Commons Sitting of 2 December 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Young Offenders
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What plans he has to extend the use of intensive supervision and surveillance programmes for young offenders. [82302]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): The intensive supervision and surveillance programme is a Home Office-funded Youth Justice Board initiative. It is the strongest community sentence for serious and prolific young offenders, and it is aimed at the 3 per cent. of young people who are responsible for 25 per cent. of juvenile offences. The scheme has just been extended to cover all 10 areas covered by the street crime initiative. It now covers four fifths of England and Wales, including all the big conurbations.
    Dr. Cable: In the light of Friday's court ruling pointing to the inappropriateness of prison for children, will the Minister now agree to extend completely, to all youth areas, this valuable programme, which has been shown to be much more effective than prison in deterring reoffending and which costs the taxpayer only one quarter as much as a young offenders institution place?
    Hilary Benn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the intensive supervision and surveillance programme. Early indications are encouraging, but we must wait for the full assessment, which is to be undertaken by Oxford university, with the results available in 2004. One of the reasons that we introduced the programme was to minimise the chances of young people having to go into custody, although we recognise that that may be necessary for a small proportion of offenders.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the best ways to supervise young offenders is to have a vigilant police authority, but that police authorities in many areas are composed of people who do not come from high-crime areas? I do not expect him to answer off the cuff today, but will he
    592
    undertake to examine the balance of representation on police authorities, especially in areas such as mine, where there are very few people representing the city of Nottingham, but where the majority of the shire's crime takes place?
    Hilary Benn: I agree that it is important that police authorities should be representative of the communities they serve, not only in dealing with young offenders, but in dealing with all types of crime. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the Minister agree that for that minority who have to be imprisoned, the key to rehabilitation lies in structured programmes both while they are in custody and on their release? In that context, should there not be concern if the early release programme under tagging of 60 days, extendable to 90 days, is leading to young offenders being released part way through programmes undertaken while they are in custody?
    Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is aware that when applying the early release programme under home detention curfew, prisons will, in anticipation of prisoners coming out, take account of that in their programmes. On his first point, he is absolutely right: structured programmes are important to tackle the problems created by young offenders. That is precisely why in recent years we have invested £50 million in improving those programmes under the auspices of the YJB.

    Air Weapons
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to change the age limit at which air weapons can be used; and if he will make a statement. [82303]
    Jeff Ennis: What plans he has to amend legislation on possession and use of airguns. [82313]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): The misuse of air weapons is a serious problem. We are considering a number of options for dealing with the difficulties that people have faced, and I intend to introduce proposals in the new year under the new antisocial behaviour legislation.
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that reply, but had hoped that the Home Secretary would be able to go a little further and say precisely what he had in mind. Will he confirm that among the options he is considering are raising the age ban on ownership to 17 and increasing the powers of police to confiscate the weapons; and whether he has any plans to deal with replica weapons?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply sympathetic on all three counts. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry,

    593
    North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), has been pulling together a package of measures for me, and I hope to be able to announce some of those very shortly.
    Jeff Ennis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), is the Home Secretary considering the introduction of a licensing system for the use of airguns? That would be popular with many local councils, particularly in Barnsley and Doncaster, but I know that it would be difficult to achieve given that about 4 million unlicensed air weapons are already in circulation in this country.
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend has identified a real problem in both the bureaucracy and our ability to enforce the law. He will be aware of the way in which the categorisation works at the moment—the six foot-pounds, as they are known, which are already prohibited under the handgun ban. Obviously, there are a number of ways in which the use of handguns can be dealt with as an offence, including firearms offences. I am sympathetic to the problem, and am seeking a way forward that will not bog everyone down in a bureaucratic nightmare but will result in a solution.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I thank the Home Secretary for his final remark about not seeking to trap everyone in a bureaucratic quagmire, but does he agree that tens of thousands of young people handle airguns extremely responsibly and learn a great deal about the art of target shooting and rifle shooting, particularly the basic rudiments of weapons safety, from shooting with airguns? Does he agree that it is extremely important that they should not be prevented from enjoying the perfectly legitimate and wholly satisfactory use of their weapons?
    Mr. Blunkett: I would agree, but that is primarily because they are properly supervised and trained, and understand the nature of the weapon that they are handling. If that can be done in properly supervised surroundings, so much the better.
    Mr. James Paice: May I emphasise to the Home Secretary the fact that the ban on handguns, to which he referred just now, demonstrates clearly that banning does not necessarily reduce the criminal use of handguns? I remind him of the Prime Minister's public pledge not to place further restrictions on shooting sports. In that spirit, and in the spirit of the Home Secretary's own remarks on the record that he wants any changes in airgun legislation to have cross-party support, I urge him to reject proposals on licensing and raising ages because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said, they will penalise the vast majority who participate in the lawful, sensible and safe use of airguns. Will he consider simply extending section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968, which would make it an arrestable offence to carry an airgun in a public place unless someone could prove that they had good reason for doing so? That would have our party's support.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am prepared to consider the hon. Gentleman's proposition, but I want to make it clear
    594
    that there is an enormous difference between holding, owning and using airguns for sport and using them to maim, terrorise and undermine the order that we expect in our communities.
    Ms Diane Abbott: On the question of weapons in general, the Home Secretary will be aware of the rising tide of gun crime in London. Is he aware that the Metropolitan police aim to get the minimum sentence for carrying a weapon raised to at least five years? Will he also do something about the production of Brocock replica weapons?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am aware of representations. There is good reason for treating the issue seriously and considering whether we should add it to the Criminal Justice and Sentencing Bill.
    Mr. James Gray: Like my hon. Friends, I very much welcome the moderate approach that the Home Secretary has outlined this afternoon. However, will he clarify something? Rather puzzlingly, he told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that he would examine why people under 17 could purchase air weapons. Is he not aware that that is already illegal? Between 14 and 17, people can borrow and use air weapons—we all agree that that is sensible—but they have to be over 17 to buy them.
    Mr. Blunkett: You can be under 17 to own one—that is an interesting anomaly. We can banter about the niceties across the Dispatch Box till kingdom come, but in the spirit of our earlier discussion, we are all trying to find a genuine solution.

    CCTV
    Mr. David Kidney: What plans he has for funding further CCTV installations by local authorities. [82304]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): Under the crime reduction programme closed circuit television initiative, a potential £170 million will be spent funding 684 CCTV schemes. Although bids for that initiative are now closed, other opportunities for funding CCTV schemes currently exist under the safer communities, communities against drugs, and the small retailers in deprived areas initiatives.
    Mr. Kidney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that CCTV cameras are effective in deterring and detecting crime, especially when they are used in conjunction with other measures such as lighting? The people who live in Stafford town and Penkridge village are delighted with their cameras and would like more. How, as a result of my right hon. Friend's reply, will local authorities such as Stafford borough and south Staffordshire district obtain funding for more CCTV cameras?
    Mr. Denham: I am delighted to hear of the success of the CCTV scheme in Penkridge village. That experience is shared in many parts of the country. Funds will continue to be available for crime reduction through

    595
    crime reduction partnerships. In response to many requests from local councils, we are tending to move away from central ring-fenced budgets for specific purposes to enable decisions on priorities to be made locally. Funds will continue to be available for crime reduction in my hon. Friend's constituency and those of other hon. Members.
    Mr. John Bercow: What is the percentage difference in crime detection in town centres that have CCTV by comparison with those that do not?
    Mr. Denham: The major evaluation of the 684 schemes that the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are undertaking will give us the detailed information about impact that the hon. Gentleman seeks. As well as the increase in crime detection, crime in car parks decreases by more than 40 per cent. when CCTV is introduced. We are seeking a reduction in crime and the fear of crime, not simply an increase in detection.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does my right hon. Friend know that CCTV cameras in metropolitan areas are concentrated in the larger towns and cities? What help does he offer the smaller urban authorities, such as former urban district councils, to obtain the services of CCTV? Is it possible to have mobile CCTV in some of our communities?
    Mr. Denham: The money that we made available through the safer communities initiative and the communities against drugs funds can be used to finance CCTV schemes. They have been used in many different areas. I visited an extensive network in Surrey recently that was funded through such initiatives and other sources. Mobile or relocatable schemes can play a useful part when that is the most appropriate method of tackling the problem.

    Drug Rehabilitation
    Mr. Mark Hoban: What recent assessment he has made of the benefits drug rehabilitation has for a community. [82306]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Drug treatment, including rehabilitation, works. Research has shown that for every £1 spent on treatment, £3 is saved in criminal justice and victim costs of crime. The longer problematic drug users remain in treatment, the greater the savings ratio. Rehabilitation is only one aspect of treatment and is not always the most appropriate intervention.
    Mr. Hoban: I have talked to those who work with the homeless in my constituency, and they are concerned that the wait of three to six months for treatment is too long, and that the treatment periods are too short to be effective. Given the benefits of rehabilitation that the Under-Secretary outlined in his answer, is it not time to spend more money on treatment and on increasing the
    596
    number of rehabilitation places and their effectiveness, for the sake of our addicts and the communities where they live?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I welcome—I really do—the Conservative party's conversion to providing treatment for drug addicts. It is a shame that it happened only a couple of months ago, before the party conference. We realised the benefits just after we took power in 1997, and we have increased the amount of treatment available by 8 per cent. every year since then. We plan to continue to do that. Although things are not currently adequate, waiting times are decreasing. We need to reduce them further.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Retailers in the shopping centre in Milton Keynes have become aware of the huge cost of shoplifting by a relatively small number of drug addicts, who do it to finance their drug habit. The retailers are considering making a financial contribution towards increasing the number of drug rehabilitation places that are available locally as a better way of dealing with the problem than simply locking people up. What is my hon. Friend's response to that proposal?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend hits on an important point. Retail partnerships are increasing in our towns and cities. They have some knowledge of the problem. We need to plug such partnerships properly into all our crime reduction initiatives, including our ability to get drug addicts into treatment. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety recently held discussions along those lines with the Birmingham partnership. We are actively considering the matter to ascertain what can be done in conjunction with retail partnerships in towns such as Milton Keynes.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: With an estimated 300 heroin addicts in Gosport alone, each needing something like £20,000 a year to feed their habit, is it not obvious that the 1,882 places available for treatment are woefully inadequate, and that platitudes and reassurances must be backed up by action?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to listen to any answer that is given to him in that regard. We have 118,000 people in treatment in this country. We need to double that figure, and we plan to do so. By the end of the drugs strategy period, we plan to have more than 200,000 problematic drug users in treatment. There is not enough treatment at the moment, but we need people of the right quality to remedy that, and those people need to be trained. We also need the input of GPs. This is not something that can happen overnight. We have been increasing the amount of treatment available consistently since 1998, and we plan to continue to do so. I might say that that is in marked contrast to what went on before.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: When the Minister answered a recent written question by saying that 118,500 individuals were reported as being "in contact with" treatment agencies, what did he mean? How many

    597
    of those individuals are in fact being maintained on methadone? Is it true that almost half of them are in that condition?
    Mr. Ainsworth: What I meant was that 118,000 people are receiving a whole range of treatment services—not merely rehabilitation—including specialist drugs advice and information, harm reduction advice, in-patient detoxification services, specialist prescribing services, GP drug prescribing services, and counselling services, as well as residential rehabilitation. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be putting across a very simplistic view of what treatment is or needs to be. Treatment needs to be tailored to particular needs, and I would suggest that what is needed in a particular locality does not need to be dictated at national level. Local people need to decide what is needed in their area.
    Mr. Letwin: If such matters do not need to be dictated at national level—I have some sympathy with the Minister on that—is it also the case that there is no need for national targets? In 2000, the Home Secretary set targets to reduce the proportion of people under 25 using class A drugs by 25 per cent., and to reduce by 25 per cent. the level of repeat offending by people misusing drugs. Was it because the Home Secretary and the Minister did not believe that there was a need for a national strategy that they removed those targets in 2002? What is their proposal in relation to their new statement on drugs? Are we going to hear that targets are to disappear altogether?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman should be a little more patient. As I have said, he discovered the drug problem two months ago, just before his party conference. If he waits a short while, and if he is prepared to engage in an adult debate on this issue, he will see that there are better focused targets, which are measurable and achievable, in what we announce.
    Mr. Speaker: Question 5. please.

    National Treatment Agency
    John Mann: What criteria are used to determine the performance of the National Treatment Agency. [82307]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. John Bercow: So are we all.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The National Treatment Agency is assessed by the Department of Health. The following criteria are used: access to treatment, in terms of progress on meeting the national drugs strategy target of doubling the people in treatment by 2008; capacity, in regard to the extent to which there is work force capacity to meet the target; efficiency, in terms of the reduction of
    598
    waiting times; and effectiveness, in regard to the increase in the proportion of people successfully completing or appropriately sustaining treatment.
    John Mann: I wish to follow up the fourth aspect—the quantification of what determines success. I have investigated that at length in ray constituency, but nobody from the drug treatment services has been able to quantify success—for example, whether it means people coming off drugs, stabilising, reducing intake or eliminating criminal activity. Will my hon. Friend consider how that specific fourth target can be tightened to hold the National Treatment Agency accountable?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right. All treatment has to be aimed at attempting to achieve abstinence, but maintaining people on treatment can in itself lead to significant reductions in crime. The treatments offered have therefore to be tailored to individuals, and keeping people in treatment, picking them up when they fail, and readmitting them to treatment all need to be looked at positively. However, we need adequate ways to measure exactly what is being achieved, locally as well as nationally.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister is right to refer to cost-effectiveness, and rehabilitation treatment is important in the criminal sphere, since between 50 and 60 per cent. of property crime is drugs related. A few weeks ago, I put to him the possibility of ring-fencing the proceeds of drug trading, millions of pounds of which are rightly confiscated each week in the Crown courts. Why do we not ring-fence that money to create more rehab places for that very important category of person? May I also remind him that there are only 38 rehabilitation beds in the whole of Wales? That does not deal with the problems in a single valley.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman should not look to recovered assets—not at the moment, in any case—as the panacea for all those problems. We managed to recover about £20 million of criminal assets last year, and over half that was redistributed through the recovered asset fund. That money on its own will not make such a difference, and it will not deal with the treatment that is needed and al ready planned in the drugs strategy. I accept what he says—it can play an important part—but there needs to be a lot more input than just recovered criminal assets.

    Police
    Mr. David Cameron: What recent discussions he has had with the chief constable of Thames Valley police about recruitment and retention of police officers; and if he will make a statement. [82308]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I have discussed the chief constable's concern about retention in the Thames Valley area on a number of occasions in the past year, most recently in the past few weeks. Thames Valley police has been recruiting strongly in recent years, but the force has recently experienced retention difficulties, including a net outflow of transfers. We are working

    599
    with chief constables, police authorities and staff associations in London and the south-east, including Thames Valley, to consider all the associated issues and to develop practical solutions.
    Mr. Cameron: I am grateful for that answer and I am glad that the Minister has spoken to the chief constable of Thames Valley police, to whom I spoke this morning. I have to tell the Minister that the retention situation is still dire. Is he aware that, in parts of the Thames Valley area, over 60 per cent. of front-line officers are probationers? Will he consider increasing the extra allowance for Thames Valley officers in the south-east of England and giving the chief constable more flexibility over his budget, particularly in respect of overtime and the special priority payments? We must try to keep some of those officers in the Thames Valley force rather than see them go all over the country.
    Mr. Denham: There are a number of things that we need to consider, including how the additional special priority posts money will be implemented in Thames Valley and other forces in the new year. Thames Valley officers already receive an additional allowance compared with the norm of £2,000 a year, and we are helping in other ways—for example, 171 of the starter homes under the starter homes initiative will be for the benefit of Thames Valley officers. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the issues facing a few of the south-east forces very seriously and we are considering what measures we can take to assist.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 22 officers have left the Chiltern Vale force since April, which is some 10 per cent. of the total? I was told by a senior officer this morning that that will have grave consequences if something is not done quickly; so will he please, this afternoon, commit himself to extra allowances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) requested?
    Mr. Denham: As I have said, additional resources are on the way as a result of the pay deal with the Police Federation and the employers earlier this year. We need to discuss how they can be used. We are considering, among other things, giving the forces help with housing. I am due to meet the forces in the south-east before Christmas to look at a range of options.

    Active Citizenship
    Ross Cranston: What plans he has to promote community engagement and active citizenship. [82309]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): As I think my hon. and learned Friend knows, we believe that the active involvement of local people in their communities is essential to achieving safe, cohesive communities and can make a real difference to the quality of life in an area. We want to increase voluntary activity and promote active citizenship, and the active community unit is leading that work across Government.
    Ross Cranston: I agree that good public services are not simply a matter of bureaucracy up here providing
    600
    services for a community down there. That applies particularly to deprived communities. How, though, is my hon. Friend ensuring that Home Office services in my area actively involve local people—and, if I may be blunt, what Home Office resources are available to those people?
    Beverley Hughes: My hon. and learned Friend is right. If we are to involve the voluntary and community sector more in the delivery of public services, which is what we want to do, local people must be involved in both defining and shaping the way in which services are delivered. They must become involved in the voluntary and community organisations that we want to engage in public service delivery.
    My hon. and learned Friend will know from his experience in Dudley, which is one of the 88 most deprived areas and has received substantial regeneration money, that as well as producing better services such arrangements often have a marked effect on local people who become involved. Like me, he has met many for whom that involvement has constituted a personal turning point, showing them that they have the capacity for more extensive involvement.
    Dudley, as I said, has received substantial resources. [Interruption.] If I may finish—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] My hon. and learned Friend will know that, in addition—[Unterruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Lady finish.
    Beverley Hughes: There is also a specific amount, £330,000, for development of voluntary and community networks in Dudley.
    Bob Russell: The Minister rightly spoke of the important role that the voluntary sector can play in our deprived communities in particular. It now costs some £22,000 a year to keep a young person locked up in a young offenders unit. Would it not be better to invest that money in our young people through the recognised youth organisations, perhaps helping them to hire school halls; and would not our communities be a lot better for it?
    Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman will know from the policy we have published, we consider community-based solutions appropriate for many young people, and the voluntary sector has a key role to play in that.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: When an active citizen who has witnessed a serious crime is scared off from giving evidence at a criminal trial, does that not underline the need to strengthen the law so that some of the thugs on our streets who are getting away with serious assault and worse are brought to justice? If people are to be active citizens and support their communities, they too need support from the law of the land.
    Beverley Hughes: I agree that the concept of active citizenship is not only about involvement in voluntary activity. It also means being able to play a proper role as a participant in the criminal justice system. Our White

    601
    Paper and the Bill that will follow will make the system work so that victims and witnesses can play their proper role.

    Special Constables
    Mr. George Osborne: How many special constables were employed in England in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [82310]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): On 31 March 1997 there were 19,874 special constables in England and. Wales. On 31 March 2002 there were 11,598.
    Mr. Osborne: Those figures reveal the total collapse in the number of special constables employed in this country. In my county, the number has fallen by more than 50 per cent. The Government say they are committed to increasing the number of specials, and regularly organise recruitment campaigns. Why have they failed so spectacularly?
    Mr. Wills: We of course agree that the special constabulary has a very important part to play—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members want to hear the answer to the question, I suggest that they listen. If they go on making noise, they will not hear the answer—[Interruption.] There you go, Mr. Speaker.
    We agree with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) that special constables have an important role to play, and that we need more of them. As a result, we are investing a lot of money—£300,000—in the champion's initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community announced 10 days ago. We need to improve the engagement of employers, and to see what else we have to do. The reason for the fall in numbers is a long-standing one, which began many years ago. In many ways, it can be traced back to 1945, and there are many complex reasons—[Laughter.] Opposition Members find this very amusing, but we have to deal with the problem.
    The point that hon. Member for Tatton is, I hope, getting at is that we have to deal with crime and with reassuring the public about crime. That is the role of special constables, but it is only part of the picture. In looking at this issue, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that police numbers as a whole have risen to 188,512, and that we now have the largest ever number—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise the demise in the number of special police officers—a development that starkly highlights the drop in the number of people in our society who do voluntary work and who make a voluntary commitment? That is happening across the youth sector, and it certainly worries me. Has any work been done on that, and is it happening because too many people now lead hectic
    602
    lives and do not have sufficient time, or because for 18 years they were told that there is no such thing as society?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend is right, and he draws attention to a very valuable point. There are many reasons why the numbers are falling, a key one of which is that we are having difficulty in retaining special constables. Recruitment is not a problem: last year, we recruited 1,700 new special constables, which is a significant achievement. The problem is that we are losing more of them, and a key reason why is exactly as my hon. Friend describes. More than 50 per cent. of special constables leave because of family commitments, and work and study commitments. Significantly, one in five leave to join the regular police force, which shows our success in transforming the state of policing in this country. Anecdotal evidence shows that, in many areas, as many as 40 per cent. leave the specials to join the regular police force, which we should all welcome.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Who bears the greatest responsibility for the hon. Gentleman's failure, Attlee or Thatcher? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wills: I assume that that was a debating point, rather than a serious question. The responsibility falls not to any Prime Minister, but to long-standing changes in society. It is a measure of the failure of the Conservatives that they do not realise that some things have to be tackled systematically, coherently and with proper funding, and that is what we are doing.

    Alcohol-related Crime
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will ensure that all crime and disorder partnerships include measures to combat alcohol-related crime as part of their strategies. [823111
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Initial analysis of the crime and disorder partnerships shows that some 53 per cent. of them have included prioritisation of alcohol abuse in their policies for reducing crime.
    Mr. Grogan: Given that the aims of the Government's Licensing Bill include allowing more flexible hours for pubs and creating a more civilised atmosphere late at night in our town and city centres—making them attractive not just to the young, but to those who are young at heart, such as my right hon. Friend and me—does he agree that it is more important than ever that crime and disorder partnerships prioritise by trying to make the night-time economy as safe as possible?
    Mr. Blunkett: I would encourage all crime and disorder partnerships to take a further look at their strategies in view of the real problems of binge drinking. More than half of those who commit crime are seen to have been involved in drink or drugs, and we know that that causes devastation.

    603
    On a slightly facetious note, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his dedicated work for the all-party beer group, which includes getting people to drink sensibly?
    Simon Hughes: Given that the Government have had it trailed in the press this week that we are about to have the relaunch of the drugs strategy and that it is widely known that the most recent British crime survey showed that 40 per cent. of violent crimes are fuelled by alcohol, can the Home Secretary tell us when we will get the Government's alcohol strategy, which is hugely important and was trailed nearly five years ago? When will they give crimes fuelled by alcohol equal priority with crimes fuelled by other dangerous drugs?
    Mr. Blunkett: The Department of Health and the Home Office are working with the forward strategy unit on developing a proper programme that is integrated with and related to the updated drugs strategy that we will publish this week. I do not disagree with the need to tackle this problem, and I do not think that anyone would, given that a high percentage of stranger violence is committed by people who are under the influence of drink.
    Liz Blackman: Is my right hon. Friend aware how effective exclusion orders are in banning perpetrators of violent crime from licensed premises, particularly where partnerships exist between the police, the local authority, magistrates and landlords? Unfortunately, their application is patchy. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to point out again to local crime and disorder partnerships how effective exclusion orders can be and ask them to reconsider using them in their armoury to combat violent alcohol-related crime?
    Mr. Blunkett: I should very much like to do that, in conjunction with the proposals in the Licensing Bill. Not least, I commend those alcohol outlets, particularly in city and town centres, which have made an agreement with the police, often using radiocommunications, and are prepared to contribute a little towards making those outlets more attractive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I are looking at how to strengthen that.

    Accommodation Centres
    Tony Baldry: When he expects to appoint the independent monitor of accommodation centres. [82312]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): We intend to ensure that the monitor is appointed in good time for him or her to be able to monitor the operation of accommodation centres from the date at which the first centre is open.
    Tony Baldry: Would it not be sensible for the monitor to be able to advise on whether a location is suitable to meet the needs of asylum seekers before hundreds of
    604
    pounds are spent on a public inquiry and millions are spent on building an accommodation centre rather than after?
    Beverley Hughes: The role of the monitor was discussed here and in the House of Lords during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, including the implications of the late amendment on location. The hon. Gentleman has put that point before. Lord Firkin wrote to him on 15 November, making it clear that the monitor is not an adjudicator or an arbiter of whether a location would be suitable for an accommodation centre and that decisions about where to locate the centres will be made by the Secretary of State subject to the planning process. The monitor will not be involved in selecting sites.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the Minister accept that there is sufficient ambiguity in the drafting of the last-minute concession in the Bill to allow plenty of argument about the right time to appoint the monitor for him or her to be able to advise on whether all the services can be provided to residents in a particular locality? If she remains so confident that she is right and all the interest groups are wrong when she says that all the services can be provided in remote rural areas, why will she not take the generous interpretation, appoint the monitor soon and allow him or her to comment on the policy of putting all these people in very remote rural places?
    Beverley Hughes: I have already said that that is not the role of the monitor—he or she will be monitoring the operation of the centre. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that some areas of the country, including his own, are not suitable for asylum seekers and accommodation centres, but we do not take that view. In the annual report to the Secretary of State, the monitor will be able to comment on whether a need of residents is not being adequately met in a particular location. We can then take action to ensure that that need is met properly.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: We support the concepts of accommodation centres and of an independent monitor, but will the Minister tell us what impact they will have, first on the current record number of applications for asylum—29,000 plus in the last quarter; secondly, on her collapsed policy of removing failed asylum seekers; and, finally, on the backlog of claims, 16,000 of which have been outstanding for more than a year?
    Beverley Hughes: The accommodation centres themselves are part of an end-to-end strategy for keeping in much closer contact with asylum seekers so that we are able to remove people if their claim is refused. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Act was implemented only three weeks ago. We had to fight tooth and nail with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the House of Lords for many of the most important provisions in that Act, and when we are able to implement them, as we shall be doing during the next few months, they will have the impact on the intake of asylum claims that we anticipate.

    Child Abduction
    Tim Loughton: What support he has given to Sussex police to operate the amber alert pilot scheme to help counter child abduction. [82314]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): We are very interested in the lead being taken by Sussex police and the Association of Chief Police Officers' homicide working group in piloting the child rescue project. We wish it success and will closely monitor its progress over the coming months.
    Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. May I draw his attention to early-day motion 70, which has been signed by me and 84 hon. Members and praises the amber alert scheme as it operates in the United States and wishes the Sussex police well in their pilot? However, as Sussex has only a limited amount of motorway, and as the scheme relies on breaking into media broadcasts and on broadcasting on motorway and other traffic signs, will he monitor it closely and give us an undertaking that, if it goes well, it will be piloted more extensively in other constabularies throughout the country, so that at least something positive might come from the horrific murders and abductions that have occurred during this and previous years to deter other such tragedies in the future?
    Hilary Benn: I agree wholeheartedly. The scheme is imaginative and is aimed at using all the resources of the community to try to intervene quickly when a child abduction appears to have taken place. We know that those early hours are crucial if we are to find a child who has been abducted. I gladly undertake to monitor carefully the success of the scheme. I am sure that other forces will be looking with great interest at the work that Sussex is doing and I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and officers from the Sussex force when the pilot period is over so that we can consider how to spread that good idea elsewhere.

    Police
    Mr. John Robertson: What plans he has to improve the rate of recruitment and retention of police officers. [82315]
    Brian White: What plans he has to improve the rate of recruitment and retention of police officers. [82317]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): The police service in England and Wales is recruiting very successfully; 10,215 officers joined it in the year to March 2002–38 per cent. more than the previous year and the highest number of recruits since 1975. The number of police officers leaving the service annually remains low at about 5 per cent. of strength. However there are variations between forces, and we are working
    606
    with chief constables and others to identify measures that can be taken where there are local retention problems.
    John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. He will be well aware that, early next year, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 becomes law and will allow the police to seize the assets of the drug barons and Mr. Bigs of the criminal world. What talks has my right hon. Friend held with the Scottish Executive on police staffing on both sides of the border, especially in relation to cross-border co-operation?
    Mr. Denham: The Scottish Executive have been closely involved in all stages of the development of the policy and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) has taken a close personal interest in the implementation of the Act, as has the Minister for Justice in Scotland, Jim Wallace. The operation of the Act is a devolved matter, but the Scottish Executive have recently appointed the heads of the new criminal confiscation and civil recovery units. The Scottish police college is delivering comprehensive financial investigation training to police officers in Scotland and that is being developed in consultation with the police service in London.
    Brian White: I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced for retaining police officers, particularly in the south-east, but is he aware that the same pressures apply to civilians working in the police force, and those who work alongside the police, such as the new neighbourhood wardens being piloted in my constituency? Will he ensure that the measures do not create unintended or artificial barriers for those who support the police in their duties?
    Mr. Denham: Of course I am keen to ensure that nothing we do to support police officer retention has an adverse effect on those who fulfil an important role as police staff. I am pleased to say that there has been good and strong recruitment of civilian staff in my hon. Friend's local police service and all the police services in the south-east.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Special constables are by definition police officers, and we have already heard that there has been a serious collapse in their numbers. Would the Minister consider paying them, invoking the precedent of paying retained firemen and the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Denham: We recently invited the current deputy chief constable of Surrey, soon to be the chief constable of Cheshire, Peter Fahy, to act as the leader of a new project to investigate the recruitment, retention, training and deployment of specials in an endeavour to increase their numbers. The question of payment is controversial among specials. I recently approved a pilot project in Workington in Cumbria that, subject to changes in parliamentary regulations, would enable modest local payment to specials in the area. I anticipate, as part of the specials project, that that may happen in a few other areas, too, but we need to be careful not to upset the essentially voluntary nature of

    607
    the special constabulary, which I know from experience is highly valued by many specials. I accept in principle the question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises, but we must proceed with due caution with some pilot projects, to see how it works out.
    Mr. David Heath: Is there not a distinction between paying specials and introducing a new status of retained officer, an omnicompetent officer working part-time, which would help to retain experienced officers? Ministers have said repeatedly over the years that they are considering the case for such retained officers. When will they reach a conclusion?
    Mr. Denham: We have been considering not a salary but a bonus payment or modest enhancement in allowances. We have no active plans to introduce other types of working for specials, save that, as part of the pay negotiating body agreement last year, we are making the use of part-time paid police officers more flexible than in the past, by allowing engagement for less than 16 hours a week.
    Kate Hoey: Does the Minister share my concern about the effect of congestion charging on the retention of police officers in inner London? Is he aware that many of the officers in my constituency have to travel by car because of their shift hours? Is anyone likely to provide the extra £1,000 that they will have to pay?
    Mr. Denham: That is the responsibility of the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan police service, as the officers' employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aha."] I know how much the Conservative party would resist any suggestion that the Home Secretary or I should interfere in these matters. The issues are under active consideration by the Metropolitan police service, and were touched on in recent discussions that I had with the deputy assistant commissioner.

    Rural Crime
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What the incidence of rural crime was in (a) April 1997 and (b) April 2002. [82316]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): A comparison of the British crime survey figures for 1997–98 with those that I announced in July shows that, for rural areas, burglary was down 44 per cent., violent crime down 35 per cent. and vehicle theft down 34 per cent.
    Miss McIntosh: Will the Home Secretary take the time to come and visit Thirsk, one of the market towns in the Vale of York, where burglaries of both homes and properties appear to be on the increase? Will he consider closely the question of improving closed circuit television cameras, to ensure that the clarity of the picture is sufficient to be able to apprehend criminals, rather than merely showing the crime that they have committed?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I would. I am very pleased that the community safety partnerships have been using resources allocated by the Home Office to extend
    608
    CCTV, and I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Hambleton crime reduction partnership in a neighbouring area on being one of only two groups in the country to be awarded beacon status for their efforts in crime reduction in rural areas.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statistics and the downturn in crime in rural areas, but there are also hot spots in rural areas. In my constituency, there is a lot of car crime and vehicles being dumped, and we would like to see more high-visibility policing in the rural area. What resources can he make available to allow to that to happen?
    Mr. Blunkett: I hope that, later this week, we can indicate the necessary resources and encouragement to help forces to recruit and to use those recruits effectively in terms of imaginative single manning where appropriate and, of course, show the importance of restoring the rural element to police funding, which will help across the country.

    Travellers
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps he is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour by travellers. [82318]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): The Government are committed to tackling all forms of antisocial behaviour. That is why we will introduce an antisocial behaviour Bill in the current Session. In addition, we have announced new proposals to deal with unauthorised encampments and the problems of antisocial behaviour that can sometimes arise from them.
    Ms Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We have been promised some more detailed guidance—I understand that my hon. Friend's Department is working on it with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—and we had expected to receive it during the summer. When will we receive that guidance? Although many travellers pass through Swindon and cause us no difficulties at all, some serious antisocial behaviour has been associated with travellers, and we would like to have the guidance to be able to improve the way in which that is managed.
    Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend and, indeed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) have made me aware that they have a particular problem in their area. She knows that, in relation to unauthorised encampments, we have promised new legislation to evict from unauthorised sites where local authorities have authorised sites. The strategic and operational guidance to police and local authorities will be forthcoming very shortly and, in addition, there will be funding to build more authorised sites.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Andrew Love: What measures he is taking to tackle persistent youth offenders. [82319]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): We are tackling the causes of persistent youth offending through our work to overcome social and economic exclusion, and we are coupling that with tougher action to bring home to persistent offenders the severe consequences that will follow continued offending, including antisocial behaviour orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, parenting orders and local child curfews.
    Mr. Love: May I commend the excellent work being done by the Enfield youth offending team, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited earlier this year? Its restorative justice programme is nipping in the bud the sort of behaviour that leads to antisocial offending. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to expand that type of programme so that we can address the sort of antisocial behaviour that leads to youth offending?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend is right. We have to take a range of measures to deal with this problem. The sort of measures that he mentions are very welcome, and we know that they are beginning to work. The proof of the success of the measures that we are taking is that we have reduced the reconviction rate by 14.6 per cent. during the past five years, which is important, and that we have delivered on our pledge to halve the time between arrest and sentence. My hon. Friend will agree that those measures are working. We want to see more of them, and we will continue to fund them.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the social inquiry reports that are sometimes produced in court when young offenders appear before magistrates and in other courts are inadequate? Does he also agree that, because the wider family context is often relevant, it would be helpful in
    610
    the raft of legislation that is to follow to make family reports available to criminal courts as well as family courts?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and we will certainly consider it very carefully in framing the legislation.

    Police
    Gareth Thomas: What plans he has to increase and enhance the role of support staff in the police. [82320]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Beni): We are keen to enhance the role of police support staff. Community support officers are already being deployed in London, and we expect up to 1,200 to be working by the end of March. Today sees the implementation of section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which enables chief officers of police to designate suitably skilled and trained support staff to exercise certain police powers.
    Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. On the issue of community support officers, does he share my puzzlement that although many police forces are actively recruiting community support officers, as they believe that that will improve the effectiveness of their force, North Wales police have decided not to do so, ostensibly because of lack of funding? Would he agree to discuss this issue with me in the near future?
    Hilary Benn: I would be pleased to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend. Under the scheme, as he will be aware, forces were invited to bid. From memory, 27 forces were successful, all of which bid first time round. A new round of bidding will occur in the new year. Speaking for myself and my constituency, I cannot wait to see the arrival of the community support officers who will be deployed in West Yorkshire, because of the benefit that I know that my constituents will derive from their presence.

Northern France
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on illegal immigration from northern France.
As the House knows, since the beginning of June I have been in negotiations with the French Government to tackle illegal immigration from France, focusing on making substantial improvements in border controls, improving security at freight depots and the removal of the magnet of the Sangatte centre. This morning, I held further talks with the French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy.
I am very pleased to tell the House that we have today agreed that the Sangatte centre will close by the end of December, and will be handed back to the owners, Eurotunnel. That is four months earlier than originally anticipated. As the House knows, the centre has been a magnet for illegal trafficking of immigrants since October 1999. More than 67,000 people have passed through the centre since that date. Its closure is, therefore, an extremely welcome achievement and a major contribution to stemming the tide of clandestine entry into the United Kingdom.
I wish to place on record my appreciation of the positive way in which Mr. Sarkozy has approached these negotiations over the past six months and for the good faith that he has shown throughout our talks. I am grateful, as I know those concerned will be, for the decisive action that he has taken against illegal immigration in the Calais area, including the deployment of 1,000 gendarmes and substantial enhancement of security measures.
The French Government have taken away and re-housed some 500 people so far. Just as importantly, however, I have agreed with the French Government a range of measures to establish immigration controls and border security operations in northern France, effectively moving border security to France. The extension of those measures to other ports along the French coast and, in future, to Belgium ensures that instead of dealing with the symptoms, we address the causes of our present difficulties. I can also tell the House that we have opened discussions with the Netherlands.
As the House will recognise, this is a transformation in our border security. It is far better to stop people entering the country illegally than to have to send them back, with all the time wasting and expense that that entails. These measures build on the progress already made. The security measures at Coquelles and Frethun have now been strengthened. The number of clandestines arriving from Frethun has fallen from almost 400 in April to a handful in October. By Christmas, 100 per cent. of the freight traffic travelling through Calais port each and every day will be searched.
Co-operation between our security and law enforcement services has led to the arrest and disruption of six major trafficking gangs operating in northern France over the past few weeks. Almost 250 people have been arrested for people smuggling this year. Immigration officers have been operating in Calais since
612
20 August. This operation will develop rapidly following today's agreement into a full, joint immigration control as early as possible next year. These actions have been significant in sending a signal, and today's announcement will complete the message to those seeking to traffic human beings across Europe to the UK.
To ensure that we play our part in getting Sangatte closed immediately and, of course, for good, I have agreed that up to 1,000 Iraqis can come to the United Kingdom, not as asylum seekers but on work visas. This is a one-off exercise. They will be temporarily housed for up to three months while we undertake job matching. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for his co-operation. In this way, we will ensure that those who might have reached Britain clandestinely will now pay taxes and national insurance and will not be subject to continuing support from the British taxpayer. We will also take a limited number of Afghans under family reunification, determined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The remainder of the Sangatte population, together with those with whom the French have already dealt, as well as anyone subsequently arriving in the area, will be handled by the French authorities.
I can also tell the House that I intend to ensure that the UK's economic migration channels are available to those from countries that currently generate significant unfounded asylum claims. Legal economic migration strengthens our economy and underpins our coherent policy of managed migration. I believe that we should all unite against those who are currently arguing for a complete block on all immigration to this country, and I challenge the shadow Home Secretary to join me in this regard.
This agreement with the French Government is a further piece in the jigsaw of radical reform to our asylum, immigration and nationality programme. Taken together with the new Act—which was passed against considerable opposition, especially in the House of Lords—it will give us the capacity to manage properly entry into this country. I do not today pretend that we have reached the end of the road. We have only just passed the new legislation and we have only just reached agreement with the French. We cannot, therefore, be expected yet to have achieved the results that will come to fruition only from the implementation of these policies. This is a substantial step forward, however, which no one predicted just six months ago.
I want to finish with this warning. We can put legislation in place, we can reach agreement with our French counterparts, and we can debate these issues in the House, but they will come to nothing without a substantial change in the administration of the system. I am making it clear today to the immigration and nationality directorate that we expect a step change in the operation, efficiency and competence within the system and in how it is handled. I shall hold to account senior managers in my Department for an entirely different approach and a step change in the results that we now expect to be achieved.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for a marginally early copy of his statement.

613
We welcome the closure of Sangatte. The camp was a symbol, as Mr. Sarkozy said today. But why is the symbol considered so important by the Home Secretary? Was not the camp a symptom rather than a cause? Was it not set up because the asylum seekers were in northern France rather than vice versa? How will its closure reduce the number of asylum seekers coming to northern France?
Turning to the price paid by the Home Secretary, on what legal basis is he intending to issue work permits to 1,200 erstwhile Iraqi asylum seekers? If those people were eligible for work permits, why were they not awarded such permits before the camp's closure? Why are the French authorities so keen not to admit those applicants to France?
More generally, the House will want to learn what impact the Home Secretary believes the measures in his statement will have on net inward migration to the United Kingdom. I cannot wholly rid myself of a suspicion that he is highlighting Sangatte, and that he has wished to highlight Sangatte for some time, to distract attention from the number of people entering and remaining in this country and from the administrative shambles that that number reveals.
In a piece of slightly jaded parliamentary rhetoric, the Home Secretary asks me to join him in resisting calls to block all immigration, but that is not the question we face today. He presides over a system that has allowed, and is allowing, record unlawful net immigration. There were a record 29,000 asylum applicants in the last quarter and only 3,500 removals, which resulted in 25,500 new net additions from asylum in that period. With roughly 70 per cent. of asylum applicants finally refused asylum, we face the prospect of 700,000 additional people, who are failed asylum seekers, coming to this country and remaining in it for the next 10 years.
When we face that situation, why is the Home Secretary talking about a total block? He is nowhere near a total block. Despite his heartfelt pleas from the Dispatch Box to his Department to perform better, and despite drawing down £1.8 billion in supplementary spending increases for his Department, he is nowhere near achieving even a respectable approximation to an effective partial block. I fear that no amount of fanfare about a single camp in northern France will distract us from drawing attention to that fact or will distract the country from noticing it.
Mr. Blunkett: I am not sure whether that was a welcome for the closure of Sangatte and the measures that we are taking.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the closure is a symptom or a cause of the problem. I draw his attention to a wise phrase:
"If asylum seekers knew they could no longer use France as a gateway to the United Kingdom, fewer of them would make their way there in the first place."
If Conservative Members agree with that they agree with their leader because those were the words of lain Duncan Smith in his article at the end of May in the Daily Mail. Sangatte is clearly a magnet. That is why the French and this Government want it closed. It is also
614
why we have linked it to massive improvements in border controls along the French coast and why we are now working with Belgium and the Netherlands. That was never achieved by the previous regime.
What is more, the French Government, who have a nominal connection with the Conservative party, agree entirely with my stance. They believe that what we have agreed will make a significant difference. They think that it is necessary and have widely welcomed our co-operation in making it possible.
The right hon. Gentleman asks why we chose to grant permits to Iraqis. In some regions and parts of the world, it is possible to determine that a significant number of people want to take up the opportunity to work. We also know that it is not possible to send people back to some regions, even when their asylum claims are unfounded, and that if we do not allow entry in an ordered and managed way, they will come into our country clandestinely, claim asylum, be a burden on the support system and clog up the works of the immigration programme.
So what are we doing? We are lifting the burden on taxpayers, organising the system properly and providing for our economic needs by giving people the opportunity to work. I should have thought that hon. Members from all parties would welcome that, and that is why I asked the right hon. Gentleman to join me in condemning those, whose voices are louder and louder, who are against all legal, never mind illegal, immigration into this country. I heard such comment, by one who is very close to the Conservative party, on the "Today" programme this morning. I have read it in the newspapers. I read it almost every other day now in The Times, and I have to say that, in the case of Anthony Browne, it borders on fascism.
It is time that we challenged the Conservative party on where it stands because only in September the shadow Home Secretary, when challenged on the radio about whether he would take steps to get here if there was a blockage, talked about hanging on to trains and said:
"Sure. Absolutely. I think we need to recognise that people who seek to better themselves by engaging in desperate efforts to get to places where they can work hard are not morally in the same category as a scrounger who seeks to be a parasite."
The people whom we are inviting here are not parasites; they seek to work. They seek the right to be here legally, which the right hon. Gentleman has raised in the House on a number of occasions, and I am giving them that right.
Today we are unblocking a major problem for the French and British Governments. Of course, I could have wimped and let Sangatte dribble out while people came across the Channel prior to us being able to make substantive change. The change that has made a difference today is the shifting of the border controls from England to the French coast. We have shifted the immigration and security checks and ensured that people will not get here. Stopping people entering clandestinely has to make more sense than trying to process them and send them back whence they came.
We have not spent £1.8 billion more from the reserve. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a sensible debate, I will give him one, but let us have no silliness about 700,000 unreturned entrants to this country. Otherwise,

615
we will have the kind of rabble that we have seen this afternoon, who cannot welcome agreement, who do not want a sensible, rational way forward and who will back the far right when it suits them to scare people into believing that managed migration is the same as clandestine asylum seeking. The two are separate; we are dealing with them as separate things and putting in place a managed programme to resolve a long-standing problem.
Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know that Liberal Democrats believe that the United Kingdom, like all European countries, should honour its obligations to allow people to put their case for asylum and to accept them when they have a good case. The evidence shows that this country, like many other European countries, needs a net increase of immigrant workers to meet the needs of our economy.
If the Home Secretary is saying that he will make a renewed effort to sort out the problems in his Department, that is welcome, but we will believe it when we see it because we have heard it said for many years.
Does the statement and the deal with the French mean that those who want to put an asylum case will be able to do so? Will the United Kingdom take any of the people currently in northern France who want to put an asylum case, or will they be allowed to stay in France or go elsewhere in Europe? Please will the Home Secretary give positive consideration to the ideas I discussed with the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration a day or so ago, namely, that instead of the nonsense of trying to lock one door, which results in people going somewhere else—locking another port, which results in people trying another route of entry—we try an intelligent Europe-wide system whereby people are processed in the same way wherever they come to the attention of the authorities, and the responsibility for all asylum seekers who enter the European Union is shared fairly across all EU countries?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider a way of dealing with the press, which whips up the belief that an increasing number of people will come to this country or stay here legally, by saying that that those asylum seekers who are of working age could be considered as the first group of those who will meet our economic working needs, and then we will consider as a country how many other people we require to meet our work force needs? If he were to give the House a figure for how many people a year we need, that would be very helpful.
Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I shall take his first and last points first. I do not intend to take people from France as asylum seekers. I intend to take the Iraqis as I described, for work purposes, and I intend to take people for family reunification from among those Afghans who have been identified by the UNHCR.
I do not intend to confuse asylum claims with economic migration routes. I do not intend to say to those who have been asylum seekers, "We will take you as the first batch of economic migrants", because that would only encourage people to believe that if they managed to get here and claim asylum, they would be able to work. That is why we took the measures that were announced last Friday.
616
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for Europe-wide action. I hope that by the end of December we will have agreed Dublin 2. I do not believe that that goes far enough or that it will resolve our problems, but it is a further step towards recognition by the EU as a whole that the problem affects us all, that it reflects worldwide movements of people, and that it reflects differences between the ways in which people have been dealt with across Europe. That is precisely why I passed substantial measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I hope that we can make rapid and much better progress. Nicolas Sarkozy and I debated that again this morning, because we both believe that a Europe-wide agreement is needed.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on achieving a sensible, practical and fair settlement for the closure of Sangatte, and on delivering a raft of other important security and border control measures. However, when the management and accommodation of the British consignment of migrants is dealt with, will he take account of the fact that places such as my constituency, Dover, which already houses an induction centre, a removal centre and accommodation for almost 200 young asylum-seeker children, are already experiencing great pressure? As the Prime Minister said last year, we have already borne more than our fair share.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend's area has borne more than its fair share, which is why I am sure that he will welcome the transfer to the French coast of immigration and security controls. I am absolutely certain that that will alleviate a substantial part of the problem, when taken together with the massive security now in place around the passenger and freight depots in France. A year ago, people said that that was impossible—they said that we would not be able to do it, that the French would never agree, that we would never get those measures in place, and that people would continue to come from those areas.
We still face a major challenge. Distributing those who are organised and managed into this country under the agreement will be important, and I give an assurance that they will not be managed and organised into the Kent coast.
Mr. Julian Brazier: I thank the Home Secretary for that final assurance. Does he accept that a failure by the House to have a proper and realistic discussion of the matter is the surest way to fuel the very worst forces out on the streets? Does he acknowledge that more than half the people who claimed asylum last year did so in-country and so have nothing to do with the process in France, and that the real solution to the sheer volume of work that is causing the bulk of our problems must be to have a rapid method of ejecting those who enter legally, overstay and, when they are finally picked up, try to claim asylum?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, and that is precisely why, in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, I introduced measures to deny people the financial support and housing that they would otherwise claim if they had not made a claim at or close to the point or port of entry. Many of the people we are talking about as in-country

617
applicants have been trafficked in, spent time in the country, and then make a claim, which is entirely wrong—we all agree about that. My earlier reply was given entirely in response to the hooting that started when I announced that we were going to take people as legal economic migrants. We must be absolutely clear—if we are all united against clandestines, we are not all united on legal immigration on economic grounds to this country. That issue is now dividing us. It may not divide the shadow Home Secretary and myself, but it clearly divides him from members of his party.
Glenda Jackson: Is this a one-off acceptance of legal migrants, exclusively for people from Iraq and Afghanistan—dangerous but by no means the only dangerous parts of the world? While I welcome the Home Secretary's call for a step change in the immigration and nationality directorate, will it be accompanied by additional resources, both financial and trained staff? Will he make the same call for a step change and improvement in the National Asylum Support Service?
Mr. Blunkett: On the last point, I consider those support services to be an integral part of the immigration and nationality directorate, and want to seek substantial changes in them. Yes, this is a one-off—I have made that absolutely clear—designed to close Sangatte. We should remember that there were going to be several Sangattes only 12 months ago. Headline after headline said that we were not going to close Sangatte but instead would open several such centres along the French coast—wrong. Sangatte will be closed by the end of December, and we should rejoice in that.
Let me make one thing clear. Yes, the immigration and nationality directorate will get the money that it needs, and has had several thousand additional posts over the past three years. Using the money wisely, however, managing properly and taking decisive management action on failure and lack of productivity is something that everyone in the House now wants.
Derek Conway: The Home Secretary's hopes that he expressed this afternoon will be shared, I trust he accepts, on both sides of the House. Nobody wants him to be anything other than successful. That is particularly true in my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, where we have many asylum-seeker families who are perfectly decent people just trying to achieve a better role in life. However, many of my constituents will think that the Government are selling out. If the Home Secretary challenges the figures produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on unreturned entrants, will he now give the House his own figures?
Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I am conducting a major attack on illegal working, and I am running a consultation on entitlement cards. Given the obvious support for major action on that, I assume that the Conservative party, including the Front Bench, will now come out unequivocally in favour of entitlement cards and assist with that discussion. Let me make it clear that we do not
618
accept the 700,000 figure, because it has been plucked out of thin air. However, we accept the need for a proper analysis of clandestine entry and the level of illegal working. We are working with the TUC to tackle that and introduce proper measures to secure the system for the future. I will do my best to ensure that we get that right.
Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when a report on human rights abuses in Iraq has just been published, it is rather strange that members of the Opposition appear to be unhappy that this country is giving young men who have fled the tyranny of Saddam Hussein an opportunity to work and to make a contribution to our society? Is it not extremely worrying, when millions of people throughout the world are suffering and are refugees and asylum seekers in many countries, that some people are so narrow minded that they believe that we should do nothing to help individuals fleeing such tyranny?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes it is.
Mr. Roger Gale: Those of us who campaigned for a long time for the closure of Sangatte will welcome the Home Secretary's achievement because we believe that it may facilitate the traffic of freight and passengers through the channel tunnel. However, the right hon. Gentleman's other comments are breathtaking in their arrogance. Why should 1,200 people be suddenly transformed, at the wave of a Home Office wand, from asylum seekers into work seekers, and granted work permits ahead of scores of others? Given the Home Secretary's answer to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), why is the Department trying to establish a reception centre for even more asylum seekers in Folkestone? Has the right hon. Gentleman got the Chancellor's agreement to pay the county of Kent all the money that the arrangement will cost the taxpayers and council tax payers of the United Kingdom, especially those of Kent?
Mr. Blunkett: My budget will fund whatever temporary costs arise from the need to receive people and move them to job match through the agreement that was reached this morning. The costs will be much less than what we would have paid—on average £18,000, including legal aid—for putting those who would have come here to claim asylum through the process. We all accept that the 67,000 people who went through Sangatte in the past three years undoubtedly made their way to the United Kingdom. That was their purpose in struggling across Europe—to paraphrase the words of the shadow Home Secretary on a Radio 4 programme in September. We have therefore saved rather than spent resources.
Mr. Kevin Barron: The effective moving of the border for checks against human smuggling is welcome. So is the closure of Sangatte, which, as everybody knows, has for many years been a magnet for people who enter the country illegally. What are the implications for Iraqis and people from Afghanistan who are currently here?
Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend welcomes the change. Changing the border controls to

619
France is significant. The system of assessing individual asylum claims will continue in the usual way. Those who have not been assigned asylum claims will be considered in future for special humanitarian protection. However, as I made clear in the statement, we are keen to establish legitimate immigration routes for economic purposes so that people who want to create a better life do not present themselves as asylum seekers facing death and torture. If we can do that—we are doing it for 175,000 people this year—and meet the needs of our economy, we will square the circle.
Mr. Francis Maude: I am glad that the Home Secretary has moderated his tone from that which he deployed earlier, which many Members found offensive.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members perceive a good case for selective and controlled economic migration, and are passionately keen for Britain to maintain its noble tradition of giving asylum to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution in other countries? For those reasons, we are anxious for real control to be exercised over those who are not genuine refugees. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that regardless of whether Sangatte is open or closed, a system that deems that people who have passed through a safe country in the European Union are prima facie not refugees because they have forgone their opportunity to seek refuge in France or Belgium, should return them immediately to their country of origin?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. It is a pity that he did not notice the shadow Chancellor screaming at me when I spoke about extending economic migration. There is a contradiction within the Conservative party, and I know that he will want to deal with it decisively in the Reform Group. I do riot, however, entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. It is very difficult to say that we will return someone to a country that is under siege—a country such as Iraq, for example—and it is therefore very difficult to say that the first country of entry should be the one that carries the whole load. That is why, building on Dublin 2, a sensible Europe-wide agreement will have to be reached on what is generally called burden sharing. In that way, we can make sense of what is currently a nonsensical situation.
Mr. Chris Pond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although my constituents are certainly not opposed to people coming here to build a better life for themselves, and to fill many of our skills shortages, they are opposed to illegal immigration and abuse of the asylum system? They will, therefore, support the fact that he has been working with Mr. Sarkozy and his other European counterparts on dealing with the problems of asylum and illegal immigration that affect all parts of Europe, rather than simply exploiting the issues as some Conservative Members have done this afternoon.
Mr. Blunkett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does it cause the Home Secretary any concern that so many economic migrants come to this country from areas and countries in which, organised crime is a way of life?
Mr. Blunkett: It certainly concerns me if those who come here perpetrate, organise or are involved in acts of crime. I have made it clear both to the police and to the immigration service that if people who are here without citizenship—people here on work permits, or for whatever other reason—commit crimes or are involved in mafia-type activities, we should seek to remove them from the country as fast as possible.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend that a controlled immigration policy that seeks to match skills with labour shortages is the sensible way forward, but I want to ask him a question that I suspect some of my constituents will be asking me before the end of this week. It is about the 1,000 or so Iraqis. These are people who almost certainly travelled across Europe in the company of criminals and gangsters, and originally claimed to be asylum seekers but now claim to be economic migrants. Given that this country could be at war with Iraq in the relatively near future, how successful has the screening of these people been? How do we know who we are admitting to the country?
Mr. Blunkett: The great advantage of doing this in an ordered and managed fashion is that we can actually screen those people. We are undertaking security screening of those coming into the country, which would not be possible with those who reach our shores clandestinely. I take my hon. Friend's point that people will be concerned and will want to know that we have done that effectively. I want to make it clear that we are not taking any Iraqis who have claimed asylum. None of the people I am taking has claimed asylum in France. If they had I would have insisted, under article 12 of the original Dublin convention, that their claims be processed in France. That would be the case for anyone who had attempted to claim asylum there.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is demanding a step-change in the operation, efficiency and competence of senior officials in his Department. Is that not an astounding admission of failure in the Department of which he is the political head? Is it not an extraordinary transfer of responsibility? Are not he and his Ministers responsible for policy and its implementation? If he cannot achieve that, should it not be he, rather than senior managers in his Department, who is held to account?
Mr. Blunkett: Something would be sadly wrong if a Home Secretary came to the Dispatch Box and pretended that black was white, and that everything was fine in the Department, when he knew that it was not. I would have thought that it was a refreshing change for a Minister to come here and say that everything is not right, and that we are doing something about it. We have just appointed a new director-general for the immigration and nationality directorate. We have also changed the whole operational system and, at last, managed to get a grip on the failed computer system that

621
was put in by the Conservative Government in 1996. Let me make it clear, however, that we are accountable for policy and its implementation, and we expect managers to be accountable for the administration and efficiency of the system. Ministers do not direct; they do not appoint or sack. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his extraordinary time in the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—which he will remember vividly, because he refused to resign over the most disgraceful carry-on and incompetence imaginable—that Secretaries of State sometimes have to say publicly that they will no longer put up with incompetence and lack of productivity that everyone else knows exist.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend knows that I have criticised his policies on occasion, but I am pleased to offer my support for his robust defence of his policy today. Anyone who has read the Foreign Office report on human rights abuses in Iraq can only be moved by the terrible abuses that have occurred to some Iraqis, and anybody who has been to Afghanistan recently, as I have, will not be surprised to know that some Afghans wish to leave that country as well. I therefore fully support my right hon. Friend; I also support the points that he made at the beginning of his statement. It ill behoves the sons and grandsons of immigrants on the Opposition Benches to scream hysterically every time the word "immigration" is mentioned in the House.
Mr. Blunkett: I could not agree more.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Home Secretary has admonished my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but at least my right hon. and learned Friend was subject to a public inquiry, which no one on the Labour side dared to undergo when they got the country into the most appalling mess—and he was vindicated by it.
In the Home Secretary's talks with the French Government on securing the northern coast of France and the channel coast in this country, has he discussed foot passengers who might enter this country via the Channel Islands? When Sangatte is closed, what changes can we expect for passengers travelling from France to the Channel Islands and then from the Channel Islands to the UK? He will know that there is no passport requirement when people enter this country via that route.
Mr. Blunkett: I have not discussed that, although I certainly will, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing it to my attention. As for her defence of her right hon. and learned Friend, the only point I was making is that those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones.
Andrew Mackinlay: Before the Home Secretary leaves the Chamber, will he beef up his comments on Belgium? Zeebrugge is just 30 minutes down the road from Calais and every night illegal immigrants come to this country from Zeebrugge and
622
other ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, unchecked by the IND, which is not present at the smaller ports around the UK. That is a big problem. I know that people seep in all the time along the river frontage in my constituency, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will invite Lord Carlile's committee of inquiry on our borders to revisit the idea of setting up a ports police to supplement and buttress the IND, Customs and Excise and the county police forces. Such a force is desperately needed and would be a great help, not instead of the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today, but as an addition to them.
Mr. Blunkett: When we debated the order on proscribed organisations I promised my hon. Friend that I would examine that point. I am doing so, as it is important and, as he rightly says, Lord Carlile has referred to it in the review. Nicolas Sarkozy and I met the Belgian Minister, Mr. Duquesne, at the end of September for a trilateral discussion. We agreed at the meeting, and I have since signed with the Belgians, an undertaking to set in place joint controls, including controls at Zeebrugge and at the Eurostar entry point in Brussels. I hope that we can get those in place as quickly as possible.
Mr. John Randall: The Home Secretary's announcement regarding Sangatte is welcome, but will the UK become less attractive for illegal immigrants? After all, those desperate people have crossed safe European countries, presumably because they regarded the UK as a better destination than France, Germany or Italy.
Mr. Blunkett: Yes they did, which is why some common reception policy and a common distribution pattern across Europe are sensible. That is also why we, through our balanced policy that separates clandestine asylum seekers from legitimate legal entrants, have sought to distinguish and develop one while clamping down on the other. I hope that that policy, through the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, has sent the right message.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: How long will the work permits last—two years, three years, 10 years? What criteria will my right hon. Friend use?
Mr. Blunkett: Much depends on the job that someone takes in a job match. We can offer a longer time to those who take what is clearly permanent work. We will want to renew work visas as we renew a range of other visas. Many people from around the world who have been here for a very long time before gaining nationality have simply asked for a renewal. I am happy to allow that, as part of a process of integration, welcoming and ensuring social cohesion. The more people feel that they are part of our community and can take on language and citizenship skills, the better.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: In view of the expense of our contribution to the liberation and reconstruction of Afghanistan, surely the best place for reunited families is there. Otherwise, do we not risk sending a further powerful signal to that country that we are a soft touch?
Mr. Blunkett: I think that aiding people to return and reconstruct their country is good common sense.

623
The French are now doing it, and so are we. I have asked the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to find out how many of the 200 or so who are there would fall into the category of family unification. That is not clear at this stage, but I do not think there would be many. We should take such people, on what are perfectly open, legitimate and well tried grounds.
Claire Ward: What specific skills or qualifications will my right hon. Friend look for before issuing work permits? In the light of his responses to Members representing Kent constituencies, what assurances will he give local authorities in the broader south-east, including Hertfordshire, that potential extra pressure or costs resulting from his decision will be met by his Department?
Mr. Blunkett: Under the reception provision that we are establishing, we will pay. When people have been job matched and move around the country—we expect that movement to encompass the whole of the United Kingdom—they will sustain themselves. The great advantage of offering people a chance to fill vacancies of all sorts is that we will not need to sustain them any longer, and neither will local authorities.
As I said earlier, we have withdrawn the right to switch suddenly from one form of entry—one type of visa—to an asylum claim. I think that will reassure not only communities but local authorities that they will not face such costs.
Mr. John Bercow: Irrespective of the merits or demerits of the proposed admission of the Iraqis—on which it is indeed wiser at this stage to remain open-minded than to fulminate in a bucolic fashion—will the Home Secretary now answer a question posed by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and tell us what the legal basis of his decision is?
Mr. Blunkett: We are assured by officials—and believe me, I would not have allowed an agreement to be reached between two Governments had I not been assured of this—that we have a legal power to grant work visas to those people, and the right to do so. Work permits have been granted separately in the immediate past in relation to specific jobs. There is nothing to stop us bringing people in and finding them jobs. So that there is no misunderstanding, let me point out that we have a good precedent. After all, the mass advertising in the Commonwealth in the 1950s that led to the Windrush coming to this country took place under a Conservative, not a Labour Government.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I am dealing with an ever-rising number of young Iraqi men who are Kurds. They have been through the IND system, and their official status is "awaiting deportation". They are destitute, without money or housing. I deal with at least 20 such men, and I know of at least 50 in Greater Manchester. They want to work, and it is important that my right hon. Friend make it clear to them today whether he will welcome their applying for work permits.
Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not. I have made it clear that I want to establish centres in such people's regions of
624
origin, to which, if they are economic migrants, they can apply sensibly. We will open discussions with countries in those regions, including the border of northern Iraq, to ensure that we can do that. If we simply transformed failed asylum seekers into economic migrants, we would immediately damage the signal that we are sending. People would believe that once they reached our shores clandestinely and had their application refused, it would be okay because eventually they would still be able to work.
Mr. David Cameron: I know that the Home Secretary believes that false asylum applications are attempts to jump the immigration queue, because I heard him say so. With that in mind, does not the proposal that he has agreed to today represent officially sanctioned, state-sponsored queue jumping on a giant scale? What message does that send to all those who have legally applied for residence here, and are waiting patiently?
Mr. Blunkett: I should make it clear that the people I am taking have not arrived in this country as clandestines, and that they have not made an asylum claim in France. It is on that basis that I am able to make this offer, and there is a logic to it; otherwise I would not have made it. If I were to offer clandestines the immediate opportunity to work, I would be criticised; if I were to offer failed asylum seekers the right to work, I would be opening the floodgates. I am taking a logical decision to deal with a problem rationally. I should say once and for all to those who commentate but never decide, and who can criticise but who take no responsibility, that if they have a better, clearer and more sensible way of dealing with this problem in reality—rather than fulminating at the French, wishing that the problem would go away, or pretending that such people would not come as clandestines and then claim asylum—they should come forward with it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Home Secretary has made a welcome, constructive and civilised statement, but may I press him as to who is going to screen the Iraqis, and exactly for what purpose?
Mr. Blunkett: Our immigration services will undertake screening of status, together with officials from the Department of Work and Pensions, once those individuals have been received. In conjunction with security and law enforcement officials, we will check such individuals' status, so far as is possible. That is what people would expect us to do.
Mr. John Flume: We are living through the greatest revolution in the history of the world in telecommunications, transport and technology. As a result, our world is much smaller, and for that reason immigration from deprived countries is far greater. Does the Home Secretary think that, in addition to the positive work that he is doing to deal with the problem, there should be substantial international co-operation in planning how to assist people in deprived countries?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes I do, and so does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. In the past six months the UNHCR has

625
assured us that it will transform its operation from what I described as in effect a non-governmental organisation, into a transnational governmental organisation that provides support in working out ways to deal with existing humanitarian and economic pressures in what—as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out—is a world of mass communication. In such a world, people know about how others live and where they live, and about lifestyles, in a way unheard of even a few years before. That has increased the responsibility, through the UN and other transnational organisations, to tackle the problem in a unified fashion.

Points of Order
4.24 pm
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw the House's attention to the statement published today by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Saddam Hussein and crimes and human rights abuses. Indict, an organisation that I chair, is quoted as a source on several pages of the document. I wonder whether we are to have a statement on the document. It raises many important questions that we should have the opportunity to debate with the Foreign Secretary on the Floor of the House, particularly as Indict has given the my right hon. Friend and the Government information that can bring some of these accusations against the regime in front of a British court. Why have the Government not acted on the conclusion that they have come to in their own document?
Mr. Speaker: There is a written ministerial statement today: No. 5. As for an oral statement, I have had no indication of one.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On page 7 of the document is the statement that the Iraqi national football team had the soles of their feet beaten. This has been repeated time and time again. When I was in Baghdad I asked for information, and I have asked for other people's information about it, but information comes there none. Such statements may or may not be true, but should the House of Commons not have an opportunity at least to ask for further background information?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no written statement from the Home Office about a statement made by the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration on several national news broadcasts on Friday evening about a radical shift in Government policy with regard to exceptional leave to remain. Regrettably, no mention was made of this in today's statement, and my concern—apart from the fact that I am mindful, of course, of your rulings on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and of what I regard as a discourtesy to the House—is the great concern now felt by many of my constituents who have been given exceptional leave to remain in this country. As there is no written statement, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you have had any information about whether there may be a statement forthcoming on this "radical shift" in Government policy.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach on that matter.

Opposition Day
[UNALLOTTED HALF-DAY]
Opposition Day

  Policing (Northern Ireland)
  4.27 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the continuing terrorist activities of the IRA; does not consider its representatives fit to participate in the government of part of the United Kingdom; deplores attempts to undermine further the integrity of policing in Northern Ireland by granting more concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA; and opposes offering non-elected convicted terrorists places on district policing partnerships.
  What I say about IRA terrorism can be applied equally to terrorism committed by so-called loyalists. I have been on the receiving end of the acts of such terrorists for a long time in their publications, and their attacks on property have included my property. My church manse was bombed, bullets were shot through my bedroom window and other attempts have been made on my life, not by the IRA—although it has made attempts on my life—hut by loyalists. I want to make it clear, therefore, that although the motion condemns the IRA and does not deal with loyalist terrorism, I apply the same condemnation to those terrorists.
  The motion before the House is different. It deals not with terrorists, per se, but with terrorists who are given a place in the government of part of the United Kingdom.
  It is indeed vital that the House discuss this matter because IRA-Sinn Fein continue to engage in a cycle of violence. Everyone in the House knows that. Everyone in the House should be seriously concerned about the targeting, training and recruiting business and the complete disregard of all calls for the disbandment of—
  Helen Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to make a little progress. The Democratic Unionist party initiated the debate, but other Members will be able to speak. If the hon. Lady has put her name down, I am sure that the Chair will call her. I ask her please to give me a little more time so that I can get into my speech.
  The notion is that Sinn Fein-IRA are on ceasefire and that the House should congratulate them on that. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, and I utterly deplore the reference in the Government amendment to the
  "enormous strides towards a more peaceful society in Northern Ireland",
  because we could visit some people who certainly would not think that there had been any peaceful strides.
  I attended a meeting with the Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), at which the Prime Minister tried to sell me the colossal falsehood that we were at peace in Northern Ireland. Fortunately, I had with me a copy of a certain document. I did not show it to the Prime Minister but I read him some facts from it. I told him that bombings in Northern Ireland over the previous 12 months had
  628
  increased by 80 per cent. I told him that shootings had trebled since the agreement and that unsolved crimes had reached a new high. In Londonderry, the IRA shot a bus driver while he was driving a group of pensioners.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise that the hon. Gentleman did not show his document to the Prime Minister, but, as he is now quoting extensively from it, will he make it available in the Library?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Library already has a copy and—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The point of order was addressed to the Chair. I advise the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) that the matter is entirely up to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) can hold on for a while he may find the end of my story quite amusing.
  I told the Prime Minister that the IRA beat up a young man in south Armagh, leaving him with injuries that doctors told us were the worst they had seen throughout all the troubles. Violence has increased since the agreement.
  Between 1995 and 1998, there were 450 shootings, but between 1999 and 2002 there were 820. Between 1995 and 1998, there were 123 bombings, but between 1999 and 2002 there were 561. The number of bombing devices used between 1995 and 1998 was 156, but between 1999 and 2002 it was 699. The increase in violence has taken a quantum leap.
  The former Secretary of State looked at the Prime Minister and told me that he did not think that my figures were correct. I was glad that I had not shown them the document from which I was quoting although I had it with me. I have it with me today. What is the document? The Secretary of State commended it himself: it is the annual report of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I handed the Secretary of State a copy and told him: "You are trying to undermine your own figures because they do not suit you."
  That was scandalous, yet the motion asks us to say that everything is wonderful. In fact, everything is far from wonderful. I was in the Minster of State's office last Monday, and she handed me three documents. The first was a draft clauses document containing amendments to a future police Bill. She said, "This is a Government document, this is our thinking." The second document was entitled "Text for consideration", and she said, "This is not a Government document; these are the matters that IRA-Sinn Fein want dealt with, and we are issuing them so that people can have a look at them."
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I said that it was a Government document, containing suggestions for Government amendments that we might table to a police Bill, subject to conditions that he knows and that we discussed at the time.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There is not much difference between that and what I said. In fact, I said it to the

  629
  Secretary of State and asked a civil servant to confirm that it was what I said. I do not want to misrepresent the Minister one iota. I want to get to the truth of the matter and help the people who have been terrorised in Northern Ireland.
  The third document was a police review announcement. It said:
  "We are not persuaded that the time is right to introduce changes in these areas. In particular, the removal of the disqualification of ex-prisoners could, in our view, happen only in the context of acts of completion such as those envisaged by the Prime Minister in his speech in Belfast".
  I asked the Minister what that meant, but we could not determine what it meant—she could not tell us. I cannot blame her, because the next day we met her boss, the new Secretary of State, and asked him the same thing: we said, "Will you explain to us ignorant folk from Belfast what this means?", but he could not explain it.
  On Wednesday, I went to a still higher authority and said:
  "The Prime Minister is aware that in the past two days my party has met the Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We put one question to both: what is an act of completion? Does it consist of IRA-Sinn Fein repudiating and ceasing violence and being disbanded, or does it simply mean that they can make a statement that they will give up violence? Can the Prime Minister tell us what he believes it means?"
  The Prime Minister said:
  "I can. It is not merely a statement, a declaration of words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone"—
  I take it that I am one of the everyones in the House and elsewhere, and that all the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland are included—
  "and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
  One would think that that statement was plain enough, but I am afraid that we must again ask the Minister to tell us exactly what she means.
  We have had very strong statements from the Prime Minister before—some of them written on a wall during the referendum campaign and some in Hansard—but when it came to it the strong words were forgotten. The Prime said in the House that
  "we want the total disarmament of all paramilitary organizations…Meanwhile, it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations held Executive office in the assembly while they continued to be engaged in or threaten terrorism."…[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 811.]
  We all know that the IRA has threatened violence. We see the IRA committing acts of violence every day. It was put into the Executive, although the Prime Minister gave us the assurance that it would not be and that it would be "a travesty of democracy"—so it is—to allow those who lead a terrorist organisation to be in government in any part of this country.
  Again, in the House, the Prime Minister said:
  "I have also always made it clear that we regard Sinn Fein and the IRA as inextricably linked.—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 366.]
  630
  If they are inextricably linked, how can they be divided? Those are not my statements; the Prime Minister made them. He told us then that no IRA-Sinn Feiner would be in the Executive. He also went further, for when they got into the Executive he made it clear that they would be put out if they did not keep to their ceasefire, yet when the ceasefires were violated they were not put out.
  In fact, what we have is a long document issued by the Government. I accept that it is still a Government document, but that makes it even worse in my opinion because it is to do with concessions and buying off the IRA. The Prime Minister needs to tell us in Northern Ireland what he really means to do. Of course we can hear and see many things, and the way the wind is blowing is interesting.
  No one has voiced his views more strongly than the leader of the official Unionist party. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) told us recently that those people could not get back into government until the IRA was disbanded, but he evidently changed his mind last night and our morning papers say today that
  "he indicated that practical measures like decommissioning weapons and ending paramilitary activity would be sufficient"
  to get those people back into government. We have another fudge, after many fudges, falsehoods and pledges from the leader of the official Unionist party, so what is going to happen?
  If anyone in the House thinks that the IRA will go away, they should disabuse themselves of that notion immediately. It is updating its weapons. Today is a good day to debate the matter, as three of its members are on trial in Colombia. When they were captured, however, we were told that they were not IRA men but tourists, even though they had forged passports. What tourist goes abroad on a forged passport? We were told that one of them did not represent the IRA in Cuba; subsequently, it was discovered that he did. Leading IRA men, including prominent ones, flew out to see them. What were they going to do? Were they going to have their first meeting? No, they were going to greet their brothers in terror and give them their support. A worldwide campaign has now been launched by IRA-Sinn Fein to say that the courts in Colombia cannot give them justice, that the whole thing is rigged and that they will not attend the courts. How like their approach to Northern Ireland—and that is a part of the United Kingdom!
  IRA-Sinn Fein sent their top representatives to the FARC-controlled jungles in south America. Everybody knows that. It also rearmed from Russia and Florida. Only the other day, guns of the most modern making, which had never been seen previously, were discovered, and arrests were made of those who had them in their possession. Leading people were telling us, however, that nothing had happened with regard to Florida. Leading political, judicial, security, forensic and loyalist figures are now being targeted using intelligence data files. The House should be aware of the terror of mothers and children when their husbands and fathers leave home in the morning to go to their place of business, because their security files, containing all their details, are in the possession of the IRA. That is a most serious matter. I have every sympathy with the men who have run the prisons of Northern Ireland over a vast

  631
  number of years—some of whose colleagues have been shot, brutally treated and murdered—who do not seem to be getting the support from the Northern Ireland Office that they should be getting at present.
  A major line of inquiry has been identified in relation to the break-in at special branch headquarters in Castlereagh. Weapons have been smuggled from Florida for the purpose of upgrading the stockpile. About a dozen individuals have been murdered in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Belfast agreement in April 1998. A role as judge and jury in the community has been adopted consistently in the form of beatings, shootings and other forms of intimidation. Orchestrated, organised violence in east and north Belfast has culminated in the shooting of five Protestants in the east of the city. Most recently, information has been stolen from the Northern Ireland Office and from Stormont; the chief administrator has been charged, he has not been allowed bail, and he is awaiting his trial. That is the track record of IRA-Sinn Fein. Is not that the action of people who are not fit for Government? Is it not also a condemnation of the fact that, at this very moment, the Government are discussing with IRA-Sinn Fein the possibility of putting on to the police boards people who are not elected members but have criminal records and have served prison sentences because of their IRA activities? Think about that: it is happening as I speak.
  Another change represents a major concession. An almost semi-parallel police board will meet in north Belfast. It will have different powers from the boards that meet elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Part of Belfast will be under the control of a board that, if it is constituted in the way that is proposed, will be controlled by IRA-Sinn Fein. It will control the policing of west Belfast and part of north Belfast.
  We are in a very serious situation. In the days of conflict, we had the police to rely on and could also rely on those who kept their word with regard to what they said the police would do. I know that charges have been made against members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the same way as charges have been made and proved against members of the British Army, but one does not condemn a whole force because of rotten apples in the barrel.
  The constitution of the policing board is another important matter. I was greatly struck by remarks that the Secretary of State made last week. He published an article in The Irish News about the new police proposals. He said that policing would not finally be complete until the day that they—the IRA republicans—include themselves. We are now shut into a policy that means that we will not have full policing until the IRA is included. That notion is obnoxious to the people who have suffered and to the very principles of democracy.
  David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the recent unanimous resolution of the Ulster Unionist Council on the proposals for the police boards? If unelected terrorists are put on to the district policing partnerships, the Ulster Unionist party's representation on the policing board will be placed under serious question. Will he unite with the Ulster Unionist party in withdrawing from that board?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: In a speech, I made public what we would do. We would be out and, this time, I hope that the hon. Gentleman's party would follow us and take immediate action. I was about to develop that point in my speech.
  When we were called in by the former Secretary of State and asked whether we would put our representatives on the policing board, I said, "We could consider that provided you aren't going to make a deal afterwards with IRA-Sinn Fein and bring them in by the back door." He said to us, "If you don't join the policing board now"—it was the last day on which we could join—"you will not be on it until there is an election." I said, "Thank you, but answer this question. If the IRA don't join it, will it have to wait for an election before it gets on the board?" He said, "That is right." However, that is not what is being negotiated now. We were brought in under false pretences. We were given a promise on which the IRA has not delivered and is not going to deliver. I say unequivocally that it will drive real Unionists out of the policing board. Perhaps that is what it wants to do.
  Helen Jackson: I respect the hon. Gentleman's party and his leadership of it. In what circumstances can the membership of the district policing boards include people who may have been in paramilitary organisations and are genuinely moving into politics for the future? Are there circumstances in which that is possible, or is it a case of "No. Never"?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It is "No. Never." Those people are not elected. They do not even have the support of others who are elected. The hon. Lady's Government promised us that the arrangements would work in a specific way, but they have gone back on their promise. In the Secretary of State's words, policing will not be complete until republicans are included on the board—but at what price? That is what the people of Northern Ireland want to know. They do not want the Government to issue the document. Instead, they want them to tell us frankly what concessions they made under the first document and what concessions they are likely to make under the second document.
  I am sorry that I have taken longer than I expected, but the matter goes to the root of our problem in Northern Ireland. We need proper policing. Unless people in all communities can go to bed at night knowing that they will not be attacked and, if they are attacked, that they will be protected, we will not have peace in Northern Ireland. Let us not have more whitewash of the IRA. Let us no longer tell people that quantum leaps have been taken on security, because it is not so. The Minister knows that. The facts surrounding the policing board also show that to be the case.
  Hon. Members need to pay attention to the problem. What would be their attitude if they had the same problem in their cities and constituencies? They should not be so quick to condemn Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, every one of whom lives under a threat. We have all been threatened. Many of us have been shot at and many of us are visited continually by people who say, "Mind your step." What can an individual do to mind his step in this situation? Hon. Members should ask themselves, "Would I like that to happen to my constituents?"

  633
  I salute the Roman Catholic people, especially those in my constituency, who have joined the new police service. We know what happened to one of the first who joined: the IRA attempted to blow him to smithereens outside his house. The IRA circulates the district with its literature that says, "Treat the new police service as you treated the RUC." What place has a party that does that in properly policing any civilised democratic community?
  4.59 pm
  (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the enormous strides towards a more peaceful society in Northern Ireland and the significant developments in policing that have been achieved in recent years; further welcomes the changes to policing proposed in the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill; in particular endorses the Government's view that the time is not yet right to allow unelected ex-prisoners to serve on district policing partnerships; and further welcomes the Government's openness in sharing with this House and the people of Northern Ireland its thinking on how this might be achieved in the future, in the context of acts of completion on the part of paramilitaries.".
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regrets that he is unable to be here to take part in the debate. He is engaged on business in America; otherwise he would certainly have been here to respond to the points made forcefully by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The hon. Gentleman's position, and that of his party, on these issues is well known and has been understood for many years. He articulates a point of view that has resonance in Northern Ireland, and I acknowledge that from the outset.
  I shall begin by reflecting on the changes in Northern Ireland in recent years. We have come a long way. Before the Belfast agreement, which I know the hon. Gentleman does not hold with, the people of Northern Ireland had endured 30 years of what were euphemistically called "the troubles". There were thousands of deaths, and thousands more lives were torn apart by the violence, sectarianism and community divisions that the hon. Gentleman articulately described. Yet after all that it was possible to reach an agreement about how to shape a better future—one in which former enemies could work together in partnership, in communities and in government. People from all sections of the community could put aside the intransigence and hatred of the past, and co-operate.
  Such a transformation required great leaps of faith from the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly, perhaps, from its political leaders. No one said that it would be easy, and the hon. Gentleman has described just how difficult it has been. I say to him, his party and the House that, as security Minister, I know better than almost anyone else in Government what the security difficulties have been. However, he says that things are as bad as they have ever been, and I suggest that that is not true.
  This year, 10 people have lost their lives as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland. That is 10 deaths too many and those lives were lost unnecessarily. If I were a relative of any of those
  634
  individuals, I would feel precisely the bitterness and grief described by the hon. Gentleman. However, if we go back 30 years, we find that 470 people lost their lives in one year alone. The number of people who die as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland has dramatically decreased, and that ought to be taken into account when we consider the difficult issues that face us in our attempt to maintain momentum in developing a more peaceful society.
  Although no one said that it would be easy, we believed that it would not be impossible. As the Prime Minister said on 17 October:
  "it was a brave undertaking and a vast one."
  It has taken courage and vision. Some of the steps have indeed been difficult, but there have been difficulties for all sides. The important point is that, despite those difficulties, there has been progress, and Northern Ireland today is a better, more peaceful place than it was before the agreement. It is not nirvana, and there is a long way to go, but it is a vast improvement on the situation that existed decades ago. Transformations can be slow but they do happen.
  The same is true of policing. I shall develop the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman and answer some of his points. As the Belfast agreement made clear, it is essential that the policing structures and arrangements are such that the Police Service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control, accountable both under the law for its actions and to the community that it serves and representative of the society that it polices. The hon. Gentleman will argue that the service has been professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, and I agree with much of what he says, but the Police Service's structures and arrangements—its accountability arrangements and representative nature—must be capable of gaining support throughout the whole community of Northern Ireland if it is to maintain law and order, including responding effectively to crime and to any terrorist threat or public order problem. A police service that cannot do so will fail to win public confidence and acceptance.
  Patten was clear about the scale of the challenge and the need to provide a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. That will take time and it will not be easy, but huge progress has already been made. I suspect that if we had said five years ago that we would one day have a policing board operating on a cross-community basis, or that 50 per cent. of recruits to the police would be Catholic, most people would not have believed us, yet that has been achieved. Even when the policing board was set up, there were those who expected it to fail. There were those who did not expect the board to be able to resolve the question of the badge or the uniforms—but it did. There were those who said that the board would never be able to agree on a new Chief Constable—but, again, it did. There were those who said that the board would not be able to agree a recommendation on the future of the full-time reserve—but it did.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim might argue that all those measures are unnecessary concessions to Sinn Fein and republicans, but I believe that they are a necessary part of the reforms to policing in Northern Ireland that will enable cross-community support to

  635
  develop, grow and strengthen. Since its first meeting just over a year ago, the policing board has quickly established itself as a powerful and credible organisation with a clear interest in holding the police to account and ensuring effective policing of the whole of Northern Ireland. Despite the enormity of the challenge facing them, board members have collectively shown themselves to be committed to creating the new beginning for policing envisaged by the agreement. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the board members, including the representatives of the Democratic Unionist party, for their commitment and the dedication that they have shown to their duties.
  The changes have not only affected the accountability structures for policing; the Police Service itself has undergone a series of significant changes. The determination of the service, from its leadership through the rank and file to the new recruits, to deliver the changes envisaged by Patten has been impressive. Collectively, the police have shown that it is possible to move forward, to create the new beginning and to forge new relationships with all sections of the community. That is the future for policing in Northern Ireland. It is a future grounded in effective policing, with a police service carrying out its professional remit without fear or favour.
  The results of current policing arrangements are tangible. In recent months, much of the sectarian violence at interfaces in north and east Belfast—I see the hon. Members who represent those constituencies in their seats—has been nullified through good police tactics, which have also yielded 124 persons charged. I acknowledge that that has come at a cost—437 police officers have been injured as a result of the violence at interfaces—but we should acknowledge the good, professional and capable work that the police have been doing to reduce the effects of that violence.
  Such successes in policing are not limited to the violence on our streets. The House might like to know that, since September, 24 loyalists and 11 republicans have been charged under the Terrorism Act 2000. Hon. Members who attack the arrangements for policing in Northern Ireland should consider that that has a knock-on effect, whether intended or not, on each and every police officer. Again and again, it brings policing into the political domain, which is not helpful for effective policing. The hon. Member for North Antrim would be quick to acknowledge that, over the past 30 years, many of those officers have faced some hideous challenges. They have lost their colleagues to terrorist attacks. They have themselves been wounded and scarred and seen their families threatened.
  Of course, their work today could never be described as easy. Policing in any community is a difficult challenge, but policing in Northern Ireland is a particularly difficult challenge. The individuals who provide that public service deserve our support and gratitude. I know that they have the support and gratitude of the hon. Gentleman, his party and the Ulster Unionist party, but they deserve the support and gratitude of all parties in Northern Ireland. They have gained the support of the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland and deserve Sinn Fein's support.
  636
  I agree with the Democratic Unionist motion in one respect—the implicit importance that it attaches to district policing partnerships. I should like to make that importance explicit. The Patten report was clear about the role of district policing partnership boards, and said:
  "The function of the DPPBs should he advisory, explanatory and consultative. The Boards should represent the consumer, voice the concerns of citizens and monitor the performance of the police in their districts. Like the Policing Board, the DPPBs should be encouraged to see policing in its widest sense, involving and consulting non-governmental organisations and community groups concerned with safety issues as well as statutory agencies."
  The district policing partnerships will play a vital role as a bridge between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the local community. I pay tribute to the role of the Northern Ireland Policing Board for working towards the establishment of district policing partnerships. I know that that process is well advanced—all the district councils have selected political members, and the first interviews for independent members have been held. Indeed, they were held in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Antrim. I understand that the district policing partnerships should be in a position to have their first meetings in February. I do not underestimate the impact that that will have on local communities. Councillors will be associated with a major new role, and I know they will play their part very conscientiously.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the hon. Lady forgotten that elected representatives on councils in Northern Ireland served on police boards and advisory boards in all council areas, and made a contribution that way?
  Jane Kennedy: Not at all, I have not forgotten. I am grateful for the contribution of councillors, but the new district policing partnerships will take on new responsibilities and will play an important role in developing an immediate focus and feedback between local communities and district commanders as they develop community policing in a style in which, we all hope, it can grow and flourish in Northern Ireland. I have not forgotten the contribution that has been made in the past.
  I am glad to note that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is continuing to develop the role of district command units and, in that regard, I have just referred to the role of the district commander and district policing partnerships. The service published a policy document on policing with the community last year, and an implementation plan is now being finalised for wider distribution in the very near future. It is timely, therefore, that one of the amendments to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 in the forthcoming legislation will reinforce the importance of policing with the community as a core policing principle.
  Let me consider the forthcoming policing measure. The motion is somewhat puzzling. More than a year has passed since the Government published the revised Patten implementation plan in August 2001. In it, we made a series of commitments to legislative change. The Government's aim is to develop a modern police service that is effective and widely accepted throughout the society that it serves. The changes for which the draft clauses provide will achieve that.
  Some hon. Members' reactions to last week's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disappointed me, but it would not be the first time that

  637
  I had been disappointed in my life in politics. The draft clauses that we published last week contained little that was new. They focused on the commitments in the revised implementation plan and some specific points that were included at the request of the board, on which the Democratic Unionist party has three seats, in the context of the recent review of policing arrangements. All the issues were discussed in the context of the policing review. Again, I pay tribute to all those who contributed to the review, including the DUP.
  The substance of the announcement was therefore yesterday's news. It simply set out the way in which the Government intended to deal with the commitments in legislative terms. Some hon. Members have tried to focus attention on the additional text for consideration that was published with the draft clauses. The hon. Member for North Antrim drew specific attention to it. Although I am the first to recognise that some of the issues are sensitive for many people in Northern Ireland, especially the question of whether former prisoners should be allowed to apply for appointments on district policing partnerships—there are different views throughout the House on the subject—its consideration is yesterday's news or even older.
  Lady Hermon: I appreciate that the Government are wedded to implementing the Patten report in full. Can the Minister pinpoint the recommendation in Patten for convicted terrorists to sit on district policing partnerships?
  Jane Kennedy: We undertook to review the question as a subject that emerged from the discussions at Weston Park. We published our intentions in August 2001.
  In publishing two separate texts, we tried to be clear and open to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland on the way in which we would take the matter forward. My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we would do that only in the context of the acts of completion that we discussed last week and that the hon. Member for North Antrim debated with the Prime Minister.
  David Burnside: I thank the Minister for confirming through her lack of response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that the recommendation was not in the Patten report. Will she also confirm that there was no agreement with the Ulster Unionist party on those proposals at Weston Park?
  Jane Kennedy: We made commitments at Weston Park and we believe that it is essential that we honour them if we are to fulfil our aim of developing a police service in Northern Ireland that is effective, efficient and widely accepted by all the communities.
  David Burnside: All except the Ulster Unionists.
  Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his point later. I appreciate—
  Mr. Andrew Hunter rose—
  Mr. Hugo Swire rose
  Jane Kennedy: Let me make the point that I appreciate the sensitivity of the issues for many in Northern Ireland. That applies especially to the question of the former prisoners. I am sure that we will debate it at length because it is such a matter of principle. However, the proposal is not new. In publishing two separate texts, we sought to draw the sting from the argument and avoid the accusation that we were doing a secret deal and planning to act secretly and in private. The proposal is published and hon. Members can read the way in which we would deal with the matter in the right circumstances.
  Mr. Hunter: With respect, this is not just a matter for the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) to mention in his speech. Do the Government accept that the Ulster Unionist party agreed to the proposition that they are putting forward? What is the Government's understanding of the UUP's position?
  Jane Kennedy: I think that the UUP will make its position clear.
  Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that there were no discussions at Weston Park that could lead to the possibility of an amnesty for prisoners on the run, or of that category of people being allowed to serve on policing boards in future?
  Jane Kennedy: No, there were not, and if the hon. Gentleman reads the implementation plan, he will see that we also undertook to examine how we might resolve this issue. Everything that we have published in the recent draft clauses and in the text for consideration has grown out of that implementation plan. He will have noted that there is nothing in those texts that deals with those deemed to be on the run; that is a separate issue, which we are discussing and considering separately.
  During the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 my noble Friend Lord Falconer made it clear in defending the current bar on ex-prisoners joining the district policing partnerships that it was the Government's hope that the sensitivities surrounding this issue would eventually subside. Clearly, that is not the case at the moment, but we will discuss the issue at length as we debate the legislation.
  Lady Hermon: As regards timing, it ill behoves the Government to table this amendment at this time, given that we have just had a series of very serious breaches of security, relating to the jurisdiction not only of Colombia but of the Republic of Ireland, and to Castlereagh, as well as the discovery of a serious spy ring at the heart of government in the Northern Ireland Office. Given that series of events, this is not the right time to introduce these proposals.
  Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. When we discussed these issues at Weston Park, we committed to considering this matter. Our consideration has covered both how the issues might be dealt with and whether the time is right to do so, which is the point that she has just made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not yet persuaded that the time is right to introduce changes in these areas, and it is precisely for that reason that we have published

  639
  the text separately. We have draft clauses that we hope will form the basis of a Bill, and separate texts that we may consider taking forward. We are not, however, going to take them forward at this time.
  Mr. McCabe: Will my hon. Friend explain how it can be tolerable for an ex-prisoner who renounces violence to stand for, and be elected to, the Assembly—and, perhaps, at some point, be responsible for policing in Northern Ireland—when it can never be tolerable for such a person to sit on a district policing partnership?
  Jane Kennedy: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, no less, made it clear that the concept of Sinn Fein or of former republican prisoners participating in policing while maintaining a private army was absurd. We could not be clearer than that. It is within that context that we are having this debate, notwithstanding all the sensitivities that it causes to arise.
  Helen Jackson: This is the crux of the matter. Will the Minister accept that the tabling of this motion puts the onus back on to members of Sinn Fein to include themselves—in the words of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in reply to my earlier intervention—and to take the crucial final steps towards moving into politics?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct what the hon. Lady has said? At that stage, I was quoting the Secretary of State and those were not my words, but his. I made that absolutely clear. I do not want her to put the Secretary of State's words in my mouth. I shall talk to her outside the Door and tell her why, if she wants to know.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has answered the point.
  Jane Kennedy: Moving swiftly on, an editorial in the Belfast Telegraph last week said
  "when the guns have been silenced for good, anything is possible."
  The political scene in Northern Ireland has already changed almost beyond recognition, and our predecessors in the House may not have believed that much of what has happened would be possible. Having seen so much change, I believe that the House needs to retain an open mind about what may be possible in future. Just because something seems unlikely to any of us as individuals does not mean that it is impossible. We narrow our horizons and limit society's scope for development and progress if we close our minds to such possibilities.
  With that in mind, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I concluded that it would be right to show the republican movement in particular, but also the rest of society in Northern Ireland, how we might seek to achieve legislative change in future, in the context of the acts of completion envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Custom house in Belfast in October.
  By publishing the texts in such a way, we can be completely open and transparent with the House and with the people of Northern Ireland. We can open up the debate to focus on what checks and balances would be
  640
  needed to ensure that those changes could take effect without undue risk to policing. These are not easy issues, and without substantive debate with the elected representatives sitting in the House and more generally, we cannot be sure of having explored every avenue and having put in place all the necessary checks.
  Only those who fear the change to a truly peaceful and democratic future for Northern Ireland have anything to lose from that debate taking place openly, for, in the current climate, those clauses remain hypothetical proposals. The basis on which they could become reality relates to the context of acts of completion in a situation where the men of violence have turned their back on the past in such a way as to give everyone satisfaction and confidence, as the hon. Member for North Antrim said in respect of his reply from the Prime Minister.
  It may be, of course, that such a day never comes, but the people of Northern Ireland have achieved so much in the past few years that pessimism is misplaced and optimism about the future essential. That does not mean that we should either be foolhardy or ignore the risks, but it does mean that we should not shut the door to the possibilities. Therefore, I believe strongly that it is important for the debate on the text to take place.
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues today; I know that we shall have many more opportunities in the weeks and months ahead. I hope that the hon. Member for North Antrim accepts that we discount neither the views that he expresses nor, indeed, the views of any of those in his party. We acknowledge the position that they take, and they are perfectly entitled to hold such a view.
  I hope that hon. Members take the opportunity to focus on the substance of the proposals rather than use them simply for political point scoring. The hon. Member for North Antrim should not assume that only Northern Ireland Members have an interest in those matters. He well knows that Members representing seats in England and Wales have constituents who were directly affected by the violence of the past. It matters to us all that these big issues are resolved. The future of Northern Ireland's policing is worth our serious consideration, and I know that it will receive serious consideration here today.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Before I say anything else, let me deal with the issue of Weston Park. The Minister ought to know—but if she does not, let me tell her very straight—that Weston Park, and the so-called agreements that the Government claim to have reached at that meeting, have absolutely no parliamentary or legislative authority or endorsement whatever. The Government did not allow the House to debate those matters or to vote on them; they did not even have the courage or the forthrightness to make a statement about the meeting. There is therefore not the slightest even moral commitment to those agreements on the part of any Member, apart from Ministers if they so will it.
  The Minister has revealed that she does not even know whether one of the parties that took part in the Weston Park meeting is a party to one of the so-called agreements. That makes clear beyond peradventure that the word "agreement" is thoroughly inappropriate in this context, and that the Government are deluding themselves in a way that I find rather troubling.

  641
  Having said that, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) for initiating a debate on a crucial subject in Government time. The subject is crucial for at least two reasons. Northern Ireland is the part of the United Kingdom in which public order is most at risk, most frequently at risk and most consistently at risk; and, as we all know, the whole issue of policing is a major part of the peace process and of the necessary talks that we all hope will lead to a definitive settlement in Northern Ireland.
  I felt that much of what was said by the hon. Member for North Antrim was excessively pessimistic and negative. I agree with the Minister that he suggested that nothing had improved since 1998, which is not warranted by the facts. I also felt, however, that—in the best traditions of the Government over the past few years and months, and certainly over the past few months during which I have played my current role—the Minister was excessively sanguine. I know that she does not want to be complacent. From time to time she says—with, I am sure, complete sincerity—that she has no intention of allowing herself to be complacent. However, by reciting the particularly sanguine mantra that she has recited on many occasions, she puts herself in great danger of inducing unjustified euphoria in herself or in her ministerial colleagues.
  The picture is mixed. Some things have gone surprisingly well in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with what the Minister said about the policing board, which is a shining example of that. I touch wood, as I do of necessity when at the Dispatch Box, but none of us could have expected the board to work as well as it has so far. It is encouraging that it got to work so rapidly and in such a businesslike fashion. It is also encouraging that it was able to resolve issues that, although largely symbolic, were nevertheless difficult—the uniform and cap badge, and the appointment of a new Chief Constable.
  Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential for the proposed policing legislation not to undermine the central importance of the board, which is working so well? In particular, does he agree that it should not be undermined by an extension of the police ombudsman's powers?
  Mr. Davies: I agree with the general principle. I will not go into the details of the legislation today because this is a consultation period and we are still waiting for the Constantine report, which as far as I know has not yet been completed. It was supposed to be delivered at the beginning of December, but I have not seen it.
  I had intended to meet members of a number of relevant organisations in Northern Ireland today, but was unable to do so because of the debate. They include the chief constable, the policing board and the Police Federation. Although I have some ideas about what the hon. Lady has said and what the Government have proposed, I think it would be discourteous to make any pronouncement on behalf of the official Opposition without listening—in confidence and informally, of course—to what those important stakeholders in the whole process might have to say.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Police Ombudsman—who is a woman—will be
  642
  allowed to go backwards, or is she going to move forward? Our worry is that, under the proposals, it seems that she will have powers that can take her back into the past, whereas she should be dealing only with the present and the future.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman again invites me down a long road, but I will not go down it now. However, I should say, since he has given me the opportunity to do so, that I admire the way in which the Ombudsman has tackled her task. She has already developed a reputation for independence in Northern Ireland. That is a great asset—in fact, it is an indispensable characteristic for the proper discharge of that function.
  Mr. John Hume: I want to repeat what has been said. The time has come to leave the past behind us, because if we keep on dragging it up, we keep on dragging up the problem. We should therefore look to building a new future together, but in leaving behind the past as it relates to the behaviour of the Unionist parties, and so forth, we should do the same in relation to all behaviour, and build a new future together.
  Mr. Davies: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman—whatever we do, we must do it even-handedly and fairly. He has heard me use those two terms time and again in the past year, and we must always be reminded of them, but unfortunately they have sometimes been forgotten in many contexts. I should say that I am struck whenever there is agreement between himself and the hon. Member for North Antrim. It would be a brave man in Northern Ireland politics who wanted to take on both of the hon. Gentlemen on a particular matter.
  There are other matters that have gone favourably. In particular, I want to congratulate all concerned in the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the way in which the new recruitment programme has proceeded. That we should over-ride normal human rights criteria by establishing a quota for the two religious categories in recruiting to the Police Service of Northern Ireland is of course an anomaly. However, the Opposition strongly endorse the need—temporarily, at least—for that anomaly, so that we can try to get away from the distortions that we inherit from the past.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I shall, but if the hon. Lady will forgive me I shall not do so too frequently as I do not want to take up too much time.
  Lady Hermon: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. I understand that the Conservative party is in fact a pro-agreement party. The agreement twice makes provision for guaranteeing equality of opportunity, irrespective of religion. Why is policing legislation allowed to override the agreement by permitting religious discrimination in the recruitment of police officers?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady is absolutely right—the Conservative party very much supports the Belfast agreement. She is a distinguished lawyer, and I thought that she would try to catch me out on this particular

  643
  inconsistency. However, I thought that I answered the point before she intervened, by acknowledging that the position is anomalous. If she wants to tell me that I am being illogical, she will win the argument. Unfortunately, to solve practical problems in life one sometimes has to accept anomalies and contradictions. Where a choice exists between two courses of action, neither of which is entirely logical or desirable in itself on first principles, one has to make a pragmatic judgment such as the one that I have set out. I should emphasise that, in doing so, it is very important to be aware that such an anomaly exists, and that a distortion is being introduced to counterbalance a worse one; one must not try to pretend that it is something other than a distortion or an anomaly. In any event, the provision is justified only over a temporary period; that is the basis on which it has been introduced, and on which we support it.
  Some aspects of Northern Ireland policing have not been going so well, however. The Minister, with a tendency towards a certain euphoria in these matters, skated over these issues. I am sorry that she did because she has fundamental responsibility for them, and I know that she conducts her responsibilities with enormous conscientiousness. She is very much aware of the facts; she probably genuinely worries about them every night and morning, but she does not want to come before the House of Commons—it would be contrary to the whole culture of new Labour to do so—and set out the facts, which are uncomfortable and disturbing.
  The fact is that police numbers are badly down. The Patten report provided for a police force of 7,500 men and women on the assumption of the establishment of peace and normality in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady will have the exact figures—I do not—but the regular force in Northern Ireland is less than 7,000. That is a matter of considerable concern, and for the hon. Lady not to mention it was slightly artificial. Of course, we have a full-time police reserve, and I congratulate the Government on doing what we pressed them to do for months in renewing the contracts of the full-time police reserve when they came up in September. However, that only gives us a three-year time scale and it is very important to look forward to ensuring that the policing numbers in Northern Ireland are sufficient to meet the tasks that are, sadly, much greater and more formidable than Patten assumed they would be four and a half years after the agreement.
  Morale still appears to be low in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I hope that I am wrong here and that the Minister can give me the right figure, but, according to newspaper reports, on average one man or women in ten in the PSNI reports sick at any one time. If so, it is very worrying, and I hope that something can be done about it.
  The Minister is also keenly aware of the constant threat of disorder and intermittent violence in inner-city areas in Northern Ireland, particularly Belfast. I am thinking particularly of Short Strand and west and north Belfast. Sometimes one thinks that the various measures taken to de-escalate the violence are working, but suddenly there is the disappointment of another outbreak. That is very worrying. I do not want to go into this in too much detail, but I should like to say something in public that I have already said to the Minister in private and to others in Northern Ireland—
  644
  the House will appreciate who I might be speaking to on these matters. It is important that we make it a matter of urgency greatly to increase the number of CCTV cameras in inner-city areas in Northern Ireland.
  Against this variegated background, which has both light and shade, the question is what the Government are doing about policing. They have been behaving very erratically. Following the initial consultation on the Patten report two years ago, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is not in his place this afternoon, went out of his way to reassure Unionists. In his statement to the House of 19 January 2000, the right hon. Gentleman specifically downgraded the role of the district policing partnerships and deferred any decision on giving them powers to raise money to buy in additional policing services, which was in the original Patten report. In the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the right hon. Gentleman then introduced a number of safeguards in the relationship between the policing board and the chief constable to ensure that operational independence would be preserved. In an effort to reassure Unionists, he also introduced the disqualification on those with criminal convictions from serving as independent members of DPPs.
  Those are two areas in which the Government now propose to make changes in the reverse direction. They plan to reduce the grounds on which the chief constable can appeal to the Secretary of State to block reports and inquiries and to make it easier for the policing board to initiate such inquiries. The motion before the House makes it clear that the Government intend, subject to certain provisos, to relax the disqualification against convicted terrorists serving as independent members of DPPs.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I know that he has given way on a number of occasions, so I will keep this brief. Are there are circumstances in which he would allow convicted former terrorists to take part in local police partnerships, given that the Government have already made a commitment that the peace process must be utterly completed before that goes ahead? In those circumstances, would he accept that such a change should be made at some point in the future?
  Mr. Davies: I think that I have had slightly more experience of conducting negotiations than the people who are currently responsible for Government policy. If we are going into wider negotiations with a view to reaching a comprehensive and timetabled settlement, as I have been urging on the Government for a long time, it is not sensible to put all one's cards on the table in advance. It is much more sensible to ensure that one puts one's cards on the table only when others are doing the same. There is something fundamentally wrong with the tactics pursued by Members on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his attendance at and participation in debates on Northern Ireland, which I welcome, so he knows that I have been developing my critique for a year. Indeed, the Government may even have accepted certain aspects of it—although they are not likely to give me any credit. However, there seems to have been some partial acceptance and I shall say a little more about tactics later in my speech.

  645
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart should get a good mark from the Whips because he cleverly intervened just as I was drawing attention to the most embarrassing aspect of the Government's behaviour—the blatant contradiction between the policing policies adopted by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool only two years ago and those that the Government are currently proposing. There has been a complete U-turn.
  The Minister will recall that when the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 was going through the House, the Government were constantly accused by nationalists of resiling from Patten in order to propitiate the Unionists. However, with this U-turn, the Government are being accused by Unionists of the contrary—of resiling from the Act to appease nationalists. If that is not contradictory, I do not know what is.
  I warn the Government against proceeding in that fashion because they are underestimating the intelligence of the people with whom they are dealing. The Government should not continue to underestimate the intelligence of the public as regards any aspect of policy and governance anywhere in the United Kingdom, even though they do so constantly, but they make a great mistake in doing so in Northern Ireland—as I am sure that the Minister, privately, realises already. The political intelligence of people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland is especially acute, because politics is an existential matter and people follow it extremely carefully.
  I hesitate to make my next point, although it needs to be said: people on both sides in Northern Ireland have an especially clear vision of history going back over many centuries. They are extremely conscious of their history as they see it. When one is presented with two different accounts of the history of the same place, it is often difficult to relate them. It is like looking at a mountain from opposite sides; one has to remind oneself that it is the same mountain.
  A feature of those readings of history is that in both cases there is a story of endless trickery or betrayals—or attempted trickery or betrayals—by the British. It is thus not very clever of the Government to do something that further undermines confidence in their straightforwardness or consistency.
  The Government should carefully think through their policies. They will not get away with easy card-shuffling tricks when they are dealing with people in Northern Ireland, as they should know by now.
  I do not believe for a moment that the Government have any intention of being duplicitous. They do not want to be two-faced, but they are in a frightful muddle because they have been going about the peace process in entirely the wrong way.
  The current muddle is only part and parcel of the general muddle that the Government have got themselves into over the peace process. The trouble is that they have used a tactic of making unilateral concessions and trying to do partial deals with one party, and then finding that they have upset another party, then trying to appease the others and then—my goodness—finding that someone else has been left out
  646
  and needs another favour, and so on. That is a hopeless way of conducting the peace process, but it is exactly what has happened over the past four and a half years, and it is a major reason why we have failed to make the progress that could have been expected following the Belfast agreement.
  Yet again, I beg the Government to rethink and to consider once again the need for interlinkage. The Minister of State has heard this from me many times before. No one in Northern Ireland will make a step forward without knowing what portion of the total price to he paid that move represents, what others will do in return, and by when, and what will happen if the commitments are not fulfilled. Everyone has to see the end-game and be part of a comprehensive deal, or we will have no definitive settlement.
  That is why partial proposals on individual aspects are a mistake. It would be far better for the Government to keep their cards close to their chest and hold discussions with all parties to find an agreement, which of course will never be completely satisfactory to everyone, but which they could all live with on a contingency basis. If I were Secretary of State, that is the point at which I would define my proposals, and not before.
  Jane Kennedy: When we undertook to examine how we could deal with the question of the disqualification from joining DPPs applying to former prisoners, it was in the context that Sinn Fein would support the new beginning to policing, but it failed to do that. We are now discussing a new set of circumstances in which it would not only support that new beginning but take the other enormous steps that we have debated. We believe that, in that context, it would be entirely appropriate to discuss the changes to legislation that we have proposed.
  Mr. Davies: Northern Ireland Office Ministers have demonstrated in recent weeks that they understand some interlinkage and contingency that are essential in this process, and there is no doubt that the way in which they have proposed changing the legislation is far better than the way in which they would have done it just a few months ago. To that extent, they have learned the lessons of the disappointments of the past four and a half years, and of course I welcome that.
  The Secretary of State was clearly in a difficult position, because the Government's legislative programme was in place before he assumed his new responsibilities. It would have been difficult for him to go back to first base, although that might have been desirable. He has presented a Bill with some proposals on policing, while the Government are publicising other proposals so that people can discuss them and understand that they might be enacted if certain conditions are fulfilled—they are contingent on certain "acts of completion" by Sinn Fein.
  I welcome that element of conditionality and contingency, which is exactly what I have been calling for for a year. Congratulations. I am very happy. However, it is unfortunate that this is only a partial learning of the lesson. If the Minister of State thinks through the logic of what she and her colleagues have done, she will see that everything should have been contingent, because there are so many issues involved,

  647
  quite apart from policing, including decommissioning, the military presence in Northern Ireland and the restoration of the institutions in Stormont. Those issues are all linked and it would be a frightful mistake to take any one element and say that we can deal with it separately or legislate on it in advance, before a comprehensive settlement is put together. That would be to limit the Government's flexibility and give away some of their limited currency for nothing in return, which is a foolish tactic in any context. Reducing flexibility would also make it harder for other parties to come up with imaginative solutions.
  In my view, the Government are about a quarter of the way in the right direction on tactics after four and a half years. I do not know whether that is an encouraging situation, although it is certainly more encouraging than if there had been no progress at all. It is still a long way from the concerted, strategic thinking that we need to handle a peace process as complicated and as important as the one that we have in Northern Ireland.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. John Hume: I entirely agree with the Government's assertion in the amendment that we have made substantial progress in creating peace on our streets. There is no doubt that the atmosphere is totally transformed from what it was a few years ago, but a 300-year quarrel—the past 30 years have been about the worst—is not healed in a week or a fortnight. There is no instant solution; there is a healing process, and what is required is a framework for that process. We have that in the Good Friday agreement. The healing process is under way, and there is no doubt about that. For the first time in our history—the importance of this has been underestimated—the people of Ireland as a whole, north and south—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Aha.
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: Not again.
  Mr. Hume: Yes, this is important. This is only the second time I have said this, and the hon. Members did not even bother to listen to me the first time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hume: Yes, there should be order over there.
  For the first time ever, the people of the north and the south voted overwhelmingly on how they wished to live together. It is the duty of all true democrats throughout Ireland to implement the will of the people. That vote sent a clear message to the IRA. Historically, it has always said that it is acting in the name of the Irish people. If it now wants to do that, there must be a complete and absolute end to its violence, which it is clearly working towards, and more importantly, it must end its existence as a paramilitary organisation and devote its energies to building a new and peaceful society. [Interruption.]
  That vote also sent out a challenge to Unionists who oppose the agreement because, also for the first time in history, the whole of nationalist Ireland accepts the
  648
  principle of consent, which is a fundamental principle of Unionism: that there can be no change in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people. [Interruption.] It is no good saying that the principle of consent works only when one agrees with it. If the Good Friday agreement, which the people voted for, is brought down, it will be necessary for the two Governments to work together alone to solve the problem—and where might that leave the Unionists? It is the duty of all of us to implement the will of the people, and that means implementing the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects.
  The first principle of the agreement is respect for difference, and who can disagree with that? There is no victory for either side in the agreement; there is total respect for both identities. The second principle involves institutions that respect those differences—a proportionally elected Assembly, and all sections are there, and a proportionally elected Government in Northern Ireland, and all sections are there.
  The third principle—the healing process—is that the representatives of all sections should work together in our common interests, which does not involve waving flags at one another, but the real politics: social and economic development and, as I always say, spilling our sweat together, not our blood. As we work together, we will break down the barriers of the past and a new society will evolve based on agreement and respect for difference. That is the challenge that faces all people who truly want to solve this problem, but those who want to play Rangers versus Celtic matches all the time and are looking for victory will never solve anything by continuing down the road that they are taking.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and I wish to draw attention to the loss of morale that has occurred in the Police Service of Northern Ireland in very recent years, but before I do so I want to respond to some of the issues raised regarding the statistics on violence.
  The Minister referred to the level of violence that existed in the early 1970s. I often hear Government spokespersons, from the Prime Minister downwards, referring to the vast improvement that there has been in Northern Ireland, and they compare it to the early 1970s. With that comparison, they will get no disagreement from us. More than 400 people were killed in the early 1970s and significantly fewer people are being killed now, but the point is that the number of people being killed in the middle 1990s was declining year on year, until we had the Belfast agreement.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Would the hon. Gentleman contradict the figures that show that, in the three years leading up to the signing of the Good Friday agreement, 343 people lost their lives as a result of terrorist activities and that, in the three years following that agreement, the figure was 53?
  Mr. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The figures from the chief constable's report show that, in each of the three years before the agreement and the three years since, the statistics in

  649
  relation to bombings, shootings, kidnappings and explosives all show not just marginal increases of 5, 10 or 20 per cent., but increases of 100 per cent. and, in some cases, 300 per cent., so violence is increasing when compared with the period immediately before the agreement.
  I want to make it clear that this is a comparison not of Northern Ireland in 2002 with Northern Ireland in 1972, but of Northern Ireland today with Northern Ireland immediately before the Belfast agreement. With that comparison, there should be no dispute and no argument. The statistics show that more people are being injured and shot, that more bombs are being planted and that more violence is occurring now than before the agreement. There ought to be no dispute or argument about that.
  I now want to move on to police morale. The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to police recruitment, and I have to raise that issue again. Whenever we in Northern Ireland have a merit principle for police recruitment, every member of each law-abiding community is quite content and is prepared to support that recruitment principle because it is based on merit. So the best-qualified people, irrespective of their religion or politics, are recruited to become police officers to combat crime. Unfortunately, because of the Government's insistence on the 50:50 rule, we are not getting that. Instead, hundreds of people from the Unionist community who are suitably qualified, law abiding and want a career in policing are being told that they cannot have that career because of their religion. That is abominable, and it ought to be detested and opposed by every Member.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when I asked that very question during Northern Ireland questions last week, the Minister did not give the answer that I was looking for: specifically how she and the Government would address the very injustice that the hon. Gentleman describes?
  Mr. Campbell: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and it is not before time that the Government should address that specific point. The rule cannot be defended or justified. Every aspect of common law and any approach to the merit principle would suggest that the 50:50 rule must be abandoned.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the chief constable is having difficulty in getting recruits from the United Kingdom because of the 50:50 rule? He told me that personally when I met him with my party.
  Mr. Campbell: Yes, the lack of recruits is precisely part of the problem in Northern Ireland. Part of the reason that criminal activity has increased is that fewer police officers are available on the ground, because hundreds of suitable applicants are being told that they are not acceptable purely on the ground of their religion. That is utterly reprehensible.
  Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: I will give way once more.
  Mr. McCabe: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I shall be very brief. I follow
  650
  his objections to the recruitment policy, but what would be his answer to the third report from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which pointed out the problems of religious imbalance and said:
  "without some radical change in the force"—
  it was 1997–98, so the reference was to the RUC—
  "it will take a generation to redress the religious imbalance."?
  How would the hon. Gentleman tackle the issue if not by this approach?
  Mr. Campbell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is simple: by the full implementation of the merit principle, so that every member of the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland and every member of the Protestant community in Northern Ireland who wants a career in policing can understand, when they complete their application forms, that their religious persuasion will play no part in their rejection or acceptance as police recruits, but that that will depend only on their ability to do the job.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: No, I am afraid that I will not give way any more.
  My answer would be the full implementation of the merit principle and that principle only. That might involve taking longer to redress the balance, but at least the entire community could be confident that people were being selected entirely on the grounds of their ability and merit.
  I now want to move on to some other matters that the Government appear to be prepared to contemplate today. We have included the integrity of policing in our motion. Her Majesty's Government's ongoing discussions with those who represent fully armed terror give no grounds for confidence in the Unionist community that the integrity of policing will be re-established having been undermined as a result of low morale, low numbers, 50:50 recruitment and increasing violence. We are hearing continuous rumours about the on-the-runs and the propositions being hinted at there. The lives of hundreds of prison officers are in jeopardy. They have been visited by the police and told that their names were found on computer files located in the spy ring at Stormont affair. Those people are in fear of their lives as a result of this entire scenario.
  In concluding my remarks, I have to refer to the issue of Weston Park, which has been raised several times. The Minister was approached and was asked several times to give her view regarding agreements entered into as a result of the negotiations at Weston Park. It would appear that, at the second time of asking, she was unable to confirm or deny which parties were party to the agreements that have flown from it. I remind the House that it was as a result of agreements at Weston Park that the institutions were re-established after they had been suspended on a previous occasion. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was not only party to but benefited from that reinstatement. At the time of Weston Park, when the discussions about policing and on-the-runs were ongoing, not only were we told by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that issues in relation to other substantive points would not

  651
  be brought to a conclusion, but that one issue, and one issue only, was on the table at Weston Park—decommissioning.
  Unfortunately, we now see the reality of what has happened as a result of Weston Park and the current scenario in which Unionist communities across Northern Ireland are completely opposed to the implementation of the Belfast agreement because of what they see happening to the police. The police are supposed to represent all of the community, and they can do so if and when the Government restore the integrity that the Royal Ulster Constabulary once had, which has been lost as a result of the many decisions that have been taken by the Government, both inside and outside the House.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: When I heard the opening remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), I wondered whether he was rehearsing a broadcast as we move towards election time. It reminded me of the many times that I saw him on television when I was a youngster growing up in Port Glasgow. He always displayed the same characteristics—leaping from rally to rally with his bowler hat and his flowing sash, always threatening to bring down an institution and always claiming no surrender.
  Listening to him today, although I do not intend my comments to be rude, I was saddened that, after all this time, and after all the loss that has occurred, his position has not changed at all. I find it distressing that he recognises no difference between the hideous killings that occurred throughout the 1970s and 1980s and the current position. I recognise that there is a problem with crime in Northern Ireland, and it strikes me that some of the problems that we witness currently have surfaced since the agreement, as the level of real, organised crime, which has posed as something else in the past, is now being exposed. We should have common cause in wanting to tackle that. The hon. Gentleman has done us no favours, however, in his lack of movement today.
  I wonder, when I listen to the hon. Gentleman, whether he would recognise an "act of completion" if it fell before him. I was brought up in the Presbyterian tradition, too, but I was brought up to believe that forgiveness is part of the system and that human beings can change. I wonder whether he recognises that.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman talks about recognising an "act of completion". Will he define "act of completion"? The Prime Minister will not define it, and the Minister refused to define it at Question Time last week.
  Mr. McCabe: I am referring to "acts of completion", and my assumption is that they take more than a single step. I realise that the hon. Gentleman and I may not share that viewpoint, but if we want to move forward, we may have to be prepared to accept that. That seems a basic point.
  In terms of the changes about which we heard in policing partnerships and the board, I thought that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) perhaps did the Social Democratic and Labour party a
  652
  disservice, as it strikes me that the Government may have changed their position. I would be the first to concede that there has been a change in the position enunciated previously by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). The SDLP now seems to be playing an active role in the policing board. If, through its active and genuine participation, it has been able to suggest changes that will improve the situation, we should welcome that. I would not regard that not as an outrageous 180° U-turn, but as the kind of process for which we should aim, in which people involve and include themselves. If they can suggest changes on the basis of that behaviour, I would welcome it.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I do not think that that is outrageous, and I did not use that term or imply that. I merely think two things. First, it is a U-turn, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has recognised that. Secondly, for the reason that I mentioned, it is tactically inept and pragmatically undesirable.
  Mr. McCabe: We will have to disagree on both counts. I do not think that a change automatically signals a U-turn, and I do not agree that it is inept to accommodate change when people are playing a useful participative role. The kind of politics in which I believe suggests that when people are prepared to participate and play a useful and constructive role, we should listen to them and take them on board. I do not see anything inept about that. Indeed, were more people in the hon. Gentleman's party prepared to behave in that way, there might not be so few of them present in the Chamber, and so few of them in Parliament generally.
  The lesson that Sinn Fein should take from the behaviour of the SDLP is that a road exists, if it is prepared to recognise it. It should follow a similar route. It should be prepared to make it clear that it is totally committed to the democratic process and wants to make the policing arrangements work—I am speaking of Sinn Fein as a party. At that point, if Sinn Fein was prepared to participate in the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland, I would welcome that, as I would see it as a significant step forward.
  In terms of the wider question of the arrangements with regard to other groups and paramilitary groups, the position is straightforward. It has been made clear that those groups will not be able to participate in any shape or form until we have had the essential "acts of completion". I would certainly include in those a complete declaration that the war is over—
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Which has been made.
  Mr. McCabe: I would like the handing-in of weapons and an end to the violence, too.
  David Burnside: If there are convictions of members of Sinn Fein in relation to Colombia, Castlereagh or the present investigation into the spy ring, does that exclude it from the Executive or district policing partnerships?
  Mr. McCabe: Given that none of those matters has yet been determined, it would not advance the situation were I to speculate on it.
  To return to what I was saying, there is hope if we adopt an open approach. I am a little bemused by the Democratic Unionist party position—I confess that I always have been, so that is not new for me. As I understand it, however, the DUP is committed to devolution, although it has a tendency to destroy any institution that offers that way forward. In a funny way, it is the mirror image of Sinn Fein, because it is the party that wants to be half-in, half-out. It does not want to take part in any of the broad round-table talks in which movement might occur across the board—it wants back-door meetings with the Prime Minister and others to see if it can advance its case. I do not understand exactly what its problem is. It seems to me that it could make a commitment. It may wish to spend its time in this debate looking for a narrow definition of "acts of completion", but it could follow the Prime Minister's other statement. It could give the commitment that it is in favour of making the institutions secure and stable. For a party that believes in devolution, that would be an advance on its current position.
  On the policing arrangements, I am surprised that the police do not get more credit for what they have achieved. The new chief constable attended the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently, and my impression is that he has made a first-rate start. He has shown his capacity to deal with both sides. Whether he is dealing with loyalists posing as gangsters or the other way round or whether he is dealing with republican spies, the chap has shown us that he is prepared to do what he was put there to do. We should congratulate him on that.
  We should also be pleased by the significant rise in Catholic recruitment to the Police Service. The Select Committee was right to say that that was a major impediment to the performance of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Unless measures are taken to tackle that problem, it will take a generation for change to take place. As in keeping with other things that the DUP party would like, I recognise that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) would rather wait a generation for change to take place, but we do not have that time.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee found that the main cause of low Catholic recruitment to what was the RUC was the intimidation of Catholic families and Catholic members of the police force? If that intimidation were to be eradicated and reduced, that, rather than discriminatory recruitment policies, would encourage young Catholics to come forward.
  Mr. McCabe: It is true that intimidation was a significant factor, but I do not recall it being the only one. It is also true that the Committee concluded that it probably was not advisable to wait a generation for change. That point must be taken on board.
  I want to return to the problem of ex-prisoners. It is pretty clear that such people could not join the district policing partnerships at the present time. However, my understanding is that that is not what is on offer.
  654
  What is on offer is the possibility that, at some point in the future, ex-prisoners may be allowed to join the policing arrangements. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Minister, if we can tolerate ex-prisoners standing for the Assembly and perhaps being part of the Executive if they clearly dissociate themselves from violence and paramilitary means, I can certainly envisage a situation in which ex-prisoners could also play a part in the policing arrangements.
  I was bemused by what the hon. Member for North Antrim said about the current legislation, but my understanding is that it requires political and independent members of the district policing partnership to hold office until the next local elections, which are scheduled for May 2005. I therefore do not understand how the change that he fears could occur. There is some provision for additional appointments to be made to the Belfast board, but that is primarily because of issues that relate to the volume of work. The central anxiety may have been exaggerated.
  Mr. Hunter: We have sex registers for paedophiles. Their offences are so hideous that they should be remembered. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman explain why there should not be a comparable system for former terrorists who have committed equally horrific crimes?
  Mr. McCabe: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has good reason to have strong feelings on this subject. However, if we were to keep registers of all the former terrorists who go on to play a constructive role in active politics across the globe, some people whom we now welcome here as statesmen would not get to play any role in politics whatever. We must be prepared to move on. When people are willing to renounce violence and to use exclusively democratic means, I am prepared to recognise that, and I hope that most people would, too. I would like to see the day when the Assembly and the Executive have the power to control policing in Northern Ireland. That is the day when the people of Northern Ireland will embrace their police force and have faith in it.
  6.25 pm
  Lembit Öpik: It is always interesting to hear the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Only yesterday I was walking in his constituency, and on the ancient stones of the Giant's Causeway. I was with my friend Ian Morrice, and he asked me what the hon. Gentleman was like. I said that he was indeed honourable and sincere, and held very strong positions that he described extremely clearly. I fear that I was so full of praise for the hon. Gentleman that Ian Morrice, who is planning to marry his fiancée Wendy in December, might invite the hon. Gentleman to conduct the ceremony. In that case, it would most definitely be a marriage made in Antrim.
  I have also learned that the hon. Gentleman's opinions are totally internally consistent. What he concludes follows logically from where he starts. I have come to the view that where I differ from him—I do not differ from him on all matters—it is because of his inbuilt assumptions. As others have already acknowledged, the hon. Gentleman and the Democratic Unionist party represent a considerable proportion of

  655
  the Northern Ireland community, who agree with the positions that he takes. For that reason if no other, it is important that we hold our debates with a spirit of respect for the proposals outlined in the motions.
  Over the weekend a degree of uncertainty has been thrown over the Northern Ireland peace process. Several newspapers reported that the IRA was poised to announce a series of major moves, including comprehensive decommissioning, but those stories were subsequently denied by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness). The confusion is not surprising, or uncharacteristic of Northern Ireland politics, but it certainly makes today's debate poignant, not least because it forces us to ask questions about the degree to which the Good Friday agreement is central to the process and needs to be fulfilled. The paramilitaries have a significant role in rebuilding the fragile trust that the peace process has needed, which now exists in a slightly eroded form.
  Policing in Northern Ireland takes us to the heart of some of the measures in the agreement that the various parties say have not been implemented as was required. However, even here there is a complicating factor. We do not have the luxury of considering completion with regard to policing alone, but must consider the other factors that have been mentioned in the debate. The IRA's alleged spy ring in Stormont, the embarrassing arrests in Colombia, and some of the other issues that have been mentioned, make it clear that we must define an act of completion before it can realistically be achieved.
  With all that going on, it is hardly surprising that those sceptics who do not believe that the IRA will lay down its arms for good have to some extent been successful in forcing the suspension that we are faced with at the moment. Suspension was the least worst option, given that collapse was the alternative, but at all times in our discussions we return to questions of policing and to consideration of what the Government and the parties in Northern Ireland have done to make it possible for policing to be reformed so as to create consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland.
  We must consider to what extent the DUP's motion should attract support. When the hon. Member for North Antrim defended the words in the motion that say that the DUP does not consider Sinn Fein's representatives
  "fit to participate in the government of part of the United Kingdom",
  he is making a strong statement. He goes beyond my position, but my assumptions are different at the outset.
  I subscribe to the view taken by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), reiterated to a large extent by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). Just because someone has a past does not mean that he cannot have a future. What qualifies Sinn Fein representatives to take their place in a Government in Northern Ireland is partly their ability to lead those who resist participating in the police force, and persist in participating in terrorism, towards a peaceful outcome.
  The hon.—and, indeed, reverend—Member for North Antrim knows more than I do about the difference between saints and sinners, but surely no one would suggest that members of Sinn Fein present
  656
  themselves as saints. However, there are leaders who are capable of bringing people towards accepting the Police Service of Northern Ireland as a more appropriate form of policing than the punishment beatings and other forms of intimidation that, sadly, have been used by some to justify the continued armament and organisation of paramilitary forces in both halves of the community.
  Lady Hermon: Would not it be helpful if the Sinn Fein leadership immediately condemned outright any attacks on PSNI recruits, whether Catholic or Protestant, instead of hesitating and constantly sitting on the fence?
  Lembit Öpik: Our discussion of Northern Ireland is becoming more nebulous, but the relevance of the hon. Lady's question is to underline how difficult Sinn Fein has found it to bring the hard-liners towards the moderates. It would be helpful if Sinn Fein gave not only a commitment to renounce the punishment-beating ethos that has dogged such a large proportion of Northern Ireland life, but an explicit statement that there should be no intimidation of any Catholic or nationalist who wanted to join the police force. Sadly, underlying intimidation makes it difficult for nationalists who want to join the police force to have the courage to do so, and their fear is understandable.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: IRA-Sinn Fein have officially issued and circulated a leaflet—the information has also been put on posters in their areas—telling their people to treat the new police service in the same way as they treated the RUC. That is an official document, issued and paid for by that party, and the policy is advocated by all their spokesmen, including their leader and deputy leader.
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes an honest point. My interpretation of that action is slightly different. I think it tells us that just as we see open divisions among hard-liners and moderates on the Unionist side, we also see the symptoms of a mirror-image tussle going on between moderates and hard-liners on the republican side. One could conclude that everyone in Sinn Fein is a hard-liner, but I take a different view. Some moderation, which has had a stabilising effect, has been achieved by the people in Sinn Fein who have chosen to participate actively and publicly in the political process.
  I want to make an interesting analogy, which comes from watching the news in my younger days. I remember the hon. Member for North Antrim commenting on something called the third force, which was widely publicised as an armed militia on the Unionist or loyalist side. That was many years ago. He gave the impression of having an association with that armed militia, although I am not suggesting that he explicitly promoted violence in any way. One reason why the third force did not become a cohesive paramilitary force in its own right under that name was because the hon. Gentleman was willing and able to maintain stability among Unionists and loyalists. In effect, he did what I should like members of Sinn Fein to do. I want them to encourage an adherence to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in preference to an adherence to a militia that organises itself outside the law.

  657
  In addition, we have the opportunity to draw comparisons with the struggles among Protestants. The Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association still enjoy a considerable degree of organisation and are behind some of the trouble that persists. If we are balanced about the discussion—we have talked about symmetry in Northern Ireland politics—we have to recognise that Sinn Fein is not alone in trying to bring its paramilitaries to order.
  David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hard-liners within Unionism, of whom I am proud to be one, whether in the Ulster Unionist party or the Democratic Unionist party, do not sit on the army council of any armed terrorist organisation, whereas Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness sit on the army council of the Provisional IRA, which is carrying out crime and terrorism?
  Lembit Öpik: I do not know enough about what goes on outside the Chamber of Stormont to know who is in what position, although I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman raises suspicions about the presence of those individuals on the army council of the IRA. However, that is not the key issue. If the supposition is correct, individuals such as Gerry Adams have a direct line of influence on hard-liners, who need to be convinced to come into the police service. I believe that a proportion of Sinn Fein members acknowledge that a peaceful political approach will deliver their outcomes more effectively than the paramilitary approach advanced by the IRA.
  I am sure that my assumption differs from those of Members of the Democratic Unionist party and I suspect we will not get alignment on this, because it is at the heart of the debate. Our responses to it will define how we choose to vote on the motion. If one believes that a large proportion of people in Sinn Fein and the IRA still think that violence will get the result they want, one should vote with the DUP. I think that the organisation has moved on, and for that reason I am sceptical of the DUP's position.
  The issue of concessions is interesting. The motion refers to concessions that have allegedly been made to buy off the IRA. I do not have a problem with making concessions to the IRA if they are defined as political progress towards equality in communities rather than a financial bribe. This is a matter more of semantics than of bribery. Any Government would negotiate towards peace by providing greater incentives for peace than for the continuation of violence. I suppose that is why we differ on that aspect of the motion.
  I also take issue with the motion's stance on allowing terrorists on to district policing partnerships. The case against that approach has been well made and I do not need to repeat it. What is interesting, however, is that the Government have made progress in defining more explicitly what needs to happen before ex-prisoners are allowed on to the policing partnerships. I am not sure that that was done on purpose, but the debate has moved on from whether there are cast-iron requirements to defining what those are. It is all about acts of completion now. As has been said, we have yet to
  658
  see what the Government mean by acts of completion. To his great credit, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green made an effort to define those acts. I have no doubt that Ministers will invite him to discussions, either to embrace his ideas or to shut him up. I am not sure whether the Minister of State is shaking her head at the former or the latter, but it cannot be both. The words "acts of completion" are vital, and we must have a clearer definition of them before those who are sceptical about Sinn Fein activity—and, perhaps, those who are sceptical about the amount of back-room dealing by the Government—are satisfied that there is transparency in these matters.
  It is clear that in their amendment the Government are congratulating themselves on the openness of their dealings. I suspect that many of us feel that there was more going on at Weston Park than there should have been. [Interruption.] I speak euphemistically, but I hear nodding from behind me, which suggests that I have more than a modicum of support, because it takes some effort to nod so loudly that one can be heard. There is an unanswered question, which, let us face it, concerns on-the-runs. I am concerned that a link could arise between our achievements in policing and the resolution of that issue. The Government need to learn that there must be symmetry in private as well as in public, because everything discussed in Northern Ireland will eventually come into the public eye.
  I turn now to the question of where we go next, and quotas. The Minister of State will know that I asked her a question about quotas at Northern Ireland questions, and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) made a similar point a few moments ago. It is widely recognised that the police in Northern Ireland have not been effective in recruiting from the population at large, and there has been a lack of trust between the police and certain sections of the community. The two problems are clearly linked, and Patten rightly recommended changes to tackle both of them.
  I was pleased to hear from the Minister last week that 35 per cent. of those applying to join the PSNI over the past year came from the Catholic community, and I share her hope that that will continue. However, she did not answer my question about what will happen when the 50:50 rule goes wrong. The example that I gave concerned what would happen if a proportion of recruits, from one side or the other, dropped out? Would it be necessary to sack or make redundant individuals from the other side of the religious divide to maintain symmetry? What is the Minister's answer to the question—asked, I think, by the hon. Member for East Londonderry—about what will happen to the many people, allegedly on the Unionist side, who feel rejected on the basis of the 50:50 rule? I am not suggesting that we need to review legislation, but it would be appropriate for the Minister to give us some answers when summing up the debate.
  I was rather surprised that, in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said something like, "If she wants to tell me that I am being illogical, she will win the argument." Logic is important in framing legislation, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not saying that if he were Secretary of State he would on occasion support illogical legislation.

  659
  The greatest illogicality—or perhaps simply a great surprise to me—is the fact that although the Liberal Democrats worked with the Conservatives, the Ulster Unionists and the DUP to oppose the 50:50 quotas when they were proposed during the proceedings on the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the hon. Gentleman now seems to be saying that the Conservatives have changed their view and accepted the quotas. That sounds, to use his phrase, like a 180-degree U-turn. People are entitled to change their view, but I am not sure what has changed to encourage the Conservatives to embrace that principle. We have already heard the strong opposition to it from the hon. Members who sit behind me. If the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford or one of his colleagues responds to the debate, perhaps we could have clarification on that point.
  We all agree that policing in Northern Ireland is a tough, dangerous job. It is about bringing law and order to a place where disputes are sometimes settled with fatalities. I support the work of the police in Northern Ireland and pay tribute to their courage. I know that the overwhelming majority in the police are not sectarian and have always been committed to peace.
  I hope that the acts of completion will be clearly defined by the Government, and that they will be delivered and matched by acts of good faith on the other side. Ultimately, politicians must make judgment calls, and although we have heard cynicism and scepticism about what the IRA intends to do, the ball is in its court; it can deliver something that will deliver peace. If it is to do that, however, and if the Government are to live up to the words in their amendment, acts of completion must be clearly defined.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: I follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) by stating that the debate should have offered a more positive statement on the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, but it gives hon. Members an opportunity to pay tribute to the immense bravery and commitment of the members previously of the RUC and now of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I cannot imagine that there is a more difficult policing job anywhere in the United Kingdom than on the streets of Belfast and Londonderry. Every Member of the House should be extremely grateful for the work of the police during the many years of the so-called troubles.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) said that police morale is particularly low at the moment, and I do not doubt that. I question whether unhappiness about the 50:50 recruitment policy is a greater cause of low morale than being the target of terrorist bullets and bombs, as was the case in the 1970s and 1980s. I should have thought that even with unhappiness about the recruitment policy, morale in the new police service is not as low as it was when terrorists regularly and systematically targeted officers.
  It is said that there is great rejoicing in heaven over a sinner repenting, and I am sure that, on the 50:50 recruitment policy, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) falls into that category. I do not want to make political capital out of that. Surely on a matter such as Northern Ireland we should be prepared
  660
  to look again at statements that we have made and consider them seriously in the light of current events. I hope that if the Government had decided that they had been wrong on one issue or another, they would have the courage and honesty to come to the Dispatch Box and say so. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on doing precisely that.
  When it comes to being positive about the police service, we should bear it in mind that there have been several landmark events in the past couple of years, including the opening of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in November 2000, the enactment of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and the establishment of police district commands in April 2001. On a matter that is pertinent to my other comments, last year the Chief Constable announced that he would be able to recruit more than 300 new officers, when the original target was only 260. Despite the reservations of some Opposition Members, the police service managed to recruit 40 more recruits than it told the Secretary of State it would be able to, even with the 50:50 restriction.
  Mr. Dodds: The hon. Gentleman referred to the morale of the police service and asked whether it is lower now than it was when people were being shot and so on. I am sure that he will accept that morale is low because many members of the service feel that they have been betrayed. What would the hon. Gentleman say to the chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, who expressed his disbelief at the plan suggested by the Secretary of State and claimed that it would prevent ordinary, decent people from joining the district policing partnerships? He said:
  "An independent appointee who has terrorist baggage is by definition far from independent. Appointing such people devalues the meaning of the word."
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I had intended to refer to that point later in my comments, so perhaps he will bear with me.
  Landmarks of the past couple of years include the appointment of the Northern Ireland Policing Board to replace the Police Authority; in November 2001, the first recruits under the new arrangements entered training, the policing board assumed its powers, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary changed its name to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for operational purposes, changing it formally on 5 April 2002. Most important, the Social Democratic and Labour party took up its responsibilities to participate in policing arrangements in Northern Ireland after decades of refusing to take part on behalf of its constituents. I congratulate the SDLP on doing so. The DUP's motion appears to reflect a desire to exclude more people from such arrangements, but we should be taking steps to ensure that Sinn Fein, too, faces up to its responsibility to participate in the policing board.
  I shall now explore the motion in more detail—perhaps in so doing I shall reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). DUP Members are urging the House to oppose
  "offering non-elected convicted terrorists places on district policing partnerships."
  I am curious about their objection: is it to non-elected members, or to people with terrorist convictions? If the latter. I am not sure what position they have taken until

  661
  now by agreeing to sit with Sinn Fein in the Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and only abandoning it—[Interruption.] When the cameras are not there the DUP Ministers have worked well with Sinn Fein Ministers in the Assembly.
  Lady Hermon: It will help all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), to state that the reason why we object to people with terrorist convictions being members of district policing partnerships is the recommendation in the Patten report—the Government want that report to be fully implemented—that independent members of district policing partnerships should
  "provide expertise in matters pertaining to community safety."
  Can the hon. Gentleman explain how anyone with a terrorist conviction can bring with him or her expertise in community safety? That is our objection.
  Mr. Harris: I have great respect for the hon. Lady's views and for DUP Members. My point is simply that since the Government have already made a commitment not to appoint people with terrorist convictions to the policing partnerships at present—the time is not yet right—it would not be useful for the House to debate what qualifications such people need. The Government have said that the time is not yet right for such people to be appointed, and I for one am happy to accept that commitment.
  I have no doubt that I will be asked—I can see the question on the lips of Opposition Members—what my definition of completion is. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the disbandment of the IRA, but that is not part of the Good Friday agreement, so if that is what his party seeks it is seeking something that is not to be found in the detail of the agreement.
  I am aware that at least one of my colleagues wants to speak, so I shall try to be brief. We in Scotland are used to members of nationalist parties continually talking down Scotland in general and its economic achievements in particular. I hear an echo of that in the DUP motion. The text of the motion is not rooted in reality. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the process of achieving normality in Northern Ireland was never going to be completed overnight, but it is disingenuous of DUP Members—especially the hon. Member for North Antrim, for whom I have a great deal of respect and who is not nearly as scary in real life as he appeared to be when as a boy I saw him on television—to suggest that the threat to individual lives in Northern Ireland is greater now than it was when the Good Friday agreement was signed. That is simply not true. Look at the economic statistics, the jobs that have been created and the confidence created by the Good Friday agreement—not by the Government, but by the agreement and by the people of Northern Ireland who signed up to it. The confidence that that has inspired in the single community of Northern Ireland is something that we should respect, not talk down.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He need not be afraid.
  Mr. Harris: I give way.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that never in the history of Northern Ireland has so much information been in the hands of Sinn Fein-IRA? That information is in the form of 1,000 documents containing people's names, addresses, details of their motor cars, the names of family members, where they are employed, what time they leave home, and so on. All that information is, for the first time, in the hands of the IRA—1,000 documents about people who serve the Government. Is that not a cause for people to be really concerned about what is happening?
  Mr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the alleged spy ring at Stormont, we all share his concern. It is a matter that should concern the security forces and does concern the Northern Ireland Office. However, his party stayed in the Northern Ireland Assembly for a long time before that event took place. In his speech today, he mentioned other events such as the Castlereagh break-in and the arrests in Colombia, but throughout that period his party—rightly—stayed in the Assembly. I have to ask whether the DUP walk-out a few weeks ago had more to do with the run-up to Assembly elections in May next year than with genuine concerns about recent security developments.
  I ask the House to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The motion does not reflect political reality in Northern Ireland, except as a cynical exercise in very early electioneering.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: This has been a useful debate. I hope that the Democratic Unionist party will have many more Opposition days—this is the first occasion on which my party has secured an Opposition day debate.
  I shall respond to some of the points made during the debate, but I hope that the House will let me make a few comments on my own account first. There are four main elements in the motion, the first of which is an awareness of the continuing terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland. I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in denouncing loyalist violence. More and more, the Unionist community is seeing that loyalist paramilitaries are more interested in securing their own self-interest than in securing the Union or the position of the loyalist community. Their activities should immediately be brought to an end—they bring nothing but dishonour to the cause that they claim to uphold.
  Much has been said about the extent of terrorist activity on the part of the Provisional IRA. During the course of its so-called ceasefire, its members have murdered many people and have been involved in the shooting or paramilitary beatings of hundreds of people. We all know of its gun-running from Florida, its training activities with FARC guerrillas in Colombia, the raid on the Castlereagh special branch headquarters,

  663
  and its spying activities at Stormont—all from an organisation that purports to be on a ceasefire, an organisation that the Government continue to try to appease.
  The recognition by the Government of the need to suspend the Assembly marked their recognition that Sinn Fein-IRA were involved in unacceptable activity. It is difficult to understand the Government's logic—they suspended the Assembly because of bad behaviour by the IRA, but will restore it by making concessions to the IRA. When the Government accept that the IRA has not behaved, I cannot accept that it is prudent to make more concessions to get it to behave; that is simply attempting to buy the silence of the Provisional IRA.
  Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable that four elected Sinn Fein Members absent themselves from the House, and therefore do not make themselves accountable to Parliament for the activities of their armed wing in Colombia, Castlereagh and elsewhere? Would he not welcome them taking their seats and making themselves accountable to all of us and their constituents?
  Mr. Robinson: The Provisional IRA representatives who were elected to the House refuse to take the Oath and come to the House, but I believe that they should enter the House only if they are prepared to take an Oath to Her Majesty the Queen and abide by the principles set down by the Government of exclusive involvement in peaceful and democratic means. That is the way forward and should be the route of entry to the House and any other elected Chamber in the United Kingdom.
  The Prime Minister lectures the people of the United Kingdom about how unacceptable terrorist activity is when it relates to the activities of al-Qaeda or other terrorist organisations throughout the world. It is therefore rather hypocritical of him to accept in his own backyard those same activities being carried out by organisations associated with those terrorist groups—he cannot send out both messages at once.
  Several Members have found it difficult to accept the part of the motion that says that Sinn Fein-IRA are not fit to be in government. I should have thought that the argument was self-evident: an organisation cannot purport to represent the people of Northern Ireland through a Minister who is in charge of education but at the same time is a member of the army council of the Provisional IRA. What trust and confidence can anybody have in the representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA being part of the democratic process when they know that they are attempting to undermine the very principles of democracy on which the Assembly was established? It is a matter not simply of trust and confidence but of confidentiality and setting an example. The Provisional IRA is clearly still active in terrorism and has not accepted the principle that to enter the democratic process one must be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means.
  The reality is that the IRA is not shaping up for peace. In the past few months, there have been personnel changes at the top level of the Provisional IRA. There has been a significant change in the army council: the most ruthless killer and thug in the ranks of the
  664
  Provisional IRA—Sean Gerard Hughes, who has been linked to many murders on this side of the water and in Northern Ireland—has been brought on to it. He has been linked to the south quay bombing in Canary Wharf, which brought the previous IRA ceasefire to an end in 1996 and in which two citizens were killed. He was also responsible for the murder of 12 soldiers at Warrenpoint, the mortar bomb in Newry and the killing of Justice Gibson and his wife. Does it sound like the IRA is putting a dove on its army council? If a dove was anywhere near Sean Gerard Hughes, he would kill it, but not until he had tortured it—that is what he has done to many of the victims of his organisation, and he was directly linked to those murders.
  It is clear that the IRA is not shaping up for peace but is putting one of its most ruthless terrorists on to its army council, which is not consistent with the picture that the Government are attempting to paint of the intentions of the Provisional IRA and its political representatives in Sinn Fein.
  Other behaviour by the IRA is not consistent with the picture painted by the Government. It still intends to use the principle of the threat of violence and its execution, turning the tap on and off to extract concessions from the Government. I agree entirely with the Conservative spokesman about the Government's tactics. Even if I agreed with the direction in which the Government say they want to go, I would never use their tactics. We have seen how they used those tactics in relation to decommissioning and terrorist prisoners. They let all the prisoners out and hoped that the IRA would come along and decommission its weapons. The Government made no attempt to extract concessions through the process.
  Once again, the Government are using those same tactics. We are upfront, but the Government suggest that they will do something for Sinn Fein if it does something in return. Sinn Fein, however, will simply pocket that concession, and will look for something new from the Government to make the concessions that it wants. The Unionist community does not regard those things as concessions—it does not believe that disbanding an organisation that should not have been there in the first place is in any way a concession either to it or politics in general. Nor does it believe that it is a concession to hand in illegally held guns, as they should not have been possessed in the first place. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office have got it entirely wrong by making further concessions to the IRA.
  The Social Democratic and Labour party, one of whose members has made a brief appearance today, has referred to the police being used as a political football. It, however, used the police as a political football by dragging them into the Belfast agreement. The only problem for the SDLP is that it does not want anyone to unravel what it has managed to put together as part of a political deal. The police have been used abysmally recently, and their morale has indeed hit rock bottom. The sickness rate, which has been referred to today, indicates the low morale in the Police Service.
  I, of course, am opposed to the making of terrorist concessions—it is not right that convicted terrorists should be members of a policing partnership, as that will not encourage anyone else to join those partnerships.
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be the ultimate insult to allow former terrorist prisoners to be part of the district policing partnerships, given that one of Sinn Fein-IRA's main objectives was to kill and maim police officers? To this day, they continue to gather information on police personnel.
  Mr. Robinson: Of course I agree. Some of the arrangements for district policing partnerships are about a relationship between the partnership and the police. How can the police have confidence in a policing partnership whose membership includes people who have targeted and killed their colleagues in the past? Confidence and trust cannot exist in those circumstances. If the rules that the Government are attempting to change to bring convicted terrorists on to policing partnerships had been in place a year ago, I suspect that Denis Donaldson could have sought and gained membership of a policing partnership. The Government suspended the Assembly because a spy ring came to light and Government details got into the hands of a terrorist organisation, yet the Government suggest putting terrorists on police partnerships, where they can gather more information. That seems a peculiar rationale, and it stands logic on its head.
  The Minister suggested that a leap of faith was required. She related that to what is generally known as taking a risk for peace. One cannot take a risk with the lives of people in Northern Ireland. The issues that we are considering are much too important; the Government cannot afford to take risks with them. The Government would be in a position to determine whether Sinn Fein had delivered on its end of the bargain, which they are trying to establish only after a period of time.
  Some hon. Members said that if someone has a past it does not mean that they do not have a future. As a Christian, I believe that. I believe that lives can be transformed and that people can be redeemed. However, the first signal of redemption is repentance. Sinn Fein-IRA has shown no repentance. The second signal is changing one's life. There has been no change on the part of Sinn Fein. The Government could assess only after a long time whether it deserved the sort of concessions that they propose in the second schedule to the draft Bill and that they have offered to Sinn Fein-IRA.
  I do not wish to take time from the Under-Secretary's reply, but I want to respond to one matter. It was suggested that the Democratic Unionist party should make its position clear about whether convicted terrorists should be part of an Executive. It was implied that we were comfortable with that, but we voted against it in the referendum and we voted in the Assembly for the exclusion of Sinn Fein. As an Assembly Minister, I never attended a Cabinet meeting. I did not go to the Executive because of the presence of Sinn Fein-IRA. I could operate in the role only because decisions could be made entirely in my Department. The Democratic Unionist party's position is clear: there is no place in government for those who are inextricably linked to violence and those who represent an unrepentant and armed terrorist organisation. That is unacceptable in the Executive and in policing partnerships.
  7.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): We have had a long debate in which many views have been aired. I thank all hon. Members who contributed. Like the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I welcome the discussion and the exchange of views. There are several opinions that I cannot share, but I respect the depth of feeling about them, and the reasons for their expression.
  Hon. Members should welcome the Government's openness in publishing an additional text for consideration with the draft clauses. The Government are right to be open and transparent about their thinking. They are also right to be firm in making it clear that no moves will be made about former prisoners sitting on district policing partnerships as independent members except in the context of acts of completion.
  The proposal depends on acts of completion. My hon. Friend the Minister made that clear this evening, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stressed that last week, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised it in his speech in Belfast in October and in response to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in Prime Minister's questions last week. It is worth repeating the Prime Minister's words. In October, he said that republicans must
  "make the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent … We cannot carry on with the IRA half in, half out of this process … There is no parallel track left. The fork in the road has finally come."
  In response to the hon. Member for North Antrim on 27 November, the Prime Minister said:
  "It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
  David Burnside: What are the acts of completion? The Government set a date of 2008 as the deadline for the completion of decommissioning. That does not inspire confidence.
  Angela Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the assurance. The Prime Minister's words are clear. He referred to exclusively peaceful means that are real, total and permanent and that satisfy everyone and give them confidence. I do not understand how we can be much clearer about the Government's intentions. I am sorry that hon. Members are not prepared to rely on that.
  Let me consider specific questions.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Angela Smith: I shall try to take questions later, but I am short of time and I want to respond to hon. Members' points.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) praised the Government for publishing the additional text for consideration. He said that it was right to do that. I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). He said that we

  667
  cannot heal in a week or a fortnight but that the healing process was under way through the Good Friday or Belfast agreement. He outlined the challenges, which were evident from our debate.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) praised the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the chief constable for their work in tackling violence and criminality wherever they occur and whoever perpetrates them. The work of the organised crime taskforce shows the Government's commitment to tackle organised crime from paramilitaries or any other source.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked about the Patten report and former prisoners serving as independent members on district policing partnerships. Patten did not recommend that they should or should not serve. He said that district policing partnerships should have a mix of political and independent members and that the rules for independent members might be put on equal footing with those for political members. Former prisoners can already serve on district policing partnerships as councillors. They are therefore eligible for appointment as political members, but the Government have made it clear that that is conditional on acts of completion in the future. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford welcomed that comment.
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way and am pleased to see the Minister on the Front Bench for the winding-up speech.
  I want to draw to Ministers' attention the careful wording that Chris Patten used on the day that the report was published. He warned
  "strongly against cherry-picking from the Report."
  He clearly recommended that
  "independent members should be selected to represent business and trade union interests and to provide expertise in matters pertaining to community safety."
  Angela Smith: The hon. Lady picks out a point from the Patten report that will be discussed in the long and detailed debates on the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford welcomed several points in my hon. Friend the Minister's speech. I welcome his comments about the policing board and the way in which it has operated. I regret that I could not welcome all of his remarks. He accused us of underestimating the intelligence of the people of Northern Ireland. I assure him that, from the short time that I have been a Minister in Northern Ireland, I am not likely to do that.
  The hon. Gentleman also accused the Government of easy card shuffling tricks. The issues are complex and such accusations are unhelpful. The Belfast agreement is not for renegotiation. He should consider how far it has brought us and what we have gained from it.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about police manpower. The Patten report said that there should be a minimum of 7,500 officers on the basis of peace and normality in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 13.9 states that
  "the approximate size of the police service over the next ten years should be 7,500 full-time officers."
  668
  There are currently approximately 6,900 full-time regular officers and almost 2,000 full-time reserve officers. Since last November there have been 580 recruits and more than 200 are currently in training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) and for North Down asked about the 50:50 recruitment policy and whether it applied to civilians. Paragraph 15.9 of Patten makes it clear that the ratio should apply to officer and civilian recruitment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for East Londonderry cast aspersions on the merits of officers who are recruited under the 50:50 policy. I assure him categorically that there has been no dilution in the quality of police officers. I hope that he will accept that.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the debate and I am therefore reluctant to give way to him.
  Concern has been expressed about 50:50 working. If the measure does not work, the Act makes provision for it to be set aside, but there is no evidence that 50:50 recruitment is not working. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) asked whether, if a Catholic trainee resigned, a non-Catholic trainee would also have to resign. It is patently absurd to suggest that that would be the case. There would have to be no such resignation.
  The hon. Member for North Down made a point about intimidation. I take on board the seriousness that she attaches to that issue, and I commend her for doing so. Intimidation is clearly a major factor, and we all want to see it end immediately. There are other factors involved in these issues, however, including a lack of identification with the Police Service, and the fear of a loss of contact with family, friends and community. I have to say that a lack of encouragement from community leaders also plays a part. It is time for leaders from all parts of the community to encourage support for the police, and also for them to stop coming out with this nonsense that we have somehow diluted the ability of the police by introducing 50:50 recruitment. The PSNI can recruit enough trainees: 540 have been recruited this year, even though Patten envisaged only 370.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim asked whether 50:50 recruitment would prevent the chief constable from recruiting officers from Great Britain. Such recruitment occurs at constable level, so the chief constable is not prevented from bringing in experienced officers from elsewhere, and we must ensure that we bring in such officers more quickly. If the policing board were to ask for an exceptional measure to help to facilitate that, we would, of course, consider such a request very carefully, but there is no obstacle to the chief constable bringing in on secondment officers from Great Britain at any level. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked whether the ombudsman's powers to investigate would be retrospective; that is not our intention. He also asked whether her powers had been restricted. We do not

  669
  believe that the draft clauses have that effect. It seems right, however, that, in circumstances in which she may play a similar role to that of the policing board—for example, in investigating police policies and practice—she should be subject to the same caveats in relation to information that she may seek from the chief constable.
  I would like to thank all hon. Members for their contribution to the debate. It has been a helpful debate in the context of the Bill, but, without the agreement—some hon. Members have made it clear that they are very unhappy about the agreement and do not support it—there would not have been the relative peace that we have seen in recent years. I accept that the situation is imperfect, but it is certainly better than what we have experienced in years gone by. In my first week in Belfast, a bomb was defused in the city centre. On the Friday evening, I was stopped and welcomed by a Belfast resident who discussed with me what had happened that day. She said, "When I heard about the bomb today. I wondered whether we were going to go back to how it was." She told me how scared she had felt that this could herald a return to the situation in which she had grown up. She did not want her children to grow up in a similar environment. It says far more than any statistics I could read out at the Dispatch Box that she felt that her children's lives were different from the life that she had had as a child.
  The critical condition that must be met if the agreement is to operate fully is that we obtain an assurance from all those involved that they are committed to the exclusive use of peaceful means. I repeat the Prime Minister's words from his speech on 17 October, in which he said that republicans must
  "make the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, and total and permanent",
  and that we cannot carry on
  "with the IRA half in, half out of this process".
  The fork in the road has come.
  In our view, the future of Northern Ireland is best guaranteed by the fullest possible implementation of the agreement, which, crucially, means democratic politics, with violence entirely removed from the picture. That is what the House wants, and I also think that it is what the people of Northern Ireland want.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 298.

  Division No. 14]

  [7:24 pm

  AYES

  Burnside, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mrs. Iris Robinson and

  Paisley Rev. Ian

  Mr. Gregory Campbell

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Alexander, Douglas

  Baird, Vera

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Battle, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Beard, Nigel

  670

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Farrelly, Paul

  Benn, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Flint, Caroline

  Berry, Roger

  Follett, Barbara

  Best, Harold

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foulkes, rh George

  Borrow, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gerrard, Neil

  Breed, Colin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Goggins, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bryant, Chris

  Grogan, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hain, rh Peter

  Burden, Richard

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Burstow, Paul

  Hanson, David

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Cairns, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Healey, John

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Heath, David

  Challen, Colin

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chaytor, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chidgey, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Holmes, Paul

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Clelland, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Coleman, Iain

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, rh John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Lamb, Norman

  671

  Lammy, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Purchase, Ken

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Love, Andrew

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCabe, Stephen

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  McDonnell, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rooney, Terry

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKechin, Ann

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Ruane, Chris

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWilliam, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Salter, Martin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moore, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, rh John

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Mullin, Chris

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Perham, Linda

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Thurso, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Truswell, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  672

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Ward, Claire

  Worthington, Tony

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Wright, David (Telford)

  White, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the enormous strides towards a more peaceful society in Northern Ireland and the significant developments in policing that have been achieved in recent years; further welcomes the changes to policing proposed in the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill; in particular endorses the Government's view that the time is not yet right to allow unelected ex-prisoners to serve on district policing partnerships; and further welcomes the Government's openness in sharing with this House and the people of Northern Ireland its thinking on how this might be achieved in the future, in the context of acts of completion on the part of paramilitaries.
  Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have the Government approached you wishing to make a statement about the significant changes in the way in which they intend to deal with smallpox? They appear to have made at least two statements to the press, but none to the House of Commons. Could you ask whether there has been a mistake and the message has not yet reached Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I know of no such statement.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why did the House not divide on the amendment to the motion, although strong voices were saying "No"? Has the House so little power now that even a tiny minority cannot express its freedom?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman ever has any difficulty in expressing his thoughts. It is for the Chair to decide whether Divisions are called.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the Secretary of State, I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected any of the amendments tabled to the Government motion. Let me also say that the debate is limited to three hours. There are four Front-Bench speakers—five including the Liberal Democrat—and Back-Bench speeches must be limited to 12 minutes. I hope that Front-Bench speeches will be as brief as possible; if not, there will be very little time for any Back-Bench speeches.
  7.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I beg to move,
  That this House endorses the strategy of Her Majesty's Government in the Convention on the Future of Europe to establish structures for a Union of sovereign member states; rejects the alternative of a federal superstate; and resolves that the Order of 12th June 2002 relating to the Standing Committee on the Convention be renewed for the current Session of Parliament.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak as the Government's representative on the convention, which is designing a new political architecture for a new Europe. The debate also gives me an opportunity to be accountable to the House, and in that spirit I will be generous in accepting interventions.
  We are at a defining moment in the history of the European Union, and the convention has two great tasks. The first is to make a success of the EU's biggest ever enlargement, with 10 countries joining our 15; the second is to reconnect the EU with its citizens. Within 18 months, 10 new countries will be able to share in Europe's success story—50 years of peace, stability and prosperity, and extraordinary achievements such as the single market and the single currency. But the institutional architecture devised for six nations is barely working for 15, and must be reformed to work for 25 or more.
  As the Prime Minister said in his speech in Cardiff last week, we need a new constitutional order for a Europe reunited after the bitter legacy of the cold war. Our vision is of a Europe of sovereign nation states cooperating to tackle shared challenges such as pollution, international crime, terrorism and the need for economic growth. Our vision is of a Europe with full employment, social justice, democracy and human rights—a Europe that is a leader in the world, with Britain as a leading European power; a Europe that is a global force for good, aiming to banish international poverty, injustice and oppression.
  Alan Howarth: The social stresses generated in the weaker areas of the eurozone by the single interest rate and the single currency will obviously require substantially increased transfers of public expenditure from the richer to the poorer countries in that zone. Under what political authority has the convention envisaged that such transfers should be approved, and what arrangements for democratic
  674
  accountability has my right hon. Friend told the convention that he considers constitutionally acceptable?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the Secretary of State answers, let me repeat what I said earlier about interventions and responses to them.
  Peter Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. Let me simply say that the single currency has not featured in discussions in the convention, at least so far.
  The convention is a new way of doing business, with representatives of Governments not from member states but from candidates, and European and national parliamentarians. It was set four tasks by the Laeken European Council last December.
  Llew Smith: Does the Secretary of State recall the fine articles he used to write saying that the single currency was unacceptable, that decisions were being made by bankers who were neither elected nor accountable, and that voting would become increasingly irrelevant?
  Peter Hain: As I said, the single currency has not been discussed in the convention. I will happily answer the question, however. The single currency is a reality in Europe. Whatever debates we had 10 years ago, we must face up to that. Will Britain remain isolated for ever—if the Opposition's policies are adopted—or will we make a common-sense decision based on economic circumstances? That is the question.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Just before my right hon. Friend finishes his very short speech—[Laughter.] My right hon. Friend said that this was a defining moment in European history. Will he elaborate a little on how the Government see Parliament's role in endorsing a European convention, and also how he sees the electorate's role in defining a constitution that may govern them for many decades?
  Peter Hain: One reason for my presence tonight is Parliament's importance in the debate. That is why I am accountable to Parliament. As my hon. Friend knows, however, if any treaty emerges from the convention's discussions following an intergovernmental conference it will be a new treaty, which, in the normal way, will require legislation here. The House will determine its position on that treaty. In the meantime, I think a debate is needed. That is why I spoke at a Foreign Office convened conference of local authorities last week and why I am joining any discussions that it is practical for me to join, as are other members of the convention team representing the House.
  Mr. Allen: Will my right hon. Friend also answer the second part of my question—about the involvement of the people who will be governed by this constitution? Every western democracy that has had a constitutional settlement has involved the people. However difficult it may be, will my right hon. Friend consider how that can be achieved?
  Peter Hain: The people are involved, through Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend. That is the proper way to deal with matters such as this.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State has emphasised the importance of democracy and of Members of Parliament expressing their views. Can he explain a rather unusual motion passed on 12 June, which states that the Standing Committee on the Convention is not allowed to express an opinion of any sort on the work done by the commissioners, and can pass only a motion saying that it has considered the report from the United Kingdom representatives to the convention? If the Secretary of State believes that Members of Parliament should express a view, would it not be right to allow the Committee to express a view on whether what has been decided is good or bad for the people, or irrelevant in some respect? Is it not an insult to democracy to establish a Committee that is prevented from expressing a view of any sort by a motion?
  Peter Hain: I am trying to make progress as you asked me to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will take interventions.
  Parliament decided on the procedure, which is open and democratic. We have our own parliamentary representatives, who are present in the Chamber this evening, and the hon. Gentleman and everyone else will have a chance to question them. Indeed, they have already given evidence to a Joint Committee.
  As I was saying, last December the Laeken European Council set the convention four tasks: to achieve a better division and definition of EU competences, simplification of the EU's instruments, more democracy, transparency and efficiency, and consideration of a new constitution. British representatives are playing a full and constructive role, and I welcome the contributions of Members of both Houses.
  As the Government's representatives on the convention, Baroness Scotland and I have participated actively in its plenary proceedings and working groups. We are thinking radically and building alliances for British ideas to secure reform, in order to create our kind of Europe, but we are also listening. We have not gone into the convention with a rigid British blueprint; we have asked questions and entered into real discussions about reform, rather than simply repeating the same old nostrums. Where there are arguments to be fought on points of principle, we are getting stuck in. Where good ideas are proposed, we are embracing and fine-tuning them to make the system deliver what our citizens want.
  Mr. David Chaytor: In the context of good ideas that need to be proposed, does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of the 1957 Euratom treaty, which has dominated energy policy in Europe for the past 50 years, needs to be on the convention's agenda, with a view to being included in the discussion at the intergovernmental conference in 2004?
  Peter Hain: A friend of mine raised this issue with me for the first time over the weekend, and I am sure that it will be considered in convention proceedings if there is scope for doing so.
  At the moment, too many people believe that the process of taking decisions in the EU is impenetrable and distant, that there are no clear means by which they can influence these decisions, and that the bureaucracy
  676
  in place to implement them is complacent and inward-looking. People have lost a sense of what Europe is for—a point amply demonstrated by increased votes for anti-European parties during this year. So we need a new sense of Europe's purpose, to reconnect Europe to its people. This means identifying what citizens expect from the institutions that govern them and acknowledging that they will look principally to their national Governments to deliver answers, but demonstrating that co-operating with our European partners in many policy areas can add value, and that—where it does so—a willingness to pool sovereignty is in our national interest.
  Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Union has adopted many important measures that affect citizens, in areas such as equality rights, the environment, working conditions and so on? Does he further agree that the work of the convention should be about helping citizens to understand what measures have been adopted and their effect, and has he any plans to push for an easily digestible form of what the EU is about for our citizens, rather than the complicated treaties that exist at the moment?
  Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend makes very telling points, particularly her suggestion for a concise new constitution to replace the current tangled web of impenetrable treaties. That is an objective that we must try to secure.
  Mr. John Bercow: If better definition of competences, greater democracy and an enhanced role for national Parliaments are key objectives of the right hon. Gentleman, can he please identify for the House a single example of a European Union directive or regulation that has been repealed under the terms of the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam?
  Peter Hain: It is precisely because we need to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are properly enforced and policed that we are proposing a new mechanism, to which the convention has agreed in principle. That is a British idea, which I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
  We already pool sovereignty with the United States of America and others in NATO, because by doing so Britain has stronger defences. Pooling sovereignty in appropriate policy areas can make nations stronger; so, too, in the United Nations, the resolutions of which have the force of international law. Everybody, including Britain, has to respect them, but as a permanent member of the Security Council, we get to make the laws. We also pool sovereignty in the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, in international treaties such as that banning land mines, and in the European Union. By pooling sovereignty, the British people have greater influence in building a safer, more stable world.
  Pooling sovereignty can mean compromises. That is sometimes hard for certain commentators and politicians to understand, but real people know that in real life, we cannot always get exactly what we want. Nor can other countries in these international bodies,

  677
  but we can better advance British interests by being right at the centre of NATO and the United Nations—and, indeed, of the European Union. That means creating a new, delivery-oriented EU, identifying and focusing on the policy areas in which the EU can contribute, and creating a decision-making framework to drive this through in an efficient, transparent and democratic way.
  David Winnick: Do the United Kingdom Government totally dissociate themselves from the outburst against Turkey by the former President of France, who chaired the convention, and should not Turkey be welcomed as quickly as possible, once it meets the necessary conditions? Were not those remarks from the chairman of the convention totally wrong and anti-Turkish, and do they not seem to betray a belief that Europe should be a fundamentalist Christian affair?
  Peter Hain: The answer to all my hon. Friend's questions is yes.
  We must preserve Europe's ability to adapt quickly to new challenges, and to address old issues in new and innovative ways. It is the flexibility of our current system that enabled us to react to the new political realities, following the attacks of 11 September. The world changed, and the EU was able to reflect that change by agreeing on common policies and mechanisms to fight terrorism together. Acting together through the "justice and home affairs" agenda, with the Commission taking the lead, we can improve security for all Europeans.
  We need a new European Union constitution, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) said, must be clear and concise. It must have a short and inspirational preamble. It must clarify what the EU is, what its objectives and values are, and who does what. This would help to bridge the gap of understanding between the EU and its citizens. It would also mean a better-organised EU that is even better able to deliver practical benefits for citizens.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Does my right hon. Friend think that such a constitution might act as a very real and necessary brake on the Commission when it decides to interfere in the business of member states?
  Peter Hain: Yes I do, and that is one of the purposes—although not the exclusive one—in designing this new constitution.
  The chairman of the convention, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, has presented to it his draft outline constitutional text. Flesh now needs to be put on the bones of this skeleton. The drafting of individual chapters and articles will begin after Christmas, and a consolidated text is likely to be issued at or near Easter. The Giscard text mirrors our thinking in a number of key areas. It is founded on the basic premise of a union of sovereign states, not a blueprint for a federal super-state, and it aims to settle the relationship between the EU and its member states for the foreseeable future, halting the sense of permanent treaty change that disturbs so many of our citizens. The draft text also
  678
  reflects our proposal for a subsidiarity mechanism whereby national Parliaments can monitor new EU proposals to ensure that it is acting only where it needs to act. Assessing subsidiarity involves a political judgment, which should be vested in national Parliaments. In practice, they will be e-mailed new Commission proposals for determining any breach of subsidiarity or—equally important—any breach of the principle of proportionality: whether new legislation, even if laudable, is too heavy-handed and intrusive. This new early-warning mechanism would make national Parliaments the watchdogs of subsidiarity and proportionality.
  Mr. Allen: May I ask that my right hon. Friend seek the services of a poet, rather than someone who is competent in Euro-babble? Many hon. Members will fear that, if such descriptions are going to get longer, those outside this place will not understand them.
  In my right hon. Friend's view, will the concept of subisidiarity be justiciable by local authorities and regional authorities within the countries of the European Union, rather than merely the nations—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
  Peter Hain: My hon. Friend does raise an important point. We are in favour of subsidiarity being determined not by the courts but by elected political representatives—a point that is also important in respect of proportionality. As he knows, national Governments and Parliaments have the right to go to the European Court of Justice, and that factor will doubtless form part of the outcome. However, we should not encourage the courts in a rush to judgment in determining these matters.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am sure that he wants his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to be complete. Will he confirm that the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality says that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance, and that it shall not affect the balance between national law and community law? That is the reality; that is the record. Will he confirm it?
  Peter Hain: The answer is yes. I am always impressed by the hon. Gentleman's ability to recite from articles, treaties and legislation without a text in front of him.
  We are pleased that the draft text also includes the idea of an elected President of the European Council, which we and others have been advocating in the convention. However, there are a number of proposals that we do not support, such as changing the name of the European Union. It is a successful brand name. Giscard's suggestion of a United States of Europe implies a federal superstate, and his Europe United sounds more like a football team. Significantly, nobody supported a name change when that was discussed in the convention.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to the points that he is

  679
  making against a name change, there is a danger that the process will be seen as focusing on cosmetic inessentials? What people really hope for from this process is a community, a union, that they understand. They see what the powers are and how they can influence them, and they do not care that much what the name is.
  Peter Hain: I think that they do care about the way in which it is delivered, but my hon. Friend's essential point is correct. People want to see outcomes, practical benefits and clarity in the way that the European Union works and the accountability of its institutions to citizens.
  For the EU of 25 and more to function effectively and efficiently in the future, we need more than a constitution that sets out the status quo. We need reform, and some of it needs to be radical. We want to maintain the institutional balance and strength in the European Union by making all of its institutions more effective. We have to begin with the Council of Ministers, because although democratic legitimacy should reside in many different parts of the EU's structures, democratic accountability lies first and foremost with the Council.
  The EU's strategic direction should come from heads of Government in the European Council. The institution should also provide stronger political leadership. People expect their head of Government and Ministers to represent their interests and will hold them to account in their national Parliaments, media and elections, but how can a Council of 25 or more Governments drive the EU's strategic agenda?
  The Council as it is today is not operating coherently or efficiently. The rotating presidency, for example, was originally devised for a community of six member states. When there are 25, each member state will hold the presidency once every twelve and a half years, or eight times a century. The presidency system has enormous attractions. It gives every member state, large or small, an equal stake in running the union. However, if a much larger EU is to be effective and cohesive, the six-monthly musical chairs presidency needs replacing with a much longer period to establish and deliver strategic objectives.
  Ann Winterton: Surely the whole point of the EU is that the Commission is the driving force. The Council of Ministers cannot override the Commission, as we shall shortly see in respect of fisheries. Is the Minister suggesting that in future the acquis communautaire will not be binding on every member state?
  Peter Hain: No, of course I am not suggesting that, but the Council should be the political engine.
  Ann Winterton: It is not.
  Peter Hain: Exactly—that is the point. That is why we need to reform it, making it stronger and more coherent.
  One way of improving coherence might be to have four countries each chairing two of the eight Councils of Ministers for perhaps a year or longer. That would enable greater continuity and more systematic consultation between the Council, the Commission and
  680
  the European Parliament than the musical chairs system allows at present. It would be essential to have a rotation system, of both Councils and countries, to ensure equality between member states. At any one time there should be three small countries and one big one making up the team presidency, since there will he 19 "smalls" and six "bigs" in the enlarged European Union.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Do the Government favour removing the power of initiative from the Commission to create legislation and placing it with the Council of Ministers?
  Peter Hain: No, we do not propose removing the right of initiative; it is important to retain it.
  The chairmen of the individual Councils should work together as a steering group—a team presidency—to ensure that the strategic direction given by the European Council was implemented. The work of the team presidency steering group would need effective coordination by an elected President of the European Council, as we and other member states have suggested, serving for five years to match the life of the Commission.
  Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. A significant benefit of having an elected President of the Council for five years would be to put an end to the stop-start nature of much of the present process in the EU. What would it do to change the relationship between the President of the Council and the President of the Commission?
  Peter Hain: The President of the Council would be a much more authoritative figure than at present, but that is not to diminish the role of the President of the Commission. They will need to work together, as already happens under the six-monthly rotating presidency system. Under these proposals, we will have a much more effective, full-time President of the Council, able to provide the coherence and strategic direction that heads of Government need.
  Reforming and strengthening the Council does not mean downgrading the other EU institutions, as some of our opponents make out—quite the contrary. I want to see a stronger Commission, enforcing the general interest at the centre of Europe's institutional architecture. Only a strong Commission will be able to retain its vital independence, acting in the interests of the EU as a whole, and not subject to political interference or vested national interests. Without a strong Commission driving through change, none of the Council's decisions would come to anything. [Interruption.] Conservative Members want a weak Europe, one that cannot help defend us against terrorism, fight international pollution and deal with the need to generate jobs and greater growth throughout the European Union, with which we have 60 per cent. of our trade. It is in Britain's interest to have a strong Commission when it comes to asylum policy, agricultural reform, energy liberalisation and enforcing the lifting of the beef ban.
  Dr. Palmer rose—
  Peter Hain: Although the European Council is populated by democratically elected leaders, it needs

  681
  essential checks and balances, as does the Commission. That is a role for the European Parliament as much as for national Parliaments. We want to see a strong and influential European Parliament exercising its extensive powers responsibly.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: In the discussions on the convention and the concerns about giving the European Parliament a more prominent role, has there been any discussion among members about the most effective way of involving citizens in future elections to the European Parliament?
  Peter Hain: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. Apart from being an outstanding Member of this House, he was also a Member of the European Parliament, and his expertise is particularly appropriate. His suggestion is part of the convention's agenda. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I will, but I am open to taking interventions, including many from Conservative Members.
  Mrs. Angela Browning rose—
  Peter Hain: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) admirably chaired the convention's working group on the role of national Parliaments, securing consensus in the group and the wider plenary for national Parliaments to play a greater role at the EU level and to increase contacts between Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament.
  The Government have always made it clear that we support the charter of fundamental rights, which was proclaimed at Nice, as an excellent way of enshrining key values across Europe.
  Equally, however, we have always made it clear that the charter proclaimed at Nice was not suitable for incorporation in the treaty. Issues of legal certainty would need to be resolved before we could consider that. We cannot support a form of treaty incorporation that would enlarge EU competence over national legislation. New legal rights cannot be given by such means, especially in areas such as industrial law, which are matters for domestic, not European, law.
  By engaging positively in the discussions in the charter working group, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Scotland has been able to make colleagues aware of our views and of our difficulties. Some of our colleagues appreciated—perhaps for the first time—that they, too, would have problems with full incorporation of the charter in their countries. We have achieved a number of changes to tie rights back to existing treaty articles and to distinguish more clearly between aspirational principles and directly effective rights. Our key objective has been to insert strong horizontal articles that block the charter from being invoked to change nationally determined domestic law.
  We have agreed to nothing yet, except to consider what is on the table. Given that what is on the table has moved very much in Britain's direction, we are obviously interested in it. The convention has agreed to set up a new working group—bringing the total to 11—on social Europe. The group needs to target social
  682
  exclusion through creating more decent jobs in a dynamic and competitive European economy. It should be about pursuing the Lisbon agenda for economic reform even more actively.
  I hope that members of the convention who take part in the group will not fall into the trap of simply rehashing tired old schemes for more rigid European-wide regulation of labour relations. Instead of protectionism for existing jobs, the agenda should be creating new jobs underpinned by decent minimum standards. We support the concept of a "social Europe" but it must be economically competitive and efficient; it must generate full employment, not entrench unemployment. It must give everybody the opportunity to work, and not protect only those who are in work.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would help to strengthen the European Union and all that it stands for if provision were made in the constitution for member states to withdraw if they want to do so?
  Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt support President Giscard's draft text because it proposes exactly that.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman support it?
  Peter Hain: I do not see a problem with it. If anybody is silly enough to want to withdraw from the EU, they should be entitled to do so. I guess that the hon. Gentleman would be in the lead.
  Some critics have argued that the convention is about giving up even more national powers to Europe. That is simply not the case. The discussions that we have held about who does what, or, in Euro-jargon, "where competences lie", have not been about moving those competences to the EU; rather, the concern has been to make the current set-up clearer so that everybody knows where responsibility lies. That is a crucial element in making Europe more accountable.
  The basic premise of our confident engagement in Europe is our ability to take decisions and support ideas that are in Britain's interests. Crime and immigration are at the top of people's agendas. Tackling those issues is partly a domestic policy matter for national Governments, but there is also a strong European dimension. Moving away from the unanimity rule in some areas of justice and home affairs will enable decisions on such crucial matters as crime, drug dealing, asylum and illegal immigration, for example, to be made more easily, and action to be taken more speedily, to make all of us safer and more secure.
  Lifting our veto and agreeing to such common EU decision making on border security measures or a common arrest warrant is not selling out British interests. Quite the contrary, it is common sense. However, we have said firmly and repeatedly that we will not tolerate attempts to take fundamental decisions, for example about taxation and social security, out of the hands of national Governments. Such a move would clearly not be in Britain's interests.
  Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Franco-German proposal on tax harmonisation as it was clearly spelt out on the front page of the Financial Times today. Will he use the British veto on that matter?
  Peter Hain: I understand that the French spokesman in Brussels said that no such proposal as that reported in the FT exists and that he said something even more uncharitable about the report off the record. I shall obviously not repeat that as the House is family oriented.
  Nor do we countenance a shift away from the current intergovernmental approach to the EU's foreign and security policy or to defence. Yes, those areas must be made more effective and efficient—as must the rest of the EU—but such matters must remain in the hands of national Governments, co-operating freely. For example, we have said that we could support a single legal personality for the EU but not if it jeopardises the national representations of member states in international bodies; not if it means a Euro-army; not if it means giving up our seat on the United Nations Security Council; and not if it means a Euro-FBI or a Euro police force.
  There have been, and there will continue to be, ideas in the convention with which we do not agree. Such is the nature of open and broad debate. However, we are at the centre of the debate. By engaging actively and dynamically and by working in partnership with others, Britain is helping to set and shape the European agenda, and our confident approach is getting results.
  As the world becomes more global, people are thinking more locally. People only want the EU to act when it genuinely has something to add. They want it to work on the issues where working together is better than working alone; to combat cross-border crimes, such as drug and people trafficking, but not to tell us how to police the streets; to agree limits to the industrial pollution affecting our continent, but not to tell us whether we can build roads or houses on individual sites; and to provide opportunities for our students to study abroad, but not to tell us how to run individual schools.
  The Government are clear about where we stand in Europe. We support the enlargement of the Union because it will make Britain stronger, safer and richer.
  David Winnick: My right hon. Friend was good enough to say yes to the questions I put to him earlier. On enlargement, would it not be appropriate for him, given his special responsibilities, to make it as clear as possible that Britain welcomes the strong possibility that Turkey will join the EU and for him to dissociate himself from the notorious remarks that I quoted earlier?
  Peter Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. My answer is yes, we want to see Turkey join the EU. That is EU policy. Turkey is one of the officially recognised candidates for accession. The president of the convention was speaking for himself alone when he declared his opposition to Turkey's membership.
  We support the work of the convention because it is the best way to deliver the practical benefits that British citizens want: more jobs, greater prosperity, safer
  684
  streets, cleaner skies—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) shakes her head. Does she not want cleaner skies or safer streets?
  Ann Winterton: After European enlargement we shall actually have less of that famous influence in Europe that the Prime Minister is always going on about.
  Peter Hain: There speaks the true voice of the Conservative Back Benches, opposed to enlargement, to reunifying Europe and to welcoming back Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and all the other countries that were divided from us by the cold war. Is that really Conservative party policy?
  We relish the debate about Europe, conducted in the plainest terms, because we are confident, unlike the Opposition, about rising to the challenge to deliver in Britain's interests in the convention.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I shall try to be somewhat briefer than the Minister, given that more than a sixth of the time that we have to debate this issue has already passed.
  The debate will inevitably touch on accountability in Europe—indeed, it already has—but I would like to ask some questions about accountability at home. Who in the Government leads on the future of Europe—the Foreign Secretary, who is not here, the Minister for Europe, who is here but did not lead, or the Secretary of State for Wales, who has led tonight, but not for Wales? Seriously, if in future we want to know the Government's position on the convention, do we table questions for the Wales Office or do we still table them for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
  Peter Hain: That issue was made absolutely clear by the Leader of the House last Thursday, when the same question was raised. I remain the Government's representative on the convention. Is it not interesting that, since I have been in that position, Britain's agenda is finding favour and the French and Germans have put their Foreign Secretaries on the Convention on the Future of Europe? What does the right hon. Gentleman think I am doing here? I also appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee to answer questions only the other week.
  Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but he is not the Foreign Secretary. I note that the Minister for Europe is not trusted to set out the Government's policy on the convention. Perhaps that is because of what he said last week:
  Electing a right-wing conservative Government is always a disaster for any European country."—[0fficial Report, Westminster Hall, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 112WH.]
  That cannot be very clever, when nine of the 15 member states have centre-right Governments, and Austria has just decisively re-elected one.
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The difference is that all those centre-right Governments believe in Europe, unlike the anti-European right-wing

  685
  party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, which will never be elected as long as it maintains its anti-European course.
  Mr. Ancram: Once again, we see the hon. Gentleman correcting his words. He should be careful about what he says, because I am sure that his remarks last week will have been noted with great care in some of the chancelleries of Europe.
  With enlargement—which we welcome—on course, Europe is at a crossroads. Its challenge is to give back to the peoples of Europe a sense of ownership over the EU institutions. A bigger European Union must not become an even more distant one. At Laeaken, it was rightly declared that
  "the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens".
  The convention has been disappointing in that regard. It had a great opportunity comprehensively to review how Europe was working and to jettison those practices and rules that were distancing it from its peoples. It has failed to do that. In particular, it has failed to tackle the problem of remote institutions.
  Indeed, the Giscard draft treaty seeks further to centralise employment and social law, which even in the United States of America is left to the individual states—hardly a decentralising charter.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should declare the debate on the institutions a failure, given that the convention has not yet had that debate.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady should listen. I said that, before it started any deliberations, the convention should conduct a fundamental review of how Europe is working. It is a great surprise to Conservative Members that, almost three quarters of the way through its time, it has not done that.
  Recently—and very flatteringly—the Welsh Secretary adopted my phrase "a partnership of sovereign states", but everything that he and the Government are doing is moving slowly but surely in the opposite direction. Whatever he may have told the House tonight, the Government are integrationist. Last week, the Prime Minister called once again for a European superpower.
  Mr. George Foulkes: No.
  Mr. Ancram: Yes, he did, and it is about time that the right hon. Gentleman understood what his Prime Minister is calling for. He also called for a unified foreign policy and for a massive abolition of Britain's remaining vetoes. For Conservative Members, that is the voice of integration. It may not be the voice of the motion, but then again the motion would delight a sackful of weasels.
  The Conservative party will continue to seek a Europe that is more accountable, more democratic, less centralised and more relevant.
  Mr. Allen: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's position, but can he imagine a form of words that would
  686
  reassure him on his greatest fears, of centralisation and a federal superstate, and see a place for those words in a European constitution, so that he need never fear what any Prime Minister or Executive might say in the future, because those words would be enshrined clearly in a constitution?
  Mr. Ancram: I will explain later why I do not believe in a European constitution, but I believe that the words that we should see are "national Parliaments". That is where the strength should lie.
  We are attempting to bring the EU closer to all its peoples. For all the Government's words analysing the problems of alienation, there have been few specific proposals to solve them. There is a worrying parallel with the common agricultural policy. For years we pressed the Government to make specific proposals on CAP reform, but virtually none has been produced. Instead, the vacuum was filled against our interests by France and Germany in October in Brussels.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, we saw today a report that the French and Germans are jointly proposing tax harmonisation. The Secretary of State's denial of that holds no water for me, given all the Government's previous denials that were then followed by actions that showed that the stories were right in the first place.
  We will introduce detailed proposals—I wish to make some this evening—that will, in part, reflect aspects of the work done by respected senior members of the Conservative party earlier this year, but especially the important work being done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and our European parliamentary colleagues who are in the convention. They will in due course produce their own recommendations, and I look forward to taking them into account.
  A reformed Europe should meet a number of criteria: it must add value, its power must not compromise national sovereignty, and it must demonstrably provide stability and prosperity. What is clear is that Europe does not need any more bureaucracy or regulation—it is already hobbled by red tape and a one-size-fits-all currency—nor does it require any more power; if anything, it has too much already.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I will give way, but this is the last time that I do so because I am very conscious of the time.
  Mr. Bryant: I feel suitably chastened and grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I just wonder whether he feels that it is none the less important for the Commission to have a certain degree of power, especially in relation to the regulation of state aid. If we are to ensure that we have the necessary long-term stability and economic flexibility, we need a strong Commission in relation to competition law.
  Mr. Ancram: I shall come to the Commission in due course in my remarks, and I will not pre-empt what I want to say.
  The EU needs to re-engage with the peoples of Europe. Giving it a constitution will not achieve that; it will only vastly increase the authority of European

  687
  institutions over the member states. We believe in a lighter approach to Europe through treaties, rather than putting Europe's future into the hands of lawyers and judges. I was interested to see the remarks of the EU ombudsman, Jacob Sōderman, who said last week that
  "it seems to me that two of the ideas put forward—a president of the European Council and Congress—would take EU decision making to even higher levels rather than bring it closer to the citizens".
  That view reflects our concerns about what is proposed at present in the convention.
  Until now, the EU has been created by treaties between sovereign member states. The institutions that those treaties have established and the relationships between member states are of a special nature, but the EU has throughout its existence fundamentally remained a partnership of nation states. A constitution would change all that. It would give the EU autonomous authority and be a crucial building block in the creation of a federal, supranational European superpower.
  Two years ago in Warsaw, the Prime Minister said that Europe did not need a written constitution and that it would not have one. Tonight, the Secretary of State for Wales tells us that we need a constitution, which, for all his protestations, could well include the charter of fundamental rights and will contain all the elements of a constitutional basis for political union.
  The Conservative party agrees with the European Scrutiny Committee that the concept of an ever-closer union is no longer desirable or realistic—for some of us, it never was. Nothing is more objectionable to the British people than the European ratchet effect—what the theorists rather splendidly call functional integrationism. We believe in an EU that is a genuine partnership of sovereign nation states. We believe that its legislative process must be a genuinely two-way affair. We want to forge a new partnership between the institutions in Brussels and national Parliaments throughout the EU.
  Noticeably, the national Parliaments receive only a passing mention in the Giscard draft treaty, yet we in the House know that national Parliaments are the bodies with which people most identify. They are far closer to their electorates than any European body could ever be. National Parliaments must be put at the heart of the new Europe if we are to meet the democratic deficit and reengage the peoples of Europe with European institutions.
  The importance and role of national Parliaments should be strengthened, therefore, and enshrined in any new treaty. It must be made clear beyond doubt that the EU has competence or shared competence only where the treaties grant it and that powers not explicitly granted to the EU remain with member states. The description of and limits to such powers granted must also be clearly defined. We support the need for a definition of competences to be included in the treaties, but not a constitution.
  I welcome the convention working party's proposals on subsidiarity, but they do not go nearly far enough. I agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that we need new procedures to enforce subsidiarity and that decisions should be made by a political watchdog, not by the European Court of Justice. National
  688
  parliamentarians should be able to intervene on subsidiarity at the level of national Parliaments and through a subsidiarity panel or watchdog. I was grateful for what I understood to be a general welcome to the proposition from the Secretary of State for Wales, as it was a proposition that emanated some time ago from the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lord Mackenzie Stuart, a former president of the European Court of Justice, is on record as describing subsidiarity as "gobbledegook"? He went on to claim that the notion that it constitutes a constitutional safeguard shows "great optimism".
  Mr. Ancram: As a Scottish advocate who practised in the Scottish courts for many years, I would be cautious about criticising a Scottish judge. In a sense, my hon. Friend is right that subsidiarity operates at the moment with the effect of gobbledegook. I am suggesting a manner in which we can make it mean something and properly enforce it.
  One way in which I would like it to be enforced is that reservations on subsidiarity expressed by, say, five national parliaments should be enough to halt a piece of legislation. We believe that all national Parliaments ideally should have an EU legislative scrutiny committee to scrutinise legislative proposals before they proceed to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) smiling, but that is what happens in the Danish Parliament at the moment, and it is very effective. I believe that we can lead the way on this among other member nations.
  All national parliaments, including ours, should be encouraged to enhance their scrutiny of European legislation. We continue to propose to replace our COREPER representative with a new Minister for European Affairs. We could lead immediately by example in that area. The new Minister would face questions in the House every two weeks. That could also help, in co-operation with our European parliamentary colleagues., to prevent "gold-plating" of European proposals by national Governments.
  As for the exercise of power at the European level, we support the aim of clarifying and simplifying the treaties, but not when that entails transferring even more powers to the European Union. The intergovernmental method of decision making in foreign affairs, defence and criminal justice, through the second and third pillars of the European Union, must not be absorbed into a single EU structure. The ways in which human liberties are protected through the ECHR and our national courts are adequate. We therefore believe that there is no need for further protection. In particular, the incorporation of a legally binding charter of fundamental rights into a new treaty would lead to a vast increase in the power of the European Union over the member states and of European judges over the political process. That would further exacerbate the democratic deficit, which the convention is intended to try to fill.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: When might the result of a referendum on a treaty be binding on Europe? In Denmark and Ireland, the people spoke, but

  689
  Europe did not accept the decision, and huge expenditure by the Governments of the day in those countries sought to reverse the decision of the people.
  Mr. Ancram: Clearly, individual referendums are matters for the countries concerned, but I share my hon. Friend's concern in the respect that it is bad for democracy in Europe, and bad in terms of trying to interest people in the political process in Europe if, when questions are asked, and the wrong answer is given from the point of view of the Government or Europe, they continue to ask the question until they get the answer that they want. That is not necessarily the right way to proceed.
  We propose, too, that there should be a rough European equivalent of the Law Commission, to examine the acquis communautaire, to identify out-of-date legislation and to slim down the 85,000 pages of EU law. We also want a simplified decision-making process. The EU currently has 30 different ways of making decisions. We propose to bring that down to just two: binding laws and non-binding recommendations. Binding laws shall, basically, deal with the rules for the single market and other essential areas. In other areas, the EU should have the power to issue recommendations for member states, which are always free to adopt higher standards if they so wish.
  We support moves to make the Council a more open institution. It has been far too secretive, allowing Governments to blame each other for unpopular laws and for added bureaucracy. Council voting should be on the record and in public. We would also like the General Affairs Council to sit every two weeks in open forum and not just deal with foreign affairs issues. The Spanish Government have led progress on this issue.
  With enlargement, the current system of rotating Council presidencies simply will not work. Something has to be done. We oppose, however, the proposal for an individual president elected by his peers for five years. Let us leave aside the Prime Minister's retirement plans—we believe that the concept is fundamentally wrong. It would do nothing to make the EU more accountable or democratic or to decentralise it. Indeed, it would do quite the opposite. We support team presidencies, with perhaps one large member state working with two small ones for one or two years. Such a reform would have many benefits. It would provide longer-range Council planning, it would be a model for international co-operation and, above all, it would not be a threat to the position of the small member states of the EU.
  Peter Hain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his opposition to a full-time president of the Council is shared by all the federalists in this debate? They do not want such a president because they want all the power in the European Parliament and the Commission. They do not want a strong Council. How is that compatible with his vision of a Europe of nation states?
  Mr. Ancram: I will always gratefully receive support from wherever I can find it. My reason for opposing a five-year presidency has nothing to do with federalism. It is a centralising proposition that would make the post
  690
  even more remote from the peoples of Europe than it is currently. One could have all sorts of anomalies. Someone might be a Prime Minister at the time that he is elected to a five-year presidency. He might lose a general election in his country two months later, but would remain in the presidency even though he had no remit from his country to exercise that authority. There are many anomalies, so a five-year presidency would not be the right way to go.
  The Commission, too, is in need of reform. Its monopoly of legislative initiative compromises the EU's democratic standards. We want a streamlined Commission, with its powers of initiation curtailed. The Commission should move towards becoming a secretariat under proper democratic control, in which the European Parliament would have a central role to play. We would like directives to be issued once again on a genuine framework basis, with the Commission only stating the desired outcome. Methods of implementation should then be left to the national Parliaments.
  Mr. Bryant rose—
  Mr. Ancram: We would like to see a new system of full and junior commissioners, with the larger member states being guaranteed full posts. Smaller member states would have a proper voice through their junior commissioners.
  Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way again. I want to finish my speech as I have been speaking for too long.
  We support the need for pan-European defence cooperation, but strictly and only within NATO. The Euro army should be finally laid to rest before its inadequacies embarrass Europe further.
  There is another issue that the convention should just leave alone. The continued mad clash, boosted again by the Prime Minister last week, for a united foreign policy is to fly, particularly at this time, in the face of reality. It will not happen and it would not work if it did. We have a right to our own distinct view on international matters. We should fight to preserve that right and not to compromise it.
  These are some of the ways in which we can build a European Union that is more dynamic, more adaptable and better able to play a role in the modern world. It is the antithesis of integration and centralisation. It disperses power back down the chain. I want the European Union to succeed as a partnership of sovereign nation states. However, to succeed, it must reengage with its peoples. Centralisation will never be the answer. It is interesting that politicians from the accession countries often tell me that they do not want a centralised Europe. Those countries have not freed themselves from the yoke of Soviet centralisation to submit to the same from Brussels.
  Tonight's debate is useful, but we need a far broader national debate on the future shape and structures of Europe. This debate is too important to become a narrow discussion conducted by what I would call Euro technicians. The future of the EU will fundamentally affect the lives of all the peoples of Europe, including the

  691
  people of Britain. We should ask them for their view. I would like the Government to publish a Green or White Paper upon which such consultation could then take place. The British people would make it clear in no uncertain terms just how much they believe is wrong with the European Union and how they would like to get the worst of it off their backs. They do not want the European superpower that the Prime Minister promised them last week. They want the same Europe as we do—a Europe less centralised, less intrusive and more responsive. It is time that the Government began to speak for Britain in Europe, rather than for Europe in Britain.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  8.40 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am not starting as I intended 10, because I have been reminded of the words of Eli Weisel:
  "It is not because I cannot explain that you do not understand—it is because you do not understand that I cannot explain."
  I was struck by what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said. He made me smile, not because I disagreed with him, but because if he cared to read and understand the convention documents, he would realise that the vast majority of the things that he called for have also been requested by a large number of people at the convention, including the British representatives. There is a huge amount of agreement. I wish that his desire to debate Europe were based not on calling for Green Papers and White Papers, but on listening. There is tremendous agreement on how the European Union can be improved. I accept there is disagreement on how best to achieve that, but there is no right or wrong answer at this stage. The point of the convention is to find the most satisfactory way forward.
  When the convention started eight months ago, it was not clear what we would achieve. Some people thought that we would produce options. It is now clear that we will produce something that represents a constitution. The United Kingdom has been strongly represented. Despite Cabinet changes, and my delight that we have a new Minister for Europe, I was extremely pleased that the convention representation remained the same. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) has been strong and effective, and I would not have wanted a change, despite the fact that he is now Secretary of State for Wales.
  It should be recognised that the convention breaks historic ground. Both national and European parliamentarians are involved in treaty changes for the first time. That is a huge step forward. Treaties used to be cooked up by civil servants and approved by Heads of Government. They were then delivered to Parliament, which could say yes or no. That has changed and we are involved, but that puts a huge responsibility on parliamentarians. I use that word deliberately. If the House, as a Parliament, wishes to play its role effectively, Parliament as an institution must find its voice. It has to stop name calling across the Benches. It must take stock and think about what is at stake for parliamentary sovereignty—I also use that term deliberately—rather than national sovereignty.
  692
  The real issue is not one of federalism or centralism. Instead, it is how parliamentarians—national and European—hold the Executive to account. If we are honest, we have been far from perfect in that. Some of the limitations have been institutional. If hon. Members care to look at the report of the working group, they will see that it supports the Seville recommendation that the Council of Ministers opens its doors. It also supports not only the much better flow of information, but the idea of making far more politically intelligent use of it.
  To use scrutiny properly and not just as a replacement for sovereignty, it must have a proper political impact. When we scrutinise European legislation, it must be seen as scrutiny of the Executive. What are at stake in the convention are the mechanisms for doing that. The contention that federalists are the real threat is not true. There are true federalists at the convention, but they are in the minority. However, I must issue a note of caution to the Government. The long accepted British view is that in order to prevent the federalist influence, it is necessary to promote the intergovernmental alternative. That is not necessarily so, because the intergovernmental method can simply mean that we replace a remote federal structure with a remote group of Ministers, and although they represent majorities, they are not necessarily more accountable. How do we make them more accountable?
  The step taken on subsidiarity is hugely significant. I agree with the mutterings that I detected in the House that subsidiarity on its own is not the issue. Subsidiarity was defined in the treaty of Maastricht, and a protocol requires its observance. However, on no occasion has a decision been blocked. Evidence concerning the observance of the principle is scant, and we ask for much more evidence. The British insistence on continually combining the word "subsidiarity" with "proportionality", and our success in doing so, has emphasised the importance of that combination.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes suggested that five member Parliaments should make up the watchdog on subsidiarity. We decided that there should be a significant number, which was translated by many as being about 40 per cent. However, that structure on its own will not be sufficient. If Parliaments do not wake up to their responsibility and if parliamentarians do not develop a mechanism by which they share their experiences and exchange their views, there will simply be a process of divide and rule. The danger of the convention is that although we will refer to national Parliaments in the constitution and give them mechanisms, parliamentarians will not use them unless they wake up to their responsibility.
  European Union decision making will have to be firmly based in the national institutions. If hon. Members will forgive the analogy, the situation reminds me of putting up a tent as a child. The tent is held on the ground only if we peg it down, and national Parliaments must be those pegs, because the electorate relates to them. If all the proposals in the convention and in the working group of national Parliaments are implemented and work as they should, the sign of success for me, and the desired outcome, will be evident in my Friday night surgeries.
  At the moment, if people ask, "Did you agree with this directive?" I can honestly say, "I never heard about it. I did not know it was coming. I was never asked.

  693
  They did it." The convention, and the constitutional structure on the table at the moment, will create a mechanism whereby I can say, "I knew that it was coming. I was asked whether I wanted it to go ahead. We collectively had a say, and we said yes." We have to put an end, once and for all, to the silly division and competition between parliamentarians at national level and those at European level. We have to start to work together, but operating at different levels.
  Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Lady envisage any reduction in the 80,000-page, 31-chapter acquis communautaire? If not, will she concede that she is effectively signing up to the doctrine of the occupied field?
  Ms Stuart: Rather than proposing, as the right hon. Member for Devizes did, to set up an institution that would review all that, I want to make a precise point about it, and I shall return to the matter.
  I turn now to the constitution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) asked what would be a sign of the success of the new constitutional structure. For me, it would be an introductory part that is understandable by everyone, as well as more technical points. However, I would be looking for more fundamental points in the interests of logical coherence and of national Parliaments.
  The first is that if there is a clause describing how to enter the Union, there must logically be a clause describing how to leave the Union. Whether countries do that is entirely up to them. If, in the constitution, we describe precisely how competencies from member states become shared competencies and sole competencies, there must be an analogous article clearly describing the way in which those competencies can travel back. That, in my view, must be there. That is my indirect answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about whether I could ever envisage a reduction. I think that there must a mechanism for travelling back.
  I fundamentally disagree with the observation made by the president of the convention, who described the process a "refounding of the Union", the implication being that either the resulting constitution would be ratified by a country, or that country would be out of the Union. To my mind, the constitution will be a treaty like any other, to be ratified by the various countries and to come into effect only when all the member states have ratified it.
  I have a final word of caution about the courts. In the convention, I have detected a tendency to regard the courts as the final arbiter of what is or is not democratic. The courts have a huge role to play, not least in enforcing the internal market, but there is a range of decisions that are fundamentally political. It is up to politicians to express themselves in clear terms on such issues, and they should be left in the hands of politicians. Matters of subsidiarity are political decisions. In the end the courts may have a role—analogous to judicial review—in determining whether proper processes have been followed, but judges must not replace political decision makers. Several members of the convention see things that way.
  694
  By next summer we will have a draft constitution. We do not yet know whether the Heads of Government will accept it; I very much hope that they will. The House has been extremely supportive of its representatives and I am grateful for that. I regard representing national Parliaments, not only at the convention but in the praesidium, as the most important role I have been asked to perform. I shall listen with great care to the debate so that in the convention the House's representatives will be able to reflect the view of parliamentarians.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who made a thoughtful contribution. I pay tribute to her and to her colleague who also represents the House in the convention for the work that they have been doing. I do not agree with every last opinion that has been expressed, but it is clear that they have been doing a thorough job.
  We must welcome this Government-sponsored motion on the convention—the first since it began its work earlier this year. It is a shame that it has been a long time coming; it is none the less welcome now that it has arrived. The Government have stated that we should reform the European Union to create a strong and effective body. Ministers have stressed the need for Britain to be at the forefront of the debate on Europe, and argued that the convention must not represent another missed opportunity in the grand British tradition of watching developments in Europe from the sidelines.
  In his speech in Cardiff last week, the Prime Minister spoke of
  "the creation of a new Europe",
  which would be done
  "methodically, inclusively and transparently".
  That is a fine ambition, which should set a high standard for the Government to live up to, but so far there is little in the public domain to support that aspiration. There has been no White Paper—not even a Green Paper—on the Government's position on the future of Europe. What we know has emerged from this short debate, or from media reports. Those reports make it obvious that the Secretary of State for Wales has made spirited contributions to the convention as a whole, but we here in Parliament are largely in the dark about most of the proposals being made, although their tone has become clear. A White Paper has been necessary from the outset; the timing has now become rather urgent.
  As the Secretary of State for Wales said, the German and French Foreign Ministers are now taking their place at the convention. Without wishing to undermine his own contribution, I must ask why our own Foreign Secretary is not adding to Britain's firepower within the convention?
  Peter Hain: A difficulty faced by both Joschka Fischer from Germany and Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin from France is the fact that the convention is a busy responsibility. Their appearances so far have been

  695
  fleeting, and I do not think that there is any prospect of the Foreign Secretary being able to put the work in, as he has global responsibilities.
  Mr. Moore: We shall not ask what is happening in Wales in the meantime. Surely it is accepted that the Foreign Secretary would not be present at all times. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would know that I spoke about adding to our firepower at the convention, not replacing it.
  We support calls for the reform of the European Union. The continent is at a crossroads, with significant enlargement in prospect and the impact of globalisation becoming more obvious with every passing day. The EU's purpose has changed since the European Coal and Steel Community was founded in 1956 with six members. In size and scope, it is unrecognisable from the vision of 50 years ago. With those changes has come a growing remoteness from the people whom the EU is supposed to serve. Whether by design or otherwise, much of its activity has become inaccessible, non-transparent and unaccountable. Europe clearly needs to sort that out, but not with the fixes that have often characterised previous developments.
  As the Governments and institutions of Europe prepare for a revolution, citizens need to be put at the heart of the Union. There should be proper recognition of the principle that decisions be taken at the most appropriate level within the Union, and there should be an overhaul of the institutions to make the Union effective and accountable. The convention's proposal for a constitution for Europe is an important way of achieving those aims. The details are not fully fleshed out yet, but they offer some useful pointers and plenty of opportunity for debate. Current treaties are cumbersome, virtually unreadable and come complete with thousands of pages of supporting detail. In the real world we cannot avoid the legislative load, but in a constitution we should set out the founding principles of the Union. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) set out in Westminster Hall last Wednesday, we should aspire to make the constitution, if not inspirational, at least readable.
  We support the inclusion of a charter of fundamental rights in such a constitution, as that is the clearest way of ensuring that citizens understand their relationship with those who govern them, at whatever level. The Prime Minister has said that he opposes the charter and its incorporation. In a speech last week, he said:
  "we cannot support a form of treaty incorporation that would enlarge EU competence over national legislation".
  I shall ignore the fact that earlier in his speech he had said plainly:
  "we must end the nonsense of 'this far and no further"'
  A quick glance at the charter will show that the most common phrase states that any article should be
  "in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices".
  Article 16, on freedom to conduct business, and article 28, on the right of collective bargaining and action, are just two examples covered by that stipulation.
  That approach should not scare governments; if it does, that suggests that their commitment to reconnecting Europe with its citizens is paper thin.
  696
  Ministers, in their contributions to the European debate, have spoken of a "Union of nation states", neglecting or downgrading the idea that it should be a union of peoples as well. The charter may need to be amended to so that that idea is expressed in treaty language, but if we are serious in our goal of the reform of Europe it must be included. Likewise, we must ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is enshrined in the new constitution.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Did my hon. Friend notice the merriment among Conservative Members at the very idea that subsidiarity might be included in the new constitution? However, we all remember that the former Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, promoted that idea.
  Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has made a good and valid point—[Interruption.] May I continue?
  Decisions must be taken at the most appropriate level in Europe. We welcome the absence from the draft document of the previous refrain of "ever closer union", which sits uneasily with that principle. In passing, we reject, as the Government motion puts it,
  "the alternative of a federal superstate".
  We do not believe in such a concept. The Union is more than simply a union of sovereign states: the people must count as well. Subsidiarity is important to that end, and we need to ensure that when we make a commitment to the principle, there are proper ways in which to make it work.
  The balance between the different parts of the different policies has shifted over the years. We need a clear statement in the new treaty. We support the idea proposed at the convention of an early warning system based on national Parliaments and the European Parliament. As the hon. Member for Birmingham., Edgbaston said, we should not shirk our responsibilities in Parliament and simply blame everything on Brussels, in time-honoured fashion.
  Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has spoken at some length about subsidiarity. I am sure that he knows that the original concept derives from Catholic teaching, and a 19th century papal encyclical. To which definition of subsidiarity does he subscribe? Does he believe that the Committee of the Regions should play a more important role in the new Europe?
  Mr. Moore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the origins of the concept, although I hope that they are not especially relevant to the debate. The appropriate level for decision making and scrutiny should be determined according to the subject. For example, education should be tackled in individual countries. In the past few years we have accepted the principle that decisions about education should be ceded to Wales and Scotland, and we hope that that will happen in the English regions, too.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moore: I am still answering the previous intervention. On the environment, we are increasingly

  697
  realising that pollution does not recognise boundaries and must therefore be considered accordingly. However, we must reform the institutions and make them more accountable and effective. So far, subsidiarity has not been sufficiently clear.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I speak as the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman support me and many other hon. Members from all parties who believe that the House deals with European secondary legislation in the most despicable way? We need much more effective scrutiny of such legislation, and the ability to amend it—and to reject it if hon. Members decide to do that.
  Mr. Moore: I do not want to disappoint, surprise or upset the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with him. It is entirely fair that the House should take more responsibility and be better at scrutinising. There is a desperate need for improved scrutiny at all levels in the European Union. For example, the Council of Ministers could meet in public, and the President of the Commission could ensure that his state of the union address was subjected to detailed scrutiny and put to the vote in the European Parliament. It is also important to endorse the principle of freedom of information in the European Union
  There is common agreement that Europe is at a critical point, and there is much speculation about where we will end up, not least about the United Kingdom's destination. We desperately need the blueprint to which the Minister said that he was not currently working. We need a White Paper and a commitment to further debate in the House. If we are to achieve reform, the people of Europe must be taken along with it. We must begin that process here.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: I support the Government's stated position of supporting a Union of sovereign member states and their rejection of the alternative of a federal superstate. When I listen to some of the Government's supporters, however, I wonder whether I support the Government's position more than the Government do. On some matters, we slide increasingly towards a federal superstate.
  I have never been an expert on Euro-jargon and I do not want to approach the debate in that fashion. I want to consider democracy, because Europe is the greatest example of a disconnection between politicians and the public. For some time, debates in Europe and on Europe's development have been elite-driven, top down and marked by apathy and almost hopelessness among the population. That disconnection is dangerous for democracy, because if people feel that they cannot affect the decisions that have an impact on their lives they will look for non-democratic solutions.
  It has often been said that we live in a post-ideological age, but it is almost as though a new ideology of Europeanism has infected the body politic in this country.
  Mr. Bryant: Internationalism.
  Mr. Davidson: It is more than that. I do not see Europeanism as just internationalism. Indeed, in many regards it is the very antithesis of it, because it draws in the wealthy while putting up barriers against the rest of the world, particularly in relation to the operation of the common agricultural policy and the way in which it deliberately penalises the third world. I want to reject the drive towards Europeanism that we often see coming from some of the zealots in politics. I also want to reject the anti-Europeanism—which is often just "little Englandism"—that we hear from some Conservative Members. As in so many things, therefore, I find myself in the centre, speaking with the moderate's voice of reason, and seeking a third way. As a supporter of New Europe, and of saying yes to Europe and no to the euro, I seem to be in an ideal position to lead us forward in the name of moderation.
  We need to consider not only the jargon that many of my colleagues have used, for understandable reasons, up to now; Europe needs to be translated for people in terms of its practical impact. No matter what we say about constitutions, structures arid the like, people in this country do not and will not understand why France can defend its farmers while we cannot defend our fishermen. Until Europe starts to work for people in this country in a way that they can comprehend, there will continue to be a disconnection. The need for a poet was mentioned earlier. I fear that many people might consider William McGonagall the most appropriate. For hon. Members who are puzzled by that reference, a trip to the Library might be advisable.
  I seek clarification from the Government on a number of points. We need to boil some of this down to basics. I am not clear whether any proposed constitution would stop the drive towards ever-closer union that was incorporated in the treaty of Rome, and which has been reiterated in subsequent treaties, or whether such a constitution would make it clear that the objective of European linkages was no longer, inevitably or irrevocably, ever-closer union. If ever-closer union remains the text, people will see that consistent centralisation is in progress. We need to be clear about that.
  There is no doubt that we are in the process of creating a European superstate. We already have the flag, the anthem, the drive towards an army, the move towards a president, the propaganda division, the drive towards centralisation and, indeed, the rights of initiative. I see the rights of initiative as a drive towards ever-closer union. When mention is made of the need for the Commission to have political independence, it is not clear whether that independence would be in the best traditions of our civil service—dealing with matters in a non-partisan fashion—or whether it would involve the Commission as an actor in its own right. If the Commission is to be the civil service of the Union, political independence has to mean civil service-type independence, rather than an independence that would allow the Commission to act in its own right, with its own drive and direction.
  I also want to clarify the issue of the departmentalisation, based on the French model, that the European Union has consistently pursued. I understand subsidiarity, and I support more powers

  699
  for the regions, but the departmentalisation model that the European Union is driving forward is about breaking up nation states into departments, divisions and smaller areas, and linking them to an ever-stronger centre. There would be an imbalance of power between the ever-stronger cent re and the individual departments, so departments would become supplicants rather than partners. We need to be clear about how that operation would work.
  We also need to be clearer about harmonisation. I heard with interest and some happiness the indication of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that he is not aware of any French or German aspiration to harmonise taxes. I cannot help but think that he is perhaps ill informed on that matter, but if that is his view, it is the best understanding he has at the moment.
  We must be clear about whether we are prepared to harmonise taxes—in the first instance, corporation tax and valued added tax. I can understand why people want that as part of the creation of a single market, and its logical extension is, of course, harmonisation of personal and property taxes—the harmonisation of almost all taxes. I am not clear about whether the Government remain wedded to their view that there should be no move in that direction or whether they will carry their view in the discussions on the convention.
  The single market needs to be reined back in some areas, particularly where it impinges on issues such as health, which are restricted to or remain with national Parliaments but where the single market may have influence. I have always believed in high taxes on tobacco as a health issue, yet the single market undermines this country's policy of putting high taxes on tobacco for health reasons, as people can import cheap tobacco from the rest of the EU—there is an allowance. We must state that there are areas into which the single market will not move and that the assumption must not automatically be that the single market will prevail in clashes with other policy areas.
  I am a supporter of modernisation and there are a number of areas in which the Government must look for substantial EU modernisation before they say that they are prepared to move forward. I can think of three examples that would be immensely popular in this country. First, we need modernisation of budgets so that we can reduce the fraud, corruption and waste that the Court of Auditors consistently reports on. I cannot see why we wish to cede further powers to or move forward with an EU that is incapable of running its own financial affairs. That is an overdue and essential element of modernisation to which any Government who say that they favour modernisation in principle must stick.
  The second example is the common agricultural policy. I cannot understand why a Government who are wedded to the concept of modernisation have been prepared to accept the almost total absence of progress on modernising the CAP, which not only taxes poor people in my constituency and every other area by raising food prices to inappropriate levels but ruins agriculture in and the economies of many third-world countries. I always regarded the dumping of CAP surpluses as an obscenity at a time when much of the world was starving, yet the Government have been
  700
  unable to modernise in that area. They must consider it with substantial urgency. The third example is foreign aid, on which progress is necessary.
  My final point is on political language. A number of my colleagues disagree with me on a variety of issues, but I believe that debates ought to take place in a comradely fashion. To me, being described as an enemy by people on my own side with whom I disagree is entirely inappropriate. Saying that the
  "enemies of Labour are the enemies of the euro"
  is absurd, as it equates being an opponent with being an enemy, being anti-Labour with being anti-euro and being anti-euro with being anti-Labour. I hope that the Minister, as one who has been a member of this organisation for a considerable time, will make it clear in his winding-up speech that he rejects such partisan tribalism.
  Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend was my friend, is my friend and shall be my friend. I cannot conceive of his being an enemy to anything except that which is evil.
  Mr. Davidson: I welcome what the Minister says. Can I take it, then, that he will go back to Britain in Europe and the Labour Movement for Europe and say that they should never produce material that describes opponents as enemies?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). He spotted that the harmonising and centralising drive in the European Union has become almost an ideology of its own, which not only threatens democracy but brings in its train grotesque mismanagement and even corruption from the policies and administrations that have been centralised in Brussels.
  The publication of the draft constitution that we are considering will give further impetus to those very forces. It is a hugely significant event. It means, for instance, that although this country has done without a written constitution throughout its history, a written constitution will now be imposed on it—but a constitution that we have not drafted or written ourselves.
  Until very recently the Government opposed a European constitution, with good reason. A constitution is an attribute of statehood. The draft constitution published in Brussels offers us dual citizenship: in other words, it already equates the European Union with a state. It is highly disingenuous of the Government to claim now that their previous opposition was all a mistake, and that for the first time Europe will somehow be able to achieve certainty and clarity in regard to respective powers. The truth is that the constitution that has been published will be a centralising force.
  For instance, it is clear from the draft that the intergovernmental pillars that secure and protect the intergovernmental mode of decision making in the

  701
  European Union are to go. Article 14 tells us that the Union has "a single institutional structure" in its new form. We also read that it will have a single legal personality. Those developments alone have enormous implications for foreign policy, for defence and for this country's rights and abilities to participate in international agreements. The European Union will replace the right of member states to do that, and to engage with other bodies. The same applies to justice and home affairs; they, too, will be part of the new single constitutional structure.
  I am a member of the working group in the convention, which is about to report. I am the only dissident, or the only person who will oppose the recommendations. I will do so because under the recommendations cross-border crimes of all sorts and crimes against what are described as the interests of the European Union will be approximated across all member states. In this context, "approximated" means harmonised. Moreover, the decision will be made under qualified majority voting.
  This Session, the House has before it six criminal justice Bills. They deal with extremely important matters that are of great concern to our constituents: penalties, sentencing, criminal justice procedures, rules of evidence, and whether this country should adopt double jeopardy. I oppose the latter proposal, but at least it is a matter to be debated and decided in this House. However, I have to warn the House that if, as is certain, the working group's recommendations are adopted by the convention and form part of this new constitution, all those matters and more besides—including immigration and asylum—will be decided at European Union level by qualified majority voting, and will come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
  These matters are at the heart of the nation state and of parliamentary democracy; they are about the coercive powers of the state and they raise very sensitive issues of accountability and control. They are about our common law traditions, which differ from those on the continent. Yet it is now proposed that these decisions be transferred upwards to the European Union and centralised there. What is so damaging is that the convention was set up to try to close the gap between the institutions of the European Union and the people of Europe. The European Union is widely regarded as remote and technocratic, but if we remove decisions about criminal justice, sentencing and immigration further away from the electors and from this House, that gap will widen even further, and the democratic deficit will be uncontrollable. Of course, that will play into the hands of the extreme right. Why have elections and change Governments here if it makes not the slightest difference to criminal justice, immigration policy or whatever?
  I am extremely worried by the fact that the Government representative on the working group, Baroness Scotland, who displays great charm and knowledge, has agreed to most of that, which goes well beyond established British Government positions. I have offered to help on a cross-party basis. I wrote to her three weeks ago, offering to defend what I regard as the British interest, but I have yet to receive a reply, so I
  702
  conclude that all this has been planned. The Government are, I am afraid, dissembling if they claim that this new constitution will not profoundly alter the relationship between this country and this House, and the institutions of Europe.
  The same is true of the charter of fundamental rights. Members will be aware that it was negotiated two years ago on a clear understanding that it was only a political document containing aspirational rights, and that it would not be legally binding then or in the future. These promises were given repeatedly, explicitly and emphatically from the Government Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister, and by the former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place. It was even said that copies of the Beano would be just as legally significant as this new charter of fundamental rights. The Government were, of course, right to oppose the charter's being legally binding, because when those rights become judiciable and enforceable by the European Court of Justice a huge new mechanism for centralisation and EU action will be opened up.
  Those assurances did not last very long. The working group's final report, on incorporation of the charter—I have a copy in front of me—makes it absolutely clear that it will be incorporated into the constitution, and will be legally binding. Page 3 explains that the charter will become legally binding either in the text of the constitution, or as a protocol. It states:
  "The Group as a whole"—
  in other words, by unanimity, including the Government representative—
  "underlines that both these basic options could serve to make the Charter a legally binding text of constitutional status."
  How is that reconciled with all the promises that we received from the Prime Minister and other Ministers at the Government Dispatch Box? How do we expect the public to believe what we tell them about Europe? How do we have an honest, open and straightforward debate about these matters when the Government give copper-bottomed assurances in the House that are overturned a year or two later? The Government are still not admitting it, as we heard from the opening speech in the debate. The Minister said that the charter has been changed significantly. It has not been changed significantly—that is crystal clear from the text of the working group. On technical drafting adjustments, it says:
  "It is important to note that these adjustments proposed by the Group do not reflect modifications of substance. On the contrary, they would serve to confirm, and render absolutely clear and legally watertight, certain key elements"
  Yet the right hon. Gentleman was talking as though this was a great British triumph and that everything had changed. It is simply not true. The Minister on the working group, Baroness Scotland, should have told him the truth. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to intervene, I will accept his assurances to the contrary, but let us hear it from him.
  Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman heard it from me earlier in the debate. We have secured in the draft

  703
  report a series of horizontal articles that stop the charter being enforced to change our domestic law. That is the key.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: What are horizontal articles?
  Peter Hain: The h on. Gentleman should study the report and the debate rather than relying on recycled prejudice.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have these wonderful horizontal articles and they do not add up to a row of beans. I have just quoted from the report, to which the Minister from the upper House has signed up. It says that apart from certain technical drafting adjustments, the text that we are presented with is exactly the same. That is what has been agreed. Which is correct—the right hon. Gentleman's slightly evasive assurances from the Dispatch Box or what appears in black and white in the conclusion to the treaty?
  There is only one solution—to ask the people in a referendum. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and have signed his amendment to that effect. Let us ask the people what they think. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) advanced a good alternative treaty. I think that it could be worked on and improved, but let us ask the people who they trust and what they want—the constitutional settlement advanced by the Government, with its centralising momentum and all that is wrong with it, or a treaty between free and self-governing states of Europe along democratic lines, as proposed by my party.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). He and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) have represented this House and all of us in the discussions that have been taking place. It is not an easy task and they have both carried it out very well in their own very distinctive ways.
  The differences between hon. Members should not obscure the fact that Members on both sides of the House and from all political points in their party signed up to an amendment put before them asking that proper and due consideration be given to the European constitution that could govern our way of life for decades. Everyone in the House found that it was possible to sign up to that. It may be procedural; it may just be democratic. It does not go specifically for one viewpoint or another, but it reflects, I hope, a parliamentary wish that is evident in all parties, which is that this place is nothing and has no role if it cannot have a say on whether the country has a constitution. That is why there was a broad sweep of opinion, even in the brief time that was allowed for us to table an amendment that supported our Parliament and our people, in putting forward our views and having a sensible and open debate.
  I happen to be pro-European and pro-constitution, but my views should prevail only after due argument, after all of us have debated the matter and after the nation has considered the possibilities. After all, the
  704
  right hon. Member for Wells signed the amendment not because he thought that a national debate would arise and that it would find in my favour, but because he thought that such a debate would find in his favour. I am prepared to fight those battles in public, on television or in the Chamber, because I and those who share my view must win others to our position. There is no short cut. There is no way, by sleight of hand, that we can impose a constitution on the people of the United Kingdom.
  I am sorry that the shadow Foreign Secretary has left the Chamber. He made many points to which Members of all parties should pay great attention. Some colleagues may argue that those points resonate with the prejudices of British people. Whether or not that is true, they resonate with the views of British people. Many people fear that the European project is moving too quickly and without checks. The right hon. Gentleman put those points to the House clearly and openly. As I pointed out when he kindly allowed me to intervene, if he feels that we should not acquiesce to certain aspects of a European constitution they should be made clear in the constitution itself. If, like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the right hon. Gentleman feels that subsidiarity is a dead letter, the constitution should make clear how subsidiarity could work. If, as many Opposition colleagues believe, the role of the nation state is under threat, the constitution should make it crystal clear, in words that reassure them, that that is not so and that it would not be legal to undermine that role.
  There must be a clearly written constitution and if we are to achieve it, our Parliament must be given rights in the process. It is nice to hold a debate such as this, but it was granted on a grace and favour basis. The Government have kindly allowed us to speak on the subject. We are not debating it as of right; we are not debating it because Parliament decided that it was a good thing to do and that it was an essential prerequisite for the development of a European constitution.
  Parliament must establish certain rights in respect of the process. With great respect and admiration. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston that a constitution that arises from an illegitimate process will itself be illegitimate and can but fall at the first serious hurdle. We must build in a process for the appreciation and acceptance of a constitution and we must make clear what it stands for in words that reassure not only the British people but the majority of Conservative Members.
  I have to take some issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, much though I am loth to do so because he has been a strong and articulate advocate of the European project and on that matter I put trust in him above almost anyone. However, there is a clear distinction between coalescing existing powers in a treaty and forcing that treaty through the House on a three-line Whip and agreeing to a wholly new constitutional settlement for the people of this country.
  The first is a legitimate function of the Executive. That is the role and the right of the Executive—much as some of us may object on occasion. However, the second—the constitution—cannot possibly be seen either as being in the gift of the British Executive or of a collection of European Executives. It must be something that the people of this country sign up to and are prepared to accept.

  705
  I agree with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) that one way forward would be a White Paper, which would open up the debate and let us all see what is at stake. The House could then get involved in proper pre-legislative scrutiny. It will not surprise the Chairman of the Procedure Committee if I say that such a process would involve all Members of Parliament, and that if it was online the whole nation could participate. If we created a constitution in that way, it would not have 40 or 50 founding fathers, as the United States constitution had, but several million founding fathers and mothers. Such a constitution would enjoy the support of the population as a whole.
  In the end, however, that would have to be endorsed by the British people in a referendum. There may be some who wish that we were not committed to the referendum on the euro—many Members, both Government and Opposition, have expressed that view—but if we accept that it is legitimate to have a referendum on that subject, it must be equally legitimate for constitution making, which cannot be a lesser process than mere monetary union, as a European constitution would influence our lives for many years to come.
  Those in government should not be afraid of partnership or of bringing the House along with them and trying to persuade colleagues; rational argument may prevail in the end. Equally, we should not be afraid of entrusting to the British people, after a thorough national debate, the decision whether to sign up to a constitution.
  We have heard again the old chestnut about judges ruling the roost. Judges are all over statute law already, but they would only ever come into this equation if politicians disagreed so fundamentally that no reconciliation was possible or if those politicians acted illegitimately. Many hon. Members could give a whole series of examples of where that has happened. In those circumstances, the judges may be a protection for the peoples of Europe, and not the problem that some fear.
  We were reminded earlier of the quotation about needing a poet to draft at least the preamble, although I think that a poet could do the whole lot. President Giscard d'Estaing's draft is up to about 300 pages of Euro-speak. It is impenetrable and makes the EU sheepmeat directive seem a racy read. We need to pull together the vision, motivation and drive that were evident in the US constitution. Although the principles of that constitution were agreed in a large committee of 40 or 50 people, Madison was then sent away with a quill pen and ink to compose something that people would be prepared to die for. Giscard's Euro-speak might cause a number of fatalities, but not for reasons of the poetry, artistry and elegance that Madison was able to contrive.
  The challenge for the Minister is not merely to find a beautiful word for that most beautiful concept in democracy of subsidiarity, so that schoolchildren can carry the idea around in their pockets and in their heads, but to find the poet—perhaps someone who is here tonight or someone in some corner of Europe—who can pull together the inspiration that will mean that people are prepared not, we hope, to die for, but to fight for a
  706
  constitution that will unite the peoples of Europe, so that when we go to France we never again have to do so with a rifle over our shoulder but can do so simply to enjoy the wonderful wine.
  9.39 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) makes a very important point in suggesting a referendum because the one thing that he and all colleagues in the House must be aware of is that there is a feeling of hopelessness among the general community on matters relating to Europe. People are concerned about what is happening.
  People who are sickened about it realise that they can do nothing, that their Members of Parliament are powerless and useless in these matters and that things are getting worse. Certainly, if we take the further major step to have a written European constitution, which will interfere with virtually every aspect of our work in Parliament, they will feel particularly angry if it is forced on them without their agreement. Of course a referendum is not a means to ensure that one point of view prevails, but if the people vote for something and it turns out to be horrendous, miserable and horrible, at least we can say that they have responsibility for it.
  Quite frankly, what is upsetting me is the fact that the House of Commons has not realised the extent to which power has already gone. I shall give two brief examples. Colleagues are well aware of the fact many elderly people in Britain now receive the great benefit called the winter fuel payment. They got that from the House of Commons because we agreed that elderly people living in Britain were entitled to money to help them with the cost of the cold.
  How many people are aware—I was told about this in a parliamentary answer on 6 November—that, because of an instruction from the EU, we now have to pay the winter fuel allowance to people from the United Kingdom who go to live in places such as Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Reunion, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary islands, where the sun shines all the time and it is not cold? According to the Government, that will cost £10 million. How on earth is that sensible? How is it correct for us to say that if people go to live in cold Canada, they do not get a penny, but they do if they go to the Azores or the Canary islands? Quite honestly, that is nutty, crazy and a stupid waste of money, but what on earth can we in the House do about it? The answer is, sadly, nothing at all.
  The Minister may remember that the Government introduced a great Bill to say that foreign nationals could not give money to British political parties. Because of people's worries about foreign companies and individuals—perhaps in Hong Kong or elsewhere—giving money to political parties, the Government introduced that great Bill to make it unlawful. The Bill was presented to Parliament, but in the House of Lords, where the Government have such clever Ministers, they had to say that, unfortunately, they could not go ahead with it in its present form. It had to be adjusted because they were not allowed to exclude parts of the EU.
  It was apparently all right for a company in Germany, France or Portugal to give money to the Labour party, the Conservative party or any other party in Britain, but

  707
  not for people who lived in Turkey, Canada, Guadeloupe or places like that to do the same. However, the Government then made a second surrender: they had to say that, sadly, because of EU instructions, they could not exclude places that were EU overseas territories. That put us in the absurd position whereby individuals living in British Guiana were not allowed to give money to the Liberal Democrats, but people were able to do so if they lived in French Guiana. That was madness, crazy and illogical, but what on earth could we do about it? The answer is absolutely nothing. [Interruption.] This is not funny; the Minister should not laugh about it. When a democracy is dying, Ministers should get upset about it. We should not have silly twits trying to pretend that nothing will happen although new things are being introduced.
  Mr. MacShane: It is not British Guiana—the Empire is all over; it is finished.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Of course the Minister is right. All I was pointing out is that, because of the instructions that the Government received, people are not allowed to give money from British Guiana, but they are from French Guiana. That happens to be true. It is shocking and stupid, and the fact that the Minister is laughing about it makes nonsense of the Government's attitude to democracy.
  What can we do about spending, waste and extravagance? I have another written answer from the Government telling me that last year, as part of the EU food process, we had to destroy 47,000 tonnes of cauliflower, 153,000 tonnes of tomatoes, 118,000 tonnes of nectarines, 255,000 tonnes of peaches and 229,000 tonnes of oranges, costing a fortune. People get upset about that. They say that it is crazy and stupid, and they ask what we can do about it. The answer is absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the cauliflowers were destroyed, all the turnips became Liberal MPs?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is—I mean this sincerely—one of the more honest Members of the House. He must be as sick as I am about the billions of pounds spent on destroying food and on dumping food in the third world and doing damage to countries that are starving. What we can do? Can we go to Members of the European Parliament? No. If the European Parliament closed its doors tomorrow, no one would notice apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg.
  What about the graft and corruption? I have a lovely story, of which the Minister must be aware, about a former lay preacher from Essex who was on the wanted list for all kinds of things. He went along to the European Union saying, "I've got a grand plan. I want to try to help the prostitutes of Hungary." He was given £140,000. This gentleman did not use the money to help the prostitutes of Hungary; he bought himself two new cars and a new house, and nothing was done to help the prostitutes of Hungary. When that kind of thing happens under a democratic Parliament such as the House of Commons, we can do something about it. That is the basis of democracy, but, unfortunately, in the European Union, nothing can be done.
  708
  We cannot even discuss upsetting, distressing issues such as capital punishment and corporal punishment. because of the European convention, not the European Union. We have a Home Secretary who wants to do something about asylum seekers, but I have told him time and again about one individual in Southend-on-Sea who came here nine years ago as an asylum seeker from Turkey and who has been appealing repeatedly under all the various European rules. That is paid for by the British taxpayer, and, unfortunately, there is nothing that we can do.
  Ms Stuart: I do not want to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I urge him not to mistake the European Union with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I think that he has just done so, and that adds to the confusion. The issue of corporal punishment to which he referred had nothing to do with the European Union.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I assure the hon. Lady that I am well aware of the differences between the convention and the European Union. She will be aware of aspects—for example, the gentleman who was sent over at great expense to Germany—in which the European Court of Justice gets involved, as does the European convention and the European Court of Human Rights. Both are surrenders of and interference with our power, and we cannot do much about it.
  On the issue of tobacco, does the Minister care or does he want to laugh about the fact that, last year, £1.2 billion of our money—European money, poor people's money—was spent on growing high-tar tobacco in places such as Greece, and was then dumped in the third world and eastern Europe? Does he worry about that? Is he concerned? What can we do about it? The answer is absolutely nothing. The tragedy is that our rights and freedoms are disappearing daily with every single treaty, all of which I voted against. Every time, the Ministers say, "There's not much in this, we've got safeguards, everything will be fine," and the power simply disappears.
  There are two things that we can do. First, it is vital to have the referendum. Secondly, perhaps the Minister will confirm that it would strengthen the European Union if there were an exit clause by which member states that wished to leave would be allowed to do so. Giscard D'Estaing has put forward an ambiguous clause, to which the Minister has said that we do not object. At least an exit clause would give people some freedom and protection.
  I do not want to take up time. As someone who has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, however, it is appalling to see how people are simply switching off from democracy, and not just people such as ourselves. Young people think that it is pointless and useless. So many constituents say, "I know that nothing can really be done about anything nowadays." If people are concerned about issues such as the export of live cattle, what can we do? Absolutely nothing. I wish that Governments of all parties would realise that democracy matters. If we let it disappear, the people will suffer. I hope, therefore, that the Government will try to reclaim powers for democracy and not simply hand over more and more. Someone such as you, Mr. Speaker, who performs a great task in a democratic Parliament

  709
  will be aware that our democracy is dying. It is time that people in all parties started to fight for its retention and to restore it.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: This debate was intended to provide an opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) to report to the House what has been going on in the convention. It is regrettable that their speeches were restricted to 12 minutes. I would very much have liked to have heard much more from them. They made extremely thoughtful speeches, and I agree with much of what they said.
  I wish to pick up an enormously important point that the hon. Lady made. I hope that I understood her correctly when she said that the acquis communautaire could be addressed by creating a mechanism to enable competences to be repatriated. She also said that a second crucial element of dealing with the acquis communautaire would be an exit clause. Both are crucial, but I hope that she understands that all attempts to create a reverse ratchet in the EU have failed. That is why many of us have become sceptical about more proposals of the same ilk. I shall say a bit more about the exit clause shortly.
  I want to discuss the original purpose of the convention. The task set of it by the Laeken declaration was to enable the institutions of the EU to adapt to enlargement and to tackle the so-called democratic deficit. In addressing those questions, the convention needs fully to grasp two points. First, an enlarged EU will unambiguously have to be an EU of nation states. The applicants from eastern Europe will not accept anything else. For them, membership is a means of expressing their newly won sense of national identity. The countries that have shrugged off socialism imposed from Moscow do not want another form of suzerainty to come from Brussels.
  Secondly, if the convention is to make any progress, it must grasp and accept that the democratic deficit cannot be cured by rearranging constitutional pieces on the EU chessboard. A little more power to the Parliament here and a little less to the Commission there will not work. Proposals that enable the EU to acquire some of the trappings of a state—passports, flags and the like—do nothing to help, either.The European Parliament cannot plug the democratic legitimacy gap. Does anyone believe that the electorates of Europe will look to the European Parliament to articulate their sense of identity? No one believes that, and the hon. Lady made that point when she said that national Parliaments are the face to which the electorate relate. If the members of the convention are to make progress, they must realise and say that they have realised that democratic legitimacy comes from nation states and only from nation states. It comes from nowhere else. I have certainly not heard that point made clearly enough in the debate about the convention over the past few months.
  The origins of the democratic deficit in the EU lie deep, but it was the Single European Act, and the erosion of the veto that came with it, and not
  710
  Maastricht, Nice or Amsterdam that began to make many of our electorates uneasy. The Act triggered the search for safeguards and the recognition of the need for reassurance of the electorates. What has been the product of that? We have had the so-called doctrine of subsidiarity, proposals to create lists that clearly distinguish between national and EU competences, proposals for a states' right clause and proposals to enhance the role of national Parliaments among much else before and during the convention. I do not believe that any of them will achieve very much. I hope that the convention has grasped the fact that none of them will do anything to ally the deep concern that is growing in many parts of the electorates in the EU. It will not address their fears that any further transfers of power and, indeed, the exercise of some existing powers erode what many people consider to be their sense of national identity.
  Some might say that those fears are unjustified, and we could have a debate about that. I would not necessarily agree with those who argue that point. In any case, that argument is irrelevant. Those fears, right or wrong, are a political fact and cannot be wished away. They touch on instinctive loyalties of nationality and are not easily assuaged. The only way to do that is for the EU to start explicitly acknowledging that democratic legitimacy flows from nation states and nowhere else. That is why I have long argued for an exit clause to be added to the treaty of Rome, as set out in my amendment.
  For the first time tonight a Minister suggested that the Government might support an exit clause, although he did not seem to appreciate that the value of such a clause lies in getting at the heart of people's deep concerns not, as he put it, in suggesting that it might be of interest only to those "stupid enough" to want to leave the EU. Its value goes far wider than that. Such a clause could, over time, fundamentally improve the quality of debate about the EU in Britain. It would bring a greater sense of rationality and practicality to all sides of the debate.
  Proponents of further integration would have to bear in mind the effect that any proposal might have on the balance of arguments for membership. It could act as a brake on some of the wilder ideas occasionally heard, especially from abroad. Those Eurosceptics who favour withdrawal—I am not one of them—would have to stop arguing that the EU was an irreversible and stealthy assault on nationhood. An exit clause would make it clear that the EU was not part of a final and irreversible treaty. The EU would join the long list of other institutions that also have exit clauses—NATO, the World Trade Organisation, the International Criminal Court, the European convention on human rights, the Council of Europe and so on.
  Of course Britain, or any other country, could, in practice, leave now and no panzers would roll through the channel tunnel to stop us, but, as I said, our electorate, and those of eastern Europe, need to be reassured. Nor should any attempt be made to make life difficult for a leaving country. That is why it is so important that an exit clause also contains clear provisions to ensure that remaining countries assist the leaver.
  Ms Stuart: Fundamentally I agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument on an exit clause. However,

  711
  what is his opinion of the proposal by the European People's party, part of his political family, to have an exit clause but only if it is agreed unanimously by all member states?
  Mr. Tyrie: That is a trite remark. I am trying to make a serious political point about whether the EU should have an exit clause. I am not making a trivial debating point about what may be going on in the European Parliament.
  I am not a sudden convert to the idea of an exit clause. I have pressed the case for such a clause for at least 15 years. I started thinking about it when the Delors report was first debated. There are good arguments for and against currency unions, and reasonable men can disagree about them, but one of the most ludicrous arguments is that the loss of monetary control involved in a currency union is inevitably a one-way ticket and involves the surrender of our nationhood. Currency unions have come and gone over the centuries, and they will do so again. It has always struck me as much better to have the ground rules for withdrawal from a currency union laid out at the start. That could have been done without destabilising the markets and it was a profound mistake that we did not put such a rule into the Maastricht treaty.
  I have discussed an exit clause with a good n umber of people on the convention over the past few months. Initially, I faced strong opposition, including from some senior people. I am pleased that Guiliano Amato, whom I spoke to, and Giscard, whom I did not, appear to be coming around to the idea. I just hope that they fully grasp and articulate the importance of such a clause for entrenching the primacy of the nation state because only if they do that will they get full political value from it. The EU is not—it would be foolhardy to try to make it—anything more than a highly sophisticated set of reciprocal obligations between member states. Perpetuating the illusion that it is anything more, and many try to do that, particularly in continental politics, will at best waste a great deal of bureaucratic and political time; at worst, it will mix a dangerous nationalist cocktail. We are already seeing some evidence of that lethal mix in the domestic politics of France, Austria, the Netherlands and possibly Germany.
  My deeper worry about the work of the convention is the lack of appreciation of the scale of the problems that the EU is accumulating, and I say that as somebody who is not a paid-up Europhobe. Those problems are not only the failure of so many policies. Is there anyone in the House who could honestly say that there is any major area of EU spending with which they could agree? There are no takers—not even the Minister, who is frowning. That is the scale of our problem in explaining these issues to the electorate. The convention has not fully grasped the scale of the problems that we are trying to deal with.
  There are two straightforward commitments that the Government could make tonight—they have edged towards one of them—which would indicate an appreciation of the scale of the problems. First, it would be helpful if the Government said unequivocally that they fully support an exit clause, not only that they do not see a problem with it. The second, equally important point is that they should put any constitutional arrangement to the electorate in a referendum.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Richard Bacon: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). I have enjoyed listening to the debate, and I want to focus on an area that has received little attention this evening or in the Standing Committee on the Convention. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), with whom I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, referred briefly to the matter, which is of huge importance to the future of Europe. I refer to financial accountability and the control of fraud in the European Union.
  I first took an interest in the issue when I read the House of Lords report, "Financial Control and Fraud in the Community", in July 1994. I shall quote at length from page 1 of that report because it predicates what follows. It says:
  "This is the Select Committee's fourth report since 1989 on fraud and financial irregularity in Community spending. Our 1989 report found that huge sums of Community money were lost each year because of fraud; that financial management was weak; that the failure both to detect fraud and take action when it was detected allowed the fraudsters to continue in business: and that for years there had been no political will to tackle the problem.
  By 1992 we detected some signs that the situation might be improving, although there was a long way to go. We were too optimistic. According to the Court of Auditors' Report of November 1993 on the year 1992, there has been 'little or no improvement' in the Community's financial management, despite repeated criticisms made in previous reports."
  That report made me realise, back in 1994, that this was something that one should keep an eye on, and I decided that I would do that. The 1995 accounts were qualified by the Court of Auditors, which says that the statement of assurance provides
  "numerous illustrations of unsatisfactory accounting and financial management".
  The same thing happened for the third year in a row when the 1996 accounts were qualified, saying that
  "the Court declined to provide positive global assurance as to the legality and regularity of … the payments",
  and it was estimated that about £3.1 billion went missing through fraud. It appears that there had been no change by 1998, for which the report says:
  "For the fifth year in succession the Court found significant weaknesses in the management of the Budget and an unacceptably high rate of error in the transactions underlying payments."
  When we reach the reports for 2000, we find the National Audit Office commenting that
  "it remains a matter of serious concern that little progress has been made in reducing the high level of error, which meant that for the sixth year in succession the Court was unable to provide positive assurance on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying payments."
  Page 1 of that report says:
  "Overall the Court's Annual Report and Statement of Assurance for 1999 showed little evidence of improvement in the financial management of the European Union compared with previous years."
  In May this year, N AO reported on the accounts for last year, and once again the accounts were qualified. The report said:
  "For the year 2000, the Court drew similar conclusions to previous years and for the seventh year in succession qualified its opinion on the reliability of the Community's accounts."
  A number of points in that report caught my eye. First,

  713
  "The Court found that during the year the Commission had entered into legal obligations in excess of the amounts provided for in the Community General Budget."
  Secondly,
  "The Court found that the Commission was unable to produce complete and reliable information distinguishing between advance and final payments. It noted that, following similar findings in the Court's report on the financial year 1999, the Commission had said that it would take steps to set out detailed rules for each sector of activity and would apply classifications for different types of payment, in advance of revisions to the Financial Regulation being approved"—
  but
  "The Court found no such progress."
  In relation to the accounting system, it was noted that
  "As in the previous two years, the Commission experienced difficulties in providing the Court with a set of accounts for audit."
  Last Thursday 28 November, the Court of Auditors report, which will not be reported on by the NAO until next year, was published. Once again, the accounts were qualified. The report stated:
  "The Court has been concerned that, while in the past the Commission has recognised at least some of the deficiencies pointed out by the Court, it has not given sufficient priority or devoted sufficient reflection and appropriate resources to overcoming them within a reasonable timescale. The Commission has stated in its reply … its commitment to the modernisation and improvement of the accounting system. It now needs to develop urgently a detailed action plan with the necessary resources and a timetable that is both realistic and reasonable."
  In other words, after eight consecutive years of qualified accounts, the Commission has not yet come up with a detailed action plan. Consider for a moment what would happen if the accounts of Marks and Spencer or Boots plc were qualified—the directors would be hauled over the coals straight away, in year one.
  Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bacon: No—I am sorry, but many hon. Members still want to speak.
  Earlier this year, at the beginning of January, the Commission appointed Marta Andreasen to two jobs—budget execution director and accounting officer for the European Union. She quickly pointed out serious and glaring shortcomings: there were no accounting books and no double-entry bookkeeping; staff of the Commission could enter the budget computer system and change entries without leaving a fingerprint or an audit trail. She raised her concerns and was rebuffed. She then tried to raise her concerns with the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee, for which she was disciplined.
  Compare that with what would happen in this country. In this country, if accounting officers for Departments, who are legally responsible for the way in which money is spent, do not like what a Minister is telling them to do, they are obliged to seek a direction from the Minister. That automatically triggers a process whereby the NAO is informed of what is going on. Having acted in that way, if the accounting officer subsequently comes before the Public Accounts Committee, he or she will be exonerated. In Europe, the
  714
  exact opposite happened to the accounting officer for the whole of the EU. She tried to act honourably and to draw her superiors' attention to her concerns about the serious irregularities that were occurring, but she was rebuffed. What does that say about the EU's seriousness about getting control of those matters?
  We are discussing the powers of the EU and its institutions and whether those powers should be extended—whether the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers should have more power, and whether there should be an elected president. What does that track record tell us about the competence of the EU to have any powers at all? What does it say about the competence of the European Union to have any money at all if it cannot look after the money it already has? The solution was eloquently stated in an article in The Times by Rosemary Righter, who said:
  "Member states should put the Commission on notice that they will finance only those parts of expenditure that get a clean bill of health."
  Taxation is a cardinal matter. It is hard to think of anything other than the acts of making war or imprisoning people that more closely defines what it is to be a state—what it is to have the powers of Government. My constituents work extremely hard to earn the money that they then pay in tax. It is not easy for them to earn enough money to clothe their children and pay the supermarket bills and still have enough left over to go on holiday. If the EU institutions cannot safeguard the moneys entrusted to them by the taxpayers of this country, it is at least open to question whether they should have them at all.
  10.9 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who had an important speech to make but, I sensed, delivered it rather rapidly.
  Much has been said by many Members about a union of sovereign nation states, which, if we were starting now, would be highly attractive. It that union was working for global free trade and its members combined for the greater good on mutual interests and cross-border matters, I would wholeheartedly back it. However, we are not starting now. We are signed up to, or are about to sign up to, a common foreign policy and a common defence and security policy. We are well into a common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy, and face a common justice system. Most members of the European Union are already in a common currency controlled by the European Central Bank. We have already heard, although the Secretary of State denied it, that further economic policies, especially on the harmonisation of taxation, are on the agenda.
  We have also heard how the convention will introduce a constitution for the European Union, incorporating the charter of fundamental rights. The EU has an anthem, flag, passport, a Supreme Court, and a President—in anybody's language, those are sovereign nation state requirements. We are therefore no longer facing the prospect of something further down the track. Ministers, including those in the Chamber, have always said, "Oh no, that is not what we mean. We do not want to go that far, and that will not happen. We will make sure that everything is all right; trust us." Ministers

  715
  throughout the decades have said that, not just this lot, but gosh, this lot are far worse and more enthusiastic about the convention than Ministers have been for a long time.
  The convention does not offer something new or roll anything back. It merely adds the last few pieces to the jigsaw which the Prime Minister himself described in the past week as a superpower. I am opposed to such a concept, but I no longer regard it in the terms that have been used tonight. For many years, I believed that a fully federalist agenda would benefit a philosophy that subscribed to federalism. I have often argued the case for opposing federalism with many people, and shall no doubt do so in future. However, what is happening in the EU and the convention is not just about a political structure—it is about a political elite who will control Europe and have power in it. I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for spelling that out much more clearly than I could. He has his finger on the pulse and, in my book, is at the heart of Europe—he has been to the convention, listened to the debate, and contributed to it. He has come back and spelt out exactly what is in store for us.
  Over the years, especially in the United Kingdom, politicians have tried to tell other politicians and the wider public that what we see is not really what we are going to get. They say that things will not be quite as bad or bound up—there will not be such a big transfer of power. In stark contrast, however, if one studies carefully what leaders of countries across the EU have said throughout the decades, one realises that they are a lot more open and honest with their populations about the true agenda. Perversely, Labour Ministers are still denying that what we have been hearing at this late stage in the completion of the jigsaw is really going happen. On 16 February 2000, only two years ago, a former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), reassured the House:
  "Let us not get carried away with the European super-state, with the charter of rights as a European constitution".—[Official Report. Westminster Hall, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 243WH.]
  That was meant to placate us all. Some of us did not believe it then, let alone now. Only two years later, the superstate is almost a fait accompli.
  The Government say so much, but they always cave in on Europe. Almost anybody can roll them over for little in return. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but if the Government had delivered a reformed common agricultural policy, he would be shown much more respect. They caved in on the collapse of the pillar structures, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) outlined. That applies especially to pillar 3 on justice and home affairs, which will be changed from being intergovernmental to EU. The jury is still out, but the outlook is not good, on whether Her Majesty's Government will stick up for pillar 2 on foreign affairs and defence. Another Franco-German axis is developing on that subject.
  The Government denied the incorporation of fundamental rights into treaties, but it is clearly on the agenda. They have granted the EU personality and conceded that it will have a written constitution. Time and again, they have yielded to additional qualified majority voting.
  716
  After the convention, the final pieces of the jigsaw might be put in place to create what most of us would recognise as a state. However often the Minister dismisses the proposals for a title or a name, the European Union will be a country called Europe.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: We have held an important debate, which was marked by several noteworthy contributions. I must begin with that of the Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), the former Minister for Europe. It is a joy that we have not entirely lost him from European affairs. I enjoyed his book, which touched on Europe. It is entitled "Ayes to the Right"—I am sorry, it is called "Ayes to the Left: A future for socialism." Judging by right hon. Gentleman's gymnastics in changing his views on almost every subject, it could appropriately be titled, "Eyes to the Main Chance."
  The right hon. Gentleman showed great prescience in his book, "A People's Europe", when he wrote that Europe was imperilled by its self-imposed monetarist straitjacket. I wonder how he squares that with his newfound passion for the euro. He also writes about Europe's
  "preoccupation with free market competition".
  The idea that that applies to the corporatist, interventionist, high tax mentality that prevails in much of the EU is patently absurd.
  It is incredible that someone who nowadays keeps telling us that Britain is winning the argument in Europe argued in his book for a centralised European budget that was three or four times its present size. Prudence appears to have taken a bit of a knock in the past week or so.
  Mr. MacShane: What has that to do with the motion?
  Mr. Spring: It is the background to the Government's representative and his mentality.
  We heard several good speeches. I especially commend those of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who are members of the convention. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's analysis; I agreed with much of it. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells hit the nail on the head when he said that the constitution was a centralising move with all the implications that flow from that.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) spoke about the need for the Government to be seen to defend the interests of the British people. I agree with him. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) spoke about the need for a referendum if a constitution is created. I have some sympathy with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) took up the point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) mentioned an exit clause. That should be debated and considered. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) spoke about the need for transparency in view of the fraud that has beset the

  717
  European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made a good speech about the jigsaw that leads to the creation of a superpower.
  The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on the one hand said that he wanted to reinforce the powers of the citizen, and on the other called for a written constitution, a charter for fundamental rights and all the baggage of centralisation. That is completely contradictory.
  The problem is that the Labour party talks flabbily about constructive engagement to address Europe's underlying problems, yet seems utterly incapable of coming up with specific, clear ideas for fixing them. It has forgotten that it must travel alongside changing times. We have seen its European bloc mentality, which is perfectly understandable, born as it was out of the second world war and the cold war during the second half of the last century. That mentality sought to mould the EU into a bloc, but it is now well past its sell-by date. Those old views simply endanger enlargement because they detract from the need to reform the EU to make enlargement really work. The Labour party was wrong in the 1980s about the big geopolitical issues of our time, and now, with the zeal of a convert, it has leap-frogged into a position of accepting in practice a supranational, integrationist agenda in Europe that has already been made completely irrelevant by the new global geometry.
  The challenge that we must truly address is the growing sense of distance between the EU and its members: the democratic deficit. The vast majority of the British people know that what they want from the European Union is a partnership of sovereign nation states working together for their mutual benefit. That is the Europe that the Conservative party wants to help to build, but, if we are to do that, the EU must encourage genuine review and reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has set out very clearly just some of the key practical ways of providing critical pathways to achieve that.
  The draft treaty on the convention's deliberations insufficiently reconnects the EU to its members. In article 3, for example, we find a reference to the
  "development of a common foreign and security policy, and a common defence policy"
  as part of the EU's objectives. Of course, Europe needs to co-operate on foreign policy issues, but for us to abandon our own foreign policy capabilities would be to diminish our unique global reach and our historic understandings and links. On Thursday, the Prime Minister called for Europe to have a "unified foreign policy". What on earth did he mean? It can only mean that the Prime Minister looks forward to the day when European countries have no foreign policies of their own but speak with a single voice agreed in Brussels. Yet in the same speech, the Prime Minister said that he was opposed to the so-called communitisation of foreign policy. That is simply doublespeak.
  We should be working towards the politics of practical co-operation. No European country should force its foreign policy on another. Each country should be free to have a policy based on its capabilities. Of course, much can be accomplished by agreement, but
  718
  not by a single voice. This measure will not reconnect the EU with the voters; neither, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells pointed out, will the charter of fundamental rights. One of the most important ways in which we can reconnect is by minimising the intrusive impact of judge-led law as appropriate. We had assurances that the Government would never allow the charter of fundamental rights to become legally binding, and that it was worth no more than the Beano magazine. It is, of course, already playing a part in the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence.
  The current state of affairs is nothing compared with the powers that the charter would give to the Court if it were incorporated into the treaties. It would represent a vast extension of the EU's powers. Only last week, for instance, it was being mooted in the European Parliament that the charter's incorporation would allow the EU to act in the media market. The Government have, as so often, backtracked from their previous clear assurances. We now hear that the charter's incorporation would be acceptable provided that there were horizontal restrictions on its application—whatever that is supposed to mean in practice—and that it would have no influence over national courts. I hope to hear from the Minister a clear and detailed exposition of how that could possibly work.
  Europe today is not crying out for greater centralisation; it is asking for less. In the Prime Minister's speech last week, there was only one passing mention of the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, and that was only to approve of the convention's subsidiarity working group's report, which I found to be very meagre. That shows how little idea the Government seem to have of the need to re-engage the peoples of Europe with the European institutions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes outlined early in the debate, that can be done only by strengthening the role of national Parliaments.
  Faced with ageing populations and high unemployment economies, the EU's main mission must be its original one of promoting its member states' economies to build prosperity. It is almost incredible that the Government are so ambitious for the EU to take on more when the single market is not yet complete. In the current economic climate, we must work for growth to create jobs, yet even now the EU is adding restrictions that militate against employment creation.
  The Conservatives want an EU that does genuine good for its peoples in this century. It must concentrate on its core tasks and it must be more open, democratic and accountable. National institutions—above all, national Parliaments—must have much greater control over its direction. Europe must look to the challenges of the 21st century, not the understandable hopes and fears of the immediate post-war period, which informed the development of the European Community.
  Europe needs a sense of finality—an end to the ratchet effect and an end to the sense that we are on a journey to ever-greater centralisation. We must break open the debate on Europe's future, and the Minister's idea of holding a national competition to find a better name for subsidiarity is excellent. We need to leave all the jargon of Europe behind, as only open, comprehensible institutions will meet the needs of today.

  719
  This evening, we have proposed a practical path for Europe to take so that it can meet those needs. If it does so, Europe can help us all to deal with the challenges that the 21st century will inevitably throw at us, but if we take the Government's path towards greater centralisation and a de facto political union, we shall answer only the wishes of Europe's elites, not those of its peoples.
  10.27 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I have a prepared speech that I could read to the House, but, if Members will permit me, I shall instead reply to the interesting points that have been made.
  We have had a healthy debate on Europe, which is what our country needs. As always, I listened with great care and interest to the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who speaks for the Opposition on Europe. I am fascinated by his claim that we need a European finality. That is the demand of Herr Joschka Fischer for what we need from the convention. I believe profoundly—the Prime Minister made this point in his speech last week—that of course, Europe will evolve, change and grow in different directions. There will be no European finality.
  I agree with the points made by a number of Members about sunset clauses and, as it were, drawing power back from Europe. That represents a good lesson for our Government, and—I shall try to make this my only partisan point, even though quite a number were put in the debate—some speeches, particularly those made from the Opposition Front Bench, conveyed a sense of the inferiority complex whereby we cannot be confident about Europe and cannot work in partnership on Europe.
  Powerful arguments were advanced by some Opposition Members, but the notion that France, Germany and Poland—from where my father came as a soldier to fight with our forces in the second world war—want to dissolve themselves in a new common European state is so profoundly nonsensical that it is unworthy of what was once a great party. Some Members, but not me, may have the zeal of the convert, but one thing is worse—the complete nihilistic loss of faith of the apostate. Until that once-great party rediscovers its European vocation, it will remain without much hope.
  One point constantly put in the debate was the fact that there is inadequate consultation on Europe. I would certainly say that there was inadequate coverage of it, or discussion of it—although we had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall last week, to which the hon. Member for Working (Mr. Malins) and others who are present now contributed. I have appeared before two Scrutiny Committees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also appeared before Scrutiny Committees, as he has told the House. Next week we shall have a major debate on Europe before the Copenhagen Council; no Labour Member fears any debate that is intended to justify the position—and, indeed, to get things right. Contributions from all sides add to our store of value where Europe is concerned.
  Moreover, there have been two consultations, one in 1997 and one last year. A clear choice was put to the British people: were they for Europe or against? They
  720
  endorsed the party that was clearly in favour of Europe, just as in my time my own party, 15 years ago, put to the British people the policy of hostility to Europe—and, indeed, of withdrawal from it. The Conservative party was then in favour of taking us deeper into Europe. It was the party of the single market, the party of Maastricht, and it won its election.
  Excellent speeches have been made by the representatives who serve on the convention in our name. Apart from the Government members, we have my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). We also have three representatives from another place, Lady Scotland and Lords Tomlinson and Maclennan, and representatives of all the main parties, including the nationalist parties, and from the European Parliament—Linda McAvan, Andrew Duff, Lord Stockton, Timothy Kirkhope and Neil McCormick.
  I do not think there has been any time before when Britain has agreed to pool sovereignty—whether in the World Trade Organisation, NATO or, very indirectly, in the Council of Europe and the European Court of Justice—and parliamentary and elected representatives of the British people have been allowed, indeed instructed, to take part in debates on drawing up the new institutions. I welcome that development.
  In the most thoughtful speech of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston stressed the need for parliamentarians to hold the Executive to account. For the first time, in the early stages of discussion of the preliminary draft constitutional treaty, we are hearing references to national Parliaments. The proposals will increase the power of national Parliaments to hold the European Executive to account.
  My hon. Friend also rightly stressed the relationship between subsidiarity and proportionality. During last week's Westminster Hall debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) invited the whole country to find a replacement for the word subsidiarity. I must report that I tried to find one on the net—I went through Google, and thesauruses—and every time I typed out the word subsidiarity, the answer was "Nothing known". I fear that we shall have to find the poet whom my hon. Friend asked us to discover.
  Mr. Allen: May I throw two suggestions into the equation—"democratic proximity", or perhaps even "democratic intimacy"?
  Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described Europe United as a football team, whereas "democratic intimacy" sounds like one of those perfumes advertised by scantily clad people. I leave it to my hon. Friend to come up with more metaphors.
  The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) complained that there was not enough publicity for United Kingdom ideas, but every proposal and every speech is on the web. They are published by the Foreign Office, and by the parliamentary office of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. It is true that there has not been enough discussion. There has been discussion in the House, but perhaps we need more serious discussion in our media.

  721
  Let me say how much I—like every other Member, I am sure—missed the presence and contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). We all wish him a speedy return to full health, and we look forward to experiencing his wisdom and vision again in our debates on European and international affairs.
  My hon. Friend—and my good friend—the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) talked about Europe as being simply an association of wealthy clubs. However, surely what Europe will be doing in the next week or two is opening up the EU to some of the poorest European countries—I should mention in passing, without in any way wishing to be controversial, that all those countries are eager to join the euro—and, I hope, in due course, Turkey. That is the strength of the European Union: it has allowed countries that were certainly very poor when my hon. Friend and I were students—
  Mr. Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. MacShane: I will not, as I want to deal with the comments of other colleagues. Countries that were very poor when my hon. Friend and I were young members of the Labour party are now doing much better, thanks to their membership of the European Union.
  The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—another "conventioneer", to use the technical term—made a very thoughtful speech. He said that tonight the House had to endorse Mr. Giscard d'Estaing's preliminary draft constitutional treaty, but the motion before the House explicitly rejects a federal superstate. I hope that the House will not divide, but if it does it should support the rejection of a federal superstate. The motion also asks for the Standing Committee on the Convention, which comprises the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, to be sustained for the current Session.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacShane: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, given his role as a conventioneer.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Do I take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that unless the constitutional draft is amended substantially, he will veto it as being unsatisfactory to the British Government?
  Mr. MacShane: It is in fact called a provisional draft preliminary, so there is nothing to veto. We are going to modify it, and I hope that today's contributions from hon. Members will help us in that process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North made a powerful plea for us to take this constitutional process seriously, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. What is a constitution but a set of rules? In my eight and a half years in this place, all that I have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House—especially from those who are most critical of the
  722
  European Union's work—is a demand for a set of rules. Now we are getting there, and some hon. Members do not like it.
  In Bagehot's famous book, "The English Constitution", he describes the need for a constitution:
  "So changing is the world, so fluctuating are its needs, so apt to lose inward force, though retaining outward strength, are its best instruments, that we must not expect the oldest institutions to be now the most efficient."
  That is exactly what we are trying to do with this convention: to make the way in which the European Union works more efficient, and to have clear rules that we all can understand.
  We all pay tribute to the command of detail and the passionate opposition of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor). I understand that nearly 30 years ago, he resigned from the then Government in protest at the House's vote to enter the European Union. Indeed, we will celebrate the 30th anniversary of that accession on I January 2003. He, too, asked for a set of rules that we can understand. At the end of this process we will see whether we understand them, but we will have such a set of rules. Article 46 of Mr. Giscard d'Estaing's preliminary draft constitution allows for withdrawal. It is for the Government to take a final decision on that matter, but in the end, this House can always decide to withdraw from the European Union. If that provision were included in the final constitutional treaty, I, for the life of me, would find it hard to object to it.
  The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) pointed out that our representatives on the convention should have had longer to speak. I cannot disagree with him, but that is a matter for the Chair. He pointed out that the accession countries want a union of European states, and he is right. He claimed that he persuaded Mr. Amato—and, perhaps indirectly, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing—of the virtues of an exit clause. I congratulate him most sincerely, but may I set him a greater task: to persuade his own party of the virtues of a staying-in clause, because that is the main problem?
  The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) listed examples of terrible fraud in the EU. He is absolutely right, but what he described is all the more reason to be in there, fighting in detail to ensure that such fraud is exposed. I read today that the National Audit Office notes that £150 million has been lost to the British taxpayer through that fraud. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has joined me. There is a biblical expression about motes and beams. Fraud involving the common agricultural policy in respect of our own farming community is not entirely exclusive to Brussels.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that the convention was trying to get elected Governments out of the way, creating a jigsaw that will lead to a country called Europe. Again, the notion that France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland and Estonia will give up their identity, laws, culture and customs is nonsense. I cannot patronise them and I will not patronise the House by accepting these arguments.
  We finish where we began, alas, on the debate between those in the House who want a stronger and more effective European Union in which nation states

  723
  have a clear and defined role, and those who want us to leave the European Union. That, again and again, is the difference. I commend to the House the motion whereby we will allow our conventioneers to carry on with their great work. I am happy to debate this again and again, as necessary.
  Question put—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 4 December, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].

  Convention on the Future of Europe
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Trade, Development and Co-operation Between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of South Africa) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      INCOME TAX
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 30th October, in the last Session of Parliament.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Taiwan) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 30th October, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Question agreed to.

    SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
    Ordered,
    That, on Thursday 19th December, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
    Ordered,
    That this House, at its rising on Thursday 19th December, do adjourn till Tuesday 7th January 2003.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    TAX LAW REWRITE BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Ordered,
    That Mr Kenneth Clarke, Mr Parmjit Dhanda, Mr Michael Jack, Mr David Laws, Mr Chris Pond, Dawn Primarolo and Mr Anthony D. Wright be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    COMMITTEES
    Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put motions 9 to 14 together.
    COMMITTEES

      Ordered,
      That Mr John Hayes be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr Peter Luff be added to the Committee.

      ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
      That Mr Keith Simpson be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Mr Bill Wiggin be added to the Committee.
      NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
      That Mr Henry Bellingham be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Hugo Swire be added to the Committee.
      SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
      That Mr Peter Atkinson be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger be added to the Committee.
      TRADE AND INDUSTRY
      That Mr Philip Hammond be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr Henry Bellingham be added to the Committee.
      TRANSPORT
      That Chris Grayling be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr George Osborne be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    PETITION

      Abdullah Ocalan
      10.43 pm
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The petition I present is on behalf of Mr. Fernando Bauza and 512 other residents, mainly from the town of Hastings. They are supporters of the imprisoned Kurdish leader, Abdullah Ocalan, and many of them recently demonstrated outside my office. They claim that he was abducted in 1999 by Turkish agents and subsequently sentenced to death without a fair trail, and that the conduct of the Turkish Government has led to conflict with ethnic Kurds and contributed to the large number seeking refuge in England.
      The Petitioners therefore pray that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government to take such measures as lie within their power to intervene with the Turkish authorities to secure the release of Abdullah Ocalan.
      The Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Motorised Wheelchairs
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
  10.44 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: I am pleased to have secured this debate. My aim is that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and I look ahead to anticipate issues on public safety and traffic management and to reflect on good practice for the future use of motorised wheelchairs.
  On balance, it is good that many of us live much longer and that technology enables us to stay mobile for longer, but the consequences of those developments have not yet been fully thought through, still less adequately debated in public. My basic premise is that the use of motorised wheelchairs is growing fast and will continue to grow. As a result, the scope for conflict between different groups of road users will increase, so a competent and forward-thinking Government would want to plan ahead for the problems that may arise. I am pretty sure that I support a Government who are competent and forward thinking and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Minister has those qualities in spades.
  Is there much use of motorised wheelchairs at present, and why do I claim that such use will grow in future? When I raised the subject recently in the form of two written parliamentary questions, there was a surprising amount of interest from the national media, especially The Sunday Telegraph, and from Disability Now. I realise that politicians cannot always rely on media interest alone as solid evidence of public concern, so I looked elsewhere for evidence.
  The HAND partnership—Help, Advice and Advocacy for Norfolk Disabled People—is a not-for-profit charitable enterprise in Norwich whose activities include repairing, rebuilding and refurbishing disability vehicles, selling new ones and even hiring out vehicles. It provides services especially for people on low incomes and has been in business since 1987. That is evidence of sufficient demand to keep a business going.
  More significantly, however, private companies sell such vehicles for profit. Among them is DMA Ltd.—Days Medical Aids—whose marketing director, Mike Warren, has been most helpful. He told me that the market has seen a 45 per cent. increase in sales since 1997: from 22,000 vehicles in 1997 to 32,000 this year. He estimates that about 145,000 people are driving those vehicles around our towns and cities.
  Stephen Sklaroff, a deputy director general of the Association of British Insurers, told me that insurance for motorised wheelchairs is already widely available. He said that insurance may be bought for third-party cover only or as part of a package, for example, to include damage and theft. He told me that more and more people are buying cover.
  I hope that the Minister can see that, even with the limited resources and time that I have at my disposal as an individual Member, I have found good quality evidence that there is a growing market for the buying and hiring of motorised wheelchairs.
  726
  Why did I decide to investigate the matter? In time-honoured fashion, constituency casework first brought it to my attention, although I saw the link between the parochial and national interests immediately. The issue has national significance.
  Many hon. Members will have heard grumbling about the use of motorised wheelchairs—whether from the users themselves or from pedestrians and other road users. The first serious case that came to my attention in my constituency was of an elderly woman using a motorised wheelchair on a road in a village near Stafford. A car driver claimed that she had to swerve due to a sudden turn by the wheelchair user and her car struck the kerb. The car was damaged and the driver said that she was slightly injured and threatened to sue the wheelchair user for compensation. However, friends of the latter told me that she was a frail, elderly lady who had no savings and no insurance. Understandably, she was extremely upset at the prospect that she would be involved in a court case. My heart went out to that lady and I wondered whether insurance could have relieved her from worry about such a claim.
  Subsequently, I held one of my regular meetings with the managers of a local housing association. Some of their stock is sheltered housing for elderly residents and they told me that they had noticed that more of the residents were using motorised wheelchairs. The managers face a range of challenges—from conflict between residents who use motorised wheelchairs and those who are on foot to issues relating to the safe storage of the wheelchairs when they are not in use.
  The chief executive of the association wrote to me afterwards to list two incidents of a user driving into another resident on foot, and several incidents of users driving into property and ca using damage. Sheltered housing schemes must be expanding, and there are bound to be such incidents all over the country. Even on the safe storage of the vehicles, some thought will have to be given to design standards for future schemes. There is evidence from my own casework that warrants raising the subject.
  The current legal framework for the use of motorised wheelchairs is out of date. The present main Act is the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which still refers to all motorised vehicles as "invalid carriages". That is surely an outdated expression. It has the whiff of the bygone age of the workhouse, and is a bit of an insult.
  The body of the current law is in the Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988, which define three types of vehicles: classes 1 and 2 are the lighter ones, which have a top speed of 4 miles per hour and are restricted to use on pavements, while class 3 relates to the bigger, heavier vehicles, which have a top speed of 8 mph and may travel on roads at their top speed but on pavements at the reduced speed of 4 mph or less. The regulations prohibit users of motorised wheelchairs from using their vehicles on motorways—I am pleased to hear that—cycle lanes or bus lanes. They permit their use on pavements, whereas road traffic law forbids the use of motorcars, motorcycles and cycles on pavements.
  The exclusion of motorised wheelchairs from the definition of motor vehicles in road traffic law means that their users do not have to hold a driving licence, take a test, pay excise duty, hold third party insurance or even—perhaps alarmingly—pass an eye test.

  727
  The last piece of the legal framework is the DVLA code of practice for class 3 vehicles, published in June 2000. In fact, I think it has no legal backing, and a trade association sponsored it, but user groups were involved in its preparation, and at least its style makes for easy reading. However, I want the law to be reviewed. I want a code with legal status that deals with serious issues, such as users' fitness to ride, the vehicle's fitness for use and the need for third party insurance.
  In his written answer to my parliamentary question on 31 October—at column 980W—the Minister said that the Department is planning to review the legal framework governing both the construction and use of the vehicles in the near future. I hope that this debate will be helpful to the Department in pointing out some of the issues that will need attention, and in attracting the attention of interested groups, so that they may contribute to his review.
  I want to deal briefly with four issues: traffic management; fitness of users; fitness of vehicles; and insurance. On the first issue, the growth in the use of motorised wheelchairs will cause more conflict between their users and other road users, including car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. The Department's current approach is best described as pretty much laissez-faire, but will it be adequate in the years to come? I expect the use of motorised wheelchairs in town and city centres to keep on growing.
  Shopmobility schemes such as the one that I visited in Stafford recently are doing excellent work allowing shoppers who may be elderly, infirm or disabled to be mobile around shopping centres. Such services are to be welcomed and encouraged. We can expect people to continue to use the pavements to get around shopping centres. In centres that are dispersed, and in suburban and rural areas, we might expect users to be tempted to ride faster and to use roads as well as pavements. What should we do about that? Do we continue to impose a speed limit of 4 mph on pavements? Do we allow faster vehicles to use the roads, or indeed require them to use only the roads? What of the prohibition on using bus lanes and cycle lanes? When councils are doing good work with the new local transport plans to tackle issues of public transport and road safety in a more strategic way, what should we do about these vehicles?
  As we plan and create networks of bus lanes, bus priority junctions, cycle lanes and safer walking lanes, should not we also plan how motorised wheelchairs fit into the scheme of things? The vehicles are comparatively lightweight and, of course, their users are very vulnerable people, so should we consider how to offer them the same level of protection as that given to cyclists and pedestrians? Indeed, in the future, should cycle lane networks be made available to those using motorised wheelchairs? I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to those questions.
  As for the fitness of users, most of the people involved will be elderly, infirm and disabled. It might be a cruel blow to develop the technology to aid their mobility, only to deny them access to it because we consider that they are unfit to operate the vehicles, so I concede that we need to tread carefully in this area.
  Rosemary Saw contacted me about her aunt, who, at 78 years of age, was persuaded to stop using her bicycle and started to use a buggy with three wheels and an
  728
  electric motor. Years later, her eyesight and memory began to fail, and sometimes she could not remember how to get home. Rosemary Saw says that there is nothing in law to aid worried relatives to get people to stop using those vehicles. She said that, at the outset, there was no test of her aunt's ability to use such a vehicle or of whether she could read a number plate at 25 yd, and that when her insurance was renewed annually no questions were asked about her fitness to continue to operate the buggy.
  In a similar vein, my own Stafford access group has contacted me. It is a group of disabled people who agitate for improved services and access to building and areas for disabled people, and I have met it often. It quotes with approval the practice of the local Shopmobility in using questionnaires to check the fitness of users to control the vehicles that are loaned to them. The group asked me to consider the safety of the user and the general public, given that medical conditions are a legitimate subject of public interest. I am asked whether there should be a requirement for an annual statement of fitness to operate, and I am happy to pass that comment on to the Minister.
  The fitness of vehicles is particularly relevant when they are used on public roads. The code of practice is short in that regard; it encourages owners to check regularly whether the vehicles are in good condition and recommends a safety check at least once a year. Indeed, the code says that the vehicles should have lights and reflectors, that users should wear something fluorescent by day and reflective at night and that the vehicles should have an audible warning device, a horn, and—listen to this—amber flashing lights when driving on dual carriageways.
  One correspondent has contacted me to say that many motorised wheelchairs do not have reflectors and that the dominant colour of the rear of them is black. He says that he feels that the vehicles should be a light colour at the back and that reflectors should always be fitted. Again, I pass on those comments to the Minister.
  I come now to the thorny issue of insurance. There is no legal requirement for insurance. The code of practice states that an insurance policy is strongly advised and that suitable schemes are not too expensive and are available to cover personal safety, other people's safety and the value of the vehicle itself. I do not wish to force people with a mobility need off our roads and pavements because they cannot afford the insurance, but the insurance need not be a burden.
  However, one correspondent has taken me to task, asking why wheelchair users should be picked on when cyclists pose a greater danger and saying that they should be made to take out insurance, but my first concern is for the peace of mind of the users of motorised wheelchairs. The Association of British Insurers has told me of a current case where a claim for about £75,000 has been brought against a user. The present cost of comprehensive insurance is about £40 a year.
  Another correspondent has told me that, some years ago, she was knocked down by an electric wheelchair, needed hospital treatment for an ankle injury and still has difficulty climbing stairs. She is suing, and the HAND partnership would welcome a compulsory requirement for third party insurance, provided that

  729
  there were safeguards against mis-selling and profiteering. The partnership shares my concern for the users of the vehicles and believes that insurance offers protection and peace of mind. It says that several of its clients have been victims of attempted robberies and that one man was dragged from his vehicle, beaten up and his vehicle was stolen.
  The purchase of a vehicle is a considerable investment. Prices vary between £1,000 and £3,000, and buyers sometimes do not have the resources to purchase a replacement for a stolen vehicle or to pay for repairs to a vehicle that is damaged. The HAND partnership has had three cases of malicious damage to clients' vehicles this year alone.
  Mr. Warren of DMA, a company that sells these vehicles, says that insurance gives users confidence to be able to go out and about and enjoy their independence. He points out that many of the insurance packages also include "breakdown assistance". Reassuringly, he tells me that he does not believe that a requirement for compulsory insurance would affect the present growth in sales of vehicles. He expresses the belief that compulsory provision may raise awareness among the general public and riders of the potential risks, and promote caution and courtesy on the part of riders and pedestrians.
  I favour compulsory insurance, but, of course, I would expect full discussion with all interested groups before the Government change the law. I would also expect further improvements in technology to bring down the capital cost of the vehicles, and perhaps packages including insurance in the sale price would bring down costs. The Association of British Insurers states that the insurance market would be ready to meet any additional demand for cover. Of course, the ABI would wish to discuss a number of practical issues with Government when considering formal proposals. I therefore urge the Minister to consult widely and consider compulsory insurance as an element in the review of construction and use that he is planning.
  Lastly, I would expect the Minister to proceed on the basis of the best available evidence, and make proper use of monitoring and evaluation in any new schemes that he devises. Perhaps he will therefore be surprised to learn that I have already received the first bid for funding for relevant research: to identify and describe the apparent risks and benefits of their use; to establish the need for and nature of improved education and training; and to establish the scope for improved mobility for older people. I do not know the person who has contacted me with that bid for research funding, but if the Minister would like the details I would be pleased to pass them on to him.
  What do I want to achieve from this debate? I ask the Minister to respond with details, as far as he can give them, of his plans for a review of the present legal framework for the construction and use of motorised wheelchairs. I hope that he will share my desire that people who are elderly, infirm or disabled should be helped to be as mobile as possible. I ask him to recognise and share my concern for the safety of the users of those vehicles and the safety of the public at large. Will he say something about compulsory insurance in particular?
  730
  Lastly, will he join me in paying tribute to all those who have contacted me with constructive comments, such as those to whom I have referred in my speech?
  11.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing this important debate, and on the characteristic care and precision with which he has presented his case to the House.
  Personal mobility is a vital part of daily life for all of us, and for many disabled and older people it is also the key to independent living. Losing the ability to go out and about independently can have a hugely damaging effect on an older person's quality of life. That is why the Government are wholly committed to addressing the transport and mobility needs of disabled and older people, not only in this important area but across the whole spectrum of public transport, the pedestrian environment and the private car.
  We are well aware of the demographic trends to which my hon. Friend has referred, and of the need to ensure that we have the means to help older people retain that all-important independence. That is likely to include, for example, continuing to drive for as long as they can safely and comfortably do so, and offering them alternative forms of mobility when they come to the point of giving up driving. Mobility centres around the country, which the Department supports financially, have a key role to play in that. Of course, when discussing the subject of motorised wheelchairs, we are talking not only about keeping people mobile but about safety, not just for users but for other road users and pedestrians. My hon. Friend referred to some of those issues.
  Before I respond to the main issue raised by my hon. Friend, it may be helpful if I briefly provide the House with some background on the legislation and the use of these vehicles. As he said, these vehicles are defined as "invalid carriages" in law. I agree with him that that is not a term that we would use these days—he called it an outdated term. I certainly do not think that we would describe the person who introduced the legislation—now Lord Morris of Manchester—as outdated. He continues to be a doughty fighter for disabled people. The sentiments and the measures in the legislation would certainly not be called outdated, but some of the terminology might well be.
  My hon. Friend has already briefly set out the legal position, but I hope that the House will bear with me for a couple of moments as I complete the picture and clarify it for the record. The use of these vehicles on the highway is governed in legislation by section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and by the Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988. No regulations govern their use off the highway. The 1988 regulations cover three classes of invalid carriage—one class for manual equipment and two covering powered vehicles. Class I covers manual wheelchairs. Class 2 covers those vehicles designed for use on the footway—what most of us call the pavement—that can travel up to speeds of 4 mph. Class 3 covers vehicles that can be used both on the footway, where like the class 2s they are limited to 4 mph, and on the road where they can travel up to 8 mph.

  731
  Powered wheelchairs and scooters should not be seen as an alternative to a private car. They were introduced to provide local outdoor mobility for disabled people who might otherwise be confined to their home. Indeed, for the purposes of road traffic legislation these vehicles are defined as
  "not being a motor vehicle".
  This means that powered wheelchairs or scooters do not need to meet the same construction standards as a motor vehicle, nor do their users need to meet the same fitness standards as those required of a driver. However, given the speed restrictions and other limitations set out in the regulations covering their construction and use, the level of control has generally been regarded as reasonable. Of course, as many of the users may have been, or are still, driving a car, they will have experience of the highway code.
  My hon. Friend referred to construction and use standards, and the 1988 regulations require that all powered wheelchairs and scooters meet standards for lighting when used on roads, and there are also requirements for brakes, a horn, mirrors and a speed indicator to be fitted. All classes of these vehicles can be used legally by only one person and that must be a disabled person, someone involved in the sale or maintenance of the vehicle or the training of the user. Powered wheelchairs and powered scooters also need to comply with the CE marking requirements under the medical devices regulations.
  I have set out the general background to the construction and use of these vehicles, so I will now focus on insurance, which I know is of particular concern to my hon. Friend. He has already referred to a question that he asked recently in the House on the issue, and I have also received correspondence from other Members on the same subject. When the legislation was amended in 1988, it was considered unnecessary to introduce a requirement in law for compulsory insurance. The previous regulations—which had covered class 1 and 2 vehicles—had made no provision and there were strong representations that the status quo should be maintained. The decision was reached in consultation with disability organisations and enforcement authorities. At that time, there was very strong opposition to compulsory insurance from disability organisations and no clear consensus among the other bodies consulted.
  On that basis, it was agreed that the most effective approach was to provide clear guidance to the users of these vehicles about their responsibilities as road users, including strong advice on the desirability of obtaining insurance, either through household insurance or a separate policy. As my hon. Friend said, insurance can be obtained at modest cost and, of course, can bring considerable peace of mind to the user.
  The guidance—a code of practice for class 3 vehicle users—has been updated since 1988, and has been supplemented by a training pack specifically aimed at the users of the class 3 vehicles that can be used on the footway and on the carriageway.
  In addition to the insurance question, we are aware that there are other issues about the use of these vehicles
  732
  that are of concern to my hon. Friend and to members of the general public. Dropped kerbs, for example, are essential to help all wheelchair and scooter users cross from one pavement to another. Many disabled people are concerned that there are not enough of them or that they are too high. We have tried to tackle that problem in a number of ways. Our guidance to local authorities on local transport plans makes it clear that they must consider the needs of disabled people from the start to the finish of their journey. The guidance reinforces the requirement in the Transport Act 2000, which places a specific duty on local authorities that in developing their local transport plans, they must have regard to the transport needs of people who are elderly and have mobility problems.
  My hon. Friend knows that we have put a substantial amount of extra new money into local transport plans. The amount has doubled in his area of Staffordshire over the past few years and I am sure that his authority is putting it to good use, not least as a result of the pressure that my hon. Friend puts on it to tackle the issue that he has raised. The guidance is called "Inclusive Mobility" and will help authorities prepare to comply with the duties of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which from 2004 will require the removal of physical barriers to access.
  Concerns have been expressed by some pedestrians, especially those who are frail or who have low vision, about the size and speed of the vehicles used on pavements and in shopping centres. There are also concerns expressed by motorists about the ability of some class 3 users to control their vehicle. As a result of those concerns, there have been calls for tighter controls, such as minimum eyesight requirements, compulsory training or a test of competence.
  My hon. Friend asked about the review of legislation. I assure him that we take the issue seriously, but we need to recognise the balance between the needs of the users of the vehicles to maintain their vital independence and mobility and the needs of other road users. We are aware that the use of such vehicles is likely to increase and we want to ensure that the legal framework is right. For those reasons, as a competent and forward-thinking Government—my hon. Friend tossed us that bouquet and I pluck just one small flower from it for my Department—we have decided to hold a full review of the 1988 regulations, covering all aspects of the use of those vehicles on the highway. We plan to hold the review next year.
  The review will include a wide-ranging consultation with all interested groups and stakeholders. It will cover the full range of issues that I have touched on and perhaps others that have not yet been identified. During the course of the review, we will be happy to receive any specific comments that my hon. Friend receives. I commend his constituents on raising the matter with him. It is proper that they should do so and we would welcome their contribution to the consultation. Once the review is complete, we will consider whether any changes are needed either to the law that governs the use of the vehicles or to the guidance that accompanies the regulations.
  My hon. Friend would not expect me to prejudge the outcome of the review, but we are keenly aware of the

  733
  balance that has to be struck between mobility and safety. As a result of misleading press coverage, which implied that we were committed to introducing compulsory insurance, we have received several representations from disability organisations arguing strongly against such a requirement. We also want to listen carefully to those opinions.
  734
  My hon. Friend has raised important matters in his customary powerful but persuasive way. I congratulate him on raising the problem on behalf of disabled people and other users of the pavement and the road. If I have not been able to answer all his questions in the short time available, I will be happy to correspond with him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.