times for initial asylum decisions of two months, and for appeals of a further four months.
We shall not hesitate to use detention where necessary to ensure the integrity of immigration control. We have, however, decided that detainees should be given written reasons for their detention, and that, subject to legislation, there will be judicial oversight of the process.
The current support arrangements for asylum seekers are a shambles. They are the product of ill-considered legislation that later required the intervention of the courts. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 imposed a burden on local authority social services departments that was unplanned for and inappropriate. It cannot be allowed to continue. Action must be taken to contain costs and to relieve the burden that has fallen heavily on London authorities in particular, and more recently on the local authorities of Dover and Kent.
In opposition, I said that, in a civilised society, genuine asylum seekers could not be left destitute, and I am honouring that commitment today. We need a system that reduces the incentive to economic migration, and recognises that the genuine asylum seeker needs food and shelter, not a girocheque.
Support on the basis that I have outlined will therefore be separated from the main social security benefits system, and will principally be provided in kind, not in cash. Where accommodation is needed, it will normally be provided directly, with no choice about location. We will also consider the extent to which support for food and other basic needs can be provided by vouchers or
38
other non-cash means. In general, support will not extend beyond the point at which the application has been decided and all appeal rights have been exhausted.
That support will require new national machinery to plan and co-ordinate provision. There will be a single budget for asylum seeker support costs, which will be managed by the Home Office alongside the costs of the process for considering asylum cases. That will enable more flexible use of resources to reduce overall costs. New central machinery will also be created under Home Office management, to contract with a range of providers to obtain accommodation. They will include the private sector, voluntary bodies, housing associations and local authorities.
The intention is to develop a national approach making use of support from existing communities and voluntary groups, and to relieve over-concentration on London and one or two other areas, which is creating such severe problems in those areas. The Government will consult widely on the details, and on transitional arrangements. In taking this work forward, we will ensure that the needs of children, whether unaccompanied or members of families, are fully protected.
The Government are committed to promoting a more positive view of citizenship that both reflects and celebrates the multicultural, multiracial society that we have become. We will take action to reduce waiting times for processing applications for British citizenship to give a more welcoming signal to prospective citizens.
The measures described in the White Paper provide a much clearer framework for what our immigration control should be. They should also provide the staff of the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office with a workable system. Bureaucracy, over-complexity, delays and backlogs often frustrate the best efforts of staff to give effect to the law and to the policies of Parliament and Ministers. Despite those difficulties, staff in the directorate have consistently achieved impressive results, and I take this opportunity to thank them for their hard work. A clear framework and better tools for the job will enable everyone to take a fresh and more purposeful view of what they can and should achieve.
The White Paper sets out a comprehensive and integrated strategy for immigration control. It tackles the failings of the current system, and addresses the challenges that we will face in future. The Government will introduce legislation to implement the White Paper as soon as parliamentary time allows. The legislation may be a good candidate for consideration by a Special Standing Committee. Britain requires an immigration and asylum system appropriate to the demands of the 21st century. The system in place is simply not up to the job. We need radical change to deliver a modern and efficient system that is fairer, faster and firmer. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Sir Norman Fowler: Our general attitude is that strict immigration control is necessary to good race relations. We shall back any measures to improve race relations and to create full equality of opportunity. We shall also back any effective measures to prevent illegal immigration. In far too many cases, applications for political asylum are a means to evade immigration control. As the Home Secretary and the

39
White Paper say, three quarters of asylum applications are refused because they do not meet the requirements of either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. Only 6 per cent. of appeals are successful.
Even at that, however, the Home Secretary plans to spend almost £1 billion over the next three years on support of asylum seekers. That is almost four times what he plans to spend on his new crime programme, and it is almost as much as total extra spending on the police during the same period. It must be sensible to reduce that bill radically, and to divert the money to better purposes.
Does the Home Secretary feel on reflection that the position in the United Kingdom would have been substantially improved if the Labour party had not with great ferocity opposed our Bills in 1993 and 1996? Does he recall that the Prime Minister, then shadow Home Secretary, played down the seriousness of the issue because of a temporary fall in applications?
If not, the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember that, when he was shadow Home Secretary, he opposed us when we proposed benefit withdrawal. He did not say that our changes were insufficient, as he appears to argue now. He said then that they were far too stringent. We shall support his changes to the benefit system, but we know that, if the Conservative Government had proposed them, Labour spokesmen would have toured the country condemning them. We are not prepared to take lectures from the Home Secretary or the Labour party on effective immigration control, because they opposed virtually all our measures to tackle abuse.
The White Paper is important enough to require a full day's debate, and I hope that the Government will arrange one. For now, I have three sets of questions. First, much of our immigration control system depends on border controls, to which we are committed, and to which we hope the Government are committed.
The Home Secretary has referred to the vast increase in passenger traffic to 100 million passengers in two years time. He is giving immigration officers more power, but is he satisfied that there are enough of them to police our borders effectively? He also intends to introduce a new right of appeal for visitors. Is there a danger that that will put more pressure on the appeals system, just when he is trying to reduce pressure?
Secondly, the Home Secretary abolished the primary purpose rule last year. Previously, applicants had to prove that gaining entry to the United Kingdom was not the primary purpose of their marriage. The latest Home Office figures show a significant increase in applications from spouses. Does that trend continue into 1998? Will he give us the latest figures?
Thirdly, and most importantly, the Home Secretary has said that there will be no amnesty for political asylum applicants because of the time that they have been waiting. However, the statement was less than forthcoming, compared with the White Paper, on the right hon. Gentleman's intentions.
Will there not now be two special provisions for asylum applicants? Ten thousand people who have been waiting since before July 1993 will now normally be given indefinite leave to remain. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the position? In addition, 20,000
40
people who made applications between mid-1993 and the beginning of 1996 will also be considered under special criteria not available generally. They will have been waiting not seven or five years, but two and a half or three years.
Will the Home Secretary explain the detail of that second scheme, which affects so many people? Does it not mean that 30,000 of the 50,000 people waiting for initial decision will be considered under special criteria not available generally, and that, certainly with one group, settlement will be the normal, almost automatic, outcome, when he has said that the average of false applications is very high? That is the background against which the policy is set. For all those reasons, the Opposition will want to examine those two schemes in particular with great care.
We have heard the Home Secretary's words. We want to monitor carefully the effect of what he has announced. We fear that his plans in action may not match up to the words that he has used this afternoon.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asks for a full day's debate on this important White Paper. I would welcome that, but it is a matter for business managers. I will pass on his request to them.
The right hon. Gentleman made some curious assertions, given the record of the previous Administration. He first complained that the costs of asylum support given on the last page of the White Paper are likely to add up to £1 billion over the next three years. That is simple arithmetic, but had we not taken the costs in hand, our inheritance meant that the figures would have risen to about £800 million in a single year. Anything up to £2 billion could have been wasted on support of applicants and those awaiting removal and deportation in a system that was a shambles from beginning to end. That was the system we found when we came into office.
I have read the debates in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I took part in 1992–93 and 1995–96. One reason that we opposed those measures was that we said that they would not deliver the changes—[Laughter.] Oh, yes we did. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then the shadow Home Secretary, once a distinguished position—the jury is still out on whether it is still distinguished—said:
"No one on the Opposition Benches condones bogus applications for asylum: everyone condemns them. However, weeding out false claims should not be at the expense of prejudicing genuine claims, and that is our fear about the Bill."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 36.]
The effect of that, and the 1996 Bill, was to create the worst of all possible worlds, in which genuine asylum seekers were left in limbo for years while their applications were considered, while the very delays that the Bills had established enabled bogus asylum seekers to come, claim benefit, work and carry on ripping off the system.
Let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman's explicit questions. On border controls, he asked whether there will be enough immigration staff. Again, this is an area that he should have researched more. The staff numbers in the immigration service were to have been cut and cut again under the spending plans that we inherited. We are arranging over the next three years to put an extra £124 million into immigration and asylum control. We

41
have put some more money in already precisely to deal with the rising number of visitors and the overhang of asylum applications.
The right hon. Gentleman made a serious point about whether the new right of appeal for visitors refused a visit for family purposes could put pressure on the appeal system as a whole. We do not intend that it should. It will be a separate, self-contained, streamlined system. As we make clear in the White Paper, it will be a system whose costs will be paid by the applicants.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the numbers who have applied for settlement as spouses following the ending of the primary purpose rule on 5 July last year. He is right to say that numbers have increased. That was bound to be the case, because there was a huge logjam. The Opposition, under the previous shadow Home Secretary, now the shadow Foreign Secretary, had every opportunity to oppose the abolition of the primary purpose rule and make a prayer in this House to negate my changing the rules. They did not, and the decision had the surprising vocal support of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He and many other Conservative Members recognised the injustice of the rule, and the fact that it offered no serious means of control.
The right hon. Gentleman's last point concerned our proposals for dealing with the backlog, which are set out in full in paragraphs 8.29 and 8.30 on page 41 of the White Paper. For those who made initial applications before 1 June 1993 that have still not had an initial decision, we are saying that delay in itself will normally be considered so serious as to justify as a matter of fairness the grant of indefinite leave to remain.
That will not apply to applicants whose presence is not conducive to the public good or to applications for asylum made after the commencement of removal or deportation cases. For those who made applications between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995, the delays will be weighed in the balance in each case against their current circumstances.
Let me make this clear to right hon. Gentleman. Again, he has come to his position without the benefit of even looking at the asylum statistics for 1997. The previous Administration faced a huge backlog. The figures show that the number granted exceptional leave to remain in 1992–93 shot up suddenly from 2,000 to 15,000 in 1992, and to 11,000 in 1993. Their policy for dealing with the backlog was much less discriminating than ours. The policy was entirely secret. It never surfaced publicly, and was never disclosed to the House. It became apparent only when the statistics were published much in retard.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. That initial exchange took precisely 28 minutes. I ask Back Benchers for direct questions and the Secretary of State for brisk answers. This is not a debate, but a question and answer session.
Mr. Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement, and especially his determination to deal with the backlog and his proposals on visitors' visas, which are a significant development. When does he propose to put in place the framework for dealing with unscrupulous immigration advisers?
42
Many hon. Members have constituents who have been advised by these miserable people, who have given false information and advice that has added to the backlog.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the proposals. The requirements relating to unscrupulous immigration advisers will depend on legislation that we shall bring before the House as quickly as possible.
Mr. Richard Allan: The Liberal Democrats welcome many of the measures that the Home Secretary has announced, because we share the Government's commitment to sort out some of the mess left by the previous Government, especially the 1996 Act. We welcome the fact that this problem is being dealt with early in the Parliament rather than close to a general election, as happened with the 1996 Act.
I have a few brisk questions to ask the Home Secretary on the criteria that he has set himself for developing a faster, fairer and firmer system. If the system is to be faster, will he confirm that the extra money will reverse the staff cuts proposed at Croydon, which amount to several hundred over the next couple of years? Will he be able to get the computer system, which is already several months behind schedule, into play more quickly?
If the system is to be fairer, will the Home Secretary consider, in addition to help in kind, making small cash payments to asylum seekers to cover small costs such as travel and telephone calls? Will he ensure that asylum seekers are not clustered into hostels, which could become targets for racial abuse—a problem that we have seen in other countries? If the system is to be firmer, will he look again at immigration service officers' extended powers and consider keeping the police in place for that purpose? Immigration officers have expressed concern about their ability to deal with the extended powers.
Finally, will the Home Secretary confirm that all detainees will have the right to a bail hearing, and say whether they will be legally supported when they go to such hearings?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will reverse the staff cuts. The answer is yes. We inherited the computer system—such matters cuts across all Governments at all times—and it is behind schedule—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is muttering something from a sedentary position.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Straw: The computer system that we inherited was put in place to develop a casework programme. It is behind schedule, and we are hoping to bring it nearer schedule. I understand the case for making small cash payments available to asylum seekers within the overall regime of providing benefits in kind, and we shall consult on that. We considered whether we should direct people to hostels, as happens in a number of other countries, but we accept the strong arguments against doing so. The hon. Gentleman, among others, has adumbrated the reasons against it.
A judicial oversight of the detention system will apply to virtually all detainees. Those who are detained for a very short time—overnight, for example—will not be

43
covered, but nobody seriously suggests that they should be. With respect to immigration officers' powers, I strongly believe that giving immigration officers proper powers and training will greatly assist them in their job, and release pressures on the police.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the patience and tolerance that my constituents have shown over the past 12 months, when large numbers of east European people seeking asylum arrived in the port of Dover and settled in Dover? Is he aware that there have been serious social tensions recently because of the concentration of those asylum seekers, and the fact that an inordinate cost has been imposed on Dover district council, Kent county council and the local police force in seeking to manage those difficulties?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing such a balanced White Paper, which meets all the main concerns of my constituents and will receive their support.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I applaud the tolerance of the people of Dover and other ports in Kent in putting up with such a serious abuse of our system of immigration and asylum control. I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has pursued the matter. We seek to remove the unacceptable burdens on areas such as his and a number of inner-London boroughs.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Any proposals to reduce the asylum backlog should be welcomed because it is costly and delays genuine applications, and they should be given fair consideration in the House. However, does the Home Secretary accept that the use of "exceptional leave to remain" as an administrative device to shorten the queue does not amount to improved control, as was shown in the late 1980s? If more money is to be spent on in-country enforcement, will the Home Secretary ensure that port-of-entry controls remain as strong as ever? Finally, where will the streamline right of appeal take place when visitor visas are refused?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for our proposals. Given his considerable experience as a former Immigration Minister in the Home Office, he will accept that the key to improving enforcement is to reduce delays—it is the delays that have been so exploited. The prospect of cash payments and the absence of direction on where benefits in kind could be taken led to a huge burst of economic migrants, for example, from eastern Europe. We are wholly committed to maintaining effective border controls, which is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was successful in writing into the Amsterdam treaty legal protection for our border controls, which were at risk under the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about visit visa appeals, the control of advisers, and dealing with the backlog. However, will he look again at support for asylum seekers? Although we all accept that local authorities should not carry the burden, we have learnt in the past year or two that there are problems with benefits in kind.
44
If it is coupled with a policy of dispersal, as the White Paper appears to suggest, we might be setting up a complex and bureaucratic system that will not deliver easily. The real issue is to get decisions taken quickly, because, if anything will deter abusive claimants, it is quick and efficient decision taking.
Mr. Straw: I forgot to answer a question raised by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) about where visitor appeals would take place. The prospective visitor would obviously have to stay in the country in which the application was made, and the appeal would almost certainly be heard here, on the papers. However, we are consulting on that.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for his overall welcome. He asked about benefits in kind. We discussed that matter in great detail, particularly whether we should have a combined system of benefits in cash and benefits in kind, and where the cut-off point should be. In the end, we judged that the only way to run an effective system was by paying benefits in kind, because that would not deter genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and want shelter, food and accommodation in this country, but it would deter economic migrants.
There are two issues. First, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the system must be speeded up—that is key. Secondly, we must ensure that the rest of the system does not act as a pull on economic migrants who have no basis for making a claim under the 1951 convention.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: I thank the Home Secretary for his comments about a visitor right of appeal, and the proposal for a register of advisers. He will know that the Immigration Advisory Service, which I founded, has long campaigned for those. Does he accept that tens of thousands of those who lose their appeals, right the way through the system, then go to ground and are never heard of again because there is no system whereby they can be retrieved and removed from the country? Does he think that that problem will get worse or better, and does he recognise that it is a major problem?
Mr. Straw: It is a major problem, and it is made much worse by the fact that people can exercise multiple rights of appeal and, because the immigration appeal tribunal is not currently a court of record, far too many applications for judicial review are approved by the judge dealing with the Crown Office list, even if they are later rejected on the merits of the case. As the hon. Gentleman said, applicants then go to ground partly because adjudicators may take many months to produce their adjudication.
We are taking a number of steps, which are set out in the White Paper, greatly to improve enforcement. We are ready to increase the use of detention at the point of removal if necessary so that we can toughen the system up. The point of having a single right of appeal is that it will not only deal with the merits of the application but impose removal directions.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement in general, but make two specific points? The Home Secretary has already made it clear that there will be a right of appeal and a charge for visitors. What will the charge be, and does he intend to cover the cost of the appeal system through a charge on visitors who appeal?

45
My second point relates to asylum seekers. My right hon. Friend appears to have made quite clear the position for those who have made an application prior to June 1993 and who have not yet received a decision on their application, but the post-June 1993 position still seems to be a bit cloudy. Can he say what sort of criteria he will use to decide whether people can stay or have to leave the United Kingdom?
Mr. Straw: On the question of visitor's rights of appeal, it is intended that the fees charged to all family visitor applicants, plus a specific charge where a right of appeal is exercised, should together cover the cost of running the appeal system. There is an issue of balance between the initial charge and the appeal charge, but we are looking at a cost of a right of appeal of about £200 to £250.
The criteria for dealing with those who are in the application backlog, no decision having been made between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995, are set out in paragraph 8.30 of the White Paper.
Mr. Marshall: I have not seen the White Paper yet.
Mr. Straw: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has not yet had a chance to read it. It states:
"delay will not normally of itself justify the grant of leave to enter or remain… but in individual cases will be weighed up with other considerations and, if there are specific compassionate or other exceptional factors present which are linked to the delay… a decision to grant limited leave to enter or remain may then be justified."
Mr. John Wilkinson: First, may I express my appreciation for those of the Home Secretary's measures that will reduce the burden on Hillingdon borough council and other London borough councils, which have in the past borne an inordinate share of the cost of supporting asylum seekers? However, may I express anxiety at the fact that he and the Government have not yet fully addressed the control of would-be asylum seekers from overseas?
The right hon. Gentleman has not managed to impose a charge on French railways for the carriage of would-be refugees without the appropriate visa through the channel tunnel; nor has he changed the terms of the Dublin convention that allow other European Union countries to pass on to the United Kingdom asylum seekers they ought properly to deal with themselves and return to their country of origin.
Mr. Straw: I am one of the world's few experts on the problems of imposing carrier's liability on the French railways. I regret to say that that goes back to defects in the Sangatte protocol, which laid the ground—sorry, the underground—for the channel tunnel, and there are major legal problems. The French Minister of the Interior, Jean-Pierre Chevènement, has been very co-operative in ensuring that far better checks are imposed by the French border police, DICCILEC, than was previously the case. Although that is not as good as the imposition of carrier's liability, which I was able to achieve in respect of the Brussels end of Eurostar, it is a great deal better than was previously the case.
The Dublin convention is not a satisfactory international European treaty. It was signed, I think in their sleep, by Ministers whom the hon. Gentleman
46
technically supported, in 1990. I have succeeded in changing its application. One of the important triumphs of the justice and home affairs presidency of the United Kingdom—I was the president of the Justice and Home Affairs Council during that period—was to have an article 18 committee meeting on 27 May, which laid down new and better interpretations of the Dublin convention. However, the convention is far from satisfactory, and would that it had never been signed.
Ms Jenny Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when he introduces welcome and long-overdue legislation to regulate immigration advisers, legally qualified individuals will come under that legislation? Regrettably, solicitors are often the worst transgressors in giving out bogus immigration advice.
Mr. Straw: We have not yet made a final decision, but I note entirely my hon. Friend's comments. There is no question but that some solicitors and others who are legally qualified are the worst perpetrators of fraud on innocent applicants and abusers of the system.
Mr. Roger Gale: It is now nearly a year since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I visited the Home Office to warn in person of the dangers of a tide of economic migrants from eastern Europe. Since then, that tide has continued, and has embraced Albania and Czechoslovakia.
The Home Secretary referred to flaws in the Dublin convention, which we accept, but what my constituents cannot understand is why, at the very least, the Government are not and have not been able for the past year to say simply that, if people arriving in this country have travelled right across Europe, through France, Germany and Belgium, we shall immediately determine that they cannot possibly be asylum seekers, and return them to their country of origin. What is he going to do about it?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes a literally incredible point. It was his Government, whom he supported, who signed the Dublin convention. Of course it is preposterous that people should be able to travel across perfectly safe countries in western Europe and to arrive at our door and that we find huge difficulty in getting them accepted by the countries that should have entertained their asylum application in the first place.
Mr. Gale: Why can we not send them back to the country of origin?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that we should send them back, but we have to observe international conventions and international law, and it was his Government who signed the ludicrous Dublin convention, which, in many cases, has made the situation very much worse. We have been working to ensure that the Dublin convention at least works better than it worked before. If he wants to explain to his constituents why those people are arriving on our shores, he will have to have the courage to say, "I am responsible, along with the shambolic Administration whom I supported over many years."
Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having had a good

47
hard think about these extremely difficult issues, but will he consider the risks of going for benefit in kind, instead of restoring benefit rights to asylum seekers? What is the wisdom of the Home Office running its own social security department for asylum seekers? Is there not a danger of asylum seekers facing a squeeze from right wingers and racists saying that they are living like lords on the Home Office, whereas, in reality, they face bureaucracy, indignity and perhaps abject poverty? How is benefit in kind going to work?
Mr. Straw: We have considered the matter in great detail. We are committed to making sure that no genuine asylum seeker is left destitute. There is no doubt that, while genuine asylum seekers are happy to be provided with shelter and accommodation in kind, the prospect of a cash benefit acts as a major pull for economic migrants who have no basis whatsoever for settlement in this country under the 1951 convention.
It is perfectly right that the provision of hardship relief in kind for asylum seekers should be separated from the social security system. The social security system is there to provide benefits to people who are entitled to be resident in this country on a permanent basis, but we were about to get into a position where returning residents who had every right of settlement here were treated less well under the social security system than were asylum seekers. That is not acceptable.
Dr. Evan Harris: We understand that there will be no amnesty, and that there will instead be realistic decisions about removability. Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that, if he makes sensitive and fair judgments on that, he will be judged against common humanity and supported by hon. Members on these Benches, rather than judged by Daily Mail editorials, talk of "floods", and "send them home" comments from Tory Members?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who know detention centres locally can still see no reason why they should not be Home Office establishments, instead of privately run establishments? Because of the problems that there have been at detention centres, we look forward to a reduction in the number of places, not an expansion.
Mr. Straw: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on that last point, but the truth is that there are many more people who ought to be detained than can be detained. That picks up on a point raised earlier by an Opposition Member about the number of people who go to ground when, finally, removal directions are put down. However, as is made clear in the chapter on detention in the White Paper, paragraph 12.15, we intend that there should be proper statutory rules for all detention centres, whether run directly by the Home Office or by contractors.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the time scale in which we will be able to deal with those people who have waited an unacceptably long time—a problem that we inherited from the previous Government? Is he absolutely certain
48
that, under the measures that he has announced, no new waiting lists will build up so that people will still have to wait for an unacceptable time?
Mr. Straw: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has not had a chance to read the relevant chapter—chapter 8—of the White Paper. It sets out in detail how we intend to proceed with those cases. We intend to proceed as quickly as possible, but the nature of the system is such that it will take a lot longer than people would like.
My hon. Friend asked me whether I am absolutely certain that the changes will improve matters. I am probably certain, but we live in a world of human frailty and potential error. I shall work my socks off, as will my colleagues and officials, to ensure that the measures work. However, there is no more absolute certainty in this matter than there is in Burnley or Blackburn Rovers winning the next FA cup.
Mr. Peter Viggers: I support the Home Secretary's words—which are in stark contrast to his party's attitude when in opposition—and the abolition of the primary purpose rule. To put the problem in context, will the Home Secretary confirm that about 250,000 people have applied for asylum in this country in the past 10 years, of whom 10,700 have been given asylum and 13,000 have been deported, leaving 226,300 people whose cases have not been satisfactorily resolved? If, on average, 6 per cent. of appeals are granted, what is the Home Secretary's intention regarding the other 94 per cent. and what will be his performance?
Mr. Straw: The figures are set out in the Home Office statistical bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. We must add to the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the number of people formally granted asylum—the number of those granted exceptional leave to remain under the previous Administration and this Administration, and it is entirely right that that should be the case. Only a small proportion of those who seek asylum are granted either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, and the rest fall to be removed from this country, since there is no basis for them to be here.
We want far fewer people whose position is unfounded under the 1951 convention to make applications in the first place. We shall be able to achieve that through the combination of measures that we are taking. However, we want swifter appeals—within six months, on average—for people whose applications are refused, with the appeal setting the removal directions and, in normal circumstances, administrative removal following quickly thereafter.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: We all have constituents who are prepared to put up money or offer security so that their relatives can enter the country with a promise that they will return. I was interested in what the Home Secretary said about testing a new financial bond. How would that work?
Mr. Straw: The details of that scheme are set out in paragraphs 5.11 and 5.12 on page 24 of the White Paper. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has not had a chance to read it. He is absolutely right to say that his constituents and those of myself and other hon. Members have made

49
many representations for a bond scheme. We are consulting on that and will take into account the views of hon. Members as well as those of organisations representing people from, for example, south Asia, before finalising its details.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Home Secretary comment on how many people have been misled by illegal advice and how many have acted out of frustration and used illegal methods to enter the country because of their treatment by entry clearance officers, who have made them wait for a long time after their long journeys before interviewing them and then turning them away? Are measures being taken to tighten up the work of the entry clearance officers and achieve speedier judgments?
Following the question by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), has any assessment been made of those who are currently considered illegal entrants who are self-supporting and not a drain on the economy, some of whom are seeking medical attention?
Mr. Straw: If people are seeking medical attention, they are self-supporting and it is clear that they will return after receiving medical attention, normally they are admitted. The principal issue for visitors is whether they will return at the end of the relevant period. Entry clearance officers in posts abroad have to be very firm in their assessment of applications, because people enter as visitors, and, with increasing regularity, abuse immigration control and their right to stay here by inventing an application for asylum. We aim to deter that.
We aim greatly to improve the administration of the entry clearance system in posts abroad by putting it under the direction of a combined Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office operation, so that there will be much better co-ordination between the two Departments than hitherto.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was asking me about the total number of people who are illegally here. By definition, we cannot know that, but we know that the immigration and nationality directorate is detecting an increasing number of people who come here wholly illegally.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Home Secretary for removing the burden on local authorities of paying for the cost of asylum seekers and their residence. Will he think again about the principle of the Home Office setting up a benefits system, its likely high costs—which some of my hon. Friends have pointed out—and the unfortunate principle of paying benefits in kind rather than in cash? Would it not be cheaper to reintroduce the benefits to asylum seekers that were so callously taken away by the previous Government?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are concerned that immigration officers apparently will be given powers of arrest and removal from people's property, which they do not have at present? Does he think that that is wise?
Mr. Straw: On the latter point, immigration officers already have powers of arrest, but their corresponding powers are very unsatisfactory. Others apart from police officers have powers of arrest—customs officers have
50
such powers—but they are subject in full to the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which works satisfactorily. It is far better in principle for such work to be done by immigration officers with proper training, supported in appropriate cases by properly trained police officers.
The practice of local authorities providing benefits in kind rather than in cash has worked satisfactorily for individual applicants. The London boroughs and social services departments for ports in Kent and elsewhere have provided satisfactory, humane and sufficient systems of support in kind for applicants. The problem is that the provision of those benefits has been disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a very few boroughs. It is unreasonable for those localities to bear that burden. For that reason, the burden must be taken on nationally.
I do not accept what my hon. Friend said about payments of benefits in cash. They will not solve the problem of ensuring that genuine asylum seekers do not remain destitute, but they will provide an opportunity for fraud, and economic migrants would view them as a pull factor to come to this country.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Is there not a danger that the measures on asylum seekers that the right hon. Gentleman is introducing will simply be undermined by his actions on the primary purpose rule? What message does he have for an elderly, disabled constituent of mine who was grossly exploited even under the old arrangements? What steps will he take to monitor the growth in applications that will occur under the new category and the leakage of people seeking to overstay, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, will also increase under the new category?
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I have lost the thread, because the question was a little confused.
Mr. Brazier: The primary purpose rule.
Mr. Straw: The primary purpose rule has nothing whatever to do with asylum. Moreover, people who are granted entry to this country as spouses or fiances are not given temporary permission to stay. Initially, they are given permission to stay for 12 months, and if the marriage is shown to be working, they are given leave to remain for a further four years, and they are then allowed to settle in this country. That has nothing to do with the matter before the House.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman only that many of us witnessed the operation of the primary purpose rule—it was not only unfair but unworkable. It hurt only the innocent, and did not deter or detect those coming to Britain for bogus marriages, because it was an unjusticiable rule. That fact was recognised by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Although he had done nothing to remove the primary purpose rule while in government, when in opposition he decided not to oppose its removal.
Fiona Mactaggart: My constituents will be grateful for many aspects of the Home Secretary's statement, particularly the new arrangements for visitors, but two things deeply concern me. One is the fact that

51
people will get only one choice of where they go to live. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he will not seek to place asylum seekers in rural areas where there are no people who speak the same language, or no people with whom they have any connection, because that may lead to children in schools being seriously discriminated against, and cause extra stress to people seeking asylum?
My other concern is my right hon. Friend's statement about a right of appeal. He said that there would be a single appeal for those "lawfully present" at the time of application. I think that the arguments for a single appeal are overwhelming, but if the only people who get an appeal are those who are lawfully present at the time of application, in effect any appeal against deportation or removal has been withdrawn. That means that the circumstances of people whose lives depend on the immigrant or asylum seeker cannot be taken into account. For many women in my constituency, if appeals against deportation are not retained in some form, it will cause real hardship.
Mr. Straw: We are providing only one choice. It would be wrong to provide greater housing choice for people who have come into this country than we provide, under legislation that we have supported, for the homeless who are resident and citizens here. People who are homeless have only one opportunity in relation to housing provision by a local authority. If they refuse that, they have made themselves intentionally homeless. I do not think it unreasonable to apply the same rules to asylum seekers.
It will be for the central agency to be as sensitive as possible about where individuals are placed, but let us make it clear that we intend that this power should be used to relieve the burden on some London boroughs, Dover and other ports in the south. That may mean that asylum seekers have to go to areas that they would otherwise not wish to go to, but, if they are genuine asylum seekers, seeking refuge from persecution by their country of origin, they will not mind that.
As to appeals, we are proposing that there should be a single appeal—let me make that clear. The single appeal will deal with all matters, including removal directions and, if necessary, deportation as well. If there are any compassionate circumstances, they can be raised at that time. What we are not having is people abusing the system by putting in appeal after appeal, which is one of the reasons we face the shambles that we do.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my welcome to the decision to transfer liabilities in respect of asylum seekers from local authorities. Will the Home Secretary say when the new central funding arrangements will come into effect? Will he confirm that there will no longer be a threshold that local authorities have to reach before central Government will reimburse them for the costs of, for example, unaccompanied children?
Mr. Straw: The new central funding arrangements will come into force once legislation is through and after a proper commencement period. At that stage, the question of thresholds, I suggest, will not arise, because this will be a central Government responsibility, although we will seek to use local authorities. Meanwhile, we will have
52
discussions with, among others, local authority associations about the transitional arrangements that should apply.
Mr. John McDonnell: On that point, may I urge the Home Secretary to launch that investigation of the costs of unaccompanied children immediately, which we welcome because it deals with some of the most needy children entering this country after having faced severe circumstances in the countries of origin?
On the intelligence that will be provided to the appeal system and to the right hon. Gentleman as Home Secretary, will that mechanism be reviewed to ensure that a greater range of information is provided on the human rights record of the countries of origin of asylum seekers and refugees? In particular, will that mechanism be broadened to include independent organisations that have a track record of monitoring human rights in those countries of origin?
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely about the importance of the information that is available—both to staff who make the initial decision and to the appeals adjudicators—being much more independent and objective. For that reason, I have already set in hand arrangements for the country assessments to be the subject of scrutiny by outside non-governmental organisations and other bodies, and to be made publicly available. The White Paper sets out a series of changes, which I have already introduced, to make the system much more open and accessible.
Ms Diane Abbott: I am concerned about, among other things, the withdrawal of benefit from asylum seekers, but may I take the opportunity to welcome the proposal to pilot cash bonds for visitors? I know that this is problematic and that it does not help the poorest, but one of the most miserable aspects of our immigration system occurs when much-loved relatives are not able to come to an important christening or funeral. If the cash bond system can be piloted successfully, many of my constituents will welcome it.
Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome. I dare say that she gets as frustrated as I do in constituency surgeries when our best guess is that the application is entirely genuine, but we also understand the problems that the entry clearance officers and posts abroad will face. It is worth trialling the idea of cash bonds. It may not work, but, with careful attention to its detail, it should work, and it will certainly make life a lot better for our constituents.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Home Secretary recollect that, when we were in opposition, he and I and several others had a lot and a half to say about trauma and the fact that some of those who were seeking asylum had suffered very recent terrible trauma? [Interruption.] That meant that they were often in no fit state to answer questions accurately, and that later, because of the inaccuracy of their answers, they were disadvantaged. Do his proposals do much to give the benefit of the doubt to those who have suffered severe trauma, often in appalling, very recent circumstances?
Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend is able to study the proposals as a whole, I think that he will see that we

53
are aiming to be much swifter and sympathetic to those applications in respect of people who meet the convention criteria for refugee status. Where people come from countries or, to pick up a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), parts of countries where they clearly are at risk on convention grounds, the idea is that staff will be able to grant them refugee status or exceptional leave to remain much more quickly than they do at present, but what we want is a system that far better distinguishes between the genuine applicant who meets convention criteria and the abusive applicant from other areas—where, frankly, there is no possibility of persecution—who does not.
Mr. Geraint Davies: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, in particular the reference to the reversal of job cuts in Lunar house, Croydon, and to spreading the burden of costs from places such as Croydon and inner London through a national network of support, may I ask him, on behalf of my colleagues in Croydon, to confirm that the current cost of £2 million a year for Croydon council's asylum seekers is likely to go down?
Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about factoring in the unseen education cost of asylum seekers, particularly in London? It is not obvious that that is readily recognised as an unseen cost in the education budget for local authorities.
Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to the many thousands of my hon. Friend's constituents and others in the Croydon area for their efforts in keeping the immigration and nationality system in being, despite some substantial difficulties. Our proposal is that, when the legislation is debated and implemented, which will take some time, the burden of meeting this system of benefits in kind should be borne by central Government.
My hon. Friend invites me to pass on some remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Of course I shall do that, but our proposal for the Home Office to take responsibility for the provision of support for asylum seekers relates to provision under the National Assistance Acts and the Social Security Acts. It does not relate to provision under, for example, the national health service or the education services, for reasons that I think my hon. Friend will appreciate.

Points of Order
5.40 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As an Opposition Back Bencher, I seek your advice on my own behalf and that of other Back Benchers who are co-sponsors of the age of consent amendment which was defeated in another place.
We understand that the business is now in the hands of the Government and the Home Secretary, but surely, as Opposition Members made a political stand and co-sponsored the amendment, we should be entitled to be consulted on the fate of the measure. This matter is of great concern to us, and I should like your advice, to us or to the Government, on whether it is appropriate that we were not consulted about what happened, and whether it is appropriate that the first occasion on which we are liable to hear about the fate of the amendment that we and Labour Back Benchers strongly supported will be at a press conference later this evening.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter that hon. Members must find ways to take up with Ministers. The Home Secretary is on the Treasury Bench and will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure that he can pursue it in some other way.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you will agree that it is distracting, particularly for Ministers who face complicated questions such as I asked the Home Secretary on trauma and asylum, when mobile phones or bells go off outside the Chamber. Could something be gently done about that, because it is very distracting?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has ruled that mobile phones are not permissible within the House. There is slightly less control over what may happen in other areas that are above the Chamber. The matter will be attended to. I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms will note that fact, and will make sure that Madam Speaker's ruling runs throughout the Chamber.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Bill
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24 July].
  [Mr. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Clause 54

  THE NORTHERN IRELAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
  5.41 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 175, in page 25, line 26, after 'Commission', insert
  'with membership from Northern Ireland reflecting the community balance.'.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 40, in page 25, line 28, leave out
  'appointed by the Secretary of State'
  and insert—
  '(2A) Her Majesty may by Letters Patent from time to time appoint persons to be chairman and members, and any person so appointed shall hold office during good behaviour.'.
  No. 41, in page 25, line 29, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert 'Her Majesty'.>
  No. 56, in schedule 8, page 46, line 34, after 'to', insert `section 54(2A) and'.
  No. 57, in schedule 8, page 46, line 41, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert 'Her Majesty'.
  No. 58, in schedule 8, page 47, line 11, leave out
  'in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State'.
  Government amendments Nos. 209 and 210.
  Mr. McDonnell: I shall be brief. The commission will conduct critical work to ensure that human rights are preserved and protected in the interests of all sections of the community. Clause 54(3) states:
  "In making appointments under this section, the Secretary of State shall as far as practicable secure that the Commissioners, as a group, are representative of the community in Northern Ireland."
  That is somewhat weaker than our proposal because the amendment seeks a definite community balance. It does not use the words "as far as practicable" and is not merely representative of the community as a whole. As I have said, the commission will play important roles and that is why it is prudent to get its composition right.
  Throughout debate on the legislation, members of the Committee have been meticulous in pointing to the need for community balance and agreement across the board in decision making and in the exercise of these powers. The amendment would help to meet that need.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I should like to speak to my amendments Nos. 40 and 42 and to comment
  56
  on Government amendments Nos. 209 and 210. Amendment No. 40 states:
  "(2A) Her Majesty may by Letters Patent from time to time appoint persons to be chairman and members, and any person so appointed shall hold office during good behaviour."
  The amendment seeks to give the commission a greater quasi-constitutional status and greater independence from the Northern Ireland Office than the Bill envisages. It would bring it closer to the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; indeed, the amendment is based on the legislation that established that office. There is also another reason to which I referred generally on Second Reading. I should like to go into more detail on the points that I made then, and I shall do so now to obviate the need to repeat them on subsequent amendments. I trust that the Minister of State will bear them in mind.
  First, the United Nations established in the Paris convention some principles known as the Paris principles, and they outline what should or should not be contained in an effective human rights body such as a commission. The first of those is that the body should be seen to be as independent as possible of the state. Appointments by letters patent rather than by the Secretary of State will ensure that they are not political appointments and subject to the differing pressures that might arise. That is of the utmost importance.
  Secondly, the Paris convention also envisaged that a human rights commission should be not only reactive but proactive. That is also embodied in my suggestion as to how the chairman should be appointed, and it appears in some of the later amendments that have been chosen for discussion. In particular, such a commission should have the power to initiate investigations, help people and to be an amicus curiae if and when it feels that that is necessary.
  The flavour of the majority of the amendments that have been tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends is that it is important to ensure from the start that the commission will be independent. I regret that, although the Government have tabled some amendments to the parts of the Bill that deal with equality—they do not go far enough, but at least some action has been taken—there does not seem to be a Government amendment to the part of the Bill dealing with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that would embrace the points that I raised earlier. I appreciate that other Departments may be interested in these matters, but my second major point is that it is important for these matters to be in the Bill.
  As I said on Second Reading, in December at the Strasbourg Heads of Government meeting, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister endorsed the Strasbourg declaration to establish a human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe. Basically, that consists of all the well-established democratic countries of Europe, emerged and newly emerging.
  This will be the first creation of a human rights commission in any of the well-established European democracies since that declaration. The emerging European countries are looking to other countries for examples of how to approach the question of human rights, enforce them and establish independence from the usual organs of the state in examining whether there have been abuses. Those countries will look carefully at such examples and will look specifically and directly at the

  57
  newest example of a human rights commission. It will be in the United Kingdom, and specifically in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will have what we do not have—a draft human rights Act. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we should have these powers, which are embodied in the concept of a chairman appointed under letters patent rather than by the Secretary of State.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay heed to the flavour and intention of all the amendments relating to the Human Rights Commission, so that we can feel that there will be independence from the Secretary of State and thus from political opinion and other pressures.
  I want to deal with Government amendments Nos. 209 and 210, which would replace the word "its" with the word "their". I always thought that the word "commission" was a collective noun and therefore singular. Why, then, do the Government want to replace "its" with "their"? If we were talking about commission members, I could understand the use of "their", but to use "their" when referring to the commission is stretching the bounds of language.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: We need to know exactly what is meant by the term "community balance" in amendment No. 175. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) did not spell that out. Does he mean that there should be a balance on a sectarian basis, a religious basis or a political basis? It was intended that the Parades Commission should have a community balance, but when two members resigned the two who replaced them did not preserve that balance. On this occasion, we need to know more clearly what is meant by "community balance" before we can reach a conclusion on the amendment.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I readily added my name to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). If my hon. Friend the Minister is not minded to accept these reasonable amendments, will he assure the Committee that the clause, unamended, is compatible with paragraph 5 of the agreement, which calls for a human rights commission
  "with membership from Northern Ireland reflecting the community balance"?
  In a sense, that answers the question of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor); the agreement specifies "community balance".
  The very helpful notes on clauses state:
  "Subsection (2) provides that the Commission is to consist of a Chief Commissioner and other Commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State. The Bill deliberately makes no reference to the size of the Commission, nor the method of appointment, which will be dealt with administratively."
  I need hardly remind my hon. Friend the Minister that in paragraph 10 the agreement calls for
  "a joint committee of representatives of the two Human Rights Commissions".
  Do the two Governments envisage that the two commissions—one in the Republic and the other in the north of Ireland—would have the same number of members and deal with the same matters, which, presumably, they would discuss when considering
  "the possibility of establishing a charter, open to signature by all democratic political parties, reflecting and endorsing agreed measures for the protection of the fundamental rights of everyone living in the island of Ireland"?
  58
  If the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendments, will he give me the assurance I have requested and comment on the compatibility of the two commissions, one in the Republic and the other in the north of Ireland?
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I welcome amendment No. 175. It is about time we had a body dealing with human rights in Northern Ireland that had some community balance. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights certainly did not have any community balance—it was very much weighted against the Unionist community.
  I suppose that the very fact that amendment No. 175 has been tabled shows that some hon. Members believe that the Secretary of State, were she left to her own devices, would appoint a human rights commission that did not reflect the balance of the community. There is some healthy scepticism among those on the Labour Back Benches which is to be welcomed. I am glad that those hon. Members want the commission to be balanced so that there is respectable Unionist representation on it, which is not the case at the moment.
  There should be no need to put into the Bill a requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint a balanced commission; it is what one expects a Secretary of State to do. However, neither the Secretary of State nor Ministers have appointed people who reflect the community balance, so there needs to be a requirement for them to appoint on a cross-community basis. It is important that the Minister put on the record today clear guidance on what he understands by "community balance"—whether it be representation across the political and religious divides or simply on the basis of gender or some other aspect.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Human Rights Commission is an important aspect of the Bill because it is an important aspect of the agreement. I remind the Committee that we spent many days in the talks on this matter. They were profitable talks and negotiations, with little disagreement on the principles behind the Human Rights Commission.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that, when the commission is formed, we will have one of the strongest human rights institutions in Europe. The commission will advise the Government and the Assembly Executive on human rights. It will see all Assembly legislation and be able to offer an opinion on whether it is compatible with the European convention on human rights. It will, as a priority, consult and advise on the drawing up of a Bill of Rights to suit Northern Ireland's particular needs, and such a Bill would also become fundamental law by being put into a Westminster Act.
  The commission will be able to support people whose human rights have been denied or abused by helping them to take their cases to the courts. It will be a powerful voice and force in developing, through education and research, an active human rights culture in Northern Ireland. It will be independent of Government, employing its own staff and deciding how best to carry out its tasks. It will do everything it can to ensure that the north-south human rights committee, envisaged by the agreement, is set up.
  I understand that aspects of the Bill are not entirely satisfactory to hon. Members or to organisations that deal with these matters in Northern Ireland. My right

  59
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said—and I repeat the promise—that, during the summer and before the Bill goes to the other place, we will consult political parties both here and in Northern Ireland to ensure that some of the points that are sensibly made are dealt with in the other place. Indeed, as we go through today's debate, I shall be more than prepared to accede to or consider further a number of amendments. We are listening to the debate on the understanding that there will be more time for consultation.
  One of the reasons for more consultation is that the agreement contains only one paragraph dealing with the new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Inevitably, the agreement is silent on a number of issues. Consequently, there is all the more reason for us to consult further.
  6 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister will be aware that the agreement mentions not party balance but community balance. Although I have every belief that he—or whoever appoints the commissioners—will ensure that the commission has a community balance, does he accept that the legislation probably would be strengthened if the Bill specifically stated that there should be such a community balance?
  Mr. Murphy: I shall in fact deal now with the amendments—the first of which, No. 175, was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). It states that the commission should have
  "membership from Northern Ireland reflecting the community balance."
  My hon. Friend was right to say that that provision is in the Belfast agreement—in the second line of paragraph 5, on page 17—but I do not agree with him that it is not in the Bill. We believe that the wording of clause 54(3) is the best way to give legislative effect to that part of the agreement referring to community balance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made some points on the commission's independence and the position of the Secretary of State and of Her Majesty. I think that the Bill and the agreement—and everything that has happened in between—show that we are more than happy that the commission should be genuinely independent. However, we still believe that it is for the Government to appoint the commission. Moreover, if Her Majesty had to appoint the commission, the Secretary of State—as leading Minister in these matters—would be advising her.
  Although I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, made on the ombudsman—who deals with slightly different matters—I do not think that amendment No. 40 would change the position.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: What exactly does the Minister mean by "community balance"?
  Mr. Murphy: It is a matter not of what I think but of what the agreement said. It very clearly said:
  "membership from Northern Ireland reflecting the community balance".
  60
  I am sure that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appoints the commissioners, she will be bearing in mind exactly the type of talks and discussions that we had in the negotiations leading to the Belfast agreement. I am sure that, in so doing, she will be able to reflect the community balance. I am sure, too, that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that.
  Mr. Taylor: As the Minister was involved in the talks, and the Secretary of State was rarely involved in them, surely he can tell us what is meant by "community balance"?
  Mr. Murphy: Yes, I can. However, I think that it would be more profitable if such a discussion were held in the next two months with all the parties in Northern Ireland.
  As I said, one paragraph in the agreement deals with the commission's community balance. I think that all the world knows what traditions and communities we are considering: the broad Unionist community and the broad nationalist community. There are also other parties in Northern Ireland, such as the Alliance party, that very much think that there is another tradition that is not aligned to either Unionism or nationalism. As the right hon. Gentleman knows—as he is an Assembly member and will have to state his designation—there are other categories.
  When we discussed the matter, I have not the slightest doubt that we referred to the nationalist and Unionist communities. However, my right hon. Friend will have to take into account the fine balancing required in the matter when she and I consult the parties in the summer months.
  Two other issues were raised in the debate, the first of which—on the use of "theirs" rather than "its", as proposed in Government amendments Nos. 209 and 210—was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North. For the 11 years that I have been an hon. Member, I have been constantly amazed at singles being plurals and vice versa. However, I am advised that such wording is the legal and technical way to legislate, even if it is not always the best English.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it possible that "they" is necessary for the joint committee that the Minister mentioned? If not, "it" should cover one commission. How is there a legal aspect to the matter? Surely the English language has a clear enough meaning.
  Mr. Murphy: I sometimes wonder about that. I think that, in this case—I promise to come back to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong on this—the use is not in the context only of the joint committee, which I shall deal with now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) mentioned the joint committee, which is mentioned also in the agreement. It will be for the Republic of Ireland to decide the composition of its part of the committee in its own jurisdiction. Clause 55(7) provides for the commission to do all it can in facilitating the agreement. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be satisfied by that.

  61
  With those remarks, I should be grateful if amendment No. 175 were withdrawn, as many of the points that have been raised in the debate will be the subject of consultation in the summer months with parties in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Committee must face the issue of community raised by amendment No. 175. In my constituency, it would be possible to appoint to a commission people from the upper Malone, for example, who would be perceived as representing one part of the community, and other people from Balmoral, who would be perceived as representing another part of the community. I do not think that people from either group would be seen as representing the Markets, Sandy Row, the Donegall road or Taugh Monagh. As has been said in this debate, communities are not simply political parties. We have to remember that we are dealing with human rights and with issues affecting people in every part of the community.
  I wonder whether the Government have allowed themselves, in clause 54(3), a cop-out in the phrase "as far as practicable". As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, once people on the Parades Commission realised what they were called on to do, they resigned and were replaced by those who were perceived by some—including those in authority—as representing the other community. However, they lived so remote from the other community that they could not represent it. We have to deal with the situation as it is.
  I appreciate the Minister's comments on re-examining the use of the English language. He is a Welshman and I speak Ulster English. I should like to think that our English is accurate, especially when we deal with any legal interpretations that could cause us problems.
  I should have liked the effects of amendment No. 40 to be teased out a little more. As a Unionist, I would have no difficulty with such a provision involving Her Majesty. I am not sure whether use of the words "Letters Patent" suggests that guidance to Her Majesty would come from the Lord Chancellor or from someone else who holds an office that is perhaps less political than that of the Secretary of State's, thereby providing some independence in the matter. On the other hand, some people might perceive it as a little mischievous if, instead of leaving the responsibility with the Secretary of State, the Committee placed it on Her Majesty's shoulders—bearing in mind the fact that some people in Northern Ireland have a strong republican tradition and might regard that as a departure from the agreement.
  Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will be reviewing the position in the coming months and will consult on the definition of community balance. For the sake of clarity, I urge him to ensure that that consultation takes place before the Bill goes to another place.
  Throughout our discussions on the Bill—I have sat through them all—we have tried to ensure that the Bill reflects the agreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made clear, the amendment directly reflects the statement in the agreement that the Human Rights Commission should reflect the community balance. I appreciate the need for the implementation to be spelled out in clause 54, but unfortunately I do not think that subsection (1) goes far enough in reflecting the agreement.
  62
  On the definition of community balance, there will obviously be a matrix of different factors that need to be taken into account. That is why it is critical that there be consultation and clarity before the Bill goes to another place. I welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be further consideration, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: The series of amendments to clause 54 deal with the—I am sorry, Mr. Martin. I shall resume my seat. I had intended to speak to clause 55; I apologise to the Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8

  THE NORTHERN IRELAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
  Amendments made: No. 209, in page 48, line 2, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.
  No. 210, in page 48, line 4, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
  Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. McNamara: It is not my intention to delay the Committee long, but it will have seen from the amendment paper that I had tabled an amendment relating to the budget of the Human Rights Commission, which the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his wisdom, did not select.
  I am concerned to ensure that the commission should be given adequate budgetary powers to enable it to carry out all its functions. It will have some significant tasks, which were outlined by the Minister. For example, when the commission consults on the new Bill of Rights, the amount of money suggested in the Bill could well be expended simply on getting reports in that connection. The question of litigation in which the commission might be involved also underlines the need for sufficient funding.
  I am especially concerned about the fact that there could be considerable delays because of Northern Ireland Office scrutiny. Questions might be asked of the commission as to whether its money is properly used. It is important that all the functions of the commission should be properly funded. There should be no restrictions on any distribution of funding as among the functions that the commission has been given. It is important that there should be adequate funding because funding could affect the commission's operation, strategy, standing, credibility and independence. For example, problems arose with the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which sometimes faced difficulties because it did not have sufficient independence and, from time to time, did not get the attention that it deserved from the Government.
  The explanatory and financial memorandum notes that the costs associated with the Human Rights Commission and the new Equality Commission will be £750,000. It is important to know the spread of moneys between those

  63
  two bodies. I hope that I have put down a couple of cautionary markers to the Minister as to how the money will be allocated and the impact of that allocation.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: We have already discussed the importance of having a community balance in the commission's membership. Schedule 8 also refers to the commission's staff.
  In Northern Ireland, we have experience of fair employment legislation. We have a Fair Employment Commission, which is supposed to ensure a proper balance of employment among institutions and businesses. However, one of the worst examples of imbalance in employment is to be found among the staff of the Fair Employment Commission itself. Throughout its entire history, it has always had among its employees an imbalance to the disadvantage of the Protestant community. It has never rectified that imbalance and has been a failure to the extent that it has not set an example to other employers in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it would not be sufficient for us to assume that applying the present fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland would mean a proper balance within the staff of the new commission, unless the schedule stated clearly—as it does in respect of the membership of the commission—that the staff should likewise reflect the community in Northern Ireland.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. William Ross: In the earlier debate, some concern was expressed about what community balance actually meant. It seemed that the Minister did not know the meaning of the phrase, because he kept on talking about there being more discussions over the summer months. My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who was a member of the talks team, was anxious to have the matter clarified but did not, if I may say so, receive any clarification from the Minister.
  We do not yet know whether community balance with regard to the commissioners is based on religious persuasion, political persuasion or on something else, or whether there will be representation involving people who have migrated to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, the Irish Republic or elsewhere. Nor do we know how the atheists and agnostics are to be represented.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford also referred to a different body that has an imbalance in its staff. Another imbalance in that body is that Mr. Cooper has always been the most prominent of its members—
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Sir Robert.
  Mr. Ross: Yes, he is Sir Robert now. He has been well rewarded for his services to the community in Northern Ireland. It seems that no one other than he has been able to fill the post that he has held.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. Ross: I shall continue, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
  64
  Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 8 states that the chief commissioner shall not be appointed for more than five years at a time and that any other commissioner shall not be appointed for more than three years at a time. We need to know how many five-year or three-year terms those individuals will be permitted to serve, as we do not want a permanent occupant of the post being established. Indeed, I think that most of us would be greatly put out if we were to discover that Sir Robert Cooper was to transfer to the new body.
  We are also deeply concerned about lines 4 and 5 on page 48 of the Bill, which state that the commission may make provision about
  "the discharge of its functions by committees (which may include non-commissioners)".
  In the circumstances, perhaps the Minister will tell us how he will ensure the balance when non-commissioners are included, as that could introduce considerable imbalance by the back door? We need to know a great deal more from the Government than we have heard hitherto.
  The matter will be complicated for many years in Northern Ireland and we need to get it right. It is no use the Minister coming along in the latter stages of the Bill's passage through the House and saying, "Do not worry about it. We will get it right over the summer." At least two of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have considered the matter for many months are clearly unhappy—and, indeed, unclear—about the wording of the Bill in this regard. We certainly deserve a much more detailed explanation from the Minister than he has so far given. May we please have the information that we seek before we proceed any further?
  Dr. Godman: In my view, in respect of representation on such bodies, it is entirely right and proper that the Government should seek a community balance and should attempt at all costs to avoid the creation of institutionalised sectarianism.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has raised another interesting point. He refers to institutionalised sectarianism. In my own Church, a debate on sectarianism has raged for the past year. I always have some difficulty with that as, in essence, any religious denomination must be sectarian. Otherwise, it does away with its own reason for existence—and I do not see very many being prepared to accept that. If the hon. Gentleman has any more to say about that, I would be happy to hear it, as he has made interesting contributions to the debate. He now appears to be saying that community balance must be extended beyond those who are Roman Catholic or Protestant in the broadest sense. Later today, we will consider amendments on that point. However, if we take that route, we will find ourselves with an extremely large commission.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has given the most peculiar definition of religion that I have ever heard—that it has to be based on a sectarian point of view—but I shall let that pass. In his reply to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and me, my hon. Friend the Minister said that there would be consultation with all parties. The agreement refers not to parties but to communities that should be represented on the commission. The Minister

  65
  said that, if necessary, he was prepared to introduce further amendments in the House of Lords, so is it really necessary to have a lengthy exploration of schedule 8 at this stage?
  Mr. Ross: This is the perfect opportunity to have a lengthy exploration of the matters, as we did not get the explanation that we sought from the Minister. The hon. Gentleman would be well served if he went to the Library and looked up the meaning of "sectarian" in one of the very many excellent dictionaries there. He would find that I am much closer to the mark than he seems to believe.
  Mr. McNamara: I thank the Committee for its patience. I want to raise one point with regard to the statements that were made about Sir Robert Cooper. Sir Robert has been a fine, principled public servant during his time at the Fair Employment Commission and, before that, at the Fair Employment Agency. He has been objective and strong, although he has not always been supported by Government to the extent that he should have been. He certainly has a reputation for impartiality throughout Northern Ireland of which any public servant would be proud, and I hope that all members of the commission, from whatever part of the community, have the same sterling virtues as Sir Robert.
  Had the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) been a member of the Committee considering the legislation in the 1980s, he would recall that the agency advertised specifically for applicants from the majority community to take up places within the Fair Employment Commission. The Fair Employment Commission sought desperately to achieve and maintain a balance among the people who served on it.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I should like to raise another aspect of representativeness in the community. Like all legislation, the Bill refers constantly to "he" and "him", as if only the male half of the population could participate in the bodies concerned. This may seem a small point, so let me ask hon. Members to ask themselves whether, if the legislation referred constantly to "she" and "her", that would create an impression that it was intended solely or mostly for women.
  Does the Minister agree that, in the interests of ensuring proper participation by women in the Human Rights Commission and other bodies, it is high time that the wording of legislation reflected the balance in society? If that cannot be done during the passage of the Bill, will my hon. Friend at least ensure that everything possible is done to ensure that the public are made aware that women should play a full part in the commission?
  Mr. Paul Murphy: On the last point, I understand that the Interpretation Act 1978 makes it clear that the word "he" also refers to the word "she". However, I take my hon. Friend's point about the importance of women being represented on public bodies in Northern Ireland'—particularly the public body to which the schedule refers.
  I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised, but first let me make two general points that cover much of what has been said in the past 20 minutes or so.
  Everyone agrees that the great success of the agreement was that it brought together nationalism and Unionism to the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland. There
  66
  are of course Protestant nationalists and Catholic Unionists and it is sometimes difficult to disentangle the subtleties of the ways in which people identify themselves. That is why, in the Assembly, people are asked to identify themselves as representatives of the Unionist community or the nationalist community. I also understand that there is provision for representatives to identify themselves as neither. Everyone understands that the purpose of the agreement was to bring together people who have for many decades been bitterly divided.
  We do not want to have too mechanistic a view of the composition of the commission and to tie ourselves down to a formula that is unrealistic or not sensible. We want the commission to secure human rights for everybody and to be representative of everybody. We also understand that the community cannot be represented only by people from the Upper Malone road and Balmoral. Obviously, we accept the point that, initially, appointments to the commission must be made on merit so that the people who are to do those jobs will do them well. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must ensure that people have confidence in the commission, whether they are Unionists or nationalists. That is why the Bill—and particularly the agreement—refers to the balance.
  There will also be a non-statutory memorandum of understanding between the Government and the commission on various administrative matters. Clearly, we want to keep a watchful eye on the appointments and how the commission develops.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to funding. He was right to draw attention to the memorandum at the beginning of the Bill, as the reference to the funding of the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission is wrong. The £750,000 is for the running of the Human Rights Commission alone: it does not include the Equality Commission. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there must be adequate funding. There is no point in having a commission, which is a central part of the agreement, unless there is money to ensure that it works properly. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall ensure that the commission is properly funded.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 55

  THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS
  6.30 pm
  Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 26, leave out lines 2 to 6 and insert'—
  '(3) The Assembly shall refer all proposed Measures to the Commission in draft and the Commission may advise the Assembly whether a proposed Measure is compatible with human rights, as the Commission thinks appropriate.
  (4) The Assembly shall receive any such advice, and take it into account when considering the proposed Measure.'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 155, in page 26, line 2, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  '(3) The Assembly shall refer all Bills to the Commission in draft. The Commission may advise the Assembly whether a Bill is compatible with human rights as the Commission thinks appropriate. The Assembly shall receive any such advice, and take it into account when considering the Bill.'.

  67
  Government amendments Nos. 181 and 182.
  Amendment No. 189, in page 26, line 17, at end insert—
  '(6A) The Commission may decide to publish its advice and the outcome of its research and investigations.'.
  Amendment No. 190, in page 26, line 18, leave out 'facilitate' and insert 'ensure'.
  Amendment No. 191, in page 26, line 19, leave out 'referred to' and insert 'envisaged'.
  Amendment No. 44, in page 26, line 24, at end add
  'and all other international human rights standards which are relevant.'.
  Amendment No. 177, in page 26, line 24, at end add—
  '(9) In addition to the powers the Commission has at present, the Secretary of State shall order a review, to be completed within one year, to review the remit and structure in line with international best practice, and shall consult with the office of the UN High Commissioner, non—governmental organisations and other interested parties.'.
  New clause 2—Power of Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to seek restraining injunctions—
  '. —Where the Commission considers that, unless restrained, a person is likely to engage in a persistent breach of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, or of section 62 or 63 of this Act, the Commission may apply to the High Court for an injunction restraining him from doing so; and the court, if satisfied that the application is well founded, may grant the injunction in the terms applied for, or in more limited terms.'.
  New clause 3—Power of Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to conduct investigations—

  '.—(1) Where the Commission considers it appropriate, it may conduct investigations to determine whether a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, or of section 62 or 63 of this Act, has occurred, or may be occurring.

  (2) Where the Commission proposes to conduct an investigation, it shall afford an opportunity to those with sufficient interest to comment on the desirability of conducting such an investigation.

  (3) For the purposes of an investigation, the Commission may require any person who in its opinion is able to furnish information or produce documents relevant to the investigation to furnish any such information or produce any such document.

  (4) For the purposes of any such investigation the Commission shall have the same powers as the Court in respect of the attendance and examination of witnesses and in respect of the production of documents.

  (5) If any person without lawful excuse obstructs the Commission or any officer of the Commission in the performance of his functions under this Act, or is guilty of any act or omission in relation to any investigation under this Act which, if that investigation were a proceeding in the Court, would constitute contempt of court, the Commission may certify the offence to the Court.

  (6) Where an offence is certified under this section, the Court may inquire into the matter and deal with the person mentioned in subsection (5) in any manner in which the Court could deal with him if he had committed the like offence in relation to the Court.

  (7) If, after conducting an investigation under this Act, it appears to the Commission appropriate, it may lay before each House of Parliament and the Assembly a special report.'.

  New clause 14—Human Rights Commission: Review—

  '—(1) On the expiry of the third year following the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, the Secretary of State shall invite the Commission to submit a report reviewing its activities to date and, if appropriate, submitting proposals for revising its mandate and structure.

  68

  (2) The Secretary of State shall, following public consultation on the report of the Commission, bring forward such proposals as he feels are appropriate, taking into account the report of the Commission and the process of public consultations.'.

  Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Minister inadvertently misled the Committee—or perhaps I misheard him—when he was speaking about the powers of the new Human Rights Commission. He gave the impression that it was to be empowered to examine all legislation from the new Assembly. That is not what the Bill says. I propose in amendment No. 43 that the Assembly should refer proposed measures to the commission in draft and that, if the commission gives advice on whether the measure is compatible with human rights, that advice should be taken into account.
  The Assembly should have a responsibility to send all draft legislation to the commission. The commission should have the discretion to choose which measures to comment on. For the commission to have scrutiny powers only when issues are referred by the Assembly would reduce its effectiveness. Requiring the commission to comment properly on all legislation would overburden it and disable it from acting strategically, concentrating on issues that are considered to be of primary importance. It is preferable for the Assembly to be required to receive the commission's views and consider how best to respond than for the initiative to come from the Assembly.
  Amendment No. 44 would extend the power of the commission when considering various international organs and statutes to enable it to consider issues on the international stage as well as in the European context. The Paris convention of the United Nations is one example.
  New clause 2 mirrors existing legislation for the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, enabling the commission to initiate litigation if it considers that there is a pattern of human rights violations. That would enable the commission to be more effective.
  New clause 3 would give the commission powers that it currently lacks to investigate breaches of human rights and the rights envisaged in the Paris principle. The crucial issue is what powers the commission should be given to make such investigations effective. The amendment would provide that the commission, like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, would have the power to allow discovery of documents and to require witnesses to attend and testify at an inquiry, together with adequate safeguards to ensure procedural fairness for witnesses.
  New clause 14 would make provision for the Human Rights Commission to report on its work after a number of years, and to consider what improvements might be made. That mirrors the provision in the Fair Employment Acts for an examination of what was happening under the Acts, which resulted in the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, on which I hope to see legislation in the next Session.
  Mr. McGrady: The functions and powers of the Human Rights Commission are among the most important aspects of the Belfast agreement. It is important that the Bill reflects the letter and the spirit of the commitments entered into by the two Governments and the other signatories to the agreement.
  The SDLP is not satisfied that the Bill gives full expression to the letter and spirit of the agreement on the Human Rights Commission. The commission must be a

  69
  powerful guardian of new standards resulting from the implementation of the agreement. In our debates on clause 54 and schedule 8, we have dealt briefly with the resources and personnel at the disposal of the commission and its composition. Those factors—finance, composition and personnel—will determine the quality, the style and the importance of the commission. The enormous wealth of international expertise might be brought to bear on the commission's problems.
  The amendments are crucial to help the Human Rights Commission in its initiating role, its investigations of violations and non-performance on issues within its remit and its scrutiny of proposed legislation. Those are vital issues. I am fearful that a repeat of the assurance that the Minister gave on the issues raised on clause 54 and schedule 8—that the matters will be considered at length over the summer and reflected in amendments in the other place—will not give us a chance to tie down some of the existing requirements, agreed by two Governments and eight parties. The aim of the amendments is to ensure that the Human Rights Commission is fully able to undertake the matters referred to it.
  It would be inappropriate to repeat the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but perhaps I could refer to a further issue that is not reflected in the Bill. In paragraph 10, under the heading "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity", the agreement says:
  "It is envisaged that there would be a joint committee of representatives of the two Human Rights Commissions, North and South, as a forum for consideration of human rights issues in the island of Ireland. The joint committee will consider, among other matters, the possibility of establishing a charter, open to signature by all democratic political parties, reflecting and endorsing agreed measures for the protection of the fundamental rights of everyone living in the island of Ireland."
  How does the Minister see that being provided for and, indeed, implemented under the powers of the Human Rights Commission and its sister group in the Republic of Ireland for the purpose of ensuring that the human rights of all citizens of Ireland—north and south—are dealt with comprehensively and harmoniously? As the Minister rightly said in relation to clause 54, this very important area took up considerable debating time in the inter-party talks.
  I repeat that we are not satisfied that the letter and spirit of the agreement are fully reflected in the Bill. We are, alas, very dependent on the Minister taking on board what has been said, listening to the consultation which he has promised during the summer months and making available amendments to implement the aspects that have been omitted and to create the joint committee before the matter goes to the other place for final consideration.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Amendment No. 155 is essentially the same as amendment No. 43, which was moved by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), with the exception that it would replace the phrase "proposed Measures" in amendment No. 43 with "Bills". We thought it appropriate to reflect the change between the draft Bill and the Bill before us in the amendment. The amendment's aim is largely the same as that of amendment No. 43: to seek elucidation of the exact process by which the commission will comment and provide advice on Bills and draft Bills—not least because the commission will welcome such guidance.
  70
  Our ideal is that all Bills comply with human rights requirements. That could be achieved if all Bills were referred to the commission every time that it can make a contribution—at an early stage, just after the Bill is published, and once again at the end of the process, once the Assembly has amended them. It would certainly take far too long if the commission were invited or expected to examine every new dot or comma and every tiny change. We need to ensure that the Human Rights Commission sees the Bills on enough occasions and at the right times in order for it to comply with the requirements. At the same time, we must ensure that demands on it are not so strict and persistent that the whole process would be held up.
  The Bill should provide that the Assembly automatically refers all draft legislation to the commission, which would have the discretion to choose on which pieces of legislation it would comment. The commission may make very little comment on some pieces of legislation, while others may require substantial investigation and advice. Allowing the commission powers to scrutinise only issues that the Assembly has referred to it would massively reduce the commission's effectiveness. Indeed, some friction between the commission and the Assembly may be generated. By the same token, it would be rather unhelpful if the commission felt duty bound to comment on every piece of legislation. It would not be helpful to refer matters that are not relevant to its core work. It would be nice to be reassured that the commission would have such latitude.
  I basically support amendments Nos. 189 and 190. As I understand it, amendment No. 189 adds the proviso that the commission may decide to publish any advice it has given and the outcome of its research and investigation. I see the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) nodding. Adding such a proviso is sensible, and would make the commission more open and accountable. More than anything, it would make it clear to the public that the commission can be expected to behave in such a way, which is all to the good. Amendment No. 190 would leave out the word "facilitate" and insert the word "ensure", and amendment No. 191 would change the words "referred to" to "envisaged". They encourage the commission to take a firmer line and ensure that a north-south human rights commission is established. That is also very sensible.
  6.45 pm
  Taken together, amendments Nos. 189, 190 and 191 go slightly further than the wording in the agreement. There does not seem to be a mandate in the agreement for demanding that the commission ensure the creation of such a north-south commission, although it is certainly in the spirit of the agreement—indeed, the language of the agreement implies that it would be reasonable—to take the matter a little further. I would be very supportive of that. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that group of amendments.
  I very much support new clause 3, which would allow the commission to be proactive as well as reactive in upholding human rights and ensuring that justice is done. It makes it easier for the commission to ensure that test cases—class actions—can be brought forward rather than an individual being required to bring forward a case which the commission could investigate. It seems right that the commission can embark on such an approach.

  71
  The amendments provide that, like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the commission has specific powers to enable discovery of documents and to require witnesses to attend and testify before such an inquiry—together with adequate safeguards to ensure procedural fairness for witnesses. All in all, therefore, new clause 3 would significantly strengthen the commission's opportunities to act proactively. Given the clear spirit and intent of the agreement, it would be very helpful if the Government seriously considered accepting new clause 3, or something very similar, during their deliberations over the next few months.
  Amendment Nos. 155, 43, 189 to 191 and new clause 3 would strengthen the sections of the Bill on the commission's work and are very much in line with the agreement.
  Mr. Corbyn: I should like to draw the Committee's attention to amendment No. 177, which was tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). It concerns the role of the Secretary of State in asking for a review within one year. New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others, would require a review at the end of the third year. My hon. Friend and I suggest that an earlier review might be more appropriate.
  Given the growing power of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights and the importance of human rights that many Governments are now recognising, it would be appropriate if, in reviewing proceedings, the Secretary of State and the commission consulted the UN high commission on whether it feels that the Human Rights Commission's operations are in line with UN best practice. Indeed, the UN high commission could provide helpful advice. In Northern Ireland, we are—hopefully—moving towards a much more peaceful future, where respect for human rights is a cornerstone. The greater the transparency and the greater the involvement of international organisations such as the UN high commission, the more successful the Human Rights Commission is likely to be.
  I welcome amendment No. 189, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and others, for its desire for transparency in the commission's work. I am however surprised that its says only that the commission "may…publish" some of its findings. It would be more appropriate for the commission to make public all its findings and research, so that people have much more confidence in it and do not suspect that some unpublished evidence is lurking around which might be the subject of leaks or speculation. Transparency is most important if we are to overcome all the difficulties in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister will recall that, in the multi-party talks prior to the Belfast agreement, there was considerable discussion of human rights, especially human rights in the Republic of Ireland. When the Council of Europe at Strasbourg debated the agreement, it requested in its resolution that provision be made for human rights in the Republic of Ireland, as required by the European convention on human rights.
  In the multi-party talks, subjects such as family planning legislation, divorce legislation and compulsory Irish in schools were raised. In particular, there was
  72
  discussion about the discrimination against Protestants from Northern Ireland who marry people from the Republic and move there, but cannot find employment in the public sector because they have never learnt the Irish language. Of all the professions, schoolteachers are most aggrieved at that discrimination; they cannot find jobs, even in Protestant schools, because the rules forbid the employment of teachers who do not have a qualification in Gaelic.
  The creation of a human rights commission in the Republic of Ireland would be an important part of the new arrangement within the island of Ireland, by which, I hope, Northern Ireland will be able to live at ease with its neighbour. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind as consideration of the Bill continues.
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I agree with the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—one of the welcome features of the Belfast agreement is that parallel movement in the south will cover the problem to which he alludes. Indeed, further provision is made for joint participation on the human rights front; the two commissions will eventually, I hope, have a joint body where such issues can be raised when anyone, on either side of the border, fails to come up to scratch.
  Mr. McNamara: The thought occurred to me that that would be an excellent subject for a cross-border committee between Dail Eireann and the new Assembly—such a committee could explore all sorts of problems.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. No doubt the right hon. Member for Strangford has heard what he said and will in time support such a progressive endeavour.
  I underline what my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said about the importance of the clause and the functions of the commission. Under the Bill as it stands, the commission has a benevolence about it; it is an also-ran to almost everyone. However, it does not have many teeth, which is what a human rights body needs if it is to be effective.
  That is why I think that the phraseology of the amendment is superior to that of the Bill. I also think, with respect, that the amendment would be more effective than amendment No. 155—although I agree with every word. that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said—so I hope that the Minister will actively consider it. It is only right that all measures should be referred from the Assembly to the commission. Equally, the commission should not be obliged to submit its opinion in all cases; it should be free to do so when it wills. Currently, the proposal is on the weak side.
  I put almost a higher priority on new clauses 2 and 3, which contain the real teeth. Those of us who have had anything to do with human rights matters will be aware that the power to bring injunctions is vital; the efficacy of the commission could be transformed if it were able to conduct its own investigations rather than only advise others.
  Dr. Godman: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), I believe that the

  73
  Government should treat new clauses 2 and 3 with considerable sympathy. New clause 2 would enable the commission to
  "apply to the High Court for an injunction".
  That is utterly compatible with the agreement, which states, in paragraph 5 on page 17, that the commission's role not only should be advisory and consultative, but should include
  "in appropriate cases, bringing court proceedings or providing assistance to individuals doing so."
  That would give the commission the power of sanction, which would be most welcome.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I support new clauses 2 and 3. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) has made the point that I wanted to make. I vividly recall how strongly I felt, hearing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State report on the Belfast agreement, that the human rights measures set a future standard for the whole of the United Kingdom—they represent a powerful articulation of what we should deliver.
  My concern is that the Bill does not fully articulate all the points in the agreement. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, I believe that new clause 2 would deal with one aspect of that. Moreover, I believe that new clause 3 would deal with the power to investigate.
  To be proactive and to get to the bottom of abuses, a human rights body requires an investigatory power. The Paris principles state that human rights commissions should have powers
  "to examine any situation involving violation of human rights".
  Without such powers, the commission will not be in accord with those principles or be as effective as it could be.
  I have urged colleagues who are concerned with human rights to accept the model that is powerfully set out in the agreement. The Bill deals well with the educative powers, and the other powers are important, but unless the commission fully reflects what is set out in the agreement—the amendments and new clauses would help it to do so—it will not be the ground-breaking, precedent-setting body that it needs to be: it will not be as effective as it should be. An effective guarantee of human rights is the first step towards an effective guarantee of peace.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: This has been a very useful debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was right to emphasise the importance that the agreement and the Bill attach to human rights. However, the agreement and the Bill were both time restrained, so there were gaps in the final talks. Both the agreement and the Bill are silent on some areas, as there was insufficient time to do everything as well as we could expect. That is why, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), consultation with the parties is so important. In a sense, it is a continuation of the talks. We must get the balance right between the parties' views, and then Parliament will make the final decision. The Bill is a Bill of the British Parliament, but it must reflect the spirit and words of the agreement.
  We were able to put much more detail in the Bill on strand 1 than on the commission, because the detail on that has simply not been worked out yet. Everyone
  74
  involved in the talks was conscious of the spirit, which is why it is so important to be able to consult the parties during August and September.
  Amendment No. 43 concerns the way in which the commission will deal with legislation by the Assembly. Clause 11 requires the Assembly to send a copy of each Bill, after its introduction, to the commission, but is of course silent on the Assembly's duty to take into account the commission's advice. The amendment would go beyond what is in the Bill, because it refers to "proposed" legislation.
  7 pm
  The agreement says that members of the commission should consider
  "draft legislation referred to them by the new Assembly".
  Does that mean that all legislation has to be considered by the commission, or only those laws that the Assembly wants to refer, because they have a human rights impact? Of course, the commission must offer advice when specifically asked by the Assembly to do so, but the agreement is not totally clear on the point. Hon. Members can rest assured that clause 11 gives the opportunity for each and every Bill from the Assembly to go to the commission for consideration. That applies also to amendment No. 155.
  Government amendment No. 181 will enable the commission to make occasional visits overseas, if it considers that necessary to promote human rights in Northern Ireland, but it will properly prevent it from taking up cases of human rights abuses that have nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 182 is consequential upon it.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that he supports amendment No. 189, as do the Government. We accept the amendment, as it would be useful to make it clear in the Bill that the commission can publish its advice and the outcome of its investigations.
  Mr. Corbyn: As the amendment says "may publish", does that mean that the commission itself will decide whether to publish its findings, or will that decision be taken by someone else?
  Mr. Murphy: The principle behind the wording of the amendment is that there should be publication. For the detail, I suggest that my hon. Friend refer to those who tabled it, but the Government agree with the wording and believe that the commission's ability to publish is an extremely good idea. The amendment, which we accept, does not say whether publication should be compulsory, but perhaps we can consider that in future.
  Mr. William Ross: Having gone two or three steps of the way, could not the Government go the rest of the way, and also publish the evidence on which the commission bases its decisions and advice?
  Mr. Murphy: As I said, there is to be a memorandum of understanding between the commission and the Government on various issues. Practice will tell whether evidence should be published. Generally, of course, evidence is published in such circumstances, and I see no reason, on the face of it, why that should not be the case,

  75
  but there may be such reasons, and I do not want to give a definitive answer at this stage. All that the Government are prepared to agree to specifically is what is said in amendment No. 189.
  The Government are also prepared to accept amendment No. 190, under which the Bill will say:
  "The Commission shall do all that they can to ensure"—
  rather than "facilitate"—
  the establishment of the committee referred to in paragraph 10".
  That is a reference to the joint committee of the human rights commissions in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. We are grateful to those who tabled the amendment, as we think that it better reflects the spirit and intention of the agreement. It is not within our power to require that the Government of the Republic of Ireland establish their side of the joint committee; the most that we can do is to require by law that our commission does all that it can.
  The charter rights are mentioned in the agreement, and that point is covered in clause 55(7), which says:
  "The Commission shall do all they can"
  to establish the committee referred to in the relevant part of the agreement. That naturally includes considering a possible charter of rights for the whole of Ireland.
  I cannot be so generous on amendment No. 191. We believe that the clause as it stands covers everything that is necessary.
  I do not think that we would benefit by accepting amendment No. 44, which could restrict the commission's activities. The term "human rights" is deliberately not strictly defined in the Bill, to give the commission the greatest possible freedom to determine for itself the standards of human rights protection against which laws and practices should be judged.
  We obviously want to monitor very carefully the commission's functions and powers, but we have not yet finalised precisely what those powers are likely to be—that is a matter for consultation between the Government and all the parties in Northern Ireland—and we ought to wait until that is established before instituting a review as envisaged in amendment No. 177.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said thus far, but his argument would not preclude a later discussion, after a year or whatever period is deemed appropriate, with the United Nations or other relevant organisations. We are a major signatory to the European convention on human rights, and as we are setting up a ground-breaking commission, it would surely be beneficial to both sides to consult the UN.
  Mr. Murphy: I am sure that there is indeed great benefit in consulting the United Nations, but at this stage in the legislative process it would be inappropriate to accept the amendment until we know exactly what the final powers are to be.
  New clause 2 would give the commission significant additional powers. We cannot accept it at this stage, but in forthcoming consultations we shall certainly consider some of the points that lie behind it. The same goes for new clause 3, which is perhaps the most significant new
  76
  clause or amendment in this group. It concerns the commission's powers to investigate, which is the matter on which we have had the greatest representation. That has spurred us on to ensure that there will be consultation over the summer. There are differences of view and we are not yet convinced that we have got it right. We must consult the parties in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
  For the convenience of the Committee I will again list the amendments that the Government are prepared to accept, which are Nos. 189 and 190 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). As I said, we intend to look further at many of the other points raised during this important debate and to consult parties in Northern Ireland, as well as representatives in the House.
  Mr. McNamara: I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply. However, clause 11, requires
  "the Presiding Officer to send a copy of each Bill, as soon as reasonably practicable after introduction, to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission…enabling the Assembly to ask the Commission, where the Assembly thinks fit, to advise whether a Bill is compatible with human rights (including the Convention rights)."
  The commission has such a power only if it is asked for its opinion. That is the distinction between my amendment and the clause and that is why I tabled my amendment. I trust that my hon. Friend will re-examine that point, which is significant. I am not asking that the commission be forced to comment on all legislation—only on legislation that it thinks significant or legislation referred to it for comment by the Assembly. My hon. Friend seems to be saying that the commission can comment on every Bill that is passed to it. If that could be put on the face of the Bill, it would clear up the ambiguity.
  Mr. Murphy: Clause 55(3) states that the commission can comment on all Bills whether they are referred to it or not. My hon. Friend's amendment deals with the stage at which Bills would be referred to the commission.
  Mr. McNamara: I am not certain that clause 55 is as explicit as my amendment would be. It states:
  "The Commission shall advise the Secretary of State and the Executive Committee…of legislative and other measures which ought to be taken to protect human rights—
  (a) as soon as reasonably practicable after receipt of a general or specific request for advice; and
  (b) on such other occasions as the Commission think appropriate."
  I take my hon. Friend's point about the clause, but it is not as precise as I would wish.
  I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about new clause 3. There is indeed great feeling about the need for the Human Rights Commission to have teeth. I must return to the Paris principles, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Slough Fiona Mactaggart—not only to the effect that failure to implement those principles would have in Northern Ireland but to the example that that would give to the rest of Europe.
  I am surprised at my hon. Friend's reluctance with regard to new clause 2, which merely replicates a power that exists for all the other bodies concerned with human rights. If we are to have a commission for human rights it would seem strange if it did not have such a power, which will presumably be given to the Equality Commission. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he will look into that and I hope that he will do so carefully as it is an important power.

  77
  I am grateful for the progress that my hon. Friend has made in meeting our arguments so far and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 181, in page 26, line 9, leave out 'in Northern Ireland'.
  No. 182, in page 26, line 10, after 'rights', insert 'in Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
  Amendments made: No. 189, in page 26, line 17, at end insert—
  '(6A) The Commission may decide to publish its advice and the outcome of its research and investigations.'.
  No. 190, in page 26, line 18, leave out 'facilitate' and insert 'ensure'.—[Mr. McGrady.]
  Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

  ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS
  7.15 pm
  Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 26, line 29, at end insert

  '; or

  (c) which an individual has commenced, or wishes to commence, under section 62 or 63 of this Act; or

  (d) which an individual has commenced, or wishes to commence, by way of judicial review which raises relevant issues within the general remit of the Commission.'.

  The amendment deals with assistance to individuals. As the Bill stands, it does not permit the commission to assist complainants who want to commence proceedings under the anti-discrimination provisions. The application of the clause is limited to paragraphs (a) and (b), and I want to extend it to include (c) and (d), to make it possible for the commission to help individuals in such cases.
  I should also be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether the commission will be able to assist litigants who want to go to judicial review when such issues are raised.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: As I have made clear, the Government have received many proposals to enhance the powers of the commission, in the form not only of amendments but of representations by interested bodies in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. We have taken those proposals seriously and want to consult colleagues and interested parties further before reaching a final view. We are open to the possibility of tabling amendments in another place to give effect to some of those representations. Although we would not want to accept the amendment at this stage, we will not reject the arguments behind it until we have looked into it more carefully and consulted. The judicial side will be dealt with later.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 27, line 4, at end add—
  '(5) The Commission may, with the permission of the court, submit its opinion as amicus curiae on the substance of the proceedings before the court, irrespective of whether the Commission is either a party to the proceedings, or has granted assistance in relation to proceedings under subsection (2).'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 47, in clause 57, page 27, line 12, after 'Ireland', insert
  'the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, any organisation with a legitimate interest,'.
  Clause 57 stand part.
  Mr. McNamara: The sad thing about the clause is that it mentions restrictions on applications that may be made. My amendment would extend the rights of the commission so as to extend the rights of citizens in general. It would clarify the commission's position in litigation to which it is not a party or acting to assist a complainant, but in which it has an interest in issues that have been raised. The commission should have the power to submit amicus curiae arguments to courts in which litigation is of relevance to its mandate. It should be able to submit legal arguments on the interpretation of matters before the court even if it is not a party to the litigation, as that would enable it more effectively to carry out the advisory and educational functions envisaged in the agreement. When push comes to shove, the commission will be able effectively to conduct its important responsibilities only if it is able to appear before the courts.
  Amendment No. 47 seeks to add to the list of people who are not subject to restrictions on applications of rights
  "the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, any organisation with a legitimate interest".
  The amendment is tabled in the broad public interest to prevent discrimination. The ability to challenge discrimination should not be confined to the Government, but should be opened out to include those organisations. During our debates on incorporation of the European convention on human rights in United Kingdom domestic law, there were arguments about the powers of people to intervene as third parties in class issues or other cases in which they might have an interest. As we are to have a commission, I believe that that power should be given to the organisations that I have mentioned, and should not be limited only to law officers, whose interests may not always coincide with those of the other organisations.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I support the amendments. Without such amendments, the commission would have to work through Ministers, and it needs the ability not to do only what Ministers want. It needs to be able to do what it wants, even if Ministers are not convinced of the arguments.
  Amendment No. 46 deals with amicus curiae. Do organisations have the power to act in that way without the amendment? If not, I hope that the Government will consider it carefully. Such a power has been important in cases away from Northern Ireland. While Louise Woodward's plight attracted much attention in the United States, there was no attention for a man who is black,

  79
  British, a business man and old. He is exactly the opposite to Louise Woodward, who is a young white woman. Mr. Krishna Maharaj won a re-hearing of part of his conviction because two people were able to be amicus curiae in the Florida supreme court. British Members of Parliament asked to be amicus curiae, and the resulting hearing got Mr. Maharaj off death row. The same thing applied when Geoffrey Robertson QC and Philip Sapsford QC applied on behalf of the human rights group of the English Bar. We should learn lessons from outside our jurisdiction to ensure that we do not restrict ourselves within it.
  Dr. Godman: The Belfast agreement states that the commission may be
  "in appropriate cases, bringing court proceedings or providing assistance to individuals doing so."
  As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, it would be extremely helpful if the court could receive the assistance of an amicus curiae. The Latin term can be interpreted as meaning one who, as a bystander when a judge is doubtful of or mistaken on a matter of law, may inform the court. It ordinary use implies the friendly intervention of counsel to remind a court of some matter of law that has escaped its notice and in regard to which it is in danger of going wrong. The amendment makes good sense. Courts may require the friendly intervention of the commission, and I urge the Minister to consider the amendment seriously. The commission could be seen to be playing an important, if rare, role, and that should be provided for in the Bill.
  Mr. Öpik: All that talk about Latin into English reminds me of my Latin teacher. We all remember a good teacher, and it is thanks to Jed Rothwell that I understand "amicus curiae". He used to give an exercise in which a phrase was translated from English into Latin, then to Greek and back again. I am told that when "out of sight, out of mind" is subjected to that exercise, it comes back as "invisible lunatic".
  I strongly support the amendment as it would clarify the commission's position in litigation to which it was not a party or in assisting a complainant, but in which issues were raised on which it could helpfully give guidance. The commission should have the power to submit amicus curiae arguments to courts in such cases. Given the spirit of the agreement, it is likely to be enormously beneficial in ensuring an appropriate outcome to such an investigation. The commission should have the power to submit legal arguments on interpretation of legal issues before the court, even if it is not a party to the litigation. Furthermore, that would enable it more effectively to carry out the advisory and educational functions envisaged by the agreement.
  I emphasise the importance of the commission's objectivity in relation to such a power. Any suggestion of sectarian behaviour, or any imbalance in the commission, would be enormously harmful to an organisation that is encouraged to provide an independent perspective as a third party. I am sure that that will not happen, as enough safeguards exist to make the commission objective.
  80
  However, we must have at the back of our minds the importance of ensuring not only that the commission is objective but that it is seen to be objective and fair.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I, too, support the amendments, particularly amendment No. 46. The point is technical, but it would be a brave Secretary of State or Government who tried to prevent the commission from offering itself as an amicus curiae if it decided to do so. One could argue that it would be within its rights to do so under several clauses. However, the amendment seeks to clarify the position against a background in which specific functions have been alluded to and in which there are financial considerations. It would be best to have clarification in the Bill, although I dare say that the practice could occur without that.
  I underline what was said by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). The amicus curiae procedure is useful to the court. It would be a classic exercise for the commission to offer itself in that capacity to help the court. With the wealth of experience that we hope the commission will rapidly gather, I am sure that any court would be grateful for that assistance.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I am told that legal Latinists pronounce amicus with a long "i", but I do not believe that that is the right way. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was using ecclesiastical Latin in pronouncing it with a short "i". No one has used the English yet: friend of the court. It is to that purpose, and the principle behind it, that amendment No. 46 refers.
  The commission can already assist a court as an amicus in the normal way without the need for special legislation. We recognise the force of the argument that it might be useful to make that clear in the Bill, but the wording of the amendment is not quite right. For example, an amicus does not normally act in cases in which it has an interest, and its role is to advise on the law rather than on the substance of a case. We will reflect further on this matter and return with an amendment if necessary, as we will on amendment No. 47. We cannot accept it at this stage, but the Government have received many representations on the proposal. Like several other proposals that we have considered this evening, we will reconsider it in the next few weeks.
  Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his three quarter promise on the first amendment and his half promise on the second. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

  STANDING ADVISORY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: DISSOLUTION
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. McNamara: I shall not delay the Committee long, but clause 58 winds up the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and it would be wrong to allow the occasion to pass without recording the appreciation of—I hope—the whole Committee for the work of successive chairmen and members of the commission, for the way in which it has advanced human rights in Northern Ireland and for the way that it has been prepared to stand up to Governments and insist on the primacy of human rights and of its right to be considered.
  It is tragic that Governments have often acted without reference to the commission, despite its terms of reference. Governments did not submit proposals to it and took abrupt courses of action which often resulted in effects quite the contrary to those sought or proposed. Examples include the right to silence and freedom of the press, quite apart from the gamut of security and other legislation affecting human rights. I pay tribute to all the commission chairmen and members who acted for it. Sometimes I agreed with them and sometimes I disagreed, but I knew that they always did a very fine job for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I associate myself with what the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said. I speak as a junior member of the club of ex-Northern Ireland Ministers and as a co-president of the new dialogue—or new consensus—group. If he was fully fit, I know that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would want to say the same thing. The human rights work done by people across the spectrum, often showing great courage and interest, has been important, and they should be thanked for it.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I join hon. Members in their tribute to the chairman of SACHR, a person for whom I have the highest regard. I cannot extend the same sentiment to the commission or to its deliberations and conclusions. The body lacked community balance and its decisions reflected that. Many of its decisions were seen as partial and political and were not respected by the greater number of people in Northern Ireland.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

  THE EQUALITY COMMISSION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in page 27, line 33, at end insert—
  '(lA) The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland shall give equal weight and equal consideration to all forms of discrimination that people or groups of people may face.'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 170.
  No. 192, in page 27, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert
  'as far as practicable secure that the Commissioners as a group are representative of the community in Northern Ireland.'.
  Clause 59 stand part.
  Government amendment No. 205
  82
  Schedule 9 stand part.
  Government amendments Nos. 202 to 204.
  Clause 60 stand part.
  No. 168, in clause 61, page 28, line 37, leave out subsection (4).
  Government amendment No. 213.
  Mr. Öpik: The agreement is clear about several aspects of the equality of human rights that we can come to expect in Northern Ireland. Page 16 states:
  "Against the background of the recent history of communal conflict, the parties affirm in particular…the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed disability, gender or ethnicity."
  Amendment No. 156 seeks to tighten the Bill on the spirit of true equal rights. It attempts to firm up the individual's protection against discrimination beyond the sectarian discrimination that we often discuss. In essence, it would ensure that the commission pays due regard to all forms of discrimination.
  This is part of the normalisation process in Northern Ireland. It must be explicit that traditional religious and political discrimination are not special in any sense or more important than any other form of discrimination. Religious and political discrimination might be more common than other forms in Northern Ireland—that is debatable—but, even if they are, it does not mean that they should be set above discrimination on grounds of, say, gender or age.
  Amendment No. 156 keeps more in line with the spirit of the agreement, paragraph 3 on page 16 of which talks of an obligation
  "to promote equality of opportunity in relation to religion and political opinion; gender; race; disability; age; marital status; dependants; and sexual orientation."
  That paragraph is the first time that such a document has explicitly listed sexual orientation as a criterion for non-discrimination. No European or United Nations document has done it. The Liberal Democrats welcome this, because it provides Northern Ireland with an opportunity to lead the way, rather than being seen as an area of Europe that trails.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments—I agree that that is apparently a first. How does he reconcile this with the way in which we have been incorporating the European convention on human rights on a United Kingdom basis? Does he see a danger that we will lose the concomitance of human rights development throughout the United Kingdom, which I believe should go together?
  Mr. Öpik: I agree that it behoves us to ensure that the whole United Kingdom will benefit from this sort of legislation. I fully expect that we will achieve that. I emphasise that I see no conflict of interest in including the commitment to non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, because it means exactly what it says: the elimination of such discrimination. To put it simply, it says that it is no longer acceptable to behave prejudicially because of a person's sexual orientation.
  Whatever we decide, and however long it takes, that does not conflict with the Bill's aspiration to ensure that, in Northern Ireland at least, that form of discrimination is

  83
  spelled out as unacceptable in any form. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to hurry to ensure that the rest of the United Kingdom keeps up with Northern Ireland.
  Discrimination is experienced by individuals, not just groups, so the commission needs to work to eliminate discrimination against individuals, rather than simply deal with discrimination towards a particular group. Put starkly, it does not matter much to an individual why he or she is discriminated against; the important point is that it is happening. To that extent, it is wrong to place the importance of eliminating sectarian discrimination above that of eliminating, for example, sexual or racial discrimination. Amendment No. 156 makes that point clearly.
  Government amendment No. 203 appears to provide that the commission will aim to secure an appropriate division of resources between the functions previously exercised by the councils and committees that the Bill will abolish and replace with the Equality Commission. This point has already been made, but it is so important that I shall mention it again. Adequate funding for that provision is vital. Whatever powers we may provide through legislation, if the commission does not have adequate resources, it will not be able to use its powers effectively. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the money that will go into the new Equality Commission will be sufficient to ensure that it can do what it is supposed to do.
  I understand that there may be some economies of scale as a result of streamlining four institutions into one, but the new commission's responsibilities may be greater than the sum of responsibilities of its predecessors. If it is expected to enforce and implement its wide-ranging powers to eliminate discrimination, it will need necessary resources; otherwise, it will be a recipe for disappointment and frustration.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will take the hon. Gentleman's point about resources and the fact that some common services might provide worthwhile economies, but has he noticed that membership of the all-embracing commission will be between 14 and 20 people? They will not do the work for a living, but will deal with problems of politics and religious denominations as well as work in respect of fair employment, equal opportunities and race equality. A question that the Government must face, not just now but later in the Bill, is whether between 14 and 20 people can do all that.
  Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Indeed, my next point touches on exactly that matter. As well as having adequate resources, the new commission's structure must be adequate to ensure that it can carry out the many responsibilities that it will absorb. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that we must be careful not to overload individuals with more work than they can physically do in the time available, and with the human resources available to the new organisation.
  Will the Minister assure us that he has given that matter due consideration, and has seriously consulted the bodies that will give up their powers to the Equality Commission? I think that the number of people involved in the centre should be kept as low as practicable.
  84
  Does the number that has been decided on reflect the views of the organisations that are replaced? Do they think that that relatively small number of people, compared with the number replaced, will be sufficient to do the job?
  Legislation of this type does not provide the best opportunity to secure guarantees about the funding of the commission. I shall not pursue that point now, but the Minister must understand that, if the commission is not properly funded, it will become the focus of many oral and written parliamentary questions in the months and years ahead. That is not because anyone wants to stir up trouble, but because it will be a false economy if the commission is underfunded. There will be far greater costs in terms of lost opportunity, as well as stress, strain and friction within the Northern Ireland community, if the organisation is underfunded.
  The Government's amendments seem to be designed to assuage the concerns of the vast bulk of respondents to the public consultation exercise who were opposed to the amalgamation of the equality commissions. Like them, I am concerned that that may lead to a hierarchy of discrimination. None the less, the amendments should be supported, because they are consistent with the agreement's intention to amalgamate the commissions. The agreement was very clear about that; page 17, paragraph 6 says:
  "Subject to the outcome of public consultation"
  the intention was to create
  "a new statutory Equality Commission".
  I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that the Government will keep a close eye on the new commission's ability to do its work, and ensure that those who were previously involved in that work are allowed to have an input once the new commission is set up, so that their expertise and insight are not lost.
  7.45 pm
  Will those in favour of amalgamation be given an opportunity to participate in the commission's work in a more formal way? Does the Minister have a clearer definition of the phrase, "appropriate resources"? What remedies, if any, exist for those who believe that the resources are inappropriately allocated? What opportunity will there be to increase the sum if the work load is far greater than budgeted for, or if the budget is insufficient for the projected work load? Finally, what resources have been allocated to fund the operation of the consultative councils? That question has not been clearly answered.
  We should be grateful for some reassurance on the matters that I have mentioned. Let me emphasise again that the agreement clearly states that the Equality Commission will replace the other commissions. Whether we like it or not, therefore, our job is to ensure that the Equality Commission has the best start in life. We must not simply provide the bare necessity, but ensure that the previous commissions feel involved so that continuity is maintained.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Amendment No. 192 requires that the commission, as far as practicable, secures the representation of a broad section of the community in Northern Ireland. That is almost self-evident, and we have already debated the matter under a previous clause. I

  85
  assume that it is accepted that any such commission should have a broad cross- community representation, however that might be defined. I noted an earlier remark that the description "cross- community" is difficult to define in practice, but one can only do one's best in ensuring that cross-community and cross-grouping representation exists in the commission.
  Amendment No. 48 is a probing amendment, which seeks to address the possibility of deleting clause 59. It was tabled because clause 59 flies in the face of the public consultation that has already taken place. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred to paragraph 6 of the Belfast agreement, which said:
  "Subject to the outcome of public consultation currently underway, the British Government intends a new statutory Equality Commission to replace"
  the four bodies listed therein.
  The important point is that the matter is subject to public consultation. My understanding is that, to date, that public consultation has had a weighty and influential majority against the amalgamation of the bodies referred to in that paragraph. The Minister must take account of that when deciding whether or not to proceed with the Equality Commission on the proposed basis.
  The Belfast agreement left a number of aspects of the earlier White Paper, "Partnership for Equality", open for public consultation, including whether the statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity should be enforced by a new Equality Commission, with the amalgamation of the statutory equality commissions. That approach has been substantially rejected by the bulk of those who responded to the consultation.
  The amalgamation of the commissions should not take place at this time; the issue should be referred to the new Human Rights Commission for consideration in the context of its investigation into the scope for a possible supplementary Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
  Currently, the four commissions cover different disciplines, and have different objectives and pools of expertise and experience. There is a great fear that that body of experience and knowledge will be lost in the tight amalgamation into a 14 to 20-person committee, which, by its very numbers, cannot embrace anything like the spread of experience in the different disciplines that has been available hitherto. It is certainly desirable that there should be rationalisation to the extent that experience, aspects of expenditure or even personnel are shared, but the worry felt by those who made submissions, the commissions themselves and those of us who have knowledge of their work is that the particular discipline of each commission may be watered down in the totality of a single Equality Commission.
  Currently, each commission has a strong independent drive to look after and assert the aspect of human rights for which it is responsible. It would be to the detriment of human rights as a whole if the existing commissions were amalgamated too tightly into a single Equality Commission.
  I would not be dogmatic about this point, but, at the very least, there should be provision lest the experiment be seen to be not working. If we must have one Equality Commission, it must be clearly divided internally into the various human rights disciplines, and the funding for those disciplines should be ring-fenced, so that it is not drawn one way or the other by the strength or weakness of one particular arm.
  86
  Those were the concerns clearly expressed in the consultation, and the Belfast agreement stated that we must take into consideration the consequences of the consultation with the public and interested parties. The respondents are clear in their view that there should not be one commission in the guise proposed in the legislation.
  There is a middle road or halfway house, in that there could be an Equality Commission acting as an umbrella for the various commissions. I am sure that, in terms of administration, it would be a great convenience for civil servants to have everything under one wing or in one department, but that does not necessarily mean that such a commission would do a better job. I ask the Minister to take into consideration the strong and experienced opinions voiced during the public consultation.
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: It is crucial that the membership of the Equality Commission should reflect the balance of the population in Northern Ireland. In the past, that has all too often not been the case: as one from the Unionist tradition, I have to say that many Unionists have felt under-represented on many such bodies.
  Those who are appointed to Northern Ireland bodies often do not accurately reflect the political balance in Northern Ireland. What might be regarded as token appointments are made of people whose views do not reflect broad public opinion, so, in seeking to ensure the commission's membership reflects the community, I hope that the Government will not make token appointments, but will try to ensure that public opinion and the various traditions are provided for.
  I welcome the Government amendment that places the responsibilities currently exercised by the Northern Ireland Disability Council on a par with those of the other three bodies that are to be subsumed into the new Equality Commission. I share many of the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and I know that there is widespread opposition to the establishment of the new commission, not least among the bodies that are to be replaced by it. I believe that there are advantages and disadvantages in the formation of the new commission.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) spoke about the resources and funding available to the commission, and I agree that it is absolutely essential that the new commission has access to resources and funding that are at least on a par with those available to the four organisations that it will replace. The commission will not only take on the responsibilities of those four bodies, but have additional responsibilities. I hope that the Government will commit themselves at least to providing a level of resources that matches that available to the existing organisations, and preferably to providing additional funding to take account of the new commission's additional responsibilities.
  As I said, I welcome the fact that the powers exercised by the Northern Ireland Disability Council are on a par with powers relating to other equality issues. For a long time, disability rights issues in Northern Ireland have taken second place to other issues, so it is important that the new commission, if and when it comes into being, should give a strong priority to disability issues.
  Looking at the responsibilities that the new commission is to exercise, my concern is that it will focus on fair employment issues, because they have in the past been

  87
  controversial. However, I hope that disability issues will be given equal prominence and equal resources, because that is what disabled people in Northern Ireland deserve. I hope that that is the intention behind the Government amendment, and that it will be carried into practice when the new commission is established. Disabled people must be given a fair and equal say.
  Disabled people should be represented in the membership of the Equality Commission. That is very important, because, as in the rest of UK society, there are disabled people in Northern Ireland, and they should have representation. When the Government say that they want the membership of the commission to reflect "as far as practicable" the community, I hope that they mean that to include representation of disabled people, so as to ensure that disability rights are given equal prominence in the new commission's work.
  Although I share some of the concerns expressed by the Equal Opportunities Commission, I am less concerned about the Fair Employment Commission, which is also to be subsumed into the Equality Commission. The Fair Employment Commission needs to be more accountable and fair employment issues need to be set in a proper context. The proposal in the Bill to set those issues alongside equal opportunities issues is therefore beneficial and makes sense, because they overlap and concern the same rights. Issues of fair employment may become less controversial in the politics of Northern Ireland.
  Finally, I want again to encourage the Government to ensure that adequate funding and resources are made available to the new commission.
  8 pm
  Mrs. Fyfe: I come from Glasgow, which has a history of religious discrimination in job appointments, so I am familiar with that. I am familiar also with the fact that it is possible for a community to stop discriminating and, indeed, religious discrimination in job appointments in Glasgow is now virtually non-existent. Societies can change. I support all those who, with good will, are attempting to make progress on that in Northern Ireland.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) that there is a need to avoid discrimination on the ground of disability. That has clearly been much neglected, because, for obvious reasons, religious discrimination took up so much of our attention. Other aspects of discrimination, such as disability, have not received the attention that they deserve.
  I hope that, in attempting to ensure that the community is fairly represented in all its diversity, the Minister will take account also of the need for the body to include people who are free from any kind of irrational prejudice and who can be relied on to have a clear-minded view of how the commission's business should be conducted.
  If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who tabled amendment No. 156, intends that there should be no hierarchy of discrimination, and that each case should be treated with equal seriousness, I fully support him. However, the amendment could be read to mean that equal amounts of the money and time of those involved would be devoted to each kind of discrimination, which would not necessarily be sensible. If the commission were
  88
  to find that 10 times as much discrimination of one kind occurred as of another, it would not be sensible to allocate funds equally to each form of discrimination.
  Mr. Öpik: I assure the hon. Lady that her first explanation is my intention, and that we should regard each form of discrimination as equally unacceptable. I accept her point that different amounts of resources are likely to be needed to tackle each of the various forms of discrimination.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has cleared up that point, because the amendment is ambiguous.
  I think that I understand the Government's thinking behind having one body, but, as we have not yet heard the Minister's explanation, I am not yet sure of their reasons. I imagine that they include the considerations that the body will serve a relatively small population, that it will be possible to gather together in one unit all the expertise, and that discrimination against one individual can easily occur on two or more grounds.
  Members of the Women's Coalition in Northern Ireland have told me that they were treated with extreme rudeness during the talks. If such remarks are made to women in open debate in a public place, heaven knows what lurks in the unspoken thoughts of those who made the remarks.
  There may be a fear that expertise will be lost by having one body. I am sure that that will have worried some of the hon. Members who tabled the amendment that did not get selected. That would not happen if specialists were appointed in sufficient numbers to cover every aspect of discrimination.
  It might be useful to consider for a moment the Equal Opportunities Commission in Scotland, which, under the Scotland Bill, will not be a separate body. However, it will be answerable to the Scottish Parliament, and will give it advice and assistance, while remaining responsible to its United Kingdom headquarters. That is inevitable as long as equal opportunities laws are United Kingdom laws, but Northern Ireland is moving towards a better understanding of the ways in which unfair discrimination can take place than exists in other parts of the UK, and that is excellent.
  I have been wondering what the views are of people in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has told us that there is general unhappiness about the formation of one body, so I hope that the Government will listen to those views and state what they intend to do to reassure people.
  I hope that the proposal is not simply a way to cut costs. In the current circumstances, it would be extremely foolish to cut the costs of running such a body. It must have funds at least similar to the total funding of the present four bodies if it is to ensure that the issues are tackled effectively and thoroughly. It would also be useful for the Government to consider the hon. Member for South Down's suggestion of ring-fencing moneys.
  Above all, the body must be accepted by people in Northern Ireland as one that meets their needs and commands their respect. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure us on those points.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: It is encouraging to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) assure the Committee that there is no discrimination on the basis of religion in Glasgow. That is not exactly what I hear when I visit Glasgow. I have been told several times that no Protestant has been allowed to become the Lord Provost of Glasgow for 25 years. I am sure that the hon. Lady supports new Labour and its removal of the Lord Provost of Glasgow.
  Mrs. Fyfe: To clear up a misunderstanding, I point out that I was referring to the job market. Discrimination has virtually, rather than totally, ended.
  The Chairman: Order. Perhaps we can try to clear away the misunderstanding completely as it is not relevant to the amendment that we are discussing.
  Mr. Taylor: The point was made because we are discussing religious discrimination, and I am glad that the hon. Lady has clarified it because I was unable completely to agree with her earlier remark. As you know, Sir Alan, the religious discrimination in Monklands has been well publicised in the past year.
  I want to ask the Minister a simple question. If the Belfast agreement failed and the Assembly collapsed, would the Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission continue as if nothing had happened?
  Ms Margaret Moran: I share some of the concerns about the structure of the proposed Equality Commission, although we also need to have regard to the lessons that have been learnt in ensuring that equality issues are mainstream in our political life. One of those lessons is that, far too often, there has been too much focus on the need to retain existing structures, rather than on ensuring that the whole issue of equality is in the mainstream of the work of both Government Departments and external organisations.
  In that sense, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay less attention to the cries for retaining existing organisations and much more attention to the ways in which the equality agenda can be mainstreamed throughout the work of the Northern Ireland Office and the Assembly. That is a greater priority than worrying about one organisation's integrity and about it retaining its separate identity in relation to the Assembly.
  I was grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for his clarification of his amendment because I, too, read it as implying that he was requesting that equal resources be given to each of the areas of discrimination identified in the Bill. That would not be appropriate. It is not correct to say that equal time or equal resources need to be devoted to each area of discrimination. We need to phrase our amendments better and to look carefully at the priorities that are given to individual areas. It is true that in a number of areas of discrimination—for example, race—Northern Ireland is nearly 20 years behind this country. Some of those issues do need to be given much greater priority.
  As other hon. Members have said, in some areas, Northern Ireland is at the forefront of equality, particularly in respect of fair employment. We in the United Kingdom would like some of that progress to be
  90
  transferred back to us and the UK to take a lead from Northern Ireland in that respect. Therefore, we need to ensure that we give correct priority, rather than equal priority, to each area.
  I raise one issue of great importance: gender equality. There is an implicit assumption that gender equality will be tackled throughout the Bill, but it is not explicit. I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has just entered the Chamber. That issue must be dear to her heart, having been one of the very few women to be involved, with the handful of women from the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, in the negotiations at the time of the Good Friday agreement. It is important that we promote greater gender equality across civic and political life in Northern Ireland. The agreement commits the Government and the new Northern Ireland institutions to promoting women in public life and to guaranteeing the right of women to full and equal political participation.
  This area often provokes some antagonism or antipathy from other parties in Northern Ireland. I pay particular tribute to the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition for its work and persistence in trying to promote gender equality throughout the agreement. I hope that it will continue to do so in the Assembly, where it will have a small but significant role. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look at that point when he considers the Equality Commission and its work.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 31, which has not been selected, would have deleted clause 60 in its entirety. That would have taken us back, effectively, to the status quo with regard to the various bodies that, under clause 60, will be aggregated under the newly defined Equality Commission.
  There is a certain inconsistency creeping in here—inconsistency between interpretations of the agreement. I think that this was touched on by the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). They asked what support there was on the ground in Northern Ireland, particularly in three of the groups that will be aggregated, for establishing the new Equality Commission.
  We have been told on many occasions during our deliberations on the Bill that we can never stray too far from the words of the agreement, so I went to the agreement to find the appropriate words that relate to this clause which, as many contributors have said, is one of the most important parts of the legislation. Paragraph 6 on page 17 says:
  "Subject to the outcome of public consultation currently underway, the British Government intends a new statutory Equality Commission to replace the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission (NI), the Commission for Racial Equality (NI) and the Disability Council."
  Those are the four groups that are listed in clause 60.
  The most important thing here is that that paragraph is conditional. It says:
  "Subject to the outcome of public consultation",
  so when people, during the talks, looked at this point, they left it rather on the shelf; it was subject to consultation. The conclusions of that consultation would probably arrive much later than the signing of the agreement.

  91
  Indeed, that has been the case. The thought has been left in the minds of many of those who are working in these key areas that this whole matter has been rushed through, and that a full and in-depth consultation has not taken place—the sort of consultation that they were promised and, on reading the agreement, felt that they were entitled to.
  The proposal is opposed directly by the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and, I believe, the Northern Ireland Disability Council, so at least three of the bodies that will be incorporated into the new Equality Commission are opposed in principle to being moved into it. The reasons are fairly clear; some have been touched on tonight. The proposal for this merged commission arose in the Government's White Paper entitled "Partnership for Equality." That was published, I believe, in March this year. It was the Government's response to a review of the fair employment legislation.
  The proposal, which was in the consultative part of that document, was not made on the basis of proper consultation. It was part of the consultative section; it was not a firm proposal at that stage and those who are now involved in the changeover feel that the consultation has not been adequate or thorough.
  It is being suggested by the Government that the new proposal will be a one-stop shop and that that one-stop shop will help employers. The Government have also said that they will harmonise the four pieces of existing legislation, but the people involved in these key areas believe that there is potential for conflict because the four pieces of legislation will still have to be treated separately and, at times, may set different priorities.
  There was strong opposition in the responses to the White Paper. Of the 123 respondents, only 29 were in favour and at least 57 were opposed. Presumably the others who did not form an opinion did not particularly address the issue. The Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission felt that there was some kind of hidden Government agenda and that the Government had made up their mind well in advance.
  On page 16, paragraph 3 of the Belfast agreement states:
  "Public bodies would be required to draw up statutory schemes showing how they would implement this obligation"—
  that is, the obligation of public bodies to pay due regard to the issues that are listed in the clause. It then states:
  "Such schemes would cover arrangements for policy appraisal".
  The next words are important. The paragraph continues:
  "including an assessment of impact on relevant categories, public consultation, public access to information and services, monitoring and timetables."
  The bodies that I have mentioned think that the strong wording in that part of the agreement has not been incorporated in the Bill in anything like the strength that they were led to expect in discussions and consultations. The Government have made some effort to do that, and their amendment No. 206, which we shall discuss shortly, places on the new body the responsibility to make some impact assessments. However, that is not as strong a commitment as some of the bodies would like and they are more attracted to new clause 4, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
  92
  There is some inconsistency because the Government seek to put in the Bill proposals that, in the agreement, are conditional on further consultation with the aggregated bodies. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and many of his colleagues would not wish to sign up to a new arrangement that goes against what the people who will implement the policies would like. That also raises the question whether this important part of the legislation should be in the Bill. It relates to a key issue, and it will apply in Northern Ireland a measure that will not apply in the same way to other parts of the United Kingdom. The matter could be left to the Assembly, hence our amendment No. 31 which would delete clause 60. The Assembly could revisit this key area and make up its mind about what is best for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Roger Stott: I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about the inclusion of disabled people on the Equality Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) also mentioned that. It would be intolerable if the new commission did not contain representatives of the disabled. I have a brief question. Clause 60 lists the commissions that will be incorporated in the Equality Commission. Will the staff of the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality be absorbed into the new Equality Commission?
  Mr. McNamara: I tabled two amendments to delete clauses 59 and 60 because I wanted to express the concern throughout Northern Ireland about the Government's proposals for the new Equality Commission. I do not want to go over ground that many hon. Members have already covered, but it is right to say that the matter was subject to the outcome of public consultation and that the public were overwhelmingly against the proposals. I know from the answer to a parliamentary question that 23 per cent. were in favour and 45 per cent. were against; the remainder did not voice an opinion. Two bodies were excluded from the list of those who were against. One was Derry Women, but I cannot remember the name of the other one.
  There is a feeling that the proposals are part of an existing agenda. The Government's desire to amalgamate the current bodies existed when the most recent employment legislation was passed. There was a desire to weaken the set-up. One has the feeling that there has been no real examination of the alternative proposals by many of those who responded. The essence of those proposals was a strong internal mechanism in the civil service to ensure the implementation of the duty. That would have been coupled with a strong external mechanism to ensure the adequate participation of groups in the making of decisions that affected them.
  One can appreciate the benefits of the Equality Commission but, unlike my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), I do not want to go to the wall for the proposed commission and I do not see any value in having one commission rather than four. The allocation of resources, time, money and manpower and womanpower is important. The Government amendments do not go far enough. As a result of the Bill's vagueness, there is concern that the powers and functions that will be transferred could be harmonised down rather than harmonised up. Some of the strong existing powers on the equality of women and fair employment might be lost.

  93
  Clause 60 lists the commission's principal functions. Subsection (4) states:
  "The Secretary of State may by order make such supplemental, incidental or consequential provision as appears to him to be appropriate as a result of subsections (1) to (3).
  In particular, an order may include provision—
  (a) amending an enactment".
  There is no limitation on that power. We need to spell that out much more clearly, perhaps after extensive consultation in the summer, and there should be more detail about what will happen.
  There is a great suspicion—I shall return to this on later amendments—that the civil service in Northern Ireland has been hostile throughout to the concept of fair employment, equality and other such issues. It has not wanted to accept the responsibility, but instead wanted to push it outside. It is part of its agenda.
  8.30 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South rightly praised the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Women's Coalition. However, she should remember that the only party that produced a document on women's rights in the Assembly elections was the Social Democratic and Labour party. Brid Rodgers and several of her colleagues were very active in the negotiations around the agreement. That was true also of Sinn Fein. It is fair to point out that, apart from the Women's Coalition, SDLP and Sinn Fein are the only two parties with women Members of the Assembly.
  Mr. Donaldson rose—
  Mr. McNamara: I am sorry; there is also a woman Ulster Unionist. I immediately apologise for my error. I welcome the appearance into the early 20th century of the Ulster Unionist party. Who knows, it may one day have more than the one woman Member it now has.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is it right to mislead the Committee by welcoming the Ulster Unionist party into the early 20th century, when my party has had women Members of Parliament in this Chamber and in the Northern Ireland Parliament—and Cabinet Ministers at that?
  The Chairman: Order. That is a matter of debate.
  Mr. McNamara: I can just about remember when the Ulster Unionists had a lady Member of the House—Mrs. Patrick McLoughlin, if I remember correctly. She was well known for some of her relations with rubber companies.
  My hon. Friend the Minister needs to answer some questions about the Government amendments. What is meant by "appropriate division of resources"? Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intend to issue guidance on what is appropriate? What remedies, if any, will exist for those who believe that the resources are inappropriately allocated between the different discrimination bodies?
  What specific resources have been allocated to fund the operation of the consultative councils? We need a little more description about the role of the consultative
  94
  councils. Who are the people, the great and the good, who will advise the Equality Commission? In what capacity will their advice be taken? Whom will they represent—what interests and what issues? Will they have any statutory powers? Must the Equality Commission refer to the advice that it has received from a consultative council in making its decisions? If it has not accepted that advice, must it say why? Is it duty bound to refer matters to a consultative council and can a consultative council refer matters directly to the commission, which must then examine them? All those questions are not answered in the Belfast agreement, which is fairly thin on this matter, or in the schedule, yet they involve matters of considerable importance.
  There is a rather strange sentence about the unified commission:
  "Such a unified Commission will advise on, validate and monitor the statutory obligation—"
  which statutory obligation?—
  "and will investigate complaints of default."
  Which default? We have been told that all parties and all Ministers, north and south, considered the issue for hours, weighing the value and importance of every word.
  I am not certain what that strange sentence means. It appears to be a compendium of different ideas thrown together, as it refers to the commission's role to
  "advise on, validate and monitor the statutory obligation and … investigate complaints of default."
  Why will it not investigate the statutory obligation or monitor complaints of default? These are important matters.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, given his background, that I must not cherry-pick, so I am not suggesting that the sentence should be altered one word or one iota. I merely point out that it must have been very late in the night when people were dealing with this issue.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. One way of reading much of the text in the clauses is that there is a great deal of verbiage and pious aspirations, but not much reality. Will he comment on that? Of course, we could look at the matter in two ways. One is that the text should be simplified and the other is that it should be made more complicated.
  Mr. McNamara: I do not think that it should be made more complicated—it should be simplified, although that might require many more words, explanations and definitions. That is what I am urging on my hon. Friend the Minister when he considers the matter in the summer months—and perhaps even between now and Report, although that might strain matters too much. There should be opportunity for real discussion.
  There is a real suspicion that, given the decision to establish the Equality Commission, and given the nature and range of some of the powers that it may or may not have, the urgency for legislation to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 is likely to be put on the back burner. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say whether that suspicion is correct? If it is not, when can we hope to see the legislation that the Government appeared to promise in their reply to the report from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights? As the

  95
  major thrust of the reply seems to have been taken from the statement in May and is contained within this Bill, will we or will we not see legislation?
  Mr. Paul Murphy: Hon. Members are right—the Equality Commission was discussed in the talks in a slightly different context from the Human Rights Commission, because the consultation on its establishment started simultaneously with the talks. The result of that consultation has only recently been determined. Paragraph 6 on page 17 of the agreement states:
  "Subject to the outcome of public consultation currently underway, the British Government intends a new statutory Equality Commission".
  The White Paper consultation was genuine and showed how we might protect the priority given to gender, race and disability within the new structures. We believe that, in the Bill and the amendments which we have tabled, we have taken account of the concerns expressed during the consultation. I am aware that a number of bodies objected to the creation of the Equality Commission, but there were also bodies that said that it was a good idea—for example, the Fair Employment Commission and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Authorities.
  In the end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that we would retain the Equality Commission, but we have made changes as a result of the consultations. A number of them have already been mentioned. Consultative councils will allow for the maintenance of strong links between the existing bodies and the non-governmental organisations in Northern Ireland—not necessarily the great, but I certainly hope the good, will be on those councils.
  The councils will be adequately funded. Perhaps more significantly, the bodies that currently deal with those equal opportunities matters—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fair Employment Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the commission dealing with disability—will be sitting on the working party that establishes the commission itself and all its structures. Therefore, those bodies' identities—what they represent—will not be subsumed into the Equality Commission, as some people fear.
  There is still tremendous merit in having a "one-stop shop". There is merit also in ensuring that, in creating the Equality Commission, the employment aspects of discrimination do not predominate over the difficulties faced by people who use the EOC and other bodies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken account of those matters.
  What about the commission's funding? As I told the Committee earlier, the figures in the explanatory and financial memorandum are inaccurate. However, I assure hon. Members that funding will be at least as generous as that currently received by the four statutory bodies taken together. The estimated initial cost of the commission will be the same—at £4.9 million—as that of the four bodies, although some economies of scale will be achieved. However, as the commission will also perform other functions, there will be no diminution in funding. The commission will be created not for financial reasons but because we think that it is best and most effective way of tackling discrimination.
  96
  The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—who has left the Chamber—raised the important issue of what will happen if the Assembly somehow collapses or fails. We all hope and believe that it will not fail, but, in the unlikely event that it does—whatever happens—it is important to remember that the issues dealt with by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and by the Equality Commission will continue to exist. There is a strong case for saying that, whatever the future holds, those bodies should continue to operate. Moreover, my right hon. Friend has created the Equality Commission because of a review started before the current talks began, and, as I said, SACHR is not an entirely new body.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) asked about the various commissions' staff. They will become employees of the Equality Commission once it is established.
  I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that legislation on fair employment issues consequent to the White Paper will be dealt with later in the year.
  Amendment No. 156, which was moved by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), deals with the wider aspects of discrimination. We shall deal with that matter when we debate the next set of amendments, to clause 61. However, everyone involved in the talks knew that the Equality Commission would be established to accommodate the four commissions that I mentioned—dealing with disability, gender, employment and race. The commission will deal with those matters because people were consulted on those matters. However, I do not in any way undervalue the important points that he made, which, as I said, we shall debate in more detail later in the debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled Government amendment No. 170. My hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Hull, North have tabled amendment No. 192. The two amendments say essentially the same thing. I ask my hon. Friends not to press their amendment and to accept in its place Government amendment No. 170—which deals with the appointment of Equality Commission members by the Secretary of State and would require her to
  "as far as practicable secure that the Commissioners as a group are representative of the community".
  The Bill requires only that my right hon. Friend should have regard to the desirability of that objective. The amendment is a stronger provision and will fulfil the intention of amendment No. 192.
  Government amendment No. 205 deals with the issue of resources, which has been raised by many hon. Members in today's debate. The amendment was tabled in response to consultations that the Government have held on the Equality Commission. The fear was that issues of gender, race and disability might receive insufficient priority in the commission's work.
  Our amendment, with Government amendment No. 203, is designed to ensure that the issues receive priority and to achieve transparency in the commission's allocation of resources, both financial and manpower, between the functions formerly exercised by the four separate bodies.

  97
  8.45 pm
  Amendments Nos. 202 and 204 are technical, and correct an error in clause 60 based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between the Northern Ireland Disability Council and the National Disability Council.
  As I said, amendment No. 203 ensures that none of the four functions loses out in resource allocations.
  Government amendment No. 213 is a technical one, to correct an earlier drafting mistake.
  I again tell the Committee that we are conscious of the representations made on the issues that have been raised not only by hon. Members but by bodies in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend takes the issues very seriously. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to ask leave to withdraw his amendment and the hon. Members who tabled the other amendments in this group not to press them. We have already made considerable changes to our initial view on the commission.
  Mr. Öpik: I have listened to the Minister, but I am not terribly happy with the reply. I know him to be a man of great reason and fairness, and believe him to be committed to doing the right thing, especially when it comes to issues of discrimination. He must therefore know how nervous the Equal Opportunities Commission and the other three bodies are about the proposed merger. I am pleased to hear his reassurance that the arrangements are designed to ensure that those concerns will be taken seriously. Nevertheless, the bodies have an emphatic worry that the changes will be damaging not only for the individuals involved but for the new organisation in doing its work.
  The issues raised in amendment No. 156 will not simply disappear. Although I realise that the Committee will soon debate the other forms of discrimination, I repeat that there must be a body to which individuals facing those forms of discrimination can bring their grievance. It is all very well talking about a "one-stop shop", but the last thing that we want to do is to make some people feel that their concerns are right at the back shelf, discounted or in the bargain basement. Providing such a reassurance was the purpose of tabling and moving amendment No. 156. The amendment would ensure that people feel that they can take their concerns to the Equality Commission, even if the form of discrimination affecting them is not related directly to the most frequently debated forms of discrimination.
  Amendment No. 156 is not—as the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Luton, South (Ms Moran) said—about equal resources but about equal priority. We have to give equal priority to any form of discrimination. As I said earlier in the debate, ultimately, individual are less interested in why they are discriminated against than in the fact that such discrimination is happening. All discrimination can wreck lives. Giving the Equality Commission the mandate to tackle all discrimination and then to allocate resources accordingly could provide the opportunity for Northern Ireland to lead the way in the United Kingdom in tackling what is basically a waste of human opportunities and, still worse, the very frictions that the settlement Bill is designed to prevent.
  On the understanding, however, that the Minister has listened to our concerns and that he will carry on doing so, including those that the various commissions that are
  98
  to be merged have raised and will continue to raise, and in the hope that we can carry on making informal contributions to the guidance that we have discussed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 170, in page 27, leave out from beginning of line 40 to 'representative' in line 41 and insert
  `as far as practicable secure that the Commission's members, as a group, are'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
  Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9

  THE EQUALITY COMMISSION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
  Amendment made: No. 205, in page 49, line 17, at end insert—
  '() The report shall, in particular, give details of how resources have been divided between the functions previously exercisable by each of the bodies listed in section 60(2).' —[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
  Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 60

  THE COMMISSION'S PRINCIPAL FUNCTIONS
  Amendments made: No. 202, in page 28, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
  '(d) the Northern Ireland Disability Council.'.
  No. 203, in page 28, line 11, at end insert—

  '(3A) In exercising their functions the Equality Commission shall—

  (a) aim to secure an appropriate division of resources between the functions previously exercisable by each of the bodies listed in subsection (2); and

  (b) have regard to advice offered by a consultative council.

  (3B) In subsection (3A) "consultative council" means a group of persons selected by the Commission to advise in relation to the functions previously exercisable by one of the bodies listed in subsection (2) or in relation to the Commission's functions under Schedule 10.'.

  No. 204, in page 28, line 14, leave out 'to (3)' and insert 'and (2)' —.[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
  Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

  STATUTORY DUTY ON PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
  Mr. Corbyn: I beg to move amendment No. 199, in page 28, line 20, leave out from 'opportunity' to end of line 2 on page 29 and insert
  `in relation to religious belief, political opinion, race, gender, disability, language, age, marital status, dependants and sexual orientation.'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in page 28, leave out lines 21 to 25 and insert
  `in relation to religion and political opinion; gender; race; disability; age; marital status; dependants; sexual orientation; and language.'.

  99
  No. 32, in page 28, line 21, leave out from 'opinion' to end of line 22 and insert 'or racial group'.
  No. 33, in page 28, line 23, leave out 'generally' and insert
  `as provided by law; or'.
  No. 34, in page 28, line 24, after 'without', insert
  as provided by law'.
  No. 35, in page 28, line 24, leave out from 'without' to end of line 25.
  No. 180, in page 28, leave out lines 26 to 28.
  No. 193, in page 28, line 26, after '(2)', insert
  `Without prejudice to its obligations under subsection (1),'.
  Government amendments Nos. 183, 206 and 211.
  New clause 4—Duly of public authorities to publish impact statements—

  `.—(1) It shall be the duty of every public authority to prepare a statement ("Impact statement") of any significant impact that any proposed action by it may have on its ability to fulfil its duty under section 61.

  (2) It shall be the duty of every public authority to include in every impact statement information on—

  (a) the aims and purposes of the proposed action;

  (b) any significant impact that in its view the proposed action may have on its ability to fulfil its duties under section 61;

  (c) alternatives to the proposed action—

  (i) which may achieve the aims and purposes of the proposed action but which may be less likely to have an adverse effect on its ability to fulfil its duty under section 61, and

  (ii) which may achieve the aims and purposes of the proposed action but may be more likely to have the effect of enabling it to achieve better compliance with its duty under section 61;

  (d) the justification for the rejection of any alternatives identified in paragraph (c).

  (e) proposals to mitigate any unavoidable impact of the action which would be likely to have an adverse effect on its ability to fulfil its duty under section 61, by recourse to accompanying social and economic measures; and

  (f) mechanisms to monitor the impact of the action, following its introduction.

  (3) The public authority shall ensure that an impact statement is made available to the public in good time to enable effective consultation to take place by the public authority with those directly affected by the proposed decision.

  (4) The impact statement and the results of any consultations on it shall be taken into account by the public body in any subsequent decision whether to proceed with the proposed action.

  (5) Following a decision to proceed with the relevant action, the public body shall publish the decision, together with its reasons for doing so.'.

  New clause 5—Duty of public authorities to make arrangements to secure compliance with section 61—

  —(1) It shall be the duty of every public authority to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions and responsibilities are carried out with due regard to the need to comply with the duty set out in section 61.

  (2) An annual report shall be laid before each House of Parliament with respect to the measures and policies adopted to advance the duty set out in section 61.

  100

  (3) Without prejudice to subsection 2, within three years of the coming into effect of this Act, and once every five years thereafter, it shall be the duty of every public authority to review the extent to which its various functions and responsibilities are carried out with due regard to the need to comply with the duties set out in section 61.

  I should point out that it was decided to separate this group of amendments from the group that we have just discussed, but I thought that there was some leakage from the first debate into the debate on these amendments. I hope that, for the general convenience of the Committee, and in view of the business that we have to get through, hon. Members will have regard to that.
  Mr. Corbyn: There will be no leakage on my part, as I did not speak to the previous group of amendments. However, I understand and readily accept your point, Sir Alan.
  The amendment, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and by me, aims to simplify clause 61 considerably by omitting the bulk of it and inserting the words
  "in relation to religious belief, political opinion, race, gender, disability, language, age, marital status, dependants and sexual orientation",
  which would make the clause rather less long-winded.
  Most of the words in the amendment are included in the agreement, so we are trying to simplify the Bill accordingly. The only difference to be found in the amendment is the question of language, a subject that was raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) in relation to English-speaking people moving to the Republic. However that, too, is covered in the agreement. On page 19, the agreement states:
  "All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."
  The amendment is an attempt to ensure that potential discrimination in many areas is dealt with, and that language is included.
  As we have said, equality, respect for human rights and the ability of various institutions to cope with differences are paramount. The clause would place a requirement on the whole government apparatus in Northern Ireland to operate in a non-discriminatory way. It should not be especially difficult to accept the amendment as discrimination, and all the issues surrounding it have at various times been discussed and agreed in the UK Parliament. As I said, the only addition to the list is language. I suppose that a parallel would be the passage of the Welsh Language Act 1993.
  The amendment simplifies what has already been decided in relation to the other commissions, and it adds the question of language, which is already included in the agreement. It makes a clear, simple statement that everyone can understand. As Northern Ireland progresses, we hope, to a more peaceful future, it should be clear to every citizen there and, indeed, in the Republic that any form of discrimination is wrong and unacceptable and that everyone should strive to build a non-discriminatory society. I hope that the amendment will be seen as helpful and simple.
  Mr. Grieve: I shall speak mainly to amendments Nos. 32 to 35, but first I shall respond to the

  101
  hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), to whom I listened carefully. Simplification may sometimes appear to be desirable, but the amendment would make the clause read as follows:
  "A public authority in Northern Ireland shall … have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in relation to … political opinion".
  It is not clear what the hon. Gentleman intends, whereas the original text makes it clear that there should be equality of opportunity
  "between persons of different … political opinion".
  As I understand the amendment, those words would be left out. I respectfully suggest that the amendment does not make sense.
  I make it clear at the outset that amendments Nos. 32 to 35 are probing amendments. We accept that there has been a vote, that a decision has been made on the basis of the agreement, and that the agreement incorporates much of what is now in the Bill. I am bound to say that the Bill raises some questions and we are seeking some answers. Clause 61 is clearly intended to go beyond simply requiring public authorities to fulfil their legal obligations. One of the problems concerns definition. Generally, we require people to obey the law, not to carry out positive duties to implement certain courses of action.
  The Bill establishes various commissions. I can well understand that the Equality Commission will have a remit to promote a particular end. However, the role of a public authority—which will include the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—will be to promote that end. Clause 61 states that the promotion of equality of opportunity should be
  "between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group"
  and adds:
  "age, marital status or sexual orientation".
  As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) rightly said, this is the first time that sexual orientation features in that way in legislation. Again, I make no criticism; the House of Commons has voted on the matter. However, whether all the electors in Northern Ireland were fully cognisant of the way in which certain forms of political correctness would be introduced as an intention, as opposed to obedience of the law, may be an open question.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman obviously heard what I said—that the United Kingdom Parliament has already voted on the issue. Is he saying that there is something wrong with trying to end discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation? Is it wrong to introduce it in an important piece of legislation regarding the future of Northern Ireland?
  9 pm
  Mr. Grieve: No, not at all. I am mindful of the fact that I participated in the debates on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. It is reasonably well known that I am in favour of incorporation. However, the incorporation debate avoided grandiose statements. The purpose behind incorporation of the convention was to allow the principles to be established and, thereafter, the law to develop. In this case, we are
  102
  trying to do something different, and that is why it is important that the Government should say exactly what is meant by the Bill, line by line.
  We are told to promote equality of opportunity
  "between men and women generally".
  I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me if I ask what is meant by "generally". We are dealing with matters that are potentially the subject of dispute. The Equality Commission will apparently have input and a degree of tutelage over the way in which the legislation is operated by public authorities. It will criticise, validate and castigate public authorities for the way in which they operate. What is a public authority to make of the words
  "between men and women generally"?
  What is the intention behind that phrase?
  The Bill then refers to equality of opportunity
  "between persons with a disability and persons without".
  The Secretary of State will note that to both paragraphs we seek simply to add the words "provided by law". I am sure that the hon. Member for Islington, North and the Secretary of State will agree that there is already much legislation on a United Kingdom-wide basis dealing with precisely those forms of discrimination.
  Paragraph (d) refers to equality opportunities
  "between persons with dependants and persons without."
  Again I ask—it is a matter worthy of clarification and some debate, as I do not see that expression included in the agreement—why that phrase has been inserted. I can understand perfectly the reason behind the generality of it, but we are doing something quite unusual. I have no doubt that, earlier, when the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was present, her enthusiasm for the legislation was in part because she saw it as going much further than ordinary human rights legislation in the United Kingdom.
  Although I accept that the matter has been voted on, it calls for very close scrutiny and some answers from the Government on how they see the provisions operating in practice. We would suggest respectfully that the same aims might be achieved without quite the same detail and by adhering to the existing principles of law.
  The end of the first world war saw President Wilson's 14 points. At the time they were introduced, Mr. Clemenceau said:
  "Fourteen? The good Lord has only ten."
  We have to be careful about generalised expressions of intention when we are drafting legislation, especially when we are putting statutory duties on others—not just on local authorities, but on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If the legislation is to work, the Government must have a clear idea of how it will work in practice and what it means line by line.
  Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not sure how all the issues arise, as they are not in the agreement. However, in paragraph 3 on page 16, under the heading "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity", there is a reference to dependants, so it would seem that what we are debating is very much what is in the agreement.
  Mr. Grieve: I stand corrected. Perhaps I was misled by persons without about the word "dependants". I had

  103
  missed that. I appreciate the fact that the provisions have been lifted bodily from the agreement, but I had wondered whether that was so in this case.
  I should be interested to hear how the Government think that the provisions will work in detail. Pious aspirations on their own are not enough.
  Judy Mallaber: As I have signed several of the amendments, I thought that perhaps I should provide some variety in the voices of those who are speaking on them. I should like to be more positive than the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Many of us feel that the agenda on equality and human rights represents a positive way forward. I should like to refer to new clauses 4 and 5 and Government amendment No. 206. The issues were touched on in the debate on the previous group.
  I particularly welcome the Government amendment to schedule 10, which will allow the Equality Commission to require a public authority to submit schemes setting out its arrangements for studies on the impact of policies. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week pointing out that impact studies were included in the Belfast agreement but did not appear in the Bill. I welcome that inclusion.
  Before the Bill returns to the House in the autumn, I hope that Ministers will consider ways of strengthening it along the lines of new clause 4, specifically to incorporate a direct requirement on public bodies to examine the impact of their policies and decisions on disadvantaged groups, following Government policy on fair treatment. Putting that policy into statute would require a direct responsibility on public bodies rather than matters being dealt with only via the Equality Commission. That would help to strengthen the Bill.
  Mr. McNamara: Paragraph 3 of the section of the agreement under "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity" says:
  "Public bodies would be required to draw up statutory schemes showing how they would implement this obligation."
  There is no requirement in the Bill.
  Judy Mallaber: I hope that that will be clarified over the summer. I also hope that the wording of the Bill will allow challenges before decisions are implemented rather than only after a decision, when the impact on disadvantaged groups has been discovered. That is another point that I raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I hope that it will be considered further.
  My interest in strengthening the Bill comes from many years' experience working for my union—formerly the National Union of Public Employees, now Unison. The union has many disadvantaged members, particularly women. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) referred to the importance of promoting gender equality. My experience from my union and from looking at other organisations is that promoting the equality agenda has helped to build bridges across community divides. I hope that that will be built on into the future as a positive way forward. The focus has always been on the rights of the disadvantaged, whatever the
  104
  form of their disadvantages. We should keep that focus. That is one of the strengths of having powerful equalities mechanisms.
  It has been said that, in some respects, Government policy in Northern Ireland is in advance of policy in the rest of the UK. I hope that we do not now fall behind. I hope that Ministers will ensure during their summer consultation that our policies stay firm and the provisions are worded strongly.
  To those to whom I have spoken, such issues are seen as fundamental building blocks of the future. It is important to get the mechanisms right. These issues are not the stuff of drama; they are about social inclusion, the consent of the excluded and putting justice and fairness at the heart of government. The fair treatment guidelines, which are embodied in practice through processes such as the impact studies, seek to deal with some of the most vulnerable groups in Northern Ireland. Bringing people together is important. The coalitions of disadvantaged groups that have developed over the years or have been formed in recent months are looking for a way forward that will take on board the issues of disadvantage. It is important that we deal with them. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) suggested that some of the issues might be put off to the future. I am not quite sure how many of those raised in today's debate should be left for future discussion. Many groups want action quickly, even if it requires much hard thinking and discussion in the coming months.
  I should like to quote something that the Secretary of State said at the launch of the report of the Women Seen and Heard project in Northern Ireland, which brought together representatives of a wide range of women's groups—300 of them—under the European peace and reconciliation programme. The extraordinary range of women included young and elderly women, people with disabilities, travellers, the Chinese community and women from the toughest loyalist and nationalist areas. The Secretary of State said:
  "The European Programme has set up the structures where women's voices can be heard. It is also a mechanism of beginning to build respect, trust and confidence between different folk around the table. What we have to do as government is to see how we can integrate these structures."
  The new clauses would put the onus of dealing with the structures directly on Government bodies. The provision of equality would be a duty that was placed directly at the heart of government, and the impact studies would be a direct responsibility of public authorities. New clause 5 would strengthen the requirement on public authorities to act in accordance with section 61. I see such proposals as a very positive way forward.
  Will the Secretary of State say on whether such issues could be strengthened? Does she believe that new clause 4 reflects the details of schemes that would secure the Secretary of State's approval? What timetable does she expect for the submission and approval of such schemes? Will she consider making such proposals a direct responsibility of public bodies?
  Mr. McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendment No. 193. It would insert the words
  "Without prejudice to its obligations under subsection (1)",
  so ensuring that it was a defined duty of public authorities in Northern Ireland to exercise and perform both the functions stipulated in clause 61(1) and (2).

  105
  Subsection (1) refers to
  "the need to promote equality of opportunity"
  in the various groups that are listed in paragraphs (a) to (d), and, indeed, in amendment No. 179, to which the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke. Subsection (2) refers to
  "the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group."
  Government amendment No. 183 would change the wording "desirability of promoting" to more obligatory terminology.
  Amendment No. 193 would ensure that public authorities cannot, in promoting good relations, disguise the fact if they are failing to promote equal opportunity under the various classifications in the Bill. It is simple and direct. We want section 61 of the Act to state clearly that there is an obligation on public authorities fully to perform both functions.
  Amendment No. 179 is akin to amendment No. 199, but it adds the words "and language". As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, language is an important issue. In the inter-party talks, parity of esteem was the subject of considerable discussion; it was decided that parity of esteem related not only to politics and symbolism, but to language and culture. Indeed, in recent months, we have heard much about parity of esteem from different quarters—in relation to Drumcree, for example. However, the Bill does not specify the need to promote parity of esteem in language or culture, which is an unfortunate omission, and I ask the Secretary of State to say how she proposes to introduce that important matter into the Bill.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Grieve: Amendment No. 179 refers to dependants, about which I asked. Does the hon. Member understand whether the reference is to persons with dependants or—as the amendment suggests—to the dependants themselves?
  Mr. McGrady: I am referring to the dependants themselves.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) ably spoke about new clauses 4 and 5, and I endorse all that she said about impact statements and their aims and availability to the public. Such statements would be an important way through which to assess the impact of public authorities' actions. New clause 5 would impose a duty on all public authorities to ensure that their various functions and responsibilities were appropriately carried out, to lay a report before each House of Parliament and to review—within three years initially and then every five years—the extent of compliance. The measure would be an important weapon in the armoury to ensure that equality of opportunity is properly executed and assessed. I commend the amendments and new clauses to the Committee.
  Mr. Öpik: I add my support to the comments that have been made about new clause 4, which I, too, believe would tighten up the Bill. New clause 5 would require public authorities to establish effective internal mechanisms for the enforcement of the equality of opportunity duty. One could argue that the Bill already requires that in spirit, but it would be helpful if that were
  106
  specified, especially as the Government have continually stated that their intention during consultation has been, in effect, to enact the sentiment behind the new clause.
  It is sometimes too easy to forget that the decisions that we make here have a practical impact in Northern Ireland. The sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on amendment No. 199 ring true with anyone who has lived in Northern Ireland and experienced discrimination beyond the obvious.
  For example, my sister experienced discrimination at school, because her name is Urve Öpik—some would say that it was even harder to pronounce than my name—and she spoke with an accent that was not Northern Irish. Amendment No. 199 is designed to ensure that people who experience such discrimination have a readily accessible recourse. It is important that the content of the Bill should be open to clear and unambiguous interpretation, because the last thing that we want to do is to put additional barriers between an individual with a grievance and the mechanisms that could help him or her to resolve it.
  Amendment No. 199 is insightful and—without getting into whether its language is precisely correct—we very much support it.
  Mr. McNamara: I do not think that there is a great difference in substance between amendments Nos. 199 and 179.
  I support new clauses 4 and 5. I welcome Government amendment No. 206, but it contains a few weaknesses. Paragraph 3 of the section of the agreement headed "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity" says that the Government intend
  "to create a statutory obligation on public authorities in Northern Ireland to carry out all their functions with due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in relation to religion and political opinion; gender; race; disability; age; marital status; dependants; and sexual orientation",
  but—and this is the important part—it goes on to say:
  "Public bodies would be required to draw up statutory schemes showing how they would implement this obligation."
  It continues:
  "Such schemes would cover arrangements for policy appraisal, including an assessment of impact on relevant categories, public consultation, public access to information and services, monitoring and timetables."
  The obligation on authorities under clause 61(1), as mentioned in amendment No. 206, is not a statutory and binding obligation on those statutory or public authorities. Schedule 10 gives the commission the power, "where it thinks appropriate", to
  "request a public authority to make a first or revised scheme, showing how it proposes to fulfil those duties in relation to some or all of its functions."
  There is a power to request, but there is no statutory duty on an authority to have an impact assessment scheme. The schedule says that a public authority "shall respond" to such a request, so the matter is very much up in the air.
  The Bill does not state that a public authority must create an impact assessment and gives only a discretionary power for the Equality Commission to have one. However, the agreement states that a public authority shall draw up an impact assessment. I hope that, in the

  107
  summer months, the Minister will resolve that question—I see his holiday in France diminishing daily because of all the matters that have come up.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Farewell Tuscany.
  Mr. McNamara: No, my hon. Friend the Minister does not want to evict his landlord, which in Irish terms would be a turn-up for the books and a strange twist of history.
  If my hon. Friend is to meet the requirements of the Belfast agreement there has to be such a statutory obligation. I hope that, as a result of his talks and of examining what is contained within that agreement, he will read it in that way. I still believe that it would be better to accept new clauses 4 and 5, which encompass all that should be in an impact assessment and what the follow-up should be.
  I have a number of questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about her amendments. Bearing in mind the fact that it is to be hoped that she will be coming back with something better in the autumn, what would she expect to see in the guidelines for the operation of statutory equality schemes so that they might meet her approval as required by schedule 10, which states that the commission shall on receipt of a scheme for which it has asked—although it does not have to ask for it and no one is bound to produce one—
  "approve it; or… refer it to the Secretary of State"?
  Schedule 10 continues:
  "Where a scheme is referred to the Secretary of State he shall—

  (a) approve it;

  (b) request the public authority to make a revised scheme; or

  (c) make a scheme for the public authority."

  Does my right hon. Friend regard the contents of new clause 4 as what she would expect to be within such a statutory scheme? If so, can she say so, and could that be contained in an amendment to the Bill? What timetable does my right hon. Friend envisage for the submission of such equality schemes and for their approval?
  Returning to the vexed question that we discussed earlier—additional resources for the new Equality Commission—my hon. Friend the Minister in his reply to the previous debate rightly said that there might be some economies of size. People are fearful that such economies might become the object of the exercise rather than a thorough examination of the problems in hand. He went on to admit that there were further responsibilities. I imagine that the examination of schemes would take considerable time and expense, and many resources over and above the £4.3 million that we are told is expended on the commissions at present.
  I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would answer those questions.
  Mr. Donaldson: I welcome Government amendment No. 206 because it is important to deal with policy appraisal and fair treatment. The Secretary of State and the Minister will be aware that such provisions exist already in Northern Ireland, and it is important to have them in the Bill. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) by encouraging the
  108
  Minister to consider new clauses 4 and 5 to ascertain whether provisions on policy appraisal and fair treatment could be added to. There is a particular need for monitoring policy appraisal and fair treatment in public bodies, because we want to ensure that proper accountability is built into the system. Policy appraisal and fair treatment must be given proper precedence in the Bill so that they are adequately provided for.
  9.30 pm
  Mrs. Fyfe: I want to make one point only about clause 61(2). I am sure that everyone would agree with the
  "desirability of promoting good relations between"
  communities, but that expression could be interpreted pretty minimally. It would be perfectly understandable, for example, if the police were to interpret good relations as being an absence of open conflict, or a great reduction in law breaking. While those are good things that should not be looked down on, I wonder whether my hon. Friends on the Front Bench might care to add to the Bill expressions such as "mutual respect" or "equal rights" to make it clear that there is a fuller agenda than simple reduction in open conflict.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): Clause 61 is important. The statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity is one that we consider crucial. I have listened carefully to points made on both sides of the House, particularly those on impact assessment and the chances of measuring objectively that what is being attempted is being achieved. I hope that some points are covered in the Government amendments, but, as we have made clear all along, we shall listen carefully and shall consider over the summer what we can do to respond to points on which there is broad agreement.
  I am sad to say that I must ask the House to resist amendments Nos. 199 and 179 for the simple reason that the present wording of clause 61(1) is more precise. It makes it clear that our objective is to promote equality of opportunity between people of different religions, and between men and women. Although the amendments reflect the wording of the agreement by using "in relation to", we believe that that wording could cause difficulties of interpretation if it were included on a statutory basis. Pararagraph 3 on page 16 of the agreement, which deals with "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity", does not include language in the list of equality of opportunity issues that are to be covered by statutory obligation. That does not mean that we do not consider language as central to the cultural identity of the different communities in Northern Ireland.
  There are a number of commitments on linguistic diversity, and the Irish language in particular, in the agreement, as several hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), pointed out. They are being implemented by administrative and, where appropriate, legislative means. For instance, the commitment to place a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate Irish medium education has already been enacted. The Government have also decided to sign the Council of Europe charter for regional or minority languages and will specify Irish for part III purposes, at an early date.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend, but will she confirm

  109
  that nothing in the agreement would exclude placing a statutory responsibility on public authorities to promote and encourage equality of opportunity in the matter of the Irish language vis-a-vis English or any other language?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. I was making it clear that we have already made much progress on language as part of cultural identities in Northern Ireland. He knows that we have been trying all along in the settlement Bill to implement the Good Friday agreement without taking away from it or adding to it so that it is what the parties agreed. If the Assembly wants to make other changes in the months and years ahead, it is up to its elected Members so to do.
  On amendments Nos. 32 to 35, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked what "men and women generally" meant. There is nothing new; it is the same as in existing sex discrimination legislation. He also asked about dependants, as mentioned in paragraph 3 on page 16 of the agreement. Paragraph 3 gave clear notice of the Government's intention to create a statutory obligation exactly as set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Grieve: I take it from that that the suggestion that the provision referred to dependants, as opposed to persons with dependants, was wrong?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I think that that would be the case.
  I ask the Committee to resist amendments Nos. 32 to 35. We have sought to legislate for the full range of equality issues covered under the policy appraisal and fair treatment administrative guidelines issued in 1993 under the previous Administration. The amendments would remove from the scope of the equality of opportunity obligation three areas where there is no anti-discrimination legislation: age, marital status and sexual orientation. We see no reason why the statutory obligation should deny consideration to elderly people, single people or gays that they had under the administrative guidelines of the previous Government. The amendments should be rejected because of their minimalist approach to equality of opportunity legislation.
  On the points made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), it would be helpful if we accepted amendment No. 193 and withdrew Government amendment No. 183. I ask the Committee to resist amendment No. 180 because we regard equality of opportunity and good relations as complementary. There should be no conflict between the two objectives. Good relations cannot be based on inequality between different religions or ethnic groups. Social cohesion requires equality to be reinforced by good community relations. The provision will create a clear statutory obligation on public authorities to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group. The Government amendment would strengthen that and bring it into line with the obligation to promote equality of opportunity. I repeat that we see no conflict between those two objectives.
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) gained a degree of support from both sides of the Committee. I agree that promoting gender equality is an essential aspect of the Bill. I acknowledge that her union, Unison, has worked
  110
  extremely hard on this issue in Northern Ireland. It is essential that we do not fall behind the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of the progress made on issues relating to justice and fairness, which are crucial to progress in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend mentioned a conference on women's issues. It was an impressive conference and I hope that it will develop in years to come because the issues that it debated were crucial.
  The main point that my hon. Friend raised, which was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), concerned the status of new clauses 4 and 5. Those new clauses are crucial and I hope that they will be very similar to, if not the same as, the statutory guidelines that will be drafted by the new Equality Commission. New clause 4 provides a comprehensive model for those guidelines.
  Government amendment No. 206, which gained the support of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), was tabled in response to a number of concerns that have been raised. I hope that it is complete, but if a number of hon. Members feel that it is not, we shall look at it again. The amendment clarifies the statutory equality schemes which the Equality Commission will request public authorities to set up, and says that they should include
  "assessing the likely impact of policies … on the promotion of the equality of opportunity".
  In our statement of 10 July on the White Paper consultation, we said that statutory equality schemes should contain a requirement to assess the equality impact of policies. The amendment achieves that objective. The existing policy appraisal and fair treatment administrative guidelines require similar assessments, and the statutory arrangements that will supersede PAFT should impose a similar requirement on the public sector. The statutory guidelines that the Equality Commission can issue on those schemes should contain more detail about those impact assessments. The statutory equality schemes will also provide for publication of the results of impact assessments.
  Mr. McNamara: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments on new clause 4. Does she intend to amend the Bill to place a statutory obligation on public bodies to draw up schemes? Such an obligation still does not appear in the Bill or the amendment emphatically as a prime responsibility of public bodies, but it does appear in paragraph 3 on page 16 of the Belfast agreement.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Public authorities must produce schemes when asked to do so by the Equality Commission. I expect the commission, in time, to request all public authorities to draw up schemes, except in exceptional cases. It is right for the commission to be able to prioritise its requests. As I have made clear, new clause 4 contains the kind of statutory obligations that would make a difference. My hon. Friend says that he wants that to appear in the Bill. The amendment that we tabled clearly satisfied neither him nor a number of other hon. Members, so I shall look at the matter again during the summer and see whether I can come closer to satisfying the points that he made earlier about timetable implementation and placing a statutory obligation in the Bill.
  I looked carefully at the issue and I had thought that our new amendment would achieve what people wanted, but there is clearly still a degree of dissatisfaction. We

  111
  shall do all that we can over the summer to satisfy those folk who feel that more should be done. As I said at the beginning, we are listening carefully and we shall do everything possible to add where we can to the settlement Bill, but, however important equality issues are to us all, we shall be in difficulty if we go further than the Good Friday agreement, as I am sure hon. Members understand. I thank my colleagues for raising some useful points, which we shall certainly consider.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Yes.
  Mr. Corbyn: I know that giving way is the one thing that my right hon. Friend really wants to do. Before she sits down, will she say a word about the issue of language and the way that it is included in the agreement? If, as seems likely, my amendment is not accepted, what happens in relation to language?
  9.45 pm
  Marjorie Mowlam: As I said earlier, language is an important part of cultural identity in both communities and the Irish language is crucial. We have moved a long way in terms of the Irish language—for example, with a statutory obligation in respect of Irish-medium schools. Our specification of Irish for the purposes of part III of the Council of Europe charter for regional or minority languages will make a difference. That comes close to fulfilling the obligations relating to language in the Good Friday agreement. If my hon. Friend believes that that is not the case and he comes to me with other specific changes, we shall consider them; however, I must point out that we are addressing these questions within the Good Friday agreement.
  Mr. Corbyn: As another member of Unison, I thank my right hon. Friend for the inclusion of part III of the charter in respect of the Irish language and the work to promote it. Although I recognise that she has gone a long way in that direction, I do not think that everything we wanted to achieve in our amendment has been met. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I should like to take the opportunity of further discussion with my right hon. Friend on the issue of language and the promotion of language.
  A Bill as important as this one should contain a clear, simple statement of the purpose of the Northern Ireland Government in future, not only to carry out existing legislation, but to promote positively anti-discrimination and equality legislation. I endorse completely what my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and others have said in that respect. If we can say to everyone in Northern Ireland that, from now on, that will be the purpose of the Government, things will be very different from how they were in the past.
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has asked leave to withdraw his amendment, but I cannot put the Question on that if the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) wishes to speak.
  Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North is giving way to me, Mr. Martin.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Oh, I am sorry.
  Mr. McNamara: I want to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that he should thank our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for her kind words about the new clause as regards impact. I am sure that he agrees that that is most important and our right hon. Friend deserves to be congratulated on her openness.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our right hon. Friend deserves to be congratulated on what she said in that respect. The new clauses proposed by our hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley are excellent, because they bring the issues of transparency, reporting, openness and identifiable performance measurements to the fore. Parliament passes legislation on all sorts of matters, but unless there is efficient and effective reporting and monitoring to ensure that the original decisions are carried out, the legislation becomes meaningless. We have had a good and useful debate.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 193, in page 28, line 26, after `(2)', insert
  `Without prejudice to its obligations under subsection (1),'.—[Mr. McGrady.]
  Mr. Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 157, in page 28, line 36, at end insert—
  "(f) Any other body which would be included within the definition of a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 159, in clause 62, page 29, line 36, at end insert—
  `(j) Any other body which would be included within the definition of a public authority as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998.'.
  Mr. Öpik: The amendment is technical, and would make a straightforward improvement to the Bill by simply tightening up the definition of a public authority.
  Clause 6 of the Human Rights Bill, which we discussed in June, states:
  "In this section, 'public authority' includes—
  (a) a court or tribunal, and
  (b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,
  but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament."
  The intention is to standardise the definitions. The Government have accepted as effective the definition in the Human Rights Bill, and it therefore stands as the

  113
  official definition. By including that definition in this Bill, we would close any loopholes and protect the definition in case of any discrepancies in future.
  The Government made a manifesto commitment to introduce the Human Rights Bill, and its provisions must be included in our work on Northern Ireland. If we did not include the definition, there would be a risk that people would use the provisions of the Human Rights Bill instead of those of the Northern Ireland Bill, which would be messy.
  Mr. Grieve: Surely the Bills aim to achieve two completely different ends. The Human Rights Bill imposes certain duties under the law on public authorities, whereas, as we were discussing earlier, this Bill sets out to make public authorities achieve certain ends.
  Mr. Öpik: The amendment's aim is to clarify exactly that point. It is perfectly clear to me that the definition of a public authority will not change according to what we are discussing, so I have a different interpretation from that of the hon. Gentleman. We need one definition of a public authority. There is nothing controversial in what I am proposing. I believe that, if I had made the point informally when the Bill was being drafted, the definition would have been included.
  The amendment would provide a simple solution to any future problems of messy interpretation between the Northern Ireland Bill and the Human Rights Bill, which has already been considered. We should include the Human Rights Bill's definition of a public authority.
  Mr. Grieve: I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), but the Bills aim to achieve two completely different ends. If the Committee accepted the amendment, I would want to have a thorough discussion about the implications for all public authorities, some of which, as we know from discussion on the Human Rights Bill, extend way beyond what some people might consider public authorities, into the realms of quasi-private organisations. I assumed that the definition used was deliberately not that of the Human Rights Bill, and that it was drafted precisely to refer to specific types of public authority that the Government wish to use to promote their agenda in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the definition of a public authority will not change from one discussion to the next? The provisions in the Human Rights Bill and those that we are discussing today may require different applications, but that does not change what a public authority is.
  Mr. Grieve: All I can go on is what the Bill says. I should be interested to hear the Minister's explanation. I note that the definition of a public authority in the Bill appears to be much narrower than the definition in the Human Rights Bill.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I ask the Committee to resist the amendment, on the basis that it would add to the list of bodies that are prevented from discriminating on the ground of religious belief or political opinion anybody who, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said, could be included in the definition of a
  114
  public authority in the Human Rights Bill. The likely effects of the amendment are too unclear to allow us to accept it.
  The definition of a public authority in the Human Rights Bill is very wide and includes, for example,
  "any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
  Theoretically, that could include Churches and religious organisations. A Church could be prevented from discriminating on the ground of religious belief in making appointments, which is obviously nonsense.
  Therefore, we do not think that we can accept the amendment at this, or indeed at any, stage. I understand that the purpose is to try to ensure that the Bill has the widest possible application, but, because of the amendment's lack of clarity, it might have consequences that are not intended by either the agreement or the Bill.
  We already have an extensive list in clause 62. We think that that is the appropriate one for the Bill, because it builds on what exists already in Northern Ireland. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Öpik: I am slightly amazed by the Minister's response. Nothing could be simpler than the importance of having one single definition in all parliamentary activities for "public authority". It was certainly my understanding that one of the great benefits of passing the Human Rights Bill was to achieve clarity in areas such as this. If the Minister and Government seek to have two different interpretations of "public authority", that stores up enormous trouble for us in future, because one then has to provide some sort of ruling on which definition of a public authority is correct.
  Mr. McWalter: I shall try just to clarify. There is even a difference between the definition of "public authority" in clause 61 and that in clause 62, depending on whether it is a public authority in Northern Ireland or a public authority of the United Kingdom. It appears that it is necessary to have differences in how we define public authorities.
  Mr. Öpik: Without trying to prolong the debate any further, I should say that the discrepancy in the Bill, and, more to the point, between the definition in the Human Rights Bill and the Northern Ireland Bill, is a store for trouble. We cannot redefine a public authority just to suit the particular case in hand.
  Notwithstanding the fact that this may cause difficulties legislation such as the Northern Ireland Bill and other Bills that from time to time come before the House, we need to face facts, and recognise that we have an objective definition of a public authority and that we will end up in all sorts of trouble if we seek to redefine what a public authority is according to what suits us on a particular day and in a particular debate.
  I heard what the Minister said. I sincerely hope that he will not reject out of hand—although that is what I interpreted his response to be: a rejection out of hand—the point that I have made. I sincerely urge him and his colleagues to revisit the proposal, because it tries to simplify something, not make it more difficult. The one thing that we can all be certain of is that any uncertainty, any vagueness, is likely to cause difficulty when an interpretation is needed and when a different interpretation will best suit one group or another.

  115
  I will reluctantly withdraw the amendment, but I serve notice that this issue will not go away, and I shall make direct representations again on the matter in the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 10
  EQUALITY: ENFORCEMENT OF DUTIES
  Amendments made: No. 206, in page 50, line 40, at end insert—
  '() for assessing the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted by the authority on the promotion of the equality of opportunity mentioned in section 61(1);'.
  No. 211, in page 51, line 26, leave out 'subsection' and insert `paragraph'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

  Clause 62
  DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
  10 pm
  Mr. McGrady: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 29, line 4, after 'discriminate', insert 'directly or indirectly'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 158, in page 29, line 5, leave out from 'discriminate' to end of line 6 and insert
  `against a person or group of persons on any grounds set out in section 61(1), subsections (a) to (d).'.
  No. 52, in page 29, line 5, after second 'of, insert
  `gender, race, disability, age, marital status, dependants, sexual orientation,'.
  No. 53, in page 29, line 6, at end insert—
  `(1A) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, programme or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups, including those that are disadvantaged because of gender, race, disability, age, marital status, dependants, sexual orientation, religious belief, or political opinion.'.
  No. 172, in clause 79, page 38, leave out lines 18 to 25.
  No. 171, in clause 79, page 38, line 18, at end insert—
  `(3A) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, programme or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantage because of gender, race, disability, language, age, marital status, dependents, sexual orientation, religious belief or political opinion.'.
  No. 54, in clause 79, page 38, leave out lines 22 to 25.
  Mr. McGrady: The amendment is simple, and asks that discrimination be dealt with whether it is direct or indirect. The clause simply states that it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. As hon. Members have said, we need to be more specific, and amendment No. 52 seeks to add other grounds to make the clause more specific.
  116
  Amendment No. 53 would put into effect what I am sure the Committee would intend—that any programme or activity that seeks to ameliorate discrimination should not be unlawful. I ask the Government to take that on board. Amendment No. 54 seeks the removal of subsection (5) of clause 79, which states:
  "A certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying that an act specified in the certificate was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security shall be conclusive evidence that it was done for that purpose."
  Great injustices have been caused over many years in Northern Ireland by the issue of such certificates, and I shall give two brief examples.
  One of my constituents was fired without cause because a colleague wanted his position, and used the confidential telephone to inform the authorities that my constituent was not a reliable person and was suspected of association with terrorist activities. Nothing could be further from the truth, but because that person worked in a military establishment in my constituency, he was fired forthwith. He had no recourse, and was not given a reason, and I could not extract information about any avenue through which he could make his views known. A telephone call to a confidential line alleging paramilitary involvement cost him his job, and he had no recourse whatever.
  Another example from my constituency gave rise to considerable legal interest this week. Five to seven years ago, the firm of Tinnelly in Rostrevor in my constituency won a demolition contract from Northern Ireland Electricity. However, the firm was barred from executing the contract by a certificate of the type referred to in clause 79(5). The firm had extreme difficulty in proving that it was not a security risk. It took the firm many years to do so, and only within the past 10 days has it been vindicated by the European Court of Human Rights. The case is now known as the Tinnelly case.
  The Secretary of State of the day certified that the firm employed people who were a risk to security, and that cost that firm a substantial contract. Again, there was no recourse to any avenue of justice—not even the reasonable course of putting its case against the Secretary of State's case, which was unstated and therefore irrefutable. I cannot accept that a Secretary of State, certifying on the ground of safeguarding national security, can be conclusive. This is an example of where it is anything but conclusive. Indeed, the European Court has now found that the Secretary of State was wrong to issue such a certificate, and that the case did not impinge on national security.
  I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, or find some other means of ensuring that national security is preserved and safeguarded, rather than this archaic, unjust and, to my mind, wholly unlawful one-sided act, which is completely indefensible and gives no justice to the person or firm against which the certificate is issued. I commend the amendment to the Committee and the Minister.
  Mr. McNamara: I want to speak briefly about the Tinnelly case. Those who considered the fair employment legislation—as I did with my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—will remember our long debates with the Ministers of the day about the need to amend clause 42, which is now contained in clause 79(5).
  My hon. Friend has referred to the gross unfairness of the Tinnelly case, for two reasons: first, the secretive and vicious nature of particular actions that could result in

  117
  people losing their employment; and, secondly—the trade unions have made this point—the gross unfairness of no compensation being paid to any worker dismissed under the clause.
  At the time that we considered the fair employment legislation, we urged that other methods be found, because of the gross infringement of civil liberties. The then Secretary of State refused to do anything. We cited the Tinnelly case—a particularly nasty and vicious case, as it involved lying by Northern Ireland Electricity Services. The Secretary of State put out a document without a proper examination of the causes and reasons. The court upheld it, because it felt that it could not get behind the mind of the Secretary of State and had to take the clause as it stood, without question. It is to the credit of Tinnelly that it has taken the case all the way to the European Court.
  It is interesting to read what the European Court said in its judgment:
  "The Court acknowledged the security considerations at stake in this case and the need of the authorities to display the utmost vigilance in the award of contracts for work involving access to vital power supplies or public buildings situated in town centres in Northern Ireland. However, the Court considered that the conclusive nature of the certificates has a disproportionate effect on the applicants' right of access to a court to have a judicial determination on the merits of their complaints that they were victims of unlawful discrimination. It stressed in this respect that the right to a court guaranteed by Article 6.1 of the Convention cannot be displaced by the ipse dixit of the executive even if national security considerations constitute a highly material aspect of the case."
  The European Court said:
  "In the Court's opinion such a modified procedure or the introduction of other special procedures could only serve to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice"—
  namely, that the procedures invoked have had to be modified.
  I am surprised that clause 79(5) is even included in the Bill, given both the undertaking in the Belfast agreement that the matter would be considered—it obviously has been considered, and thrown away—and the known imminence of the judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down on the provision.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Down also in his attempt to extend the definition of discrimination, to state whether it is direct or indirect. The distinction is of the utmost importance in fully considering discrimination in Northern Ireland and all the related issues.
  Mr. Öpik: I speak again in my continuing crusade for human rights in Northern Ireland. I shall not repeat points that I made earlier, but simply highlight a few arguments. Amendment No. 158 is straightforward in its attempt to tighten up the definition of who is to be protected against discrimination under this part of the Bill and would include in clause 62 the forms of discrimination listed in clause 61.
  The reason for doing so is simple. We think that limiting the definition of discrimination in the Bill to that based on
  "religious belief or political opinion"
  is too restrictive. We should like the Bill's definition of discrimination to be widened.
  118
  Amendment No. 158 would have essentially the same effect as amendment No. 52, which I very much support.
  Amendment No. 53 seems to make sense, and will ensure that we do not preclude important work that is done to ensure that the conditions of disadvantaged individuals and groups improve.
  Amendments Nos. 171, 172 and 54 seem to exclude the possibility of acting in a possibly discriminatory manner for national security, public safety or public order reasons. We cannot go along with such a provision. Given Northern Ireland's history, we feel that we should have a safeguard to act in such a way—although I am sure that every hon. Member hopes that such a necessity is in the past for Northern Ireland.
  We hope that—simply in the interests of consistency—the Minister will look kindly on our efforts to widen the definition of discrimination from the very narrow one in clause 62.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I am conscious of the fact that the Committee would like to move to the next group of amendments, but I shall do my best to deal as quickly as I can with the points made by hon. Members in this debate.
  The inclusion in the Bill of a provision dealing with indirect discrimination would create much future uncertainty for public authorities, as case law establishes the grounds of justification for a requirement or condition resulting in disproportionate impact.
  We believe that the statutory obligation in clause 61 to
  "have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity",
  combined with our stated intention in government to extend fair employment legislation to cover goods, facilities, services and premises, will achieve much of the intended purpose of amendment No. 51.
  Amendments Nos. 158 and 52—which are similar—suggest extending the scope of clause 62 to include a broader range of potential spheres of discrimination, identical to those for which the equality of opportunity obligation would apply under amendment No. 61. The danger is that, by extending clause 62 to cover all categories without having an extensive list of exemptions, common administrative practices could become unconstitutional.
  Possible cases include state benefits for people with disabilities; minimum age thresholds for education, employment, voting and the age of consent; age thresholds for pensions; tax incentives for married couples; and tax incentives and state benefits for people with benefits. We therefore resist amendments Nos. 158 and 52.
  As for amendment No. 53, we accept that there are circumstances in which affirmative action is right and necessary; but where that conflicts with the provisions in the Bill against discrimination, it should be clearly specified in the appropriate legislation, with explicit amendments to the legislation where necessary. That is also established by the fair employment legislation.
  A general exception to the clause on the basis of affirmative action would, we believe, create great uncertainties in this complex legal field, especially if taken with amendment No. 51, which would outlaw indirect discrimination.
  Amendment No. 54 is linked with amendment No. 172. We accept entirely that the recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights does in fact affect the

  119
  clause. We shall have to consider the implications for the clause of that judgment, but I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn in the knowledge that, as I said on Second Reading, we will look very carefully at the consequences of the court case in Europe.
  Amendment No. 171 would create an exemption to clause 79(2) and (3). These subsections refer to direct discrimination in Acts of the Assembly and in executive functions. We do not believe that direct discrimination, even for purposes of redressing disadvantage, is acceptable. It may also contravene the European convention on human rights and European Union law. With those comments, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
  Mr. McGrady: In view of the Minister's undertakings to the Committee, and of his reassurance that he will replace subsection (5) of clause 79, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 63 and 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 65
  CONSULTATION WITH CONSULTATIVE CIVIC FORUM
  10.15 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 31, line 23, at end add—
  '(6) The membership of the Forum shall be determined by the Assembly voting on a cross—community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider clause 65 stand part.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: In the agreement, there was a proposal that there should be a civic forum. I understand that the reason was that people who were at the talks thought that they would not be elected to the Assembly. They therefore thought that they should safeguard themselves and have a sort of House of Lords to be a second chamber—
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Unelected.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, it would be an unelected second chamber to be brought into being by the patronage of the First Minister designate and the Second Minister designate. They would have full charge of all the arrangements, the money to be paid, the whole set-up and all the people who were to be members of the forum. The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could appoint the First Minister designate and the Second Minister designate to implement the recommendations and to make nominations, but that the Assembly itself, under the consensus rule that is held up as the means of controlling discrimination against any section of the community, should determine membership of the forum. Those who are so keen to have the forum and all the consultation should readily agree that it would be entirely
  120
  in order for nominations to be approved by a consensus vote in the Assembly. At least that would put the new forum on a democratic basis.
  When Ministers are appointed under the terms of the legislation, they will have to undertake a great deal of consultation. Committee Chairmen will be breathing down Ministers' necks and Vice-Chairmen will be breathing down the necks of Committee Chairmen and Ministers. Every Committee member will be judge and jury, with the ability to cross-examine the Minister and all his staff. The Minister will have to put all his books on the table. That will be in addition to any consultation that will take place through lobbying—every Minister consults interested parties on every matter that comes before him.
  To set up an elaborate second Chamber and to make it a matter of patronage is to say, "If you are a good boy, you will get a job." One of the defeated candidates castigated the electorate for daring to reject him after all the great work that he had done for eight years. He said, "Surely I have been disfranchised by the electorate". All democrats must stand for election and if people do not vote for them, that is too bad. People do not necessarily appreciate the ability, skill and dedication of the person concerned, and that is what happens in elections—the best man does not always win and the electorate have the final say.
  The civic forum may be a vast body. We do not know how many members it will have—perhaps the Minister will help us with that. We do not know where they will come from and there is no guarantee that they will represent the community across the board. Other bodies in Northern Ireland that are supposed to represent the community across the board do not do so because they are quangos. Anyone who agrees with the Government but is defeated in an election is sure to be appointed to one of those bodies. Two that come to mind are the Police Authority and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. One has only to look at who is represented on them—those who have the patronage of the Government. Those who do not say yes to everything that the Government say have a baldy's chance, as they say in North Antrim where I come from, of getting nominated. If they are nominated, they are soon removed. My party has suffered that in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Police Authority, as have others. Nominations to quangos in Northern Ireland do not reflect the strength of political parties among the electorate.
  Members of the new super-quango—a replica of the patronage-driven House of Lords—are to sit with Ministers and give them instruction and consultation. The Committee should allow Ministers to have such a forum, if they want it, and to recommend various people to sit on it, but at the end of the day, the Assembly, under the consensus rule which means a majority of Unionist and nationalist representatives, would need to rubber-stamp the nominations. I do not think that anything could be fairer than that. The Committee should consider that proposal and the Minister should accept our amendment. It is probably the only amendment that we may have accepted, although I do not have any optimism about that. Perhaps we shall say that it was good to sit here for six hours every day moving amendments if at least one is accepted. One is better than none.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) may be too optimistic in

  121
  expecting that the Government might accept an amendment from this side. They can prove me wrong if they wish.
  I support my hon. Friend's amendment, which would add a subsection to the clause to ensure that those on the new civic forum were representative of the community as a whole. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) tabled an amendment on a previous clause to ensure that the commission would be representative of the community as a whole. This amendment is one way in which that can be done for the forum. Anything that is not representative of the community will not be passed in the Assembly by the cross-community vote required under clause 4(5). The amendment would ensure balance in the membership of the forum.
  One can study several documents to find out the purpose of the civic forum. I agree with my hon. Friend that the last thing that a Minister will need under the new system is more advice. There will be advice from every quarter. Commissions will be advising; 108 Members of the Assembly will be advising; special committees are being set up to advise; and there will be the normal lobbying. The elected representatives in Northern Ireland will be much closer to the electorate and the various interest groups, and therefore more in touch with their views. The civic forum is clearly being set up to allow individuals to have some patronage—some jobs to hand out to keep people happy and on board. There will be seats for political rejects.
  The Bill does not reflect the agreement on the civic forum. The agreement says:
  "The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will … establish guidelines for the selection of representatives".
  There is nothing in the Bill about guidelines for the selection of representatives. Clause 65 says only:
  "The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make arrangements for obtaining from the Forum the views of the community on social, economic and cultural matters."
  There is no suggestion that they have responsibility for making arrangements for election.
  The Bill restricts the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in determining the membership. It allows them to designate sectors that can be included, but it does not allow them to name individuals. If the sectors in the agreement must be included in the civic forum, plus any other sectors, there will have to be a mechanism to determine who represents each sector. Will each sector have a mechanism for sending forward its representatives or will they be selected? If so, will it be by the United Kingdom Government, by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister or by the Assembly?
  To some extent, I have the answer to that question because I asked a question of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), in Northern Ireland Question Time on Wednesday—or was it the Wednesday before? The days are beginning to merge after all these debates. The Minister said:
  "The agreement makes it clear that it is a matter for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to lay down guidelines for appointments to the civic forum."
  He is dead right; so it does, but the Bill does not. The Minister continued:
  "They will be put to the assembly for its consideration and approval."—[Official Report, 15 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 395.]
  122
  The amendment seeks to encourage the Minister to make it very clear that not only the guidelines on and general arrangements for the civic forum, but the appointments will be put before the Assembly so that the Assembly can approve them or otherwise. It is a very simple matter. I hope that the Minister can satisfy us on that point.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I would dearly love to grant the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) an amendment, but it is not within my gift. Charitable as I am in wishing to do so, I do not believe that the Government should accept amendment No. 95—surprise, surprise.
  I should like to make a couple of basic points about what I understand to be going on. The consultative civic forum is not as awe-inspiring as the hon. Member for North Antrim seems to think. It is certainly not a patronage-driven House of Lords or a second chamber. I would have thought that the very motive behind the procedure of appointment is that it should not create an institution—that the forum should be as different from that as possible. Its essence is that it should be above the party politics of Northern Ireland; it should bring into the processes that surround and are part of the Belfast agreement people whom Northern Ireland sadly lacks at present. It should bring in people who do not go into active politics.
  Clause 65(2) states:
  "The arrangements"—
  as they are called—
  "shall not take effect until after they have been approved by the Assembly."
  There is a control. The hon. Member for Belfast, East was right to draw attention to the fact that, in addition, under the Belfast agreement, which surely will be pursued under the Bill and the eventual Act,
  "The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will by agreement establish guidelines for the selection of representatives to the Civic Forum."
  Indeed, those guidelines will doubtless come back to the Assembly for approval.
  In no way is the civic forum a sort of House of Lords. It is a consultative body which will provide a valuable and additional activity. It should not be—this is why I am very much opposed to the amendment—brought into the political process. It should be kept out of that and remain consultative to it. That is the essence of the Bill and of the Belfast agreement.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman suggests that, by not having the Assembly approve membership, as the amendment suggests, appointments would be kept away from the political process. Somebody has to appoint and approve; it will be politicians. It will either be this Government, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or the Assembly—all those involved are politicians. How does choosing one mechanism over the other take the appointments away from the political process?
  Mr. Temple-Morris: Everything is part of a political process. The point is to provide for the, hopefully, worthy

  123
  gentlemen who will serve on the civic forum a certain separation—a wall of the system between them and the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. People who serve on the civic forum must be kept apart. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, by reason of clause 65(2) and the general powers of the Assembly, will doubtless have all the voice that they need. Goodness knows, they are not exactly short of it.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: Hon. Members will know that the civic forum was set up by the agreement, but they may not know that, during the strand 1 negotiations, a second chamber—perhaps on the lines of the old Stormont Senate—was seriously considered. However, the parties concluded—they were probably right—that as the Assembly would have 108 Members, a second chamber was not needed.
  A consultative civic forum is enshrined in the agreement because the parties also thought that, over the past 30 years, when the political stability of Northern Ireland was in question, people from business, the trade unions, the Churches and the voluntary sector had in many ways made the country work.
  The Bill says:
  "The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make arrangements for obtaining from the Forum the views of the community on social, economic and cultural matters."
  Clause 65(2) states:
  "The arrangements shall not take effect until after they have been approved by the Assembly."
  That clearly provides the Assembly with the opportunity in law to pass judgment on the arrangements that will be suggested to it in a report. The Bill also refers to the way in which the forum will be financed. Again, that is a matter for the Assembly, which will have the right to determine its own financial matters, including those relating to the forum.
  I understand the points made by the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but I must disappoint them. We must operate in the context of what is happening at the moment—the hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to this—which is that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State is charging the Assembly to consider the question of a civic forum, and particularly how its members should be appointed. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will present their report to the Assembly when it meets in September, and then the Assembly will have to consider the report and how the forum is to work.
  The agreement is reflected in the way in which the Secretary of State has, through the Bill, directed the Assembly and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act. There is ample opportunity for Assembly Members to debate, discuss and finally approve how the civic forum should operate, how it should be paid for and how it should be made up.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It is all very well for the Minister to tell us about the guidelines, but that is not sufficient. The Assembly must be able to have a say on whether the make-up of the membership follows the guidelines. As I said, we have consultative bodies that are supposed to represent the community, but do not. The only way in
  124
  which to monitor whether bodies are representative is for the Assembly to decide whether the guidelines on membership that are set out by the two Ministers have been correctly applied.
  The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) was not at the talks, but I know what some of those sitting at the table said. They said, "We might not be elected. After all our good work, we might have no place." As the Minister said, there was a long discussion about a second Chamber. I know things that are happening in Northern Ireland of which the hon. Member for Leominster is evidently not aware. It is simply a matter of patronage. Those who could not get elected to the Assembly will be on the body, and it will reflect the politics of those who were rejected by the electorate.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister said that the arrangements referred to in subsection (1) would be arrangements for setting up the forum, but he should look again at the wording, which refers to "arrangements for obtaining views" from the forum, not for setting it up.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, to which the Minister should reply.
  Let no one be deceived. All over Northern Ireland, people who submitted themselves to the electorate and were rejected suddenly turned up as chairmen of quangos, with far greater power than local government, making decisions and spending vast sums. It is only right that we have a consensus vote and both sides of the community can decide whether a person should be a member of the body. What could be fairer than that?
  As the Bill stands, those in the forum will be appointed by one person. I talked to one of the Ministers the other day. I pulled his leg and asked whether he had his nominees ready. He said, "Oh, yes. There are many people I want to get on to the forum." It will be a body of cronies.
  If we want to know what the trade unions think, we can go to the trade unions. If we want to know what the Churches think, we can go to them. If we want to know what women's groups think, we can go to them. They are all very well organised. Why say that the forum is not a political body when we are discussing it only because of people who wanted to take over the country at the election—they said that some of us would sink, to rise no more—but who sank and who now hope that a life belt will be thrown to them?
  Mr. Paul Murphy: The point about the arrangements is extremely important. I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has concerns, and were those concerns accurate I would share them. Certainly, the civic forum should not be a second chamber by default. It is there specifically to represent the views of the organisations and bodies to which I have referred. It would be wrong if it were usurped by party politics.
  The body is consultative, and the method of the consultation, which will then feed into the Assembly, is the most significant aspect. It is not a law-making body; it is there specifically to give advice to the Assembly, and the method of giving that advice should be determined by the Assembly.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: How many people will be on the civic forum, and who will nominate them? The Minister

  125
  mentioned business, trade unions and community groups. Sometimes, business interests have nominated people to the community partnerships, for example, and those bodies have had to be reformed as a result of the lessons that we have learnt. Will the Assembly do more than make arrangements for how it is to get the information? Will it assess whether the debate has been fully communicated and how many people attended any particular debate? People in a rump may pass on views and, when they have been given the status of the civic forum, we can guarantee that they will be a thorn in the flesh of any elected body that dares to turn down those views.
  Mr. Murphy: The Bill states that the Assembly should determine how the forum makes its views known to it, so the Assembly will consider how best the advice can be used. Will it be used at some stage in the legislative process? Will the Assembly use it by debating reports that it receives? I do not know. It is a matter for the Assembly to decide.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: What about the method of appointment?
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Murphy: Again, that is something that the Assembly is to consider in September. The agreement charges the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister with doing that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Ministers and to the Assembly saying that both were to consider the guidelines by which people would be appointed to the forum. When that report is before the Assembly, I am sure that all the points that hon. Members have made tonight will be debated at length. It is important that that issue is debated and that the forum is not a second chamber, but a consultative forum. It is novel and it could be interesting if it develops properly, according to the agreement.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of what the Minister has said—I am glad that it is in Hansard because I will have the joy of reading it to the Assembly during that debate and will have the authorised version before me—I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
  Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 66
  PARTICIPATION IN NSMC AND BIC
  Mr. McGrady: I beg to move amendment No. 194, in page 31, line 33, after '(a)', insert 'meeting and'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 133, in page 31, line 35, at end add
  `where such agreements and arrangements have been agreed by the Assembly voting on a cross community basis.'.
  Amendment No. 216, in page 31, line 35, at end add
  `within the terms of the authority defined in advance for those participating by the Executive Committee and in accordance with the provisions of the Belfast Agreement.'.
  126
  Amendment No. 96, in page 31, line 35, at end add—
  '(3) No executive function shall be discharged under this section, by a Minister or Ministers, without the prior approval of the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.
  Amendment No. 160, in page 31, line 35, at end add—
  '(3) No agreement regarding new implementation bodies made by a Northern Ireland Minister under subsection (2)(b) above shall be binding, or shall be considered binding, unless—

  (a) it has been approved by a vote of the Assembly with cross-community support; or

  (b) it is part of a Bill which has been considered and approved by the Assembly, in accordance with sections 8 to 11 of this Act.'.

  Amendment No. 195, in page 31, line 35, at end add—
  '(3) Participation in the North-South Ministerial Council shall be an essential responsibility of the First Minister, deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers.
  (4) The Assembly shall, on the joint proposal of the First and Deputy First Minister, defray a share of the North-South Ministerial Council's expenses, as may be agreed in the Council, and shall ensure the provision of such share of the Council's property, staff and services as may be agreed in the Council.'.
  Amendment No. 217, in clause 68, page 32, line 7, leave out 'he considers is established' and insert
  `is proposed to be established in any agreement made by the New Northern Ireland Assembly'.
  Amendment No. 97, in clause 68, page 32, line 15, at end insert
  'but may not be made without the approval of the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).`.
  Amendment No. 98, in clause 68, page 32, line 23, at end insert—
  '(6) The authority vested in the Secretary of State by virtue of this section shall lapse if the Assembly is dissolved or prorogued:.
  Amendment No. 197, in clause 79, page 37, line 3, at end insert—
  `the "British-Irish Council" means the British-Irish Council established pursuant to the Belfast Agreement;
  the "British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference" means the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference established pursuant to the Belfast Agreement;'.
  Amendment No. 198, in clause 79, page 37, line 28, at end insert
  `the "North-South Ministerial Council" means the North/South Ministerial Council established pursuant to the Belfast Agreement;'.
  New clause 6—Certain bodies to cease to exist when Assembly is prorogued—
  'If the Assembly is prorogued the Civic Forum, the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, the North-South Ministerial Council and implementation bodies established under Clause 68 shall cease to exist.'.
  New clause 11—Relations between Northern Ireland Ministers or Departments and authorities in Ireland—
  '—A Minister or Northern Ireland department may—

  (a) consult on any matter with any authority in Ireland; and

  (b) through the North-South Ministerial Council, and in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 12 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement, enter into arrangements with any such authority in respect of any transferred matter.'.

  Mr. McGrady: Amendment No. 194 is simple and merely inserts the words "meeting and" before the word "consulting" in clause 66(1)(b), which would ensure that

  127
  the First and Deputy First Minister and other Northern Ireland Ministers did in fact meet, and that the consultation was not by way of letter, telephone call or some other meaningless exercise. They would have a statutory requirement to meet and consult other members of the council and to enter into agreements to that effect.
  Amendment No. 195 would add two subsections to clause 66. The first would ensure that participation in the north-south ministerial council
  "shall be an essential responsibility of the First Minister, deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers."
  It simply reflects the terms of paragraph 2 of strand 2 of the Belfast agreement, which makes it clear that participation in the council is
  "to be one of the essential responsibilities attaching to relevant posts in the two Administrations",
  and is fairly self-evident.
  The second subsection states:
  "The Assembly shall, on the joint proposal of the First and Deputy First Minister, defray a share of the North-South Ministerial Council's expenses, as may be agreed in the Council, and shall ensure the provision of such share of the Council's property, staff and services as may be agreed".
  It would oblige the Governments of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the necessary funding was made available to that body.
  Amendments No. 197 and 198 would simply clarify the interpretation of clause 79 by defining the meaning of the British-Irish council, the British-Irish intergovernmental conference and the north-south ministerial council. They are simple matters of clarification of the interpretations given in clause 79. The mention of "line 3" in amendment No. 197 is obviously wrong, because the amendment does not fit in at that point, but I am sure that the Minister gets the drift of the amendments. I want to ensure that the meanings of bodies are clearly understood in terms of the Belfast agreement.
  New clause 11 raises my concern about a lack of clarity and some ambiguity in the Bill's legal basis for the operation of the north-south ministerial council. The new clause gives that basis some statutory substance. We have heard the Government argue during consultation and in other ways that such a statement is not necessary, but we who tabled the new clause think that it will remove any ambiguity or other difficulty in interpretation. It is proper that the Bill should provide a legal base for constitutional and institutional arrangements arising from the Belfast agreement. There should be a clear basis for operation of the north-south ministerial council.
  Mr. Öpik: I shall comment briefly on amendment No. 160. We want to ensure that the Assembly has some influence on decisions made on a cross-community basis. The Bill currently seems not to include such an assurance. Put simply, the amendment seeks to introduce a safeguard that is consistent with the spirit of the Bill. It will give the Assembly the right to veto agreements Ministers make with Dublin regarding the establishment of any new implementation bodies. Paragraph 12 on page 12 of the Belfast agreement states clearly that any arrangements further to those set out in the agreement are
  "to be by agreement in the Council and with the specific endorsement of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
  128
  It may not be necessary for the Assembly to endorse every detail of all routine arrangements between Ministers and Dublin, but it is vital that the Assembly should have the opportunity to veto agreements made in relation to new implementation bodies for the simple reason that the agreement says that it should. However, the Bill does not say so explicitly at present.
  I think that amendments Nos. 216, 96 and 133 seek the same assurance. I hope that I do not misrepresent those who tabled them. I infer from my reading of them that the provision has caused considerable worry among various parties. I want the Minister to make it clear for the record that there is an expectation that the Assembly will have the opportunity to veto. Without such a provision, Ministers could make agreements unilaterally with Dublin that cannot be overturned by the Assembly. That is a recipe for difficulties and friction.
  Amendment No. 194 creates rather a strong mandate by requiring that Ministers cannot abstain from meeting their counterparts on the council. I assume that my reading is correct. I am not convinced that we want to put such a strong mandatory expectation on Ministers.
  Amendments Nos. 197 and 198 try to define the British-Irish council and the British-Irish intergovernmental conference. It is important that we understand clearly what they entail. We must eliminate as much vagary as we can in anticipation of developing strands 2 and 3 further. I want the Minister to explain what safeguards ensure that the Assembly can veto decisions that it does not agree with made by Ministers on its behalf with the Dublin Government.
  Mr. Canavan: Some of the amendments mention the British-Irish council, commonly referred to as the Council of the Isles. Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify what the Government have in mind regarding the method of appointment, election or whatever of its members? The Belfast agreement is rather ambiguous. It states:
  "Membership of the BIC will comprise representatives of the British and Irish Governments, devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, when established, and, if appropriate, elsewhere in the United Kingdom, together with representatives of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands."
  The agreement is unambiguous about the representatives of the British and Irish Governments. They will be members of the respective Executives, but what exactly is meant by the term
  "institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales"?
  Does that mean the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, or does it refer to the Executives or Administrations associated with them? We are entitled to some explanation. Will a Member of the Scottish Parliament be eligible to be a member of the Council of the Isles or would that Member have to be a member of the Scottish Government or Scottish Executive?
  Paragraph 11 of strand 3 states:
  "The elected institutions of the members will be encouraged to develop interparliamentary links, perhaps building on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body."
  That body has existed for some seven or eight years. I have been a member of it for almost its entire lifetime. It is a useful body for the exchange of opinion and for bringing closer together politicians from the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Dail and the Irish

  129
  Senate. It is a pity that the Ulster Unionists choose to boycott that body, because it would be more representative if they came along and expressed their views, and participated in much of the dialogue, whether formally on the Floor of the House or informally after the debates. If they contributed their views and listened to the views of others, that would assist the mutual understanding that is vital if we are to heal the divisions within the island of Ireland.
  11 pm
  Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned his membership of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. Paragraph 11 of strand 3 on the British-Irish council says:
  "The elected institutions of the members will be encouraged to develop interparliamentary links, perhaps building on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body."
  Does my hon. Friend believe that the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body will continue to exist once the British-Irish council has been set up?
  Mr. Canavan: I seek the Minister's views on that matter. My view, which is not absolutely firm, is that there is merit in having one parliamentary tier, rather than several. The Ulster Unionists may find it easier to enter a broader body that is representative of all the peoples of Britain and Ireland. Do the Government have in mind one parliamentary tier or several? There is merit in the British-Irish council, or the Council of the Isles, replacing the existing British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, but my mind is not closed on the issue.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Amendment No. 96, to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred, deals with the rule of the Assembly in relation to any decisions that may be taken in the north-south body. It goes to one of the twin pillars of the agreement and was a central issue during the referendum campaign.
  Clause 23 dealt with one area where the Government and the First Minister designate clearly did not live up to their pledges to the people of Northern Ireland, and clause 66 deals with another. Both the Prime Minister and the First Minister designate made a number of commitments. Having looked at the opinion polls and consulted the various working groups that he had set up, the Prime Minister dashed over to Northern Ireland with five pledges, one of which dealt with clause 66. He gave a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland about north-south co-operation. He used the word "co-operation", and made it clear that the body was to have no Executive powers or functions; it was simply a body set up for co-operative purposes. However, his second pledge was that it was to be accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Nothing in the Bill says that the north-south council is accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Minister must address that issue.
  Having gone that far, the Prime Minister gave encouragement to the First Minister designate of Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who sent to all and sundry a personal letter—well, it was apparently a personal letter, but I rather suspect that he did not sign all the copies himself—which was headed "A Message from the right hon. David Trimble MP Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party". In the letter, the right hon. Gentleman speaks of
  130
  "the creation under the Assembly's control of a consultative North-South Council with no executive powers."
  When we read the Bill, we need to be clear about whether there is any executive power or function within the north-south body, or whether it is simply consultative.
  The body is consultative in the first part of clause 66, but the clause then branches off and states that "participation" is to include:
  "entering into agreements or arrangements with the other member or members of the Council in respect of transferred matters."
  It is clear from clause 66 that Ministers from Northern Ireland will themselves, on their own, be able to act. Let us look at an example: a Sinn Fein Minister will be able to go down south, sit down with his Dublin counterpart and enter into arrangements and agreements. There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent that Minister from entering into an agreement on his or her own.
  Dr. Godman: Clause 66(2)(b) refers to such agreements. Would the hon. Gentleman expect there to be a need for those agreements to obtain the approval of Members of the Assembly?
  Mr. Robinson: We do expect that, which is why we have tabled our amendment asking that that should happen, but the Bill does not say that; it would be necessary to return to the Assembly only if the agreement required some form of financial or legislative back-up. If a Minister entered into an agreement with the south in respect of some cross-border matter—for example, a road—he might need finance for his part of that deal, so he would have to go the Assembly in those circumstances. Similarly, if legislation were required, he would have to go to the Assembly. However, if he made an arrangement or entered into an agreement that did not require those things, he could do so on his own.
  Under strand 2 of the agreement, under the heading "North/South Ministerial Council", paragraph 3 states that the council can
  "meet in different formats:

  (i) in plenary format twice a year …

  (ii) in specific sectoral formats on a regular and frequent basis with each side represented by the appropriate Minister".

  We are to have the Minister sitting down, by himself, with his counterpart from the Irish Republic, entering into agreements and making arrangements with the Irish Republic, without needing the approval either of his ministerial colleagues or of the Assembly.
  That is contrary to the promise given by the Prime Minister when he rushed over to Northern Ireland and personally signed the billboard with five pledges on it, the second of which said that the north-south body would be accountable to the Assembly and would be consultative. Both aspects of that pledge have been broken by the Bill. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party made similar and, indeed, more extensive pledges, which have broken by the Bill. We need to look seriously at the consequences of the Bill going beyond the pledges that were made.
  I have to say honestly that I do not believe that the Bill is unfaithful to the agreement as I interpreted it, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party interpreted the agreement differently and, on the basis of their interpretation, the Prime Minister was able to swing an extra percentage of

  131
  people's votes to the yes campaign during the referendum. Those people are entitled to get what the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom promised them they could have.
  We have no doubt about what is in the mind of the Government in respect of the north-south body, because the Government revealed their hand when they produced a draft Bill and allowed some of us to participate in consultation. It was good that they did so, and I think that Ministers did the right thing in consulting the political parties, but, in the course of that consultation, they handed over a draft Bill. The original draft contained the disappearing clause 26, which is not in the Bill before the Committee. That clause said:
  "A Minister or a Northern Ireland department may … consult on any matter with any authority in Ireland"
  and
  "enter into agreements or arrangements with any such authority in respect of any transferred matter."
  That is another issue. How often were we told during the referendum campaign that the Government did not know why Unionists were getting so excited about north-south issues because they related to matters such as animal health and plant welfare? Now we find out from the Bill that any transferred matter—every single function given to the Northern Ireland Assembly—can be dealt with by the north-south body, and arrangements and agreements on those matters can be entered into.
  The Minister needs to explain why the Prime Minister has not fulfilled the commitments that he made to the people of Northern Ireland. I cannot ask the Minister to answer for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, or the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), neither of whom is in his place tonight; one is in the sunshine and the other may be in the darker recesses of the building. If the Minister deals with the Prime Minister's pledge, we will deal at another time with the pledge made by the right hon. Gentlemen.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Gentleman will confirm that there are those of us in the Ulster Unionist party who encouraged the electorate to vote for what was in the agreement, not for promises that were added on paper.
  Mr. Robinson: Yes, and those members of the party and others who did the same will have been vindicated since the publication of the Bill because the promises that were given have not been honoured and, as a result, many people in Northern Ireland have lost their confidence in the Government and in the process.
  Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 are relevant and I ask the Minister to deal with them. Amendment No. 97 deals with the implementation bodies, which are clearly Executive bodies. They implement decisions made by Ministers in the north-south body behind everybody's back. I want the Minister to confirm that, before the Secretary of State confers any powers on those bodies, that decision must have the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that did not happen, Ministers could enter into agreements without reference to the Assembly and hand over functions to the implementation bodies; before the Assembly knew it, it would have no powers left, because
  132
  the Secretary of State would have conferred them all on implementation bodies on the basis of agreements reached by Ministers. It is only right that the Assembly should have some say if powers and functions are to be taken from its responsibility and given to all-Ireland bodies.
  Amendment No. 98 also deals with implementation bodies. If the power conferred by the clause were to continue after the Assembly was dissolved or prorogued, it could be as dangerous as, or even more dangerous than, it is under the Bill. The amendment would mean that the powers vested in the Secretary of State to confer powers on all-Ireland bodies would lapse if the Assembly were dissolved or prorogued.
  The amendment is in line with new clause 6, which states:
  "If the Assembly is prorogued the Civic Forum, the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, the North-South Ministerial Council and implementation bodies established under Clause 68 shall cease to exist."
  Many people in Northern Ireland would be very concerned if they thought that the all-Ireland aspects of the deal would live on if the Assembly were dissolved or prorogued.
  That would be contrary to the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.] The Minister is listening carefully to me and the Whip at the same time, but he will realise that the agreement states:
  "It is accepted that all of the institutional and constitutional arrangements—an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland—are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functioning of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other."
  It is clear that all those aspects are tied in together, and I want it clearly on the record that all of them fall if the Assembly falls. If the Minister is not able to give me that undertaking, he will depart from the agreement.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Winnick: Inevitably, the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have tried to portray the north-south ministerial council as a sinister plot that, within a relatively short period, will take Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, East nods his head in agreement. I doubt whether many people see it in that light.
  The ministerial council seems to make a lot of sense. Matters of common interest on the island of Ireland can be duly discussed. Undoubtedly, there will be every opportunity for the Northern Ireland Assembly to discuss what has happened and is likely to happen before meetings take place between Ministers in the two parts of Ireland, so the sinister plot that the hon. Member for Belfast, East has been telling us about is far removed from reality.
  I want to touch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East mentioned.
  Mr. Canavan: Falkirk, West.
  Mr. Winnick: I apologise.

  133
  Again, there will be every opportunity, once the British-Irish council is up and running, for Members of the Assembly to meet British Members of Parliament, and Members from the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. The particular point about the eight years of experience of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body is that it has provided for an on-going dialogue between parliamentarians from both Parliaments—the United Kingdom and the Irish Parliaments—with each expressing their point of view in discussions.
  It is true that, unfortunately, those representing constituencies in Northern Ireland were not present on that body, but Conservative Members, who take a pro-Unionist view, certainly put that view at every opportunity at that body's meetings. The idea that, because we meet together, we have to adopt someone else's point of view, is nonsense, as has been shown during the eight years of that body.
  I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister how he sees the future of that body. I do not take, I must confess, quite the pessimistic view of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). The work that is undertaken may become part of the British-Irish council; on the other hand, the existing body represents two sovereign Parliaments and it may be—I do not know; time will tell and, in another two or three years, conclusions will be reached—a useful supplement to the British-Irish council.
  We have no wish—if I may speak on behalf of the British members of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body—to keep ourselves in existence for the sake of existence; to keep our jobs, so to speak. If we have no role to play, so be it, but I need to be convinced, as I believe a number of my hon. Friends have yet to be, that our days are finished. I shall be interested in what the Minister says on that aspect.
  Mr. William Thompson: This clause deals with the very important issue of the north-south ministerial council. Those of us who opposed the agreement opposed it because of the formation, or the likely formation, or the anticipated formation, of that ministerial council. Unionists do not oppose co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There is no reason why there cannot be co-operation between Ministers and civil servants in the way that Governments normally operate. We do not accept that an institution should be set up to bring that about. We rightly believe that the institution's purpose is to increase and speed up the nationalist desire for a united Ireland and to bring that about in a kind of secret way.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Labour Members have said that the council will be a consultative body. If that is the case, it is strange that it will make decisions and implement them.
  Mr. Thompson: The council will be far more than a consultative body. It will have tremendous powers, as the Bill and the agreement show. When Ministers get there, it seems that they will be able to take decisions within the remit of their Departments. There seems to be no necessity for recourse to the Assembly to have those
  134
  decisions approved. Unionists seek to limit the body while nationalists seek to extend it. That is shown by new clause 11, which states that this new body may
  "enter into arrangements with any such authority in respect of any transferred matter."
  It is obvious that the new clause would increase the powers of the council, and we reject that. In addition, amendment No. 195 states that the Assembly will be under an obligation
  "to defray a share of the North-South Ministerial Council's expenses, as may be agreed by the Council, and shall ensure the provision of such share of the Council's property, staff and services as may be agreed in the Council."
  That seems to mean that the Assembly will be expected to pay up, to share the bill, while it will have little influence on what goes on. That is completely unacceptable.
  Mr. Winnick: As First Minister in the Assembly, the hon. Gentleman's leader, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will obviously attend meetings of the north-south ministerial council. I do not understand how he could be persuaded to bring about a united Ireland, because clause 1 makes it perfectly clear that there can be no question of Northern Ireland ceasing to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland voting accordingly. How on earth could the council be described as part of some sort of plot to bring about a united Ireland against the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Thompson: Of course, it is obvious that the council's whole purpose is to try to cushion people and to persuade them that this is the way that they should go.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Bill does not refer to the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland; it refers to the wishes of the majority voting in a poll. We have been over that point. The Government have decided that the majority wish will not prevail.
  Mr. Thompson: The majority in a poll can well mean a minority of the Unionists in Northern Ireland. That is another reason why we object to the agreement.
  Amendment No. 160,. tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), is welcome and should be supported. It would ensure that any additional implementation bodies would have to have the approval of the Assembly.
  The clauses under discussion go to the heart of why we are opposed to the agreement. When the new Executive is set up—I hope and pray that it never will be—there will probably be a majority of nationalists on it. They will be able to go to the ministerial council. They will not always have the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, or the First Minister, with them, so they will have a free hand to do what they like. Unionists will have very little influence and will not be able to stop them. That is why we are against the agreement.
  Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman has just stated that the majority on the Executive will be nationalists. That is a total misrepresentation of the application of the d'Hondt principles. How does he square his statement with the reality? I am not sure what party the hon. Gentleman is

  135
  in at the moment, but certainly the Ulster Unionist and the Democratic Unionist parties, among others of Unionist persuasion, will be on the Executive. Presumably, under the d'Hondt system they will make up at least half, if not the majority, of the Executive. How can he tell the House that that is not the case?
  Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman should go home and do a bit of arithmetic. If the Executive ever gets off the ground, the proposed composition will be four members of the Ulster Unionist party, probably four member of the SDLP and probably two Sinn Fein members. That seems to me to be a majority of nationalists.
  The clause highlights the difficulties we have with the agreement and the Bill. It endorses all that we have objected to and, no doubt, it will lead to very much trouble in the days ahead.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised.
  The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made a most interesting speech. I cannot say that I agreed with much of it, but I am sure that he was sincere. However, it did not represent what the agreement says or what the Bill incorporates of the agreement.
  I want to respond to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The British-Irish council is occasionally called the Council of the Isles. That is an accurate description as it comprises more than just Britain and Ireland; it also incorporates the Isle of Man and the channel islands. It is one of the most interesting, if not exciting, aspects of the agreement; the opportunity that it will eventually give, after devolution, to Wales, Scotland, the Belfast Administration, the Republic of Ireland and the British Government is unique. An enormous number of areas can be covered, including cultural, educational, transport and free trade matters. I could go through a long list of areas. The British-Irish council is developing, and the agreement mentions a number of ways in which it may operate.
  Who will be on the British-Irish council? The Executives of the Scottish Administration and of the Welsh Assembly will be on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West asked whether parliamentarians may be represented on it. The answer is no, as it will be composed of the Governments—the Executives—of those places.
  11.30 pm
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West rightly said, however, there will be an opportunity for parliamentarians within those devolved areas of the United Kingdom—whether in Scotland or in Wales—to form themselves into interparliamentary groups, perhaps building on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary body itself. There may be an opportunity for hon. Members who wish to do so to join the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, or to make bilateral arrangements within the British-Irish council—between, for example, the Republic of Ireland and Wales, between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and between the Isle of
  136
  Man and the others parts of the United Kingdom to which it has most affinity. There are all sorts of possibilities. I know that some hon. Members find the idea of interparliamentary links very attractive. We shall develop the idea.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister has described the Council of the Isles as a very interesting jigsaw. Does he envisage that it will have also an international dimension? The Nordic Council of Ministers, for example, played such a role under Dag Hammarskjöld at the United Nations. Does the Minister foresee such potential for the council in the international community, beyond the British isles?
  Mr. Murphy: The agreement certainly envisages considering examples such as the Nordic Council of Ministers and the co-operation between the Saar in Germany and parts of Luxembourg, between parts of Luxembourg and Belgium, and in Alsace-Lorraine, in France. All those areas have common interests in matters such as declining coal and steel industries. Although they belong to different nation states, they work very closely together.
  I think that, earlier in the debate—because of the lateness of the hour—I said "free trade"; I meant to say "trading arrangements". I had better put that on the record.
  The British-Irish council, in all its forms, will be a very exciting venture that we can all look forward to. I do not think that many hon. Members will disagree with that.
  There is not as much unanimity on strand 2—on the north-south ministerial council—which was the basis of an important division in the referendum. The essence of our debate has been the accountability of Ministers. As the talks on strand 2 developed, it was very important to try to understand to whom the north-south ministerial council would be accountable. It will be accountable both to the Dail, in Dublin, and to the Belfast Assembly. It must be so.
  Ministers who will operate the north-south ministerial council are themselves accountable to the Assembly. They cannot go to the north-south ministerial council unless they know that, when they return to the Assembly, they will be able to persuade the Assembly to pass the various measures—whether financial, legal or administrative—that they are suggesting.
  The Ministers will also have to report to the Assembly's Committees. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned those committees being on Ministers' backs. The Committees will be on Ministers' backs also about the north-south ministerial proceedings.
  The reality is that none of the arrangements will work unless the Assembly agrees with the way in which the north-south ministerial council operates. The realpolitik is such that the council will work only if the Assembly itself decides that it must work.
  Mr. Öpik: That being the case, why will the Minister not accept the amendment, which explicitly states what he says will happen anyway? By accepting the amendment, he would greatly reassure many people.
  Mr. Murphy: I have not come to the amendment yet. The hon. Gentleman does not know whether I am going to accept it or not, but we shall soon get there.

  137
  The hon. Member for West Tyrone said that there was nothing wrong with north-south co-operation. Such co-operation has occurred for many years and will continue. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have referred many times to the north-south co-operation that already exists. Of course, as members of the European Union, the Republic of Ireland and ourselves will continue to have that co-operation.
  Amendment No. 194 stands in the names of the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and others. There is nothing wrong with the amendment, and I am happy to have another look at the points that were raised. It states merely that the north-south ministerial council will have to meet. It will not be much of a council if it does not, but we will need to ensure that that provision is included in the Bill in some form or other. It is probably unnecessary as we assume that the council will meet, but we shall certainly consider the matter.
  Other amendments in the group were tabled by the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for North Antrim, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and, of course, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). Some refer to accountability. I accept that we need to have another little look at how the Bill's wording reflects precisely the spirit of the agreement. The spirit of the agreement was clear. There is no question but that the north-south ministerial council is linked to the Assembly, and that they are interdependent—no Assembly, no north-south ministerial council. That was clear throughout the talks, but how do we make that clear in the Bill?
  Some of the amendments go too far—they go beyond what the agreement says. However, amendment No. 216, in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, refers directly to the agreement. It would add the words:
  "within the terms of the authority defined in advance for those participating by the Executive Committee and in accordance with the provisions of the Belfast Agreement."
  If we refer to the Belfast agreement, we do indeed see the need for the interlinking between the Assembly and the ministerial council.
  I accept that amendment No. 160, tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, is very much in the spirit of the agreement, but I am not sure that it is necessary. The establishment of a new implementation body is a matter for endorsement by the Assembly, as envisaged by paragraph 12 of strand 2 of the agreement. Even if a Minister were to attempt to make such an agreement without approval, it would be unlikely to be enough to enable a new body to function because, of course, the Assembly would have to pass laws giving the body the necessary status, and finance would be necessary. The amendment is not necessary, although I accept that it relates to the agreement itself.
  Also, Ministers are going to have to sign a pledge of office, and that pledge refers to the accountability that they must have, just as we do, to the Legislature.
  Amendment No. 195 in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle and others deals with two separate issues: the responsibility of Northern Ireland Ministers to participate in the council, and the Assembly's responsibility to provide funding. I have some sympathy in respect of both issues, and, if the amendment is withdrawn, we shall certainly undertake to take another look at them.
  138
  Amendment No. 97, in the name of the hon. Member for North Antrim, refers to the transitional period between now and when the full powers of the Assembly are in operation. Between then and now, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, by order, to deal with these matters. Of course, when the Assembly is up and running, it will be a matter for the Assembly itself, passing its own laws.
  In the limited time—if any—that I have left, I shall refer to the other matters raised in this debate, the most important, I suspect, being what happens to implementation bodies and to everything else if all this does not work. As I said last week, we are planning for success, not for failure. It is important to ensure that the Bill reflects not only the agreement, but the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland who voted for the agreement to work.
  Nothing in the agreement says that the British-Irish council must wind up if the Assembly is prorogued or dissolved, although that would mean that an important part of that council was not operating. Of course we would have to look at the issue at the time, but if bilateral arrangements were made between Wales and the Republic, for example, the council would not necessary disappear.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: May I refer the Minister to the declaration of support in the agreement? Paragraph 5 on page 14 makes it abundantly clear that the British-Irish council is one of the bodies that are interdependent and interrelated and depend on the future of the Assembly. Is the Minister going back on the agreement?
  Mr. Murphy: No. Of course they are interdependent, but it is important for everyone—including the implementation bodies—to understand that if something good is set up and working well, it need not necessarily collapse as a result of what may be only a temporary disagreement or problem within the Assembly. I entirely accept that the life of the north-south ministerial council depends on the life of the Assembly—if the Assembly goes, so does the council—but if, as the hon. Member for West Tyrone said, sensible co-operation resulted from the Assembly deciding what would happen by way of an implementation body, is it sensible for that body to disappear?
  Mr. Donaldson: I thank the Minister for giving way. He must understand that this is precisely the concern that many Unionists have—
  It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [17 July], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 3.

  Division No. 348]

  [11.41 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  McAllion, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Allen, Graham

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  McDonnell, John

  Barron, Kevin

  McGrady, Eddie

  Bayley, Hugh

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Betts, Clive

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  McWalter, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Clapham, Michael

  Miller, Andrew

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Clelland, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Coaker, Vernon

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Colman, Tony

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Connarty, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cooper, Yvette

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Cousins, Jim

  Pike, Peter L

  Crausby, David

  Pope, Greg

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Pound, Stephen

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Denham, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Dobbin, Jim

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Dowd, Jim

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Rendel, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Rooney, Terry

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Roy, Frank

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Foulkes, George

  Fyfe, Maria

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Gapes, Mike

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gardiner, Barry

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Sawford, Phil

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Skinner, Dennis

  Goggins, Paul

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Soley, Clive

  Gorrie, Donald

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Grogan, John

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Healey, John

  (Dewsbury)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Timms, Stephen

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Heppell, John

  Touhig, Don

  Hill, Keith

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Hope, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Wise, Audrey

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Wood, Mike

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Woolas, Phil

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kemp, Fraser

  Mr. John McFall and Jane Kennedy.

  Laxton, Bob

  140

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Rev. Ian Paisley and Mr. William Thompson.

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 67 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 11 agreed to.
  Clauses 70 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 12 agreed to.

  Clause 77
  ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
  Amendments made: No. 207, in page 36, line 22, after `15(3),' insert & 20,'.
  No. 208, in page 36, leave out lines 25 and 26.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Clause 77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 78 to 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 13
  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 212, in page 59, leave out lines 7 to 9.
  No. 213, in page 60, line 41, leave out 'Northern Ireland Equality Commission' and insert
  `Equality Commission for Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 14 agreed to.

  Schedule 15
  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 214, in page 64, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert—
  `Article 42(1) and (3) to (5). Schedule I.' —[Mr. Dowd.]
  Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with amendments.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
  That the draft International Monetary Fund (Increase in Subscription) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 1st July. be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  IMMIGRATION
  That the draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 1998, which were laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

  DEREGULATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the Questions on the deregulation orders.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  DRIVING LICENCES
  That the draft Deregulation (Exchangeable Driving Licences) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
  PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES
  That the draft Deregulation (Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

  Monetary Management
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  11.55 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the Paymaster General, my hon. and long-standing Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), on his new role as the Government's night-watchman, keeping the forces of Keynes at bay. I expected to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), but I gather that, rather than continue in her role as the Government's chief Mitchell minder, she has taken refuge in Scotland. I had hoped that I would have been called to Downing street, so that I could give the reply to my own speech, but things did not work out in that way.
  In my view, we should not be having this debate on the stability of monetary management at all; the Government should have listened to the long list of warnings about the rise in the exchange rate and its consequences for manufacturing. When one puts up interest rates—I am afraid that the Labour Government have been very good at that, for whatever reason—one increases inflation. Historically, there is a strong correlation between high interest rates and high inflation—high interest rates are the cause of high inflation. There is also an effect—one could call it the Viagra effect—on sterling's exchange rate: the pound goes up, which is particularly dangerous when far eastern currencies are being devalued and European uncertainties are driving money out of Europe into sterling.
  Manufacturing suffers a double whammy: it has to face not only higher interest rates, but higher exchange rates, which makes it more difficult to sell products overseas and increases the competitiveness of imports. We become locked into an inevitable wind-down, and manufacturing has to shed jobs. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General was in manufacturing—at Jaguar—and well knows that, in such circumstances, fewer services are bought, investment is cut, the balance of payment gapes, and there is a further deflationary urge to cut demand. We become locked into the same kind of wind-down that the economy went through between 1979 and 1981 and again between 1989 to 1992.
  We should have learnt from that, but we are repeating the process. I fear that, unless policy is changed, the wind-down will be inescapable. It is no use lecturing manufacturing and hoping that circumstances will change—they will not. What is to change them?
  The consequences will be the same as they were in the early 1980s and the early 1990s. It is no use preaching at manufacturing to cut costs. It cannot possibly cut costs by the 30 per cent. by which sterling has appreciated against the deutschmark and regain its lost competitiveness. It is no use preaching increased productivity, because productivity increases only with increased production. Production is going down because of the exchange rate effect.
  It is no use preaching investment. Industry will not invest, because it needs the prospect of profit to make investment worth while. It is no use trying to encourage inward investment. Who will invest here when our competitiveness is so bad because of the exchange rate?

  143
  It is no use preaching to manufacturing to make itself more competitive, because that shows an intellectual confusion by assuming that increased productivity is the same as increased competitiveness, which is not the case, because competitiveness is about price, which is affected by the exchange rate. A nation with low productivity—China, for example—can be extremely competitive because of its exchange rate. A nation with high productivity—the United States is the classic example—can be uncompetitive because its exchange rate is too high.
  Manufacturing is being crucified by the exchange rate. It is no use the Government wringing their hands—I assume that we shall get an element of that tonight—and saying that we had to damp down unsustainable growth: we did not. It is no use saying that low inflation is worth the price, or that we are trying to bring stability, because we will produce only the stability of the graveyard.
  A 30 per cent. appreciation in the exchange rate is not stability. The only way of getting stability is to have both weapons of economic management—monetary policy and fiscal policy—in the same hands, and to manage them together to offset and damp down the forces of instability washing in from outside. We are not doing that. Effectively, the Government have no macro-economic policy, so the Bank of England manages macro-economic policy—it should not be left to do it—on the basis of its inflation targets, which merely compounds the instability that is coming in from outside.
  The Monetary Policy Committee is not bringing stability, because it has instituted endless nudging rises in interest rates, which have been put up five times. In that constant fiddling, members are encouraged or almost required to play safe and ignore the effects of the rises on competitiveness. Our interest rates are among the highest in our group of competitor nations, and very high in real terms on an historic basis. That burden on manufacturing and on everyone in the community has been imposed under the guise of fighting inflation, when in fact the rises cause and increase inflation.
  The committee does not bring stability, because it is characterised by endless disagreements. The January vote was 5:3; the February vote 4:4; the March vote 4:4; the April vote 5:3; the May vote 6:2; and in June—I suppose that God gets advance notice of the minutes, but the rest of us do not—eight voted for an increase, which the committee had voted against only a month before, and only DeAnne Julius, bless her little cotton socks, was for a cut.
  On what Barclays calls a hawkometer, Professor Buiter is now rated top hawk in the committee, with Sir Alan Budd as the second and Messrs King and Goodhart third equal. The interesting thing about the hawkometer is that the Chancellor's appointees, with the exception of DeAnne Julius, have been the ones who have put up interest rates against the advice of the banking professionals, who are usually against an increase.
  All that is compounded by secrecy. The Treasury Select Committee asked for earlier publication of the minutes, saying that that would reduce the opportunity for leaking and prevent over-reaction by the markets, as the reasons behind the MPC decisions would be clearly spelled out
  144
  and not left to speculation. That assumes that there is a rational explanation for the decisions, when there does not seem to be one, and that markets will accept it.
  The build-up to the decisions and the run-off afterwards have encouraged speculation. The Library has undertaken a study of speculation between the dollar and sterling in the five days before and the five days after a decision. The range of speculation in the five days before is 40 cents, up and down. In other words, speculation builds up as the decision approaches. Speculation in the five days after the decision is slightly less. Therefore, the process encourages speculation, which is heightened by press speculation about what the MPC will do. That is not stability.
  My hon. Friend the Paymaster General will tell us that the Government's aim is stability, but we are not getting it; we are getting instability and speculation, which are damaging industry and creating an economy in which we will get even more instability. Fighting inflation with high interest rates works on industry, which is at the front line of international competition, largely by closing it down and killing it. In so doing, it damages our best hope of defeating inflation.
  Only manufacturing can bring down inflation—by increasing its production and bringing down its unit costs. The rest of the economy cannot do that. So the more we shrink manufacturing, the higher the proportion of our output in those sectors that are sheltered from international competition. Those are the sectors in which productivity increases are hardest to achieve, in which growth is hardest to achieve and at its lowest, and in which interest rate increases, which are meant to control inflation, have the least effect, because those sectors are not in the front line of international competition.
  The more we disturb the balance between manufacturing, which is shrinking, and the sheltered service sector, whose comparative weight is increasing, the more we blunt the weapon of interest rates, and the less effective it is. The more we weaken manufacturing, the more we build the stagflation society. We have gone a long way down that road, and that is why our interest rates—historically and at the moment—are higher than those of other competitors.
  We are building a society in which manufacturing cannot flourish because it cannot produce at a profit with those interest and exchange rates. With his manufacturing background, my hon. Friend knows that. It is a society in which interest rates will go ever higher, because, if they are the only weapon, we will have to use bigger and bigger doses of the medicine. Having killed manufacturing, it has less effect on the rest of the economy. That is the sort of economy that we are building, and we have gone a long way down that road. When the Ernst and Young Item club suggests even bigger doses of higher interest rates, it is suggesting a folly, because they will have less and less effect the more that manufacturing shrinks.
  What should we do? We are trapped in a situation in which the high exchange rate will destroy a large section of our manufacturing base. There are various solutions. We could abandon this experiment of handing interest rates over to the Bank of England—I think we should. We could change the target and bring in growth and employment as well as inflation. We could change the weapon and, instead of relying exclusively on interest rates, control credit by other means.

  145
  I want to show myself moderate to my hon. Friend because he knows that I am moderate in these matters. I accept that it is difficult for the Chancellor to say, "I'm sorry, chaps, but we got it wrong. We shouldn't have handed interest rates to the Bank of England." So let me make a suggestion.
  Why not raise the inflation target, because 2.5 per cent is very low? Why not expand the time in which the target is to be achieved? There is no sense in aiming at 2.5 per cent. inflation on a monthly or quarterly basis. That is fine tuning with a vengeance, and we should have given up fine tuning, because it does not work and there is no use bringing it back as central to Government policy. Why not achieve our target rate over two years, or, better still, over the economic cycle in which we hope to achieve our borrowing targets?
  The case for doing that would be stronger if the Bank of England, the Monetary Policy Committee and the Chancellor would abandon their obsession with stopping wages rising, although they are bound to rise at this stage of the cycle. The biggest wage rises are in financial services and the City, where high interest rates mean higher bonuses. It is manufacturing that is punished for those wage increases, particularly in my part of the country, which has suffered for the follies and excesses of the City and the financial sector.
  The proportion of gross domestic product represented by wages has fallen substantially during the past decade, and it was falling in the decade before that, too. Some catching up of wages, as distinct from profits, is not only possible, but desirable. Why not adjust the inflation target to allow for that, and to recognise that it is not a primary dynamic of inflation?
  It is not realistic to keep the inflation target down, and to try to keep wages down as a proportion of GDP. We should not try to fit the economy into a straitjacket, but I fear that that is what we are doing. We should not create the most stable environment of all—a coffin—but we will do that if we kill growth by setting impossibly low rates of inflation.
  The Government's aim must be stable and steady growth, not the stability of the graveyard. Growth is the only way to generate a surplus from public spending, and, as Tony Crosland said all those years ago, to redistribute wealth and to improve people's lives by growth in public spending generated by growth in the economy. We are heading in the opposite direction, and that damages the people, manufacturing, the economy and the Government.
  Black clouds are gathering, and we are moving towards recession. We are at the end of the golden weather, and it is time to reiterate warnings that it would be wrong to go on chanting the mantra of stability. It is time to re-think. It is time to change. We need to stop the recession that has already hit manufacturing from becoming wider, and increasing unemployment over the next year.
  12.12 am
  The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing the Adjournment debate. Quite contrary to what he said about the call to Downing street, I fear that it may still come, but I do not think that he would make quite the same speech if it did. When he gave us the voting figures from the Monetary Policy Committee, I thought that he was referring to
  146
  Coventry City's home results in the second half of the season. Of course, his views come as no surprise to me as I have followed them with great interest for many years. If I doubted them at all, I overcame doubt by reading his "Commons Diary" in The House Magazine, titled "Preparing for office", in which, in his 21 July entry, he gave a clear account of how he saw the Chancellor's views and what he thought of them.
  The United Kingdom's post-war growth performance has been poor compared with that of other industrialised countries. Our record on stability has been equally bad, with excessive swings in output and inflation. We can all agree on that. Those facts are related, because macro-economic instability has been one of the factors behind the poor growth record. That is why economic stability is a key platform of the Government's economic policy. It will make a vital contribution to our central economic objective of high and stable levels of growth and employment. That is the objective of policy; we have no difference on that.
  Stability is important because it gives businesses and individuals the confidence to plan effectively for the long term. That will improve the quantity and quality of long-term investment, and help raise productivity. Confidence that inflation will stay low will also encourage the savings that go to fund investment.
  If my hon. Friend talks seriously to businesses, they will tell him that their overriding priority is stability and the ability that that provides to plan for the long term. Macro-economic instability entails substantial personal cost. The loss of security and confidence that arise from recessions is considerable. In addition, instability makes it difficult for individuals to retain or develop the skills needed for long-term employment. High inflation also leads to an arbitrary redistribution of income and wealth. Those on fixed or low incomes who have little or no bargaining power often lose the most from high inflation. If my hon. Friend checks the record of previous Governments, to which 1 shall come shortly, he will find that that is the case.
  High inflation is associated with more volatile inflation. Volatile inflation results in higher-risk premiums in long-term interest rates, and increases the distortions to economic decisions caused by difficulties in distinguishing between changes in individual prices and changes in the general price level. When inflation is volatile, it increases the risk that policy makers will make mistakes with damaging consequences for the stability of growth and employment. I ask my hon. Friend to bear that in mind.
  As soon as the Government took office, we took action to ensure that the UK economy decisively broke with the cycle of boom and bust, which I know that my hon. Friend deprecates as much as I do—especially the two biggest booms and busts that we had in the 1980s and early 1990s. That is why we set out to reform the frameworks for monetary and fiscal policy to secure low inflation and sound public finances. The new monetary policy arrangements were put in place immediately on taking office. The Bank of England Act 1998 gave the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee operational responsibility to set interest rates to achieve price stability as defined by the inflation target.
  There is a clear division of responsibility. The Government set, as they must, the economic objectives, particularly the inflation target of 2.5 per cent.

  147
  The Monetary Policy Committee can then focus on the level of interest rates needed to achieve the target. Subject to the stability objective, the Bank is required to support the Government's economic policy, including our objectives for growth and employment.
  The Chancellor appointed leading outside experts to the Monetary Policy Committee to complement existing Bank staff. Whatever my hon. Friend says about them, he must admit that an objective and balanced team has been chosen. The figures that he quoted with some delight clearly show that. The transfer of the responsibility for setting interest rates to the committee ensures that interest rate decisions are made in the country's long-term interest, not for short-term political considerations. That step was absolutely necessary because the old arrangements were not generating the necessary confidence in monetary stability.
  Both the Bank and the Government are accountable for the performance of their tasks. To assist this, the framework has many features to strengthen accountability and transparency. In all fairness, my hon. Friend cannot dispute that. They include a clear and simple inflation target of 2.5 per cent. It is only sensible to keep it clear and simple. There is an exceptionally transparent decision-making process, including publication of the minutes, press notices and the Bank's inflation report. Monetary Policy Committee members are held to account through the publication of their votes. I see no alternative to that. If we are to operate a policy that is straightforward, transparent, clear and understandable, we must do that so that we do not get the endless press speculation that would occur in the event of their not being published. My hon. Friend will note that the European bank's chairman proposed never to reveal voting records. My hon. Friend would deprecate such a policy.
  Monetary Policy Committee members make regular appearances before the Treasury Select Committee, which is chaired by a distinguished colleague whom my hon. Friend and I have known for years. Under the open letter system, the Governor has to send an open letter to the Chancellor if inflation is more than 1 per cent. above or below the inflation target. That system gives the Bank the opportunity to explain in full why the overshoot or undershoot has occurred, and what it intends to do about it.
  Together, those arrangements make the framework of the UK's monetary policy among the most open and transparent in the world. Indeed, a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey said:
  "Transparency and accountability requirements are very strong in international comparison."
  It was referring to the system that the Government have set up since coming to office.
  My hon. Friend may say that that is damning with faint praise, but compared with what other countries have done, there can be no question but that the arrangements that we put in place seek to achieve those objectives, to which my hon. Friend attaches as much importance as I do.
  It was clear last May—some 15 months ago—that stability required action to head off inflationary pressures that had been allowed to build up before the election. My hon. Friend must accept that successive advice from both the Treasury and the Bank of England to the former
  148
  Chancellor was that inflationary pressures were building up. We found them when we came to power, and interest rates had to be raised to hold them back. That is why short-term interest rates have gone up by 1.5 percentage points. Combined with the deficit reduction plan, those measures should achieve the necessary slowing of the economy so that it gets back on track for steady and sustainable growth, as forecast in the past two Budgets. I shall say a few words about the forecasts in a moment.
  The Government recognise the difficulties that higher interest rates cause businesses and individuals, but history has shown that the bigger the boom, the bigger the bust. In the 1980s and early 1990s, we had the biggest boom and the two biggest recessions since 1945, and that was under a system that had so discredited itself that the incoming Labour Government had to do something about it if they were to gain the credibility of the markets, which was essential. We were right to take action.
  Early action to reduce inflationary pressures was essential to minimise the size of the adjustment. Interest rates remain reasonably low by historical standards, and at 7.5 per cent., they compare favourably with the mid-teen rates of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
  Mr. Mitchell: Real interest rates.
  Mr. Robinson: I take my hon. Friend's point, but if he checks the figures, he will find that, even in real terms, they are considerably lower than they were during that period. The fact that our booms and busts were out of sync with the rest of Europe accounts for part of the difference.
  The failure of the old "Ken and Eddie show", to which my hon. Friend appears to want to revert, was that people had no confidence in its long-term ability to deliver low inflation. A measure of the success of the new arrangements is what has happened to long-term interest rates and inflation expectations. As my hon. Friend said, he is a fair and moderate man, but he is also a man of fixed views. One can admire that while not agreeing with him in this instance. To be fair in these matters, one cannot take any particular point in time—certainly not one after only 15 months in office—and say that that is the position. We must look at the long-term position as projected by those who know best—those in the market—who determine such matters.
  Interest rates on long-term measures, such as 10 or 15-year gilts, have fallen from some 7.4 per cent. to some 5.9 per cent., and are now at their lowest level for 33 years. That must help long-term investment, which is what the whole policy is about. The long-term differentials between UK interest rates and those in other counties have also fallen. The differentials in forward rates five years ahead—it can also be said for 10 years—have fallen from 1.1 to 0.5 per cent. with respect to Germany, and from 0.7 per cent. to zero with respect to the United States. That is where the markets think that we are going. That must be our aim, which is why we have this policy for the long term.
  On inflation, the average of the comparison of independent forecasts for inflation in the fourth quarter of 1998 has fallen from 3.1 to 2.7 per cent. The average inflation forecast for 2000 has fallen from 2.9 to 2.5 per cent.—exactly what the inflation target is. Thus the markets are taking a different view. I do not know what my hon. Friend's experience is, but it is hard to prove the markets that wrong over a number of years.

  149
  The markets have taken a different view from the one that my hon. Friend has taken. He appears to be trying to repeat the arguments of the past, but we are doing something substantially different from what was done in the past. If he looks closely at the policies, he will see how they are playing out.
  Success will not come easily and everyone has a part to play. As the economic and fiscal strategy report noted, it is vital that those involved in wage bargaining in the private sector recognise that the new environment means low inflation permanently and adjust their expectations accordingly. We are determined to deliver on that in the medium and the long term. I must say that I disagree with my hon. Friend here and that I would have disagreed with him in any of my previous occupations in the private sector. Failure to achieve that on the part of those involved in private sector wage bargaining will lead to unnecessary job losses and lower growth. In addition, as the OECD report commented, the credibility of the new framework could improve further as the Monetary Policy Committee continues to establish a track record.
  I am not trying to duck the issue, so I hasten to add that some hon. Members have said that we should tighten fiscal policy. In fact, when the opportunity has arisen, the Government have used fiscal policy precisely to support the stance of monetary policy—the two have gone hand in hand. My hon. Friend will be aware that the fiscal
  150
  stance has tightened significantly over the past year, by about £20 billion or 2.74 per cent. of GDP. That is the largest fiscal tightening in one year since 1981. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent statement on the economic and fiscal strategy report ensures that that fiscal tightening is locked into the medium term—that is why we have gone on to three-year programmes. My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is utterly different from the whole cast of previous Government policy. The speeches made and the stance taken by Treasury Ministers, in particular by the Chancellor, show utter determination to make the policy stick this time. We cannot change and tack from side to side.
  We do not have a target for sterling, but we aim for a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term consistent with the objective of price stability. My hon. Friend and I have different views on where that balance falls, but that is the Government's policy. Economic stability is in the long-term interest of the UK economy as a whole, including manufacturing and exporting—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve midnight.