Commons Sitting of 16 July 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  HSBC INVESTMENT BANKING BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 23 July.

  BARCLAYS GROUP REORGANISATION BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Wednesday 24 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Consultants' Contract
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed consultants' contract on their productivity; and if he will make a statement. [67264]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): May I say how pleased I am to see the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in his place after the terrible and tragic events of the weekend? I am sure that all our thoughts are with him and all concerned.
    The framework agreement that we have reached with the British Medical Association will increase the time consultants spend on direct clinical care. There will be greater rewards for those consultants who contribute most to the national health service. In crude terms, the more they do, the more they will get, so contributing to increases in NHS productivity.
    Mr. Mullin: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that, although there are many dedicated NHS consultants, the profession is notorious for its pursuit of self-interest and self-importance? What safeguards are in place to ensure that consultants deliver, and what will stop them pocketing the extra money and moving on seamlessly to their next demand?
    Mr. Milburn: A good start! I listen carefully to my hon. Friend in these and all other matters, but I have a slight difference of view with him on this issue. Most NHS consultants do a very good job of work for the NHS, and I should assure him that the new NHS consultants'
    138
    contract is, in essence, a something-for-something deal. Obviously NHS consultants will get more, and we are prepared to pay them more, providing they are prepared to do more for NHS patients.
    The deal that we have negotiated means, for example, that in future, NHS consultants' pay will be tied to their performance against their job plans. Their job plans are part of their contract of employment and, for the first time in the history of the NHS, that means that the NHS employer will be able to define when the NHS consultant works, and that includes getting an increase in direct clinical care for patients. The more consultants are prepared to do, the more rewards they will get.
    Mr. John Redwood: Is it not the case that the productivity of doctors in the hospital service will decline as shorter hours are introduced? Is it not also the case that costs will rise sharply as pay becomes more realistic? Can the Secretary of State give us some idea of how much of the extra money over the next three years will go in rising costs and lower productivity as shorter hours are introduced for all doctors?
    Mr. Milburn: I do not think that that is the case. In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware from the public service agreement that we published yesterday, we expect a 2 per cent. increase each year in both efficiency and quality in the NHS as we expand it. It is certainly true that there are problems with productivity, particularly if the NHS does not expand. However, it is expanding precisely because of the choices that the Labour Government have made.
    The choice that we have made is to put extra investment into our key public services, including the NHS. It is therefore incredible that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should stand up and argue about productivity, efficiency or investment when they are committed to cutting that investment.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: What other group of workers wield as much power as consultants? Their so-called trade unions, the royal colleges, dictate how many consultants can be trained each year, where they can be trained and which hospitals can carry out what operations. They decide how many hours consultants work for the NHS and they keep waiting lists high so that people fork out money to jump the queue that they have created. Will my right hon. Friend tackle this closed shop, which makes Bob Crow and the RMT look like a set of woolly liberals?
    Mr. Milburn: I think that that is what is known as a friendly question. As far as tackling the issue is concerned, my hon. Friend is aware of the terms of the framework agreement that we have reached with the BMA. Obviously that will now go out to consultation, and I presume that NHS consultants will have an opportunity to have a say on what they think about it. However, it will tackle many of the problems that he has outlined.
    On my hon. Friend's point about closed shops, no one in the NHS has a right to prevent patients from receiving the sort of services that they require. We must ensure that we get more doctors into the NHS and get more use of the doctors who work in the NHS. He is aware that the issue of private practice has been unresolved for many

    139
    years in the NHS, and the new consultants' contract of employment will resolve it once and for all by making it clear that the first call on their time and their first priority has got to be NHS patients.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that the merit award system is one of the root causes for consultants developing the characteristics so beautifully described by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? What plans does he have for revising that system?
    Mr. Milburn: The merit, or distinction, award system needs to be reformed, and we are planning to do that, as the hon. Lady well knows. It is the next element of the reform programme and is under discussion. I want the merit awards to be precisely that: rewarding merit, especially those NHS consultants who do most for NHS patients. We trained them to do that and they are skilled experts. We have too few of them, but that will change. In the meantime, we need to ensure that we get more of their valuable time and skills for the benefit of more NHS patients.

    Mental Health
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If will make a statement on the provision of in-patient beds for mental health patients in urban areas. [67265]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Each mental health service user who is assessed as requiring a period of care away from their home should have timely access to an appropriate hospital bed or an alternative bed or place. In the NHS plan, we set down our commitment to create 500 extra secure beds and 320 extra 24-hour staffed beds. We have met this target.
    Mr. Lloyd: I hope my hon. Friend will tell the House that mental health, always the Cinderella of the health service, will have a fair share of the huge increase in spending on the health service, because that is vital. On a specific problem, the number of patients in Manchester—the figure is typical of urban areas—who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Acts now accounts for 50 per cent. of the beds occupied compared with only 20 per cent. 10 years ago. The problem is that patients have to queue up for in-patient beds. Unless we provide more beds to get the balance right, people will be given a bed only when they have reached crisis point. Beds need to be available earlier, when it is cheaper and better for the patients.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the priority previously afforded to mental health services. With the publication of the mental health national service framework and the NHS plan, the Government have made mental health one of the top three clinical priorities.
    My hon. Friend also outlines the problem that occurred because of the low priority given to mental health and, of course, the low investment in it, which meant that there was a reduction over many years in the number of acute beds available. The Government are determined to turn around the investment and to give mental health the priority it deserves. The Manchester mental health and social care
    140
    trust has received additional investment of £1.4 million from its commissioners this year, specifically to open 10 additional NHS beds and to strengthen community mental health provision with the implementation of a crisis resolution service in the city, which experience elsewhere suggests can lift pressure on acute beds. I agree that for too long there has been a lack of investment in, and commitment to, our mental health services. We are determined to put that right.
    Mr. Robert Key: A month ago on 18 June I raised with the Secretary of State the crisis in the Avon and Wiltshire mental health partnership NHS trust. He said that it was all a matter of money. I wrote to the Minister on 29 April and she told me in a written answer that she would reply as soon as possible. Councillor Christine Reid, the Labour councillor who chairs that trust, has not replied to my correspondence. The matter is urgent. It is not party politics; it is process. In particular, it reflects a breakdown in the mental health system in south Wiltshire. If the Minister cannot answer, will she at least see me to explain why the trust has lost £60,000 for the alcohol and drug advisory service and how the Government expect the new trust to function with an initial deficit of £500,000?
    Jacqui Smith: I apologise if I have failed to respond to the hon. Gentleman's letter. I will ensure that he gets an answer. I have discussed issues to do with that trust with its chair and I am willing to discuss progress in his constituency with him. However, part of that discussion may well concern the difference in our approaches to investment in mental health services. The Government have made it clear that we are investing more in those services and will continue to do so; but the hon. Gentleman, and in particular his Front-Bench colleagues, have opposed that investment. That would have to be part of any conversation that we had about how to improve our mental health services.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to in-service provision for children who present with serious psychiatric problems? All too often, they are inappropriately placed either on general paediatric wards or in adult mental health provision; they need their own specialist services, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the provision of such in-service beds.
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Mental health services for children and adolescents were perhaps treated even more poorly than adult services by the previous Government when it came to showing interest and making investment. The £105 million of investment in child and adolescent mental health services has begun to bring those services out of the shadows and enabled us to develop the specialist provision, including in-patient beds, for which my hon. Friend argues.
    My hon. Friend made an important point also about the inappropriate placement of young people in adult services. Sometimes that happens because local services have failed to plan the transition of responsibility from child and adolescent services to adult services. In the children's national service framework we will consider carefully how to take forward the work towards higher standards in child and adolescent mental health services.
    Sandra Gidley: According to recent guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the majority of studies show that the higher cost of purchasing atypical antipsychotics is more than offset by the reduction in in-patient stays. This morning, at a conference attended mainly by psychiatrists, more than two thirds of those present said that funding was a barrier to prescribing atypicals. How will the Minister ensure that adequate funding is provided to increase their prescription?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady rightly points out, as do the NICE guidelines, the potential benefits for the service as a whole and for individuals of being able to prescribe atypical antipsychotics in the appropriate circumstances. It was to secure those benefits that we set up NICE to develop such guidelines and to involve users, which is another important way in which we develop our services. We are investing in our mental health services, and we have earmarked extra investment for service delivery and the development of new services.
    Sandra Gidley indicated dissent.
    Jacqui Smith: For Liberal Democrats the investment is never enough. The difference between sitting on the Opposition Benches and sitting on these Benches is that we make the decisions, we provide the investment and we set the priorities. We said that mental health was a priority; that is making a difference at a local level and I am confident that it will continue to do so.
    Glenda Jackson: Despite the excellent work that has already been done by the rough sleepers initiative, the condition of many mentally ill people in London is exacerbated by the fact that they are of no fixed abode. Given the peripatetic nature of their lives, it is not unusual for homeless people who are mentally ill to reach and pass the point of crisis and to find it impossible to gain any medical treatment. It is bad enough to be without a home, but surely to be denied access to the NHS is unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend please consult the Mayor's health commission to examine the additional needs for such services on a much broader than borough-by-borough basis?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the needs of the homeless. As we develop our mental health policies—in particular, the new community teams which, in parts of London, have been able to reach out to people in the community, even people without homes who have previously been unable to access services or have not be able to access those services early enough—I am happy to talk to anyone to make sure that they deliver improvements for the most vulnerable people cited by my hon. Friend.

    NHS Dentists
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement about the number of people registered with NHS dentists in Gloucestershire. [67266]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): One hundred and twenty-one thousand adults and 78,000 children were registered with
    142
    a general dental services dentist in the former Gloucestershire health authority area on 31 May 2002. Thanks to the extra investment that the Government are making available, we are continuing to take measures to improve access to NHS dentistry in Gloucestershire. A new dental access centre in Gloucester, including a satellite clinic in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, has already treated 14,000 patients in the 12 months to May of this year. I am glad that funding has now been made available for a second dental access centre in the county.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for his considered response. He will be aware, however, that the number of people treated by NHS dentists in Gloucestershire has fallen in the past six years. I am not seeking to make a political point, as the issue is too serious for pensioners and the many other people who cannot afford dentists to make it political. Does the Minister see the future as one of private provision, or will the Government be able to ensure that there are sufficient NHS dentists for people in Gloucestershire who need that treatment?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman was wise not to try to make a party political point. He will not mind my pointing out that he is in a slightly difficult position, because the Government whom he supported presided over a major contraction in access to NHS dentistry. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends are now opposed to the extra investment that will put that right. He asked specifically whether we see the future as being one of private practice. The answer is clearly no—that is the policy adopted by him and his right hon. Friends.
    Dr. Evan Harris: I do not want to disturb the unity of the Labour and Conservative parties, but the Minister will be aware that the number of people registered with a dentist in Gloucestershire has fallen from 44 per cent. to 36 per cent. under his Government, whereas under the Tories, the national figure did not fall by much more than 3 per cent—from 59 per cent. in 1992 to 54 per cent. in 1997. English coverage is now only 47 per cent. How, without more registrations, can holistic, preventive care be given to people with dental problems, rather than the emergency treatment-only provision which is the Government's one-club strategy?
    Mr. Hutton: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman failed to paint an accurate picture of what is happening. He likes facts and figures, so he will be interested to know that 1 million more courses of NHS-funded dental treatment are provided now than in 1997, and that nearly 2,000 more NHS dentists are providing services to NHS patients. I am not saying for a second that all the problems have been solved—clearly, they have not—but we are getting the investment in and easing the problems that we inherited. To continue doing so, we shall carry on making investment available and I hope that we have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends for doing so.

    NHS Direct
    Mr. Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement on the cost to the NHS of an average call to NHS Direct. [67267]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): The average cost of a call to NHS Direct in 2001 to 2002 was about £17.92, although that is expected to fall significantly in the future as call volumes rise. The National Audit Office has found that half of callers are directed to forms of care that they would not have chosen, which tends to be care of a lower level and with a lower cost of intervention.
    Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend may have seen press speculation that the cost of calling NHS Direct is higher than the cost of going to an NHS GP. However, the people who are raising those issues are missing the point. Is it not true that NHS Direct is expanding access, improving the service to patients and making sure that they get the right care? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will be looking not only at extending NHS Direct but at using other forms of new technology to make sure that we are always at the cutting edge of innovation around the world? In particular, will he look at the experiments in broadband technology which might assist the NHS in many different ways?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend is exactly right. NHS Direct is probably the best example in recent times of the use of information technology in Government. Yes, costs are higher than those of seeing a GP, but one would expect that with a new service. Costs are expected to fall over time. The important thing about NHS Direct is that satisfaction levels are between 90 and 97 per cent. One would have to look hard to find similar levels in private life, so to speak, and in other areas. Certainly, we will continue to look at ways of extending and expanding NHS Direct over the years ahead.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister tell the House the number of house calls that GPs have made, particularly to the elderly infirm, since NHS Direct was introduced? Can he give me an assurance that NHS Direct will never ever become a substitute for house calls to the elderly and to those with particularly serious conditions?
    Mr. Lammy: No, it will not. I will write to the hon. Lady with the details in due course. The important thing is choice, diversity and access. NHS Direct, alongside GPs, increased use of paramedics, and reform in accident and emergency services, will bring about a reformed service. That is what we are working towards.
    Andy Burnham: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a pilot seen by the Select Committee on Health at the West Yorkshire NHS Direct centre, where patients with chronic conditions are supplied with self-testing equipment and transmit data daily to the NHS Direct call centre, where the data are examined so that potential problems can be spotted? That service could have great benefit in an area such as mine, where there are high levels of chronic illness caused by industrial injury. If rolled out nationally, the service could unlock the full potential of NHS Direct.
    Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the attention of the House. It is excellent practice and is an expansion of NHS Direct. By 2004, hopefully, people will be able to ring up the NHS Direct
    144
    number and make 999 calls from home without complication. We hope to extend the service for people with chronic illnesses to diabetes and asthma. NHS Direct can continue to support the ambulance service and help to reduce waiting times in A and E.
    Tim Loughton: Given the current delays with NHS Direct, there is obviously much work to be done before emergency calls can be routed by it. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on nurse vacancy levels in hospitals caused by the large number of experienced nurses who have transferred to NHS Direct from those hospitals—about 900 out of 1,150? Why, with all the cost—£110 million in the current year—does one in five callers still have to wait for 30 minutes to get a response from NHS Direct, and why is there precious little evidence of success in taking pressure off GPs, who cost half as much?
    Mr. Lammy: The numbers are coming down. The hon. Gentleman should be aware of two important facts. First, NHS Direct employs about 1,500 nurses out of a work force of about 350,000, so he is speaking of a very small number. He should also be aware that many of those nurses are disabled or work injured; many of them work part time; many of them work for NHS Direct and in other parts of the NHS.
    Secondly, when the hon. Gentleman cites figures for call waiting times, he should be aware that the National Audit Office found that people were being called back within 20 minutes, and 82 per cent. of people were receiving calls within 30 minutes. Those numbers are improving all the time.
    Jeff Ennis: As the Minister will be aware, there is no 24-hour carers' helpline, so NHS Direct doubles up as that service. Are we monitoring how many carers are using NHS Direct; if not, does the Minister agree that we should?
    Mr. Lammy: More than 11 million people have used NHS Direct since it came into being, and more than 110,000 will use it this week alone. Two to 3 per cent. of those people become aware of the severity of their complaints through having rung NHS Direct, so it is saving lives. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important, as the service expands, to examine ever more closely the profile of the people who call it, and to ensure that it is better integrated into the NHS as a whole. It represents the best example of the introduction of information technology in the NHS, and compares well with the failed Child Support Agency that Conservative Members introduced when they were in government.

    Cancer Research
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on his plans to increase resources going to cancer research. [67268]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): In 2000–01, we invested £190 million in cancer research. By 2003, we will be investing an additional £20 million each year in the cancer research network and an extra £4 million in prostate cancer research. That new funding means that for the first

    145
    time, Government—through the Department of Health, the Higher Education Funding Council and the research councils—will match the current investment of the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Bellingham: I welcome the Minister's announcement of that investment. I was recently contacted by a constituent of mine, Robert Blunden, whose wife tragically died of cancer last year after a very long illness. Is the Minister aware that the oncologist who treated Mrs. Blunden, and 27 other cancer specialists, recently wrote to the press deploring the fact that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence had refused to permit the use of two new cancer drugs, despite the fact that there is no oncologist on the appraisal committee? We will never know whether those two drugs could have saved Mrs. Blunden's life or helped to alleviate her pain. However, given the Minister's and the Secretary of State's huge commitment to cancer care, does not she agree that there should be a cancer specialist on the appraisal committee; and why is she trusting her political judgment rather than the expertise of 27 specialists?
    Ms Blears: If the hon. Gentleman really understood how NICE works he would know that the NICE body includes a range of specialists, but not a representative from every single disease specialty. Members of NICE go out to consult clinicians working on the ground, health professionals and patients groups, exactly as they did in the case of those vital cancer drugs. They consulted all those bodies before they reached their decisions.
    As a result of the Government's introduction of NICE, some 31,000 patients are benefiting from cancer drugs who would not have benefited before. That is a symbol of the Government's investment and of our determination to ensure that there is not a postcode lottery in access to such drugs. It is right that clinicians are involved.
    On the case that the hon. Gentleman highlighted, he has received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State giving him full information about all the oncologists and leading clinicians who were involved in the decision, and he knows full well that there was a deep and proper clinical examination.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the key agencies for helping cancer research and caring for cancer patients is the hospice movement? Does she recognise that the hospice movement, including the children's hospice movement, faces a serious problem as regards resources, which are required immediately? Will she do all she can to ensure that those services can continue?
    Ms Blears: I am very aware of the excellent work that is done by the hospice movement and by children's hospices. We have made a commitment that, by 2004, an extra £50 million will be spent on specialist palliative care. We are world leaders in palliative care, mainly because of the excellent work that is done by the hospice movement. I know that concerns have been expressed about that money getting through to the front line, and I am looking forward to attending the all-party group on hospices tomorrow and having a good discussion with hon. Members in that forum. I can tell my hon. Friend
    146
    that we can make the extra investment because we have made this vital area of palliative care a top priority for the Government.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: Earlier this year, Professor Gordon McVie, the director of the Cancer Research Campaign, expressed his concern that the £570 million earmarked under the NHS cancer plan was running into the sand. What guarantee can the Minister give that the funds that she has just described will not similarly run into the sand?
    Ms Blears: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have decided to make cancer a top priority. In 2001–02, we put in an extra £280 million; we shall put in an extra £407 million this year, and an extra £570 million next year. Part of those funds was centrally allocated to ensure that they would be directed to specific issues, but a large part of the extra money was put into baselines, so that people at local level could decide—quite properly, under the shift in the balance of power—where they needed to spend the money to make improvements in the cancer plan.
    I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are on track to achieve the shorter waiting times, the investment in equipment, and the appointment of the extra 800 consultants set out in the cancer plan. All those outcomes are being achieved. It is clear that the extra money devoted by the Government to cancer care is delivering real returns for patients who need high-quality care. He needs to be aware that some courageous decisions must be taken about improving investment in the NHS to improve cancer services for patients, and that his party is not prepared to take them.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the Minister's comments on extra funding for palliative care. She may be aware of Derian House, and of St. Catherine's hospice, in Chorley—one a children's hospice, and the other a hospice for adults. They are experiencing severe problems in raising funds from the area and ensuring that the two hospices remain sustainable. I hope that she will give them some secure funding to ensure that both can continue to exist.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right to raise the excellent example of children's hospice care in his constituency. Children's hospices provide a relatively new form of care. Funding under the new opportunities scheme for those services is now open for bids, particularly from children's hospices, and I am sure that his local hospices will be preparing submissions to it. We have also increased carers grants and provision for respite care to provide breaks for families. The significant thing about children's hospice care is that it provides not only terminal care but respite care to enable children and the rest of their families—including their brothers and sisters—to have a break from what can be extremely trying circumstances.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: May I remind the hon. Lady of the unsurpassed work of the Gray cancer institute at Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency? May I urge her to get the Secretary of State to reply to the letters that he has received from Professor Wardman, the director of the institute, who is, rightly,

    147
    deeply concerned that the hospital's cancer centre might move away from Mount Vernon and thereby prejudice the close co-operation that exists between researchers at the Gray cancer institute and those who work at the cancer centre? Will the Minister address those serious problems, which concern my constituents and the many thousands who are admirably served by the cancer centre at Mount Vernon?
    Ms Blears: I cannot comment on the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I shall certainly look into replying to the correspondence to which he referred. I would say, however, that the Government have set up translational cancer centres, which address exactly the issue that he raised: how we translate scientific research into clinical research that can make a difference to patients. We have now set up eight centres of excellence that are involved in the national translational cancer research network—NTRAC—process. They are bringing the benefits of scientific research to the clinical trials that matter for patients. It is because the Government have set up the cancer research networks that we are now seeing the benefit of the investment in that vital research.

    Primary Care Trusts
    Laura Moffatt: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of newly formed primary care trusts. [67269]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Three hundred and three primary care trusts have been established and are now operational. The trusts will be accountable to the new strategic health authorities, which will assess their performance. In addition, the Commission for Health Improvement will undertake routine assessments in every NHS trust, strategic health authority and primary care trust.
    Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our primary care trusts will be judged on how well they work with other organisations in the community to improve people's health and well-being? Does he welcome plans such as those of Crawley PCT to commission partnership posts jointly with social services and the local borough council, to get the very best out of the jobs and ensure that people understand that there is now a cohesive health system in our communities and that the power has gone back right to where it belongs, with our GPs?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I agree strongly. One of the key jobs of the new primary care trusts will be to bring about the closer integration between health and social care that my hon. Friend described. Most of our constituents see health and social care as one system, and they want them better integrated. We will do all that we can in the Department to encourage that. We have already changed the legislation and we are putting in the investment to ensure that we get that closer integration. I had the good fortune of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency recently and had the chance to discuss this and other developments with the leaders of her primary care trust. They are doing a brilliant job, and so is she.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I have no doubt that the Minister will wish to pay the same tribute to me.
    148
    I endorse what the hon. Lady said. I had a very good meeting last Friday with the chairman and chief executive of the new Mid Sussex primary care trust. What guidance does the Minister give PCTs for the Olympian decisions that they have to take on funding very worthy organisations that approach them for help in preventive health care, for example, such as Homestart? PCTs do not seem to have the money available, and perhaps the new injection of funds will improve that. What guidance is offered on the help that should go to admirable outside organisations that badly need the funds?
    Mr. Hutton: In his own way, the hon. Gentleman does do a brilliant job. He has a long association with Crawley, too, but let us not dwell on that. I agree with him strongly about the important role that primary care trusts will play—actively, we hope—in supporting voluntary organisations and helping to improve the delivery of front-line services. There may be some disagreement on this point. He and many others may make the argument for devolution to the front line, which is absolutely right, but then ask us to issue guidance on how the functions should be delivered. There is a balance to be struck. There are key responsibilities for primary care trusts on which it is perfectly appropriate for Ministers to issue guidance—commissioning and a range of other important services—but we trust PCTs to make the right decisions. Their resources are growing substantially, with a 10 per cent. cash increase this year alone. That will also benefit him and his constituents. We want to leave the PCTs free to make their own decisions.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Under the previous health authority, my constituency was one of the most underfunded in the entire country. Now that we have the Bolton primary care trust, and following the Chancellor's excellent announcement yesterday, will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that he will look again at the most underfunded areas in the country and bring them up to target faster than hitherto?
    Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing the funding formula and the method of allocating resources across the NHS. I hope that we will be able to make appropriate announcements on that in the near future. Many hon. Members of all parties have raised this important issue with me. We must set ourselves the important objective of improving the health of the poorest members of our community at the fastest possible rate. That is the challenge for this Labour Government. We welcome that, and we will take it on—in stark contrast to the Conservative party, which could not even bring itself to mention health inequalities in the 18 years for which it had the stewardship of the national health service.
    Dr. Liam Fox: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his comments, the sympathy expressed to the family of the road traffic accident victim, and for his support in the past few days. It is a pity that the friendship and courtesy that typifies the way we do business in this place most of the time is not the face that the public see.
    Yesterday, the Chancellor reiterated the Government's target of 48-hour access to general practitioners by 2004. To achieve that, the Government themselves said that they

    149
    had to recruit 4,000 extra GPs between 2000 and 2004, yet the net increase in 2000 across England and Wales was 18, and in 2001 it was also 18. How are PCTs supposed to reach that target by 2004?
    Mr. Hutton: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the progress that has been made in recruiting new GP registrars, for example, he will see that a substantial number of GPs—nearly 7,000—are in training. From that figure, I think that we can meet our target of recruiting a minimum of 2,000 GPs by 2004. Key to that aim is the investment that we are putting into the national health service. The hon. Gentleman expresses concern about the rate of progress in recruiting GPs, but I should point out in the politest way that I can that we will take him and his colleagues seriously when they are prepared to match the investment that we are putting in.
    Dr. Fox: Doctors should be recruited into general practice because it is a career that they want, not bought from a GP supermarket. In the past two quarters, there has been a huge increase in emergency admissions through accident and emergency, totalling almost 100,000 above trend. To what does the right hon. Gentleman attribute that increase, and what does it say about the current interaction between general practice and the acute sector, and particularly the burden on GPs?
    Mr. Hutton: We are investing significantly in improving our accident and emergency departments, but is it clear that the hon. Gentleman cannot match that investment. I remind him of what I said a moment ago about the number of GPs who are already entering GP training. That is the cohort from which we will meet our target of recruiting additional GPs for the national health service. Across the various areas that he has drawn attention to, we are making progress.
    I am glad that the British Medical Association has been able to announce the result of the ballot of GPs on the new general medical services contract. Some 75 per cent. of GPs consider that a sensible way to reform the GPs' contract. That will provide us with a sensible platform from which to continue to improve primary care services, particularly the relationship between primary care and accident and emergency departments.
    Dr. Fox: Those answers smack more than a little of complacency. PCTs have staff shortages, they have failed to reach their IT targets, they must repay their deficits this year, and thus they say that little or no money will be available for primary care development. They also have to shoulder the inappropriate role of public health, and on top of that, they are concerned about the Government's plans to push ahead with foundation hospitals. How will the relationship between PCTs and foundation hospitals differ from current relationships?
    Mr. Hutton: Basically, the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Government's reform agenda for the national health service—our attempts to improve its efficiency, productivity and effectiveness. I repeat that we will take his concerns seriously when he can outline for us his reform agenda. Until he does so, most Government Members will be forced to reach the only rational conclusion: the bogus rhetoric of the Conservatives is a
    150
    smokescreen for what we all know will happen if we ever have the misfortune to experience a Tory Government again. It will be cuts, cuts and cuts again.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the primary care trust that serves Barnsley is the biggest in the country. Unfortunately, it started life in April 3 per cent. short of its funding target. That shortfall, which equates to about £6 million, has been compounded by a further £1.5 million debt, and by the shortage of GPs, which costs us money. Will he look again at Barnsley PCT's funding?
    Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I can only repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). I am aware of the issue to which my hon. Friend draws attention, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and all Ministers in the Department of Health are fully committed to addressing it. However, it is worth pointing out that, despite the problems to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, Barnsley PCT received a very significant increase in its resources this year. Our challenge and responsibility is to keep that investment coming through, and I can confirm that that is what this Government will always do.

    Food Supplements
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the future availability of food supplements and traditional herbal medicinal products to consumers. [67270]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Our intention is to ensure continuing availability of a wide range of food supplements and traditional herbal remedies, within the European legislative framework. We aim to achieve that by active participation in the work required to follow up the recent food supplements directive, and through the continuing negotiations on the proposed directives on traditional herbal medicinal products, and on the review of medicines legislation.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that reply. The traditional herbal medicinal products directive threatens the availability of 70 per cent. of safe herbal products in the UK. The food supplements directive, to which the Minister referred, would ban 300 safe nutrients and many safe higher potency vitamins. I have considerable regard and affection for the Minister—[Interruption.] Will she listen to Consumers for Health Choice, the National Association of Health Stores and the Health Food Manufacturers Association? They speak positively and accurately for the industry and its many thousands of consumers.
    Ms Blears: I will take the matter more slowly, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to do the same. There are proper and genuine concerns in this regard, which the Government take very seriously. Just last week, Lord Hunt and I met representatives from the industry as a whole. We talked particularly about the traditional herbal medicines directive. Some industry representatives welcome the quality and safety standards being applied to manufacturing, but people from the health food sector are

    151
    worried about some of the products. We have extended the consultation period to the end of July, and are looking for areas of over-regulation or for instances of items that might be excluded.
    We intend to continue the debate. It is important that people have access to the widest range of products, but that must be balanced by measures to protect public health and safety. It is a matter of getting that balance absolutely right.
    Mr. Mark Todd: May I commend the Government's increasingly measured approach on this matter? Some hon. Members were critical of the haste with which the Government supported proposed European regulation in this area. I remind my hon. Friend of the important prize at the end of the process—a single European framework for the consumption of these products. That will be valuable to companies such as Peter Black and Surepharm in my constituency.
    Ms Blears: Yes. I am conscious that the regulations have been welcomed in some respects because, if they provide a more secure regulatory framework, products such as herbal medicines will gain more respect in the market place and consumers will be able to rely on their quality. We must not take our eye off the ball: there is a prize to be won at the end, and that is getting the best deal for manufacturers and consumers, while at the same time protecting public health and safety. We are determined to be very active in the negotiations to achieve that.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will recall that, when we debated this matter in European Standing Committee C, I queried the directive's loose wording. The Minister assured the Committee that no legal foodstuff products would be barred as a result of the directive. However, Lord Hunt admitted on 27 June that several products would be excluded. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the statement that she made to the Committee before it divided on the matter?
    Ms Blears: Yes. I told the Committee that certain combination products were unlawful at present, and would remain so after the directive was implemented. The directive itself will not make those products unlawful. Some of those combination products are not covered by regulation, and we are looking at that. The hon. Gentleman is right that some ingredients are not on the permitted list, but that is a separate matter. The Government are pressing to get as many dossiers as possible approved for food supplements and traditional herbal medicines so that the list of permitted ingredients can be extended. I repeat, however, that some combination products are illegal now and will remain so after the implementation of the directive. That will not be a result of the directive, but we must be conscious of the need for a regulatory home for those products.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for her answers so far. As a Member of the European Scrutiny Committee that referred the matter for debate in the Standing Committee, may I point out that some of us still have concerns that it should not be dealt with at European level? Questions of subsidiarity and where we deal with such matters are for debate in the
    152
    Convention on the Future of Europe. I hope that the Government of the United Kingdom will think seriously before allowing Europe to make decisions on matters that should really be between consumers and health authorities in the UK. The prime directive should be to give good advice and then to let the consumer decide what they want to use.
    Ms Blears: Again, that is about finding the correct balance. Matters relating to medicines are regulated at European level because there are pharmaceutical safety issues. We are talking not merely about herbal products but herbal medicines that have a physiological effect and thus fall within a regulatory framework. It is important to get the safety issues absolutely right. The matter is not one of unaccountable European decision making: the directive is subject to co-decision and consideration and has been subjected to scrutiny in the House. However, it is important to recognise that, in the case of medicines, the regulatory framework is extremely important for the safety of consumers.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Minister accept that there is considerable disquiet among users of these products about what is going on? Will she also accept that they can see no justification for interference in the exercise of their decision and their freedom to pick and choose? Will she give serious consideration to abandoning what is going on? Can she justify the Government persisting with something that is both unwanted and unpopular with the people most directly affected by their actions?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman must be careful; it is a matter of finding the right balance. I hope that he is aware of some of the ingredients of traditional medicines, such as aristolochia, which is found in some traditional Chinese medicines and has caused two cases of kidney failure in the UK. There is a question over kava kava which has caused three deaths abroad. There have also been interactions between St. John's wort and contraceptives where that medicine caused considerable harm.
    There are public safety and public health issues. Many manufacturers welcome measures for quality standards, to ensure that the right quality ingredients are used and that the processes are transparent and open to inspection. It is important that we engage actively in the matter; we cannot simply leave it to the market and individual choice.

    Suicides (Women)
    Sue Doughty: What his policy is on reducing the incidence of suicide among women. [67271]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): We published the national suicide prevention strategy for England for public consultation on 26 April 2002. It is a comprehensive, evidence-based strategy to prevent suicide. The strategy describes key actions already taken, and proposes further actions to be taken, to help meet the target set out in the White Paper, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation". In addition, the Department

    153
    is producing a strategy for women's mental health that will ensure that reformed mental health services meet the needs of women.
    Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is she aware that suicide is the main and rising cause of death among pregnant and perinatal women and new mothers? Different forms of suicide are occurring; there are many more violent methods and they are gender-specific. What is being done to increase awareness among health professionals of the risk to that particular group of women?
    Jacqui Smith: I think that the hon. Lady refers to information in the confidential inquiry into maternal
    154
    deaths. It is worth putting the deaths from suicide among that group of women into context: the report highlighted 28 deaths due to suicide in more than 2 million maternities. However, she is right—any suicide is serious. The confidential inquiry made several recommendations for the management of women who are at risk of serious mental illness following delivery. In May, the Department produced a supplement insert for the GP magazine PrimaryCare, which included the key issues from the inquiry, to help to raise awareness of the factors that can contribute to maternal deaths. We also produced a separate midwifery summary of the confidential inquiry, and the findings will of course feed into the development of the maternity module of the children's national service framework.

Education Spending
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that education is this Government's No. 1 priority. Since 1997, we have broken the cycle of underfunding in education, but we have done more than that: we have demonstrated that our policies of resources for reform work.
In 1997, we took the tough decision to focus our extra resources and reforms on early years and primary schools, because we knew that we had to get the basics right, and the results are there to see: more nursery places; 500 sure start areas; the biggest ever expansion in child care; and every primary teacher has been retrained in the teaching of literacy and numeracy. The result has been a huge leap in the performance of our 11-year-olds.
We also laid the foundations for raising standards in secondary schools. Again, where we committed resources for reform, we delivered results. The number of specialist schools increased from 181 in 1997, to 982 by September this year, and GCSE results are rising more swiftly in those schools. In our excellence in cities areas, results are increasing faster than elsewhere. Our record is one of investment and reform, and thousands of pupils and parents have benefited from it.
We know that it works, so it is now time to step up the pace of investment, matched by a step up in the pace of reform. In England, education spending will rise by an average of 6 per cent. a year over the next three years—a £12.8 billion increase. Total investment in my Department will be nearly £58 billion a year by 2005–06—more than £1,000 per pupil more in real terms than we inherited in 1997.
In the time available to me today, I cannot possibly do justice to every issue covered by my responsibilities as Secretary of State. I therefore intend to focus on the reform of secondary education, but when we have completed our consultation on our reform document for further education I will make further announcements. I can confirm that, subject to agreement to that reform, core unit funding in FE will increase by 1 per cent. per annum in real terms over each of the next three years.
In the autumn, we will publish a 10-year strategy for our universities, setting out how we will deliver the twin goals of excellence in teaching and research and widening access and participation. However, I can announce today that, as part of the Government's commitment to research excellence, we will substantially increase recurrent funding for research, raising the additional investment by more than £200 million by 2005–06. Alongside the investment in the science budget announced by the Chancellor yesterday, that will enable our research to be truly world class.
To carry on now to raise standards in our secondary schools, we need to make a decisive break with those parts of the existing comprehensive system that still hold us back. In saying that, I want to be clear about one thing: this is not a return to the old, failed two-tier system. The comprehensive principle was right and remains right. Every child is of equal worth. Ability is not determined by the family or background into which people are born,
156
and all children have a right to an education that meets their highest aspirations and helps them to achieve their individual potential. That is as true now as it has ever been.
Again, without doubt, the move to comprehensive education brought progress. It has given more people the qualifications for higher education and more children have gained good GCSEs. It has produced an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum for all children. It has delivered huge progress in the achievement of girls. It has brought more life chances to so many of our young people.
Progress at secondary level has not been fast enough, however, and no one can say that what we have now is as good as we want it to be. Too many pupils are still going backwards between the ages of 11 and 14. Pupil behaviour often deteriorates at secondary level. Half of our 16-year-olds still leave school without five good GCSEs. The UK still has one of the greatest class divides in education. Too many schools are failing or coasting along without being able to stretch all their pupils.
We have not, therefore, achieved all for which we hoped. We need to be bolder and change our secondary system if we are to deliver high standards for all our children. We need radical reform in four key areas: in school structures; in school leadership; in teaching and learning; and in the link between rights and responsibilities both within schools and between schools and the broader community.
First, I shall deal with reform of school structures. In the past, the comprehensive system has been too uniform. There have been insufficient incentives for schools to improve, and excellence has been isolated and has not been used to raise standards across the school system as a whole. We therefore need a secondary system that instead promotes specialism and diversity, in which every school is honest about its strengths and weaknesses and is given clear incentives to improve, and in which our best schools are rewarded for levering up standards in the rest.
The new secondary system must have schools that are, in some respects, the same as each other. High aspirations, a broad and balanced curriculum, good-quality teaching and leadership, fair admissions and clear routes of progression are essential for every school. Every school also needs to be different, however, which is why specialist schools are central to our school reform. Their specialism is in addition to the national curriculum and encourages them to develop their own ethos and mission. Let me be clear: our aim is that, over time, every school that can be and wants to be a specialist school will be able to be one. I can announce today that we will increase the number of specialist schools to 2,000 by 2006. That will mean more than half our secondary schools will be specialist within the next four years.
It is not just a question of specialist schools. We will create at least 33 new city academies by 2006, and new extended schools. Each school will have its own mission and its own strengths, all contributing to raising standards. We also need a ladder of achievement to make sure that every school has clear incentives to improve—a system in which every school knows where it stands, is challenged to raise its level, and is incentivised and supported when it does so. Rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach, we need to acknowledge the

157
truth that different schools are at different stages in school improvement and need different levels of challenge and support, freedoms and responsibilities.
On this ladder of improvement, weak and failing schools will be provided with extra resources, but those will be matched to tough improvement programmes. If schools do not improve, there will be quicker action to close them down, reopen them as academies, replace their leadership or enable them to be taken over by more successful schools. For coasting schools, there will be incentives to develop school improvement plans and work towards specialist status. For good schools, such as our specialist schools, training schools and extended schools, extra resources will be matched to the development of real centres of excellence in each school. For our best schools, there will be new resources and new freedom. but those will be matched to new responsibilities to improve the school system as a whole.
As a result of that ladder of improvement, a vital new principle for our new secondary system will be that, for the first time, we will use our best schools and head teachers to lever up standards in the rest. That is why we will encourage our best schools to expand. That is why we will promote our best schools to take over and run weak and failing schools. That is why we will provide incentives for our best schools to federate and improve standards in our weaker and coasting schools. That is why we will reward our best heads for taking on new roles as chief executives of clusters of schools.
Today, we are announcing that we will designate 300 advanced schools over the next four years. The schools will be charged with helping to lever up standards in our weaker schools and will have the resources to do so.
It is not only school structures, however, that we need to reform. Leadership is essential to the success of any school. We have already established the national college for school leadership as the world's first institution dedicated to identifying and training excellent leaders in our school system. The college will make sure that every new head is properly qualified, and that existing heads are properly supported and trained with access to mentors from outside education. The college will take on new roles in developing a new generation of transformational leaders.
We recognise that it is vital to secure the best possible leadership for the schools that face the toughest challenges. Next year we will introduce a leadership incentive grant to ensure that excellent leadership exists in our most challenged secondary schools. The grant—about £125,000 per school per year—will be paid to about 1,400 secondary schools in excellence in cities areas and excellence clusters, and to schools in challenging circumstances outside such areas. Where schools are well led, the grant will be paid directly with no strings attached; where leadership is weaker, heads and governors will need to agree a development plan with the directors of education in their local authorities. When necessary, and if it is in the best interests of a school and its pupils, the plan will include the replacement of the head teacher.
The third area needing reform is that of teaching and learning. The realisation of every child's potential is what all teachers want for their pupils and what all parents want for their children. Increasingly, the new specialist secondary school system will be able to tailor education to the needs of individual children; but that will require a
158
radical change in the way in which teachers use their expertise and their time, in their professional development and in how they use technology—in fact, in how they do their job.
We have already been discussing with the profession how we can bring about those changes: now we can back up the discussions with resources. The money that schools receive through the standard spending assessment will rise by 3.5 per cent. in real terms in each of the next three years. On top of that record sum, the Chancellor has announced a substantial increase in the schools standard grants, paid directly to schools. The grant will increase by £325 million in 2003–04, and by £375 million in each of the following two years. That means that from next year direct payments will rise by £50,000 a year to at least £165,000 for a typical secondary school in England. Direct payments to a typical primary school will rise by £10,000 to at least £50,000.
That money, together with the increased general funding, can be used at head teachers' discretion. Let me make it absolutely clear, however, that the extra schools standard grant is conditional on reform of the way in which schools work. It must be matched by a commitment across the schools sector to a restructured teaching profession and a reformed school work force: more flexible, more diverse, and focused on raising standards.
We need commitment to new professional roles for teachers. We need commitment to new roles for school para-professionals, enabling them to take on new tasks in schools and to support teachers. We need commitment to an improved pay and performance management regime that rewards excellent teaching and eliminates poor teaching. In the autumn we will set out our more specific proposals, and the process for achieving the necessary agreement.
Finally, we must strengthen dramatically the link between rights and responsibilities. The new system needs to capture not only what schools can do for themselves, but how parents and the wider community can play their part. We must have zero tolerance of indiscipline in schools. Today I can announce a significant expansion of measures taken earlier this year to tackle poor behaviour and crack down on indiscipline. We have already seen the success of learning support units, on-site centres that can better deal with the small minority of pupils who cannot settle and who disrupt others in the classroom. As part of a national behaviour strategy to be launched in the autumn, we will provide learning support units for every school where they are needed. There will be more police on site at our toughest schools, if heads agree to that. Outside schools, truancy sweeps will be extended.
More broadly, however, I want to break down the walls and do more to help schools become a central part of their communities. We will therefore develop new extended schools that will provide a range of services, along with education, on the same site.
Moving to the new comprehensive ideal means higher standards, zero tolerance of bad behaviour and a greater choice of good schools for parents. The Government have made their choice. We have chosen to make education our No.1 priority, and we have backed that choice with sustained investment on an unprecedented scale, matched by reform involving unprecedented ambition. We have a proven model of reform; we have the best teachers ever

159
in our schools; we have the resources and the ambition to achieve the change. A world-class education system is what we aim for, and that is a prize well worth winning.
Mr. Damian Green: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance sight of her statement. I welcome the extension of city academies and learning support units—two Conservative ideas that deserve to flourish under this Government.
The right hon. Lady said that she wanted to help schools, but we already know that she is flexible in her use of language. We read in today's newspapers that she deliberately used different language when she negotiated with the Prime Minister from the language that she used with the Chancellor of the Exchequer before yesterday's statement. I commend her ingenuity but, unfortunately for her, the British people are less easily fooled.
Today, the right hon. Lady has talked the language of believing in the comprehensive principle. Last week, she told the Daily Mail that the comprehensive school was a "worn out vehicle". Could she tell the House which is her real view? Her Back Benchers need to know whether to believe what she says to them in the House or what she says to the Daily Mail. It is this gap between rhetoric and reality that haunts the statement she has just made. She uses words and phrases such as "radical reform", but the reality is that she is travelling ever further down the path of central direction, second-guessing from the centre and nitpicking interference in our schools.
Today's statement will not promote any improvement in what parents worry about. It will not help to solve the crisis in discipline that has seen 130 teachers seriously injured in violent incidents in schools in the past year. The measures that she has announced will not compensate for the Government's consistent undermining of the authority of head teachers—an undermining that some of her announcements today will simply make worse.
The statement will not help teachers to spend more time in the classroom teaching; indeed, it will hinder them. The Secretary of State already sends 4,500 pages of guidance and advice to every school every year. Has she estimated how much extra paperwork will be generated by the changes that she has announced today? This is not the real reform that our schools need.
The Secretary of State talks tough about closing schools that miss their targets. She wants to sack teachers who miss their targets, so let me ask her about her targets. What about truancy? In 1998, the Department set a target to cut truancy, and the target was strengthened in 2000. However, this year, the old target was scrapped and replaced with a new one that aims to achieve a reduction 70 per cent. less than the original target. Does she accept that that is an appalling example of double standards? If teachers miss a target, the teacher gets sacked; if Ministers miss a target, the target gets sacked.
The centrepiece of the statement is the introduction of new types of school. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the fact that schools will seek to jump through these new hoops to get the extra money will inevitably lead to a further increase in red tape? What has she got to say to the head teacher, Janet Smith from Lealands high school in Luton? [Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers groan at
160
the mention of head teachers; they do not want to hear things from the real world of education. What has she got to say to—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the shadow spokesman to be heard.
Mr. Green: Labour Members never like to hear from head teachers, who know the truth of what is going on in schools. Janet Smith is quoted today as saying about the Chancellor's spending plans:
"It's always been tied up, attached to this initiative or that scheme. I need to be trusted to decide what my school needs."
Is she not exactly right?
What about the practicalities of the Secretary of State's proposals to lever up the best? Many good heads are good precisely because they concentrate on every detail of what happens in their schools. Her proposals would take the best heads out of the school and make them strategic chief executives of half the schools in the area. What evidence does she have that that is the best way to improve all those schools that she would not touch with a bargepole? People will worry that the proposal is a gimmick that will do more harm than good. It will especially concern parents who have children in the schools with the good heads that she is taking away.
What is the logic behind concentrating on 300 schools out of 25,000 to solve the crisis? Would not it be better to focus directly on the failing schools, addressing their problems, rather than concocting this half-baked mess, which heads will not welcome? After the 300 advanced schools, the next tier is the 1,400 schools that will receive the leadership incentive grant. Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that the distribution of the grant will not be manipulated for party political purposes in exactly the way that the distribution of grant to local education authorities will be?
For a statement that was billed as setting the course for education policy in this Parliament, there are several glaring gaps. There is nothing about reducing exam overload in secondary schools or slimming down the national curriculum. The Secretary of State accepts—indeed, she promotes—further delay in finding a policy for our universities, where morale is even lower than it is in the school sector among both students and teachers. Does she accept that her dithering over student funding, on which we were promised a decision early in the new year, has contributed to the collapse in morale? She said little about further education, where morale is even lower than it is in the universities. What has she done today to simplify the system in which colleges need to cope with 73 different funding streams? She said nothing about vocational education, which has been a key failure for generations of children in this country.
The statement is a sad waste of an opportunity by the Government. Instead of retreating from the path of dictating to our schools, they have chosen to go further down that route than ever before. When will they learn that micro-management from the centre is not the way to create world-class schools? The right hon. Lady talks about diversity, but it is an imposed diversity: "You can do what you want as long as the Secretary of State approves." That is a sham diversity.
I will disappoint Labour Members by saying that we are not in principle opposed to spending more on education. [Laughter.] Let me repeat that in case they did not hear

161
the shadow Chancellor say it yesterday: we are not in principle opposed to spending more on education. But money without real reform will be wasted, as it has been over the past few years. There is an alternative vision for our schools, which the Government have rejected. In that alternative vision, heads control the discipline policy, teachers concentrate on teaching, not form filling, and parents know that the school is concerned with their children's needs, not the latest gimmick from the Government. Sadly, the Government have rejected that vision and chosen the dead hand of central control. This is not reform; it is a recipe for continued crisis in our schools.
Estelle Morris: Quite honestly, one is left wondering: if the Conservatives are not opposed to spending money in principle, where were their principles during 18 years of Tory Governments? They certainly did not turn that principle into the reality of spending.
I listened in vain to hear whether the Tories support the extra money for schools and are in favour of the direct grant that will provide an extra £50,000 for secondaries and an extra £10,000 for primaries. I listened in vain to find out whether they support the leadership grant, without strings attached, to 1,400 secondary schools. I listened in vain to find out whether they approve of a ladder of improvement, whereby every school is incentivised to achieve at high levels. The truth is that not only do they have no policies, but they have stopped believing in investing in education.
The hon. Gentleman is bothered about the number of pages sent to schools, but I can think of five pages that we could not send to schools that appear in "Conservative Education: Breaking the Link", which was published last week. The document seems to have taken five pages to conclude that there is no clear correlation between spending and results. In principle, the party is not opposed to spending money; in practice, it does not actually spend it; and in reality, it does not believe that it brings about improvements in results. That is what we have got from the hon. Gentleman, and that is why after 18 years of performing according to those rules, he and his party are no longer trusted to run this country's education system.
I turn to a few of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. He must listen carefully and understand a statement that says that the comprehensive principle is right in practice—the belief that every single child matters, that one's ability is not determined by family income and that every child has the right to the highest aspirations in a school system that is geared to meeting them. The hon. Gentleman repeated the view that comprehensive schools, as structured, do not sufficiently deliver that comprehensive principle, and they are a worn-out vehicle for doing so.
The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we believe in the principle. We believe that every child matters, that every school should deliver and that every child, not just a few, should have the right to an education that can deliver for them. That is the challenge that we take on and that is the nature of our higher ambitions and our aspirations. It is also why in 1997 we were right to turn our back on a school system that had failed too many people and delivered for a few, at the expense of too many children and their families, in too many communities.
162
We have made significant progress, but we are honest enough to admit that we have not made as much progress as we wanted to. If we are to have a vehicle that can deliver even more reform and higher standards, we must improve it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about money with strings and about head teachers not having flexibility. The 3.5 per cent. extra increase in SSA goes to schools with no strings attached, to spend as they wish to meet their development plan. The leadership grant for those schools that are well led, which will be the vast majority, goes to schools to spend as they wish with no strings attached, as is also the case with the schools standards grants. We are not only putting more money into schools, but devolving it to the front line and ensuring that those schools with good leadership can play the accountability system and spend the money as they see fit.
We will work with those schools that do not have the leadership in place and that are not as strong as they should be to raise standards and to guarantee to every parent that money going to those schools will also bring about reform and high standards. The hon. Gentleman is right—money without reform does not work. In our good schools, we will put in the money and they can handle the reform. In our under-performing schools, we will put in the money and the support, so that together we can deliver reform.
Mr. Phil Willis: We, too, are grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing us sight of the statement half an hour before we came to listen. It was worth coming just to hear the latest Tory U-turn on spending—that makes four this week.
This package has all the hallmarks of a Reader's Digest prize draw: people think that they have won until they examine the small print. Yesterday, we had a proud statement about extra grants to primary and secondary schools; today, we have the small print, which says that the grants are conditional on schools meeting certain criteria. Similarly, leadership grants were announced, but today we have the small print, which sets out criteria.
The Secretary of State must recognise that although she is right to say that simply putting money into schools will not resolve all their problems, managing every school from her office is not the way to improve matters.
To rely on a Government policy of naming, shaming, controlling and sacking hardly unites the profession or makes it want to raise standards.
Why is there nothing in the statement about the two crucial issues affecting schools? Yes, there is a little bit about discipline, but there is nothing about any new policy initiative to tackle the problems facing our schools. Let us talk about the other big issue: the number of teachers going into our schools. Evidence produced this week by the Teacher Training Agency showed that the number of mathematics teachers entering the profession was down by 30 per cent. and that of science teachers by 25 per cent. There was not a single new proposal in the statement to deal with those key issues.
On ideas about specialist schools, I apologise sincerely to the Secretary of State for saying that she was setting up a two-tier system, because today it is a three-tier system, or perhaps even a four-tier system. How will super-specialist schools, as they will now be called, be chosen and funded? How will we guarantee that the

163
children who need extra resources and would benefit from the initiative can get into those schools? Can the Secretary of State tell the House why, at the end of the Labour Government's second term, 40 per cent. of our secondary schools will not come into any of those categories and will receive fewer resources, presumably because they are the bog standard schools that Alastair Campbell has talked about?
Why is there nothing about further education in the statement, apart from a 1 per cent. increase in funding? Fourteen to 19-year-olds have been identified as a key sector, yet FE, we are told, will get a 1 per cent. increase—we have not been told what strings are attached. We welcome the universal expansion of education maintenance allowances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurrah!"] He pauses. How will those allowances be paid for? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that they will not be paid for by removing the universal access to child benefit, as the Chancellor wanted to do two years ago, or by raising tuition fees and interest on grants? Will she make sure that both those things do not happen?
Finally, the Cassells report recommended a 28 per cent. target for the increase in modern apprenticeships, and we are delighted that the Secretary of State included that in her statement. Will she make it clear to the House that that target will not simply mean a re-badging of other provisions, but will be a genuine target to get 28 per cent. of young people into modern apprenticeships by 2004? There is a great deal in the statement and we welcome the extra resources, but please do not tell everybody how to do their job.
Estelle Morris: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged and welcomed the increase in resources. We have spent many more pennies than his party has promised at successive general elections, and have delivered our pledge.
I shall deal with FE and HE, which were mentioned by both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). We are always faced with difficult decisions. My Department has a wide range of responsibilities and deals with education from the cradle to the grave. I decided that the statement should be about secondary education, because I wanted to do it justice and have said all along that it was one of the main priorities of the spending assessment. So that there is no misunderstanding, let me say that the statement was not intended not to value further or higher education. We have decided to make a separate announcement on further education once we have completed consultation on the reform document that we launched some weeks ago, in recognition of the importance of that document.
However, I wanted to send a clear signal to people in further education that extra funding is available as part of the comprehensive spending review, which is why I made an announcement about the 1 per cent. annual increase in real funding now and did not hold it back until the autumn. That was a tough decision—the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will do as he wishes, but I hope that the FE sector will not regard it as diminishing its responsibilities. Equally, with higher education, I decided, rightly or wrongly, that I wanted to look at long—term funding for higher education, student finances and ways in which to extend participation and
164
value research and excellence. To split it up would have been bitty. That is the decision that I took. Neither decision is meant to diminish the part that both play in our education system.
I want to go over two key points, but first I shall give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about modern apprenticeships. We were extremely grateful for the Cassells report. What has come out of that is a better modern apprenticeship than we had before. We are keen to promote and extend modern apprenticeships to encourage as many young and not-so-young people as possible to enter them. It is not our intention merely to badge something else to reach that target. In the months ahead, we shall say more about our ambitions for those who follow the vocational route. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I share at least the wish to improve that, and I hope that he will accept from me our commitment to improve modern apprenticeships and to retain the modern apprenticeship as a high-status vocational route.
The hon. Gentleman and I differ in two areas. He may not accept it, but if he looks at the grants that have been made available today, he will see that there are far fewer strings attached than in the Government's first term. I say that partly at my own expense. If he goes through the grants one by one, he will find that in the vast majority of cases, and in some cases at all times for some schools, the grant comes without strings attached.
I shall be clear about why I have made the two provisos. I see no point in putting extra money into a school that does not have a leadership that is geared up to spend it effectively. I shall defend that, otherwise at the end of my time in this post, people will say, "You put in the money, but you did not bring about the change." There is always a tension between giving the money to those who can spend it and letting them do it, and supporting those who cannot and making sure that they spend it effectively. I feel that we have got the balance right.
We might disagree on my decision to hold back some of the increase in the special grant until we get the work force agreement. The grant would not go out until next April anyway. I am hugely heartened by the approach of the trade unions and their representatives in the education service to the talks that we have been holding over the past few months. I have every confidence that we will come to an agreement, but make no mistake: I need to fund that work force reform, and that money has now been announced. I have no intention of letting it go to schools unless I am assured that it will bring about the biggest prize—a remodelled teaching work force.
On the advanced schools incentives for improvement, the hon. Gentleman says that there is no incentive for improvement, only strings, and he does not like advanced schools and specialist schools. He must accept that those are incentives for improvement. We are on a journey. I hope that in 10 years' time, we will have reached the point where every school that is able and wants it is a specialist school.
We must start somewhere, and at every opportunity that we have had as a Government, we have increased the number of specialist schools and we shall continue to do that. That is where the incentive for improvement is in the

165
system. It is not a two-tier system, because it holds out that hope and ambition for every single one of our secondary schools.
David Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on articulating so clearly the links between resources, reforms and results. There will be a warm welcome in North-West Leicestershire secondary schools—I am a governor of two: Ibstock community college and Ashby-de-la-Zouch grammar school—for the 3.5 per cent. increase in SSA funding year on year.
Will my right hon. Friend look closely at the review of the SSA formula? Three of the four options would leave Leicestershire worse off. The grant needs to bridge a gap of 6 or 7 per cent. relative to the average county and 13 per cent. relative to the most generously funded county. Will she make it clear to her colleagues in government that any review of the formula that leaves Leicestershire worse off will run entirely counter to the warmly welcomed statements that we heard yesterday and today?
Estelle Morris: I expect that my hon. Friend will make representations to the effect that the one option by which Leicestershire apparently does well is the one that he prefers. He is entirely within his rights to do that. The matter is out to consultation. If one makes the arguments about the SSA consultation document, one must make them about the formula, not about whether this area or that area is better or worse off. The formula must be fair. That is the key criterion. I understand my hon. Friend, and no doubt I would do the same on behalf of Birmingham, but the debate must be about the formula, as it is that which dictates the outcome. All that I would say is that the leadership grant and the increase in the schools standard grant are not weighted for any of the things for which the SSA formula is weighted. I remind my hon. Friend that, as ever under this Government, we are talking about a larger share of a larger cake. Under the previous Government it was always a larger share of a diminishing cake.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Following the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), can the Secretary of State, as a Birmingham Member, explain why every year in her patch all the children in secondary schools get in excess of £500 more per pupil than those in my patch? Under the proposed SSA formula, that situation will become even more extreme. Why is that?
Estelle Morris: I shall let the hon. Lady into a big secret. People in my patch got more money than people in her patch when the Tories were in power as well. That's life. The difference between the two Governments is that we are trying to do something about it, whereas the Conservative Government did nothing about it. [Interruption.] Let me give a word of warning. There is life beyond the SSA formula. I have been talking about a new structure of secondary education—a lot of new money going into schools, wherever they are and whatever the funding formula. I understand the importance of the SSA formula in areas such as Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Worcestershire. The consultation is
166
out, with four options for people to comment on. In due course, we shall receive their representations and arrive at a decision.
Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend rightly stressed the lack of progress made by many children in the early years of secondary education. Can she assure me that the flexible staffing that she wants to encourage would facilitate the use of expertise from the top end of primary schools in the early years of secondary school? That could be beneficial to many children and make the transition easier.
Will she tell me whether she envisages that schools in the middle of constituencies such as mine will qualify for the leadership grant? They do not qualify under many of the other categories that she mentioned, but they are nevertheless in challenging circumstances—although the authority as a whole might not show up in many of the deprivation indices.
Estelle Morris: I entirely support my hon. Friend in saying to heads that they should consider the option of linking with primary schools and using year 6 teachers for year 7. I say that because when I visit schools that have done that, staff speak highly of the results that have been achieved. It is the schools' decision, but we want to encourage them to work in partnership. Before 1997, the atmosphere was not such that schools would share their resources and good ideas. That is one of the major changes in climate that we have helped to bring about since 1997. I thank schools for their generosity of spirit in increasingly being prepared to share their good work and good ideas with others.
On my hon. Friend's second question, some schools in extremely challenging circumstances are outside local authorities that measure up in terms of free school meals. That is a dilemma, and we want to target that group. Without giving assurances about particular schools in the middle of her constituency, I can say that we have made allowance for some schools outside excellence in cities areas to be included for a leadership grant.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome any extra money going directly without strings to schools in my area, and I welcome the idea of more specialist schools. Maiden Erlegh school in my area is developing as a centre of excellence in arts and St. Crispins school in Wokingham would like more Government support to develop in technology. Does the Secretary of State agree that in a secondary school it is important that a head teacher should have taught all the pupils in the school in at least one year in one subject, so that he or she knows the school better and is aware of the pupils' academic aptitudes?
Estelle Morris: I would not dare to be so prescriptive as to tell head teachers in which years they should teach. I have a genuine difference of opinion with the right hon. Gentleman about that, although I take his point seriously. If a school's governing body had decided what was right for the school in terms of a head teacher's background, of course I would value that opinion. I go to schools where the head teachers know the name of every pupil, and if they have taught in every year, of course that is a strength.

167
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that some governing bodies choose a different model of leadership and that they should have the freedom to follow that route.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could we acknowledge the significantly excellent settlement for the science budget? Will the ministerial team also turn their minds, however, to the intractable and growing problem of the dependence on short-term contracts in both universities and scientific establishments? Scientists do not do their best work if they are for ever fussing, understandably, about their personal future in the short and medium terms.
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right. I know from my visits to universities and from people involved in research that part of the underfunding of recent decades has resulted in short-termism in relation to contracts. Some of the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday will go some way towards addressing that problem. We shall not be able to solve all the problems when the Department makes further announcements on the future of HE, because there is no magic wand to restore the funding that has been cut from universities over the past two decades, but I hope that we shall begin a journey of improvement towards increased sustained investment in our universities.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: According to the House of Commons Library, the increases in expenditure in England between 2002 and 2005–06 will be £12.8 billion—a 28.5 per cent. increase—whereas in Wales and Scotland, the increase will be £1.9 billion, a 21.6 per cent. rise. That is a 7 per cent. discrepancy. Will the right hon. Lady explain and justify that difference?
Estelle Morris: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allocation to Wales is worked out by means of some historic Barnett formula. That is the nature of the system, and the explanation as to why the amounts of money going to Wales may seem somewhat different from those allocated to England.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: May I say how delighted I am with the huge investment in education? It is great news. I have to say, however, that I am a little sceptical about the principle of so many specialist schools. I want to put to my right hon. Friend two questions that I am asked virtually every time I am in my constituency. Does she agree with the teachers who tell me that the amount of bureaucracy that they have to deal with really affects their work load, and consequently prevents them from raising standards? What do we intend to do about that? The second question relates to university lecturers, as my right hon. Friend would probably expect, as Durham university is in my constituency. When does she intend to ensure that university lecturers receive a substantial pay increase, bearing it in mind that they have dropped back by some 40 per cent. in the past few years?
Estelle Morris: I tend to think that teachers use the term "bureaucracy"—as do I—as shorthand for extra work, extra demand and extra pressures. That does not always involve paperwork, although I accept that there is a lot of paperwork in the system now. I have always
168
accepted that the Department has a responsibility to do better than we do, and constantly to strive to cut it back. Although we have put extra flexibility into the standards fund, we still have fairly complex reporting arrangements. That is why we have decided, only this week, to write to schools shortly to say that they will be required to report on expenditure from the standards fund only once a year. That will result in a sizeable cut in the amount of bureaucracy to which they are currently subjected. So, we must do better, but we do try, and we are doing better.
This is a huge and complex system. We want to invest money in reform and, because we have a responsibility to ensure that the money is spent well, we must have an accountability mechanism in place. I entirely accept, however, that we must do more to make that process leaner.
On university lecturers, we put extra resources into universities last year so that they could begin to reverse the trend of underfunding. For the first time, they saw an increase in their funding after the diminishing resources that they had received year after year. It will be up to the universities, but I hope that university lecturers' pay will benefit from the settlement that we have been able to award this year.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: While I understand where the money announced today will be spent, the Secretary of State will be aware that the Education Bill now going through Parliament contains provision for private companies limited by guarantee to provide educational services. Some of those companies will inevitably fail from time to time. Will she confirm definitively whether the taxpayer will be the ultimate guarantor in such arrangements, whether the companies will be indirectly guaranteed by the local education authority, or whether she will simply allow those companies to go to the wall?
Estelle Morris: There was a lengthy and very constructive debate on school companies during our consideration of the Lords amendments to the Education Bill yesterday. The assurance that the Minister for School Standards gave to the House was that schools wishing to set up such companies must obtain the LEA's permission. That will act as the safeguard. If we want to free up schools and encourage them to innovate, sometimes we have to allow them to have different structures in which to do so. I am on the side of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who on Report welcomed companies as an innovative way of raising standards and devolving responsibility to schools.
Ms Bridget Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend remember hearing the Opposition spokesperson say that we do not particularly like listening to heads? The head teacher whose pupil, Fiona White, is doing work experience with me, tells me that he has already targeted the extra investment going to his school. The head teacher to whom I spoke last week confirmed that she now has a full staff for the coming year. The head teacher to whom I spoke the week before was delighted with the money that has gone into the capital programme. If the Opposition spokesperson does not want the money going to schools in his constituency, there are plenty of head teachers in mine who would be prepared to take it off his hands.

169
While my right hon. Friend is transferring that money to Lewisham, will she explain more about the excellent idea of extended schools and the help that they will give to the poorer communities in constituencies such as mine?
Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking on a year 10 student, I suspect, for work experience. Probably more of us should do that, as it is very important.
I, too, have found that head teachers have very much welcomed the grant. I do not want to sound complacent, because I know that some heads face great challenges in recruiting for September, but the excellent school that I was at in Chelsea this morning had also recruited to full complement. We need to get a balance in our discussions and acknowledge that there is much that is good in our schools and much that has improved. Many heads and teachers truly value the resources that we have put in, and have spent them to good effect.
Extended schools will gain approval from all parties. Schools are sometimes the only place in the community that offers professional advice and support and has the space and equipment to serve people. It is wrong that they should be available only from 8.30 am to 4.30 pm. We plan to make them centres of their communities in urban and rural areas. I have heard ideas ranging from having a health centre on site to having the local post office there. I know that a local police station in the north-east has an outpost at a school. Schools are part of the community. Their core job is teaching pupils, but there is no reason why we cannot have joined-up services that go beyond education, and extended schools will be funded to do that.
Ann Winterton: I welcome the Secretary of State's emphasis on diversity in education. Will she give an undertaking to consider the particular circumstances of Sandbach school in my constituency, which I believe is unique in that it is an independent comprehensive school where all the pupils are paid for by the state? It wants to retain that status. Will she investigate whether we can resolve the problems that face it?
I welcome the extra expenditure on education, but what can the Secretary of State say to Cheshire parents about the share that they will get under the funding formula? Will they be worse off, or will they be considerably better off, and is it not time that the fair funding formula situation was resolved?
Estelle Morris: I am aware of Sandbach school, because it is an anomaly within the system. I think that the former Minister for School Standards visited it only earlier this year to have discussions with the head. Because I am not aware of the technicalities, may I resist answering the question from the Dispatch Box but promise to answer it in the near future?
Irrespective of the funding formula, Cheshire will get its extra share of the schools standard grant, which is not weighted, which is one of its benefits for areas that consider themselves underfunded through the formula. All the hon. Lady's schools will get an increase in revenue and capital, subject to our agreement on the release of the grant. It is well worth her looking at the consultation document, and I know she will, because she is an assiduous representative of her constituents on the matter of education, as I know from the many letters that I
170
receive. I look forward to hearing her representations. Formulae cannot be the answer to everyone's problems, but it is important for us to have a thorough debate and come to the best conclusion we can.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: Will my right hon. Friend explain exactly what she means by one-size-fits-all schools? Perhaps a list of them could be made available in the Library, because I have never come across one. How does she propose to prevent the specialist school system, as she envisages it, from becoming progressively two tier or three tier—or perhaps even four tier—and increasingly selective?
Estelle Morris: On the one-size-fits-all issue, of course, teachers always think that their school is special; they know the ways in which it differs from neighbouring schools. No one is saying that such differences do not exist, but as I have always said, the perception of comprehensive schools is that of sameness and uniformity. The differences that exist are not celebrated; they are not outwardly visible to parents and to those in the wider community. My point has always been that—as I made clear in the statement—schools do indeed have different strengths, but we do not make the most of them. We do not incentivise schools to use those strengths, and we do not reward them for developing them. In terms of the difference of opinion between us, part of squaring the circle is acknowledging that schools do have different strengths, but that the comprehensive system seems to flatten and hide them, rather than raising and cherishing them, and incentivising more schools to celebrate their differences.
On the two-tier system, it is always difficult to get from where we are to where we want to be, but my hon. Friend should bear it in mind that, over time, every school that wants to become, and is capable of becoming, a specialist school will be able to do so. It is in order to get to that point that we have made more resources available every year. If we did not change—if we were not brave enough to take that risk—our school system would not deliver what my hon. Friend and I want. I should also point out that the ability to select by aptitude is available not only to specialist schools but to any secondary school that feels that it has a specialism.
Bob Russell: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the quality of teaching accommodation is important? If that is the case, will she hazard a guess as to how many temporary demountable classrooms will be replaced at the end of four years? After five years of a Labour Government, there are more demountable classrooms in my constituency than there were in 1997. I suggest that she start with the St. Andrews infant and junior school, which has 11 demountable classrooms.
Estelle Morris: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for making representations about schools in his constituency—that is his responsibility and his right. However, I suspect that there are few—if any—Members of this House who cannot point to significant capital investment in schools in their constituencies, regardless of the political party that they represent. The figures show that £700 million was invested in capital in 1997, but by the end of this spending review that will have risen to £4.5 billion. Because we do not run such matters from the

171
centre, it is up to local education authorities to prioritise the schools that need repair. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to look particularly at the school that he mentions, I shall do so, but I suspect that his first port of call should be the local authority. That will explain why that school has not been prioritised in the past four years.
Ms Karen Buck: A few years ago, under a Conservative Government, half of all secondary schools in the Tory flagship council of Westminster were failing in terms of special measures or serious weaknesses; now, none are. That is a tribute to many people, but certainly to the strategy and investment of this Government.
The key factor for the majority of pupils is to be taught in schools with a mixed intake, but inner-London schools rarely have such an intake. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she is doing everything possible to direct the resources necessary towards meeting the needs of inner-London schools? In some cases, there is a 50 per cent. turnover between key stages, two thirds of all pupils receive free school dinners, and two thirds speak a language other than English. Indeed, up to 70 different languages are spoken in the home. Those schools need a mixed intake and additional resources. In welcoming the strategy and the resources outlined by my right hon. Friend, I ask her to guarantee that inner London will receive the attention that it deserves.
Estelle Morris: I take my hon. Friend's point about the difficulties caused by pupil mobility and by the presence of pupils with a range of challenges in one school. She will accept—as hon. Members from Staffordshire, Leicestershire and Worcestershire know already—that local authorities in inner London receive significantly more funding than those elsewhere. The Under-Secretary with responsibility for London schools—my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg)—and I have announced the beginning of a discussion on London strategy. We want to work with local authorities and London Members to raise standards.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and I do not disagree about mixed intakes. I do not think that they guarantee good schools. Good-quality leadership and teaching do that, and I do not believe that using Machiavellian tactics to ensure that a school's intake is mixed is a way of guaranteeing high standards. However, some schools' intakes mean that they need significant extra resources and support. We need new ways to solve old problems, and I look forward to talking about that in the next few years.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The shortfall in education funding has had a crippling effect on schools throughout the UK. I welcome the fact that the Government have made education their No. 1 priority. My colleagues and I in the Ulster Unionist party want every child to achieve his or her full potential. I welcome the measures being taken to eradicate poor behaviour and ill discipline in schools. I publicly thank Her Majesty's Government for the extra funding that has been made available to create additional pre-school places and to improve childcare provision, which we have always supported.
172
I am a former vice-principal of a secondary school that produces high achievers every year, and I am at present a trustee of my local grammar school. I have to challenge the Secretary of State's assertion that the comprehensive principle in education is right for the UK in general. I have much for which to thank Her Majesty's Government, since although I was not privileged to get the paper mill scholarship to the local grammar school in 1947, I did go to that school in 1948. I then managed to go to teacher training college between 1953 and 1957. I therefore believe that the system in Northern Ireland has kept doors open and afforded opportunities so that children can progress.
Are not the Government denying children's individual differences, rather than respecting them? Should we not encourage excellence by retaining the system that is in place in Northern Ireland, which provides the best opportunity for all our children?
Estelle Morris: That is clearly a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. My responsibility is to make clear my principles, and the foundation of the Government's policies in respect of their responsibilities in England and elsewhere. However, I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, on what is a tremendous and significant day for the most deprived areas in this country. However, does she agree that the real test is ensuring that specialist schools do not cream off the best teachers and the pupils who are most easiest to teach, with the result that non-specialist schools become the sink schools in our inner-city areas?
Will my right hon. Friend describe the mechanism that will put an end to the massive problem of teacher rotation? That problem—of better teachers moving on when they get the chance—particularly affects schools in inner-city areas. How will today's statement begin to stop that?
Estelle Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend about the real test with regard to specialist schools. However, those schools did not bring about a system in which some schools attract children with high prior attainment. That has always happened—there has always been a division between strong schools and weak schools. Some schools have found it easy to attract pupils while others have not. The challenge is to change that, and we see the specialist school as a means to that end. This is about trying to build a system with incentives for every school to improve.
In the city of Birmingham, where my constituency is located, many schools in the inner city have striven for specialist school status. They have a huge number of children on free school meals and who have special educational needs. I know that that is the same in my hon. Friend's constituency. Our measures act as an incentive not just for the schools serving affluent areas but for others as well. Is not the test of specialist schools that they are as open to schools that serve deprived areas as to those that do not? Secondly, it is important that we

173
structure them so that, with their strengths, they lever up performance elsewhere in the school system. On those two aspects, which are fundamental to our reform, I pledge that that is the case.
On my hon. Friend's second question, if we put in more support so that teachers are free to teach and to do their job, I think that that will keep children in school. If teachers have classroom assistants, bursars, administrative assistants, laptop computers and good school leaders, the children may love it. It is the paraphernalia around teaching the kids that gets in the way. I hope that much of what we have announced today will make those schools better places to work and to teach.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Paying direct grants to schools was a very imaginative proposal by the Government, and the fact that it was built on by the Chancellor yesterday is to be welcomed. Would the Secretary of State care to go one stage further in her quest for diversity and reintroduce grant-maintained schools?
Estelle Morris: The main difference is that the previous Conservative Government paid the grants only to some schools, whereas we are paying it to all schools.

Education Spending
  BILLS PRESENTED
    PRIME MINISTER (OFFICE, ROLE AND FUNCTIONS) (No. 2)
    Dr. Julian Lewis presented a Bill to define the office, role and functions of the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury; to make arrangements for his appointment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 180].
    CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (PROHIBITION OF SALE) (No. 2)
    Dr. Julian Lewis presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of evidence gathered in criminal investigations or used during criminal proceedings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 181].

Rape (Consent)
4.37 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to consent in the crime of rape so as to provide that consent shall require the free agreement of the parties involved, that the parties take reasonable steps to ensure that consent has been given, and that the giving of consent on one occasion shall lead to no presumption about the giving of consent on any further occasion; and for related purposes.
It is clear to anyone who has studied this subject that every year hundreds of rapists walk free from our courts. The victims are generally women, but a significant proportion of those in reported cases are men, and the conviction rate is only a tiny fraction of all rapes that occur. Only 10 per cent. of rapes are reported and, of those, 7 per cent. result in a conviction. So less than 1 per cent. of all rapists are punished for their crime. This abysmally low level of conviction means that we are failing the victims of rape.
These conviction rates and the low sentences often handed out discourage rape victims from bringing their attacker to court. Rape victims say that they felt that it was they, rather than the accused, who was on trial. Despite the progress made by the Government in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, many rape victims are still humiliated in court, particularly when irrelevant sexual history is paraded before the court. The 1999 Act set out to address these issues. As a result, rape victims can no longer be cross-examined by the accused. Victims can be screened from the accused or give evidence on a video link, thus minimising the potential for intimidation in court by the accused.
The 1999 Act also intended to limit sexual history being brought into cases. However, as women's organisations and I warned at the time, because the defence of an honest, even if unreasonable, belief in consent was left in law, many rapists have been able to walk free. Where the defence is that the accused believed that the victim consented, if the jury accept that he might, however irrationally and crazily, have believed that there was consent, they have to acquit. That defence of honest but unreasonable belief in consent also leaves a loophole for sexual history to be brought into court, since the safeguards to protect complainants in the 1999 Act do not apply to the defence of honest belief in consent.
It is well known at the criminal Bar that if claims about a woman's previous sexual history are brought up in court, the woman is likely to be humiliated and undermined and the calibre of her evidence is damaged. Canadian research shows that the jury's belief in the guilt of the accused diminishes in proportion to such claims, even if they are made up. We are expecting research to be published here on the sexual history protections that have been provided by sections 41 to 43 of the 1999 Act, but there is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that protections have been undermined because the defence of belief in consent is run more often now to make use of the loophole.
The Government are aware that action is needed. Their sex offences review recommended a change in the law on consent in July 2000. It is abundantly clear that that is needed. The current definition of consent lets victims down. It is simply unacceptable in the 21st century that

175
defence counsels can say that a woman or man shouting, "No, no, no", should be disregarded and that, in fact, that person means "Yes." No means no. For that reason, we need to write into law that in cases where the victim is saying no, if the defendant is to use the defence of belief in consent, they have to be able to tell the jury what reasonable steps they took to ensure that there was free agreement to sex.
The Bill follows the model used in Canada—the system that was introduced there a decade ago. It would amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 to define consent as involving free agreement between the people involved. Understood in that way, consent places a responsibility on people, where there is any doubt, to take reasonable steps to ensure that there is free agreement. If people having sex have not freely agreed to do so, that is rape, whether it is in the marital bed of 20 years, at a wild Saturday night party, or involves a prostitute being attacked in the street.
The Bill includes a non-exhaustive list of situations where free agreement could not be made. Those include: where a person submits or is unable to resist because of force or fear of force, or because of fear of serious harm to themselves or another person; where a person was asleep, unconscious or too affected by alcohol or drugs to give free agreement; where a person did not understand the nature of the act; or, where agreement is expressed by a third party, not the victim.
Some people have suggested that changing the law will lead to more false claims. There is no evidence for that. At present, the humiliation that so many rape victims have to go through makes it likely that there are fewer false claims in rape cases than in other cases. I am not denying that there might be false claims, but everything indicates that they will be so few that that should not be seen as a separate issue from claims associated with other sorts of criminal case.
We are all brought up with prejudices around sex. To counter those prejudices, the Bill also states that the judge on each and every rape case where it is relevant must direct members of the jury that they cannot assume that the complainant did freely agree just because they did not say anything, because they did not physically resist, because they were not physically injured or because on an earlier occasion they had consented to sex with the accused or another person.
On the latter point, people assume that consensual sex on one occasion can be used to indicate consent to sex on another, but that is the rapist's charter. Whether it is a husband, a gay lover, or someone met once before on a date, the fact that there has been consensual sex once or perhaps countless times before does not mean that there has been consent on the occasion when one partner forces themselves on the other.
No one is suggesting that if a husband is accused of raping his wife the fact that they have been married for 20 years should be concealed from the jury. Beyond that
176
fact, however, except in very rare cases, it is irrelevant how often or what type of sex they had. On the rare occasions when previous sexual history is relevant, the full protections of sections 41 to 43 of the 1999 Act must apply. Circumstances where sexual history might be relevant should be exceptionally rare, however. In general, the court needs to consider only the occasion on which the rape is alleged to have taken place.
It is time that we did more to protect the victims of rape. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Julia Drown, Vera Baird, Julie Morgan, Joyce Quin, Judy Mallaber, Ms Oona King, Harry Cohen, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Tom Cox, Margaret Moran, Ms Debra Shipley and Fiona Mactaggart.

Rape (Consent)
  RAPE (CONSENT)
  Ms Julia Drown accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to consent in the crime of rape so as to provide that consent shall require the free agreement of the parties involved, that the parties take reasonable steps to ensure that consent has been given, and that the giving of consent on one occasion shall lead to no presumption about the giving of consent on any further occasion; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 182].
  RAPE (CONSENT)

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That, at this day's sitting, the motion in the name of Mr. Iain Duncan Smith relating to the Peace Process in Northern Ireland shall, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(ii) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), be entered upon at Seven o'clock or when proceedings on Lords Amendments to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill have been concluded, whichever is the later, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours; and the Order of 28th June 2001 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to it.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.

    JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)
    Ordered,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21st January:

    JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)
      Consideration of Lords Amendments
      1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
      Subsequent stages
      2. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Woolas.]
Orders of the Day

  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 6 which is to be considered today. If the House agrees to the Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
    Clause 3

      JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 1, at end insert:—
      "(6A) A person may not be appointed to be a lay member unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."
      Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, after "he", insert
      "does not have recorded against him in Northern Ireland or elsewhere a criminal conviction for which he has received a sentence of imprisonment whether suspended or otherwise and".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 23.
      Lady Hermon: Amendment (a) relates to the new Judicial Appointments Commission for Northern Ireland which will have the hugely important task of appointing all future members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, with the limited exceptions of the Lord Chief Justice and the three lords justices of appeal. As I am sure Members already know, the commission will consist of a chairman and 12 members, five of whom will be lay members.
      According to Lords amendment No. 1:
      "A person may not be appointed to be a lay member unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."
      With the greatest respect to those who proposed the amendment, it does not go far enough. For example, it does not specify the consequences of a breach of the declaration of the commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means.
      I invite the Minister to clarify the position, especially in respect of schedule 2, paragraph 2(4)(d), which provides that if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister can agree to act jointly—a matter to which we shall return in due course—they may dismiss a non-judicial member if satisfied, for example, that he is unfit to exercise his functions. Will the Minister clarify whether, if a lay member of the commission fails to honour their written declaration, it would render them unfit to remain a member?
      The Minister does not need to intervene now—he can reply to my question later. We are delighted to see him back with us in good form. We hope that he will be as generous as ever and accept some of our amendments, so that our work will not prove redundant.
      178
      The second reason why Lords amendment No. 1 is insufficient is that paragraph 2(4) of schedule 2 states:
      "The First and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, may dismiss a non-judicial member if satisfied that…
      (d) he has been convicted of criminal offence".
      Of course that is written in the past tense. Under amendment (a), we are endeavouring to render people ineligible for appointment to the Judicial Appointments Commission from the very beginning, without waiting until there has been a criminal conviction. We want to say quite clearly that those with criminal convictions are simply ineligible for appointment to that hugely important body.
      As hon. Members will know, under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, we have already excluded from membership of district policing partnerships those with recorded criminal convictions, irrespective of whether those convictions are suspended. Those with criminal convictions are excluded from being independent members of the DPPs, so it seems ludicrous that we may now allow those with criminal convictions to be eligible for the Judicial Appointments Commission. Amendment (a) is simply intended to tidy up those provisions and to take them a little further than they stand at present under Lords amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: I shall briefly enter into this very difficult area—it is a legal minefield—and I do so with great trepidation, as I am probably the only lay person who will contribute to the debate today.
      I find no fault with Lords amendment No. 1, which is acceptable to the Social Democratic and Labour party. However, I wish to address amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1, moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party. Under amendment (a), a criminal record would be an additional debarment from participating in the process.
      I have one question to ask about human rights. If a person is justifiably convicted of a criminal offence, is the sentence of the court the totality of the punishment, or is an extension of that punishment a way to deprive a person of the totality of his or her human and civil rights, having served the sentence? That is not just a legal but a moral problem. I simply pose this question, to which perhaps the hon. Lady will reply: is a criminal conviction, even with a suspended sentence, for ever to be a debarment to a person's right to participate fully in society, having paid for his or her sins?
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: In speaking to this group of amendments and before returning to amendment (a), moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), may I say that, in outline, we welcome the way that things have progressed in the other place and generally accept and welcome the direction which the amendments have taken?
      Following the Grand Committee debate in the other place, the Government proposed Lords amendment No. 1. Indeed, that amendment was tabled in response to a suggestion from my noble Friend Lord Glentoran, so it would certainly be churlish of us to do anything other than thank the Government for proposing it. However, amendment (a) is almost identical to one proposed by my noble Friend and then withdrawn during those proceedings.

      179
      It is worth returning to one or two elements of the debate in the other place. I refer the House to the comments of my noble Friend Lord Mayhew, who made an extremely important point about the confidence that we seek to achieve. He said:
      "One cannot legislate for such confidence but one can legislate for certain criteria that will lead to confidence being enjoyed. Similarly, one can legislate for certain matters if one is misguided, which will ensure that confidence is withheld.
      If we included in Clause 1—perhaps along the lines of the amendment that we discussed at the start of our proceedings—a statement that persons who have criminal convictions, notwithstanding the fact that they may extend to sentences of more than six months' imprisonment, shall none the less be entitled to be members of this commission, that would be a fairly unattractive beginning to the Bill."
      He continued:
      "That is what one would hope the Government and anyone else with sense would have thought."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2002: Vol. 636, c. CWH 27.]
      I agree with him.
      Although we welcome the fact that, in bringing forward amendments in the other place, the Government have taken matters further with Lords amendment No. 1, it would be churlish were the Opposition not extremely sympathetic to the hon. Lady's amendment, as we had the idea in the first place. What I seek from the Government in relation to Lords amendment No. 1 and amendment (a) is further elucidation of exactly what the consequences will be if people are not prepared to sign up to Lords amendment No. 1.
      My noble Friend Lord Tebbit drew attention in the other place to the fact that, in some instances, words might mean nothing. In the circumstances in Northern Ireland, however, I would venture to disagree slightly with him. Words are important here. We are looking for leadership, particularly from those in the republican movement, in sustaining the peace process. To a large extent, we are looking for them to use the right words, which is why the development that has occurred today will be referred to by my hon. Friend in the debate that will follow on the peace process.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in these circumstances, a little help from the Government would be of much more value than a lot of sympathy?
      Mr. Blunt: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In these circumstances, it would be infinitely better were the Government to come forward with proposals rather than the parties in Northern Ireland or the Opposition attempting to convince the Government of the merits of our case. What has happened in the other place, particularly in relation to Lords amendment No. 1, occurred through private discussion between the Government and the Opposition, which has enabled the Government to come forward with measures that are generally welcome to the Opposition. That is as it should be. That has characterised, to a large extent, the Minister's conduct in relation to this Bill, when that has been possible and when we have been able to discuss the matter in the House. Of course, a large chunk of the measures
      180
      have not been discussed in the House, so we will touch on them only briefly today in the light of the Lords amendments. I shall come back to that later.
      On Lords amendment No. 2, I am pleased that the debate that we had about the words "representative" and "reflective" has been reflected in the language that the Government have introduced. Again, Lords amendment No. 2 is a satisfactory solution. In the end, it emphasises that appointment to the judiciary must be on the basis of merit and merit alone, while making clear, in an improved way—compared with the Bill as it left this place the first time—that it is proper for the commission to have available to it candidates who are reflective, as far as is reasonably practicable, of the whole community in Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Opposition therefore welcome Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
      Lady Hermon: Is there not now an inconsistency? One clause will state that lay members of the commission must be representative of the community in Northern Ireland, but Lords amendment No. 2, which the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has welcomed, states that the commission must, as far as is practicable,
      "secure…a range of persons reflective of the community in Northern Ireland".
      How will it help to have the word "representative" in one clause and the word "reflective" in another?
      5 pm
      Mr. Blunt: As the hon. Lady knows, I think that "reflective" would have been better in the clause that she mentions. As she says, that would have been consistent. I seem to recall that the Liberal Democrats first proposed it in Committee, and I give them credit for that. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to accept the proposal.
      There was an interesting debate in the other place about the meaning of the terms "representative" and "reflective", which need not be repeated here. I still think that it would be better for the Bill to be consistent. I take on board the argument advanced in the other place that in a sense there is no real distinction between the two words in terms of meaning, apart from the fact that "representative" suggests a duty for people to represent their part of the community. That, however, is why I felt that "reflective" was a better word. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have the support of the Opposition, as does amendment (a).
      Mrs. Patsy Calton: I apologise for not rising earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am still learning the procedures.
      The Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment No. 1. We feel that to prevent someone from joining the commission because that person has been convicted of an offence is to fail to recognise that people can reform themselves and serve the community again. I was struck by what Lord Fitt said in the other place:
      "I stand here as a convict. In 1969, I took part in a Civil Rights demonstration in Derry and, later on, in Newry. Those Civil Rights

      181
      demonstrations were banned by the Northern Ireland Government. Anyone who took part in them was sentenced to a mandatory six months' imprisonment. I was part of it, so were John Hume"—
      the hon. Member for Foyle—
      "and Seamus Mallon"—
      the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—
      "and all the political figures who took part in the Civil Rights demonstrations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 26.]
      Those people did not go to jail, but that is not the point. The point is that, despite their convictions, they have clearly managed to make a tremendous contribution to their community. Who would deny that they are eminently fit to take part in any activity for which they were qualified?
      Like the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), I seized on the word "reflective" in Lords amendment No. 2, thinking that we had won a significant concession. I now realise that that is not entirely true. I still think that "reflective" is a better word to use throughout the Bill, but I am happy to accept it in this instance. I parted company with the hon. Gentleman, however, when he said that the amendment would ensure that the selection of a member of the commission would be, as the Bill says,
      "solely on the basis of merit".
      The point about the insertion of the words "reflective of the community" is to ensure that we achieve a better reflection of the community than we would if someone simply decided on the basis of merit. In my experience, the phrase
      "solely on the basis of merit"
      usually means the appointment of a white Anglo-Saxon male and leads to anything but appointments based on merit. We end up with gender and other imbalances. I have no comment to make about Lords amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: I followed the Bill's progress in the other place and, as so often, I and my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party were reminded of the curate's egg. Lords amendment No. 1 creates a difficulty that people in Northern Ireland have whenever they read about a
      "commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
      It is very much a mum-and-apple-pie reference and it is continually used to differentiate between democrats or those who abide by the law and those who do not.
      In that context, everyone would agree that the lay members appointed to the commission should have
      "a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means",
      but what does that mean in practice? What will happen if someone committed to such a mum-and-apple-pie concept is subsequently proved to be far from committed to non-violence? Although we ask for something more than such a commitment, we agree to the concept in the amendment.
      The hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred to Lords amendment No. 2 and to the commission's representativeness. The issue was discussed in Committee in the House, and any commission that is reflective of the community in Northern Ireland is desirable. In the Grand Committee a few weeks ago, I alluded to other appointments that the
      182
      Government have made and that they maintained were reflective, when a cursory examination demonstrates that they are not. Again, I agree with the concept that the commission should be reflective of the community of Northern Ireland in so far as that is reasonably practical, but what will that mean when it is appointed?
      What will we do if we find that the commission is not reflective? The claims of the Unionist community are often glossed over or ignored when such posts are filled, so what will we be able to do to rectify any imbalance that may be created? Again, we support the concept, but we want to see how the practical outworking of the Bill will manifest itself when it becomes law.
      The Parliament Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I welcome the support that the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) have expressed for the amendments. Other hon. Members who spoke also inferred that they supported them.
      As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) rightly pointed out, Lords amendment No. 1 states:
      "A person may not be appointed to be a lay member"
      of the Judicial Appointments Commission
      "unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."
      In the interests of reflectiveness, the "he" in that sentence also encompasses "she". It appears that hon. Members welcome that provision. The hon. Member for North Down also raised a point specific to schedule 2, which I shall address in a moment.
      Hon. Members will agree that it is right in principle that only those who are committed should have a role in the Judicial Appointments Commission. Making such a declaration also allows those with a past to give a positive affirmation that they are now working for the good of Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Reigate said, the amendment was tabled to meet the concerns expressed in the Lords Grand Committee. I welcome his recognition of the Government's efforts to have a constructive dialogue on the legislation, and I hope that that continues today.
      By making the required declaration, lay members of the commission will give a positive affirmation that they are committed to exclusively peaceful means. It is right that the people of Northern Ireland should have that assurance. With respect to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), it is inappropriate to describe such expressions, which are important in the Northern Ireland context, as mum's apple pie. They are far from that. The declarations are important and those who are called on to make them will give them careful consideration.
      The amendment sets out a better approach than that suggested in amendment (a). The idea of excluding people who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment from serving as a lay member on the commission has been discussed extensively in both Houses. The Government have resisted the idea of excluding such people per se. We are confident that those responsible for making appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission—the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly—will take considerable care to ensure that only those persons who are well suited to the office will be appointed to serve on the commission. It is inconceivable that they would want to appoint disreputable candidates.

      183
      [The Parliament Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)]
      We also need to bear it in mind that those who have been guilty of a criminal offence may genuinely wish to make a constructive contribution to the future of Northern Ireland. In the debate in the other place, it was not only Lord Fitt who recognised that he had been in prison; Lord Maginnis also suggested that he had been in prison at a particular time in the history of Northern Ireland, although he had to persuade people to prosecute him for, I think, failing to pay his road tax or television licence.
      We do not automatically wish to preclude such people from making a constructive contribution to the future of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made a germane point that the Lord Privy Seal dealt with on the first day of proceedings on Report in the other place, and I could not put it better myself. In addressing the suggestion that such an exclusion should be included in the Bill, Lord Williams of Mostyn said:
      "The whole measure is, when one looks at it…quite nonsensical. It would disqualify people of the quality, for instance, of Nelson Mandela. It would nevertheless not necessarily disqualify those with convictions for which they had not received a custodial sentence, although we might rightly abominate them. It would cover every type of criminal offence…Therefore, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would have no place here, nor the concept behind it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 60.]
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down is correct. We have a structure in place that recognises that people who have committed offences can be rehabilitated. Were we to accept the amendment, we would deny that concept.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Blunt: In the debate in the other place, Lord Williams did not address the issue of confidence to which I referred. I apologise for trading quotes from the other place, but my noble Friend Lord Mayhew said:
      "We should not lose sight of what everyday people think. We should not lose sight of the distinction between persons, who, notwithstanding their record, are elected to a position in the legislature and those who are appointed on behalf of the Crown to choose the judges."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. CWH27.]
      There is an issue with confidence and what everyday people think.
      Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point. The issue of perception is always important in Northern Ireland and it must be addressed in these circumstances. However, as I said before, I am considering getting a notice for my desk that reads "Facts are more important than perceptions." At the moment, hardly a day goes by in Northern Ireland when people do not remind me that perceptions are more important than facts. There will be a prize for the person who comes into my office some day and says that facts are more important than perceptions. I stress that it must happen in the office—I do not encourage anybody to say it in the House to win the prize.
      The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman may have been addressed by the point made by the hon. Member for North Down that there should be consequences for those who breach the undertaking. As the hon. Lady pointed out, there is no automatic provision in schedule 2 for the
      184
      removal of a lay member in such circumstances. However, it would clearly be open to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in exercising the powers in paragraph 2(4)(d) of that schedule, to remove a member who acted in the way that she described after having given such an undertaking. I have no difficulty with putting that on public record because that is perfectly clear in the Bill, which goes a long way towards striking the right balance between allowing those who have a past to have a future and ensuring that those who give the undertakings now required for serving on the commission stick by them. The Bill ensures that there will be consequences if they do not.
      Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has been very generous this afternoon, which is consistent with his pattern of behaviour. Will he clarify a further point? Two years ago, the House passed the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Schedule 3, paragraph (8)(2) states:
      "A person is disqualified from being an independent member of a DPP if he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not)."
      What has changed so much in two years that people who have a past are not accepted for DPPs, but are accepted for the Judicial Appointments Commission?
      Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which she is right to press. However, the functions of DPPs are different from those of the Judicial Appointments Commission. Their composition is different. It would be inappropriate for the Government not to treat these issues on their merits. We seek to build on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and change the way in which judges are appointed. To move towards a new Northern Ireland, with the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, we had to look specifically at the make-up of the commission and the requirements on those serving on it. The Government's view, as expressed in the Lords amendment, is that the requirement that lay members make the necessary declaration is sufficient. Schedule 2 covers the circumstances in which such a declaration would be breached. The Government believe that the reasons set out in the Lords debate, which I have sought to paraphrase, are sufficient in relation to the Judicial Appointments Commission.
      Moving on to amendment No. 2, while I accept the point about reflectiveness which is consistently made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, the amendment relates to the pool of people from whom the candidates for judicial appointment will emerge, rather than to the reflectiveness or representativeness of the Judicial Appointments Commission itself, which is dealt with in the Bill. However, I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Nigel Dodds: There is an absence of automatic sanctions if someone appointed to the commission is in breach of the written declaration, but the Minister said that there was a power for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take action. However, what is the position if, for whatever reason, the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister do not agree? As we have seen with breaches of written declarations and other declarations by Sinn Fein-IRA in other contexts, a clear

      185
      difference of opinion between the First Minister's party and the Deputy First Minister's parties means that they cannot agree, thus causing a problem in the application of any sanctions. How will that be resolved in this context?
      Mr. Browne: The resolution of disagreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is a matter for them acting together. It is not for me—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) finds that risible, but he may not have fully grasped the concept of devolution despite the fact that he has been a Minister in the Executive. I am sure that he would be the first to suggest that Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box should not tell Ministers in devolved Governments how to carry out their functions.
      David Burnside rose—
      Mr. Browne: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, it is for Ministers in Westminster to set out the context in which Ministers in devolved Parliaments will work. We are not planning for the failure of devolution, whether in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom—we are planning for its success. In Northern Ireland, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister now have significant success in acting on a joint basis, although there have been difficulties. They recently had outstandingly successful discussions and negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about an economic package for Northern Ireland—that example may be less contentious than other things with which I have to deal at the Dispatch Box. While there may be division between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head—there are as many, if not more, examples of them working together, which is what the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland is substantially about.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, North has looked at schedule 2, which gives the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly the power to dismiss a non-judicial member if satisfied that
      "he is otherwise unable or unfit to exercise his functions."
      Clearly, that covers circumstances in which someone makes a declaration but fails to live up to it. However, it is not for me to tell the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister how to resolve that together—they are both able politicians and very good Ministers and capable of working it out themselves.
      David Burnside: Does the Minister agree that he is not seeing straight? Devolution is different in the three parts of the United Kingdom. The main difference in Northern Ireland, which contradicts the Minister's point, is that there is no collective Cabinet responsibility in the Northern Ireland Executive, so our institutions are not treated in the same way as Parliaments here and in Scotland, or the Welsh Assembly.
      Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but if we stray too far down that road, the Deputy Speaker might pull me back, and rightly. I merely point out to the hon. Gentleman that the beauty of devolution is that there can be different models for different parts of the United Kingdom. I also remind him—he sometimes needs to be reminded, I think—that the people of Northern Ireland voted for this type of devolution in significant numbers, including some members of his party.
      186
      It may be that at some time in the future, a different form of devolved government may be appropriate for Northern Ireland, but that will be a matter again for the people of Northern Ireland. Just as the people of Wales and of Scotland voted for the devolution package that they have, in the majority the people of Northern Ireland voted for the devolution package that they have. If I remember the figures correctly, a majority of both communities in Northern Ireland voted for it.
      Amendment No. 2 requires the Judicial Appointments Commission, so far as it is practicable, to ensure that a range of candidates reflective of the community are available for consideration for appointment to listed judicial offices. There is, however, strong competition for appointment to the judiciary, and any appointment must be made on merit. The Government have made it clear that it is desirable to have a reflective judiciary, but that is to be achieved without prejudice to each and every appointment being made on merit.
      The new provision focuses on securing a pool of candidates which, so far as is reasonably practicable, is reflective of the community. Membership of the pool in itself gives rise to no expectation of appointment. I repeat: appointment is to be made solely on merit.
      Together with the changes made by the Bill to the eligibility criteria and the commitment to a programme of outreach outlined in the review implementation plan, the amendment demonstrates the Government's commitment to a judiciary appointed solely on merit, while giving every encouragement to those eligible from across the whole of society to apply for judicial appointment.
      Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me on a second occasion. May I ask him to reflect upon something that he brought to the attention of the Standing Committee? He said—it is a wonderful quotation:
      "I get the sense from the Committee, and from my experience in Northern Ireland, that the growing practice of requiring such bodies to be representative is welcomed in all parts of the community. It generates hot debates about whether, when people are appointed, they are representative, but nobody attacks the principle."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 7 February 2002; c. 275.]
      Nobody attacks the principle that bodies should be representative. Why has the language been changed to read "reflective of the community"? There is an inconsistency in the Bill that will have to be interpreted by the courts, and that will lead to difficulties.
      Mr. Browne: I was about to come to the difference between "representative" and "reflective", but the hon. Lady brings me to it just as quickly. I do not necessarily agree that there will be a growing body of judicial interpretation distinguishing between "representative" and "reflective". My reading of the debates in which it has been considered suggests to me that there is very little between them, and that it is a nuance, rather than a serious distinction.
      Perhaps I can do no better at this stage than to revert to what I did earlier—that is, to go back to Report in the Lords, where Baroness Scotland said:
      "The word 'reflective' best meets the needs of this part of the Bill. If one were to re-write other parts of the legislation"—

      187
      I digress for a moment to recognise that the women who contributed to the debate contributed sense—
      "one would perhaps use 'reflective', as opposed to 'representative', because it is a much more sensitive word and indicates precisely what we mean. We do not mean that those appointed to other bodies will represent specific contingencies on that body; we mean that they will be reflective of the community. We use that word because it has the nuance that is absolutely essential. In relation to the judiciary, that needs to be underlined because of independence and other factors. To be honest, I believe that we probably would have used the word 'reflective' in the past, but language changes and we choose what is best for today."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 701
      I think that the answer to the point raised by the hon. Members for North Down and for Cheadle is contained in that quotation. The dynamic of language moves on in Northern Ireland, partly because of the use of "representative" and, on other occasions, "reflective", and the attention that those words have received. That has allowed us to find a word that is better attuned to this part of the Bill.
      5.30 pm
      Amendment No. 23 is a minor technical amendment. The deleted words are unnecessary, as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will only ever be able to acquire money appropriated through the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They crept into the Bill by error, although of course they do no harm. An amendment to clause 22—amendment No. 5, which we will debate later—was tabled in the Lords Grand Committee to make further provision regarding money being provided by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That provision does not repeat the unnecessary words. The deletion of those words therefore seems right and sensible, so that the two provisions dealing with funding by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are consistent.
      Question negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

    Clause 10

      TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
      Lords amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That the House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 4, 25, 26 and 31.
      Mr. Browne: The amendments are technical and relate to the role and functions of lay magistrates. As a result of a major trawl of Westminster and Northern Ireland legislation, we identified those functions which are to remain with justices of the peace, those which are to transfer to lay magistrates and those which will more appropriately lie with resident magistrates. The policy on assignment of the various functions was developed in line with the recommendations of the review report. I am thinking particularly of recommendations 116 and 117, which are to be found at paragraphs 7.53 and 7.54 of the
      188
      report. The amendments make further technical changes to the Bill to give full effect to the recommendations of the report.
      Lords amendment No. 3 explains the relevant subsections of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 and the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, which relate to the powers that are to be transferred to lay magistrates. It also identifies a further power to allow lay magistrates, when sitting as a magistrates court, to remand to the Crown court, on bail or in custody, a person who has been arrested on a warrant issued by the Crown court.
      Lords amendment No. 4 defines the term "function" used in clause 10, which deals with functions transferred from justices of the peace, as a function conferred by legislation passed or made before clause 10 comes into force. The amendment ensures that in future we can confer functions on justices of the peace without those functions automatically transferring to lay magistrates under clause 10.
      Lords amendment No. 25 adds article 45 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and refers to a list of functions that can be exercised by resident magistrates only. Under it, only a resident magistrate sitting as a magistrates court, not a lay magistrate, shall have the power to issue a warrant for further detention in police custody. That is consistent with the recommendations of the review report with regard to the powers exercisable by lay persons in the criminal justice system. In that regard, I point to recommendation 115 at paragraph 7.52 of the report.
      Lords amendment No. 26 is concerned with the Lord Chancellor's power under paragraph 4 of schedule 4. That power allows the Lord Chancellor to make further amendments to legislation dealing with the transfer of functions currently performed by justices of the peace. The amendment provides that this power can be exercised only in relation to existing statutory provisions. The effect is that it will not be possible for the Lord Chancellor, using the power in the Bill, to transfer to other office-holders functions of justices of the peace conferred on them by the new legislation.
      Lords amendment No. 31 is entirely technical, and simply removes reference to the advisory committee on juvenile court lay panel members from part 7 of schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The committee is a non-statutory body whose function is to advise the Lord Chancellor on appointments to the office of lay panellist. The functions of lay panellists are to transfer to lay magistrates under clause 11 of the Bill.
      Post-devolution, lay magistrates will be appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission. The advisory committee on juvenile lay panel members will, therefore, cease to exist once the new arrangements for the appointment of lay magistrates come into force. Consequently, it is no longer necessary to refer to the committee in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The requirements of that Act will apply to the Judicial Appointments Commission by virtue of schedule 2(20) of this Bill.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

    Clause 22

      ATTORNEY GENERAL
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 14, line 15, at end insert—
      "(2A) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland is to be funded by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly.
      (2B) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland may appoint staff, but subject to the approval of the First Minister and deputy First Minister as to—

      (a) numbers,

      (b) salary, and

      (c) other conditions of service."

      Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, leave out 'acting jointly'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29.
      Lady Hermon: I should explain to the House that we had our own Attorney General in Northern Ireland until direct rule in the 1970s, and clause 22 proposes the return of an Attorney General for Northern Ireland after justice functions have been devolved. That is a key commitment. I was unable to catch your eye earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to intervene when the Minister suggested that the people of Northern Ireland had voted for an agreement that contained the provision for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make the appointment acting jointly. They certainly did not vote for that.
      Mr. Blunt: May I invite the hon. Lady to clarify her statement that an Attorney General would return to Northern Ireland following the devolution of justice functions? I am not sure that that is entirely correct. I presume that the Attorney General could be appointed well in advance of many of the functions in the Bill being devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. It could, indeed, be appropriate for the Attorney General to be in place at the very beginning of this process, before many of the functions have been devolved under the powers that the Government are taking. This may be a matter more appropriate for the Minister to respond to, but if the hon. Lady can assist the understanding of the House, it would be helpful.
      Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I am sure that the Minister will dutifully pick it up at the end of this debate, given the clarity with which he has just taken us through the Lords amendments on lay magistrates, which filled us all with such enthusiasm that none of us could comment afterwards. I am sure that he will be delighted to comment on whether the appointment of the Attorney General should take place before or after devolution.
      It had been my understanding that, in accordance with the agreement, the British Government had given an undertaking that, in the context of ongoing implementation of relevant recommendations within the agreement, there would be devolution of responsibility for policing and justice issues, which I took to include the appointment of the Attorney General.
      190
      My difficulty with the Lords amendment will come as no surprise to those who served in Committee on the Bill—the words "acting jointly". The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and I do not always agree, but I am pleased that we agree that the difficulty will become increasingly apparent after the scheduled elections to the Assembly in May 2003, which could return a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister who could find it exceedingly difficult to act jointly or agree on anything.
      I can save those hon. Members who may be rushing out to count the number of times the Bill refers to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly some time. I counted 28 references by the time I reached schedule 2. If we have a commitment to policing and justice issues being devolved to the people of Northern Ireland, it is not helpful to keep repeating that. In fact, it makes the prospect of devolving such issues more distant.
      Mr. McGrady: I welcome the further clarification in the Lords amendments of the role of the First and Deputy First Minister in the appointment of the Attorney General. I note that the number of staff and their salaries and conditions of service are also part of their remit. Does the Minister intend to impose any conditions in respect of number, salary and conditions of service or is he content to leave it to the office of the First and Deputy First Minister? Hon. Members will note that I refer to the office—in the singular. There is only one office. The First and Deputy First Minister are elected jointly, and one cannot continue in office on the resignation of the other.
      The Northern Ireland Act 1998 states specifically that there is only one office, so the incumbents must act together willy-nilly in order to have legality in their decision making. They may find it difficult and be politically opposed in many ways, but it is one of the key points of the Good Friday agreement, with our communities and their representatives acting together for the good of all in Northern Ireland. This is but one expression of that very important principle.
      I was surprised to see that the signatories to amendment (a) are David Trimble, Lady Hermon and Roy Beggs, as—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should refer to hon. Members by their constituencies, not their names.
      Mr. McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Two of the signatories are strong supporters of the Good Friday agreement, whereas the third is totally opposed to it. There seems to be some political incompatibility. I want to emphasise very strongly that to accept the amendment and say that the First and Deputy First Minister should act singly would send a difficult political message to the people of Northern Ireland.
      I am aware that the office of the First and Deputy First Minister is a difficult one for the incumbents to engage in. However, to date, it has proved significantly successful in respect of many diametrically opposed policies, and social and economic issues. Those who hold the office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister have come to an agreement, and have been supported by the Assembly in an entire programme of government. They have reached certain agreements on the annual budgetary allocation of our finances, in order to implement that programme. So it

      191
      is not proven that a great barrier exists to their acting jointly on very difficult matters; in fact, all examples to date prove that it is possible for them to act together, and to be elected together, to serve all the community in the best possible way.
      5.45 pm
      Although I accept Lords amendment No. 5, I am totally opposed to the amendment to—
      Lady Hermon: The Belfast agreement—for which I definitely voted yes, and which I strongly support, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—explicitly states:
      "The First Minister and Deputy First Minister shall be jointly elected into office".
      However, it does not thereafter require them to act jointly. Does not the hon. Gentleman see the incompatibility between proposed new subsection (2A) of Lords amendment No.5, which requires the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act jointly, and proposed new subsection (2B), which contains no such requirement? I do want devolution to be a success; I simply think that the devolution of justice will be further delayed if we constantly use the phrase "acting jointly".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I should point out to the hon. Lady that she must learn more precisely the art of intervention. By making her interventions so long, she is in danger of getting round the rule that hon. Members may speak only once in consideration of Lords amendments.
      Mr. McGrady: I take the points made by the hon. Lady, but would not the very act of deleting the phrase "acting jointly" suggest strongly that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could, and perhaps even should, act separately? That would be greatly detrimental to the process. On the alleged disparity between proposed new subsections (2A) and (2B), as a lay person—if not a legalistic one—I would assume that the latter would be subject to the interpretation of the former, in that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would also act jointly in respect of numbers, salary and other conditions of service. In terms of supporting the Good Friday agreement, the hon. Lady would doubtless agree that for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act differently in a substantive matter such as this would send entirely the wrong signal.
      In conclusion, I welcome Lords amendment No. 5, but I reject the amendment to it.
      Mr. Blunt: I am afraid to say that I part company with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on this issue, but as I also did so in Committee, it will come as no surprise to her. I agree with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in respect of amendment (a), which would leave out the term "acting jointly". The Belfast agreement and the institutions rest on the relationship between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and if that relationship does not work, the entire agreement and the institutions will not work either. We are contemplating
      192
      enacting legislation that will allow the devolution of policing and of justice, so perhaps the most important consideration is our need to rely on that relationship working. If it ceases to work and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are unable to act jointly in the discharge of their functions, the peace agreement and the process—
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Strange to relate, this House paid tribute to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) when he resigned as Deputy First Minister, but the Conservative party did not then demand that the First Minister resign too. Instead, it supported the proposition that he stay in his post. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) now argues, very adroitly, that everything is all right and the relationship must be maintained. However, that relationship is now under stress because the First Minister says that IRA-Sinn Fein should be removed, while the present Deputy First Minister says otherwise. That is a real and major issue.
      Mr. Blunt: I certainly agree that the relationship is under stress. That stress has caused the institutions to be shaped as they have been. As a purist, I believe that the relationship set out in the legislation is far from ideal, but it stems from the history of the conflict between the two communities in Northern Ireland. I accept that the Democratic Unionist party did not support the Belfast agreement, and that it continues to want to have it renegotiated. It has been consistent in that respect, but supporters of the agreement acknowledge that at the heart of the relationship between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister lies the necessity of co-operation in the practical discharge of administration in Northern Ireland.
      I hope that the necessity that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister discharge those functions together will be part of the process by which the wounds that the two communities have inflicted on each other over the past seven or eight decades—or longer, in the case of the history of the whole island of Ireland—will be bound together. I therefore have much more sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for South Down than with that of the hon. Member for North Down.
      As for the other amendments in this group, I am glad that the Government have had the opportunity to trawl more carefully through the relevant legislation. I am pleased, too, that they have identified those matters of international law that properly will be for the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, and in respect of which he, and not the Attorney General, will be the appropriate Law Officer.
      We welcome those improvements to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he has performed a full and comprehensive search and that there are no matters to which we shall have to return.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: I wish to make a few comments about the use of the term "acting jointly". I rarely agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—for instance, she signed an early-day motion congratulating the Republic of Ireland football team on its success in the World cup. whereas I signed one congratulating the England team. That shows how far apart she and I are politically.

      193
      The term "acting jointly" is superfluous. The office of Attorney General for Northern Ireland will be fundamentally important in law. It should be funded by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, with no need for the term "acting jointly" to be used in the Bill—as it is, ad nauseam. The fact that the term appears again and again shows how weak the Government must feel the two Ministers can be at times.
      The words "acting jointly" are unnecessary. One would not have thought that funding the Attorney General for Northern Ireland would require their inclusion in the Bill at all.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Following on from what the previous speaker said, I must tell the House that, on the ground of parity of esteem, I congratulated both the Republic of Ireland football team and the English team on their World cup success. I look forward to teams from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales achieving similar success, and to my having the opportunity to congratulate them as well. I take pride in what these islands achieve, and do not want to hold one island up against the other.
      I do not appreciate the logic of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in respect of the amendment. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has made most of the points that I was going to make, so I shall not delay the House. However, if we say that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, must appoint the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, it follows logically that both will have to agree to fund that position, acting jointly. We should therefore keep the phrase in the Bill.
      Mr. Browne: Lords amendment No. 5 clarifies two matters in the Bill. In establishing the new Attorney General for Northern Ireland, it is important we should avoid, as far as possible, any potential ambiguities. The Lords amendment has been tabled with that aim in mind.
      First, the Lords amendment clarifies that the funding for the new Attorney General is to be provided by the First and Deputy First Ministers. They, of course, will fund the Attorney General from money appropriated by Act of the Assembly.
      Secondly, the Lords amendment clarifies that the Attorney General may appoint staff, subject to approval by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister as to numbers, salary and other terms of employment. Those members of staff will become civil servants on appointment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) asked whether the Government intended to set out the amounts paid in salaries and any other terms and conditions of employment for such staff. I must tell him that the Government singularly do not intend to do that, as those are matters for the Attorney General, subject to any approval required from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
      Lords amendment No. 5 was tabled in response to the Northern Ireland Executive's view that the new Attorney General will need such provision in order to carry out his functions. Amendment (a), moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), would remove the words "acting jointly". As I said in Standing Committee and on Report, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must act jointly in exercising their functions in relation to the
      194
      local Attorney General's office. Generally, they must do so, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and supported by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) said that the Bill's repeated use of the term "acting jointly" was otiose and a sign of weakness. I have taken the Bill through the House and have been asked, for purposes of clarity, to express in the Bill many things that I thought were implied by the Bill or that could reasonably be inferred from its wording. However, the Government consider that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must act jointly, and we believe that it is preferable, therefore, that we make that clear in the Bill. That is why we state as many times as we do in the Bill that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must act jointly.
      Mr. Dodds: The Minister has stressed repeatedly that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must act jointly, but does not that emphasise that Northern Ireland really has joint First Ministers as, in effect, the First and Deputy First Ministers cannot act separately?
      6 pm
      Mr. Browne: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; his point has no merit. The devolution settlement for Northern Ireland clearly provides for a process for electing a First Minister and a process for electing a Deputy First Minister. [Interruption.] It may well be one process, but there is a process for the election of a First Minister and for the election of a Deputy First Minister. In terms of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it may be technically one process. I have not been present when it happens. However, there is a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister and they are not joint First Ministers, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      A number of specific points were raised with regard to the amendments and their effects, which I shall deal with now. The hon. Member for North Down says that the requirement for the Attorney General and Advocate General to work jointly will delay devolution. It is not the Government's intention to devolve justice functions until the institutions of devolution are ready to receive them. An important aspect of whether the institutions of devolution are ready to receive those functions will be the confidence that the First and Deputy First Ministers will be able effectively to discharge the functions that will be imposed on them. It is a question not of delaying devolution but of a judgment having to be made that the institutions are ready to receive those important functions. Part of that judgment will be the ability of the First and Deputy First Ministers to carry out the statutory duties that are required of them, acting in the way that they are required to do.
      Proposed subsection (2B) of clause 22 in Lords amendment No. 5 does not have the words "acting jointly" because they are clearly unnecessary there. The provision requires that the First and Deputy First Ministers approve the matters referred to. It makes no difference whether we say that they must approve such matters together or separately, because it amounts to the same thing. Obviously, both of them need to approve such matters before that provision can be satisfied.

      195
      In an intervention on the hon. Member for North Down, the hon. Member for Reigate suggested that the local Attorney General could be appointed at any time. I think that he is technically right, but the local Attorney General will be appointed on devolution. The Attorney General is appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister under clause 22(2). There is no provision that precludes the commencement of this clause before devolution, but the working assumption is that it will commence after devolution.
      Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I would appreciate some clarity. Clause 86 states:
      "The preceding provisions of this Act (with the Schedules) shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint."
      It continues:
      "An order may appoint different days for different purposes."
      In the process of the devolution of justice, I should have thought that the big bang theory would not be the right one. It might be better to put the individuals and posts of Advocate General and Attorney General in place before devolving certain functions. A progressive roll-out of different powers under the Bill might be appropriate.
      Mr. Browne: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Like many that he has made, it may have some merit and I shall consider it. It does not need to be addressed in this debate because, as he says, the flexibility in the Bill can deal with it. I had anticipated that his point would be somewhat different from a progressive roll-out of devolution, but we shall continue to consider it. The intention is not to have an Attorney General appointed other than in the context of devolution, but it may, in the fullness of time, prove more sanguine to appoint such a person in anticipation of the act of devolution so that offices and staff can be in place.
      Finally, the hon. Gentleman sought assurance about all consent powers being transferred to the Advocate General where appropriate. We have the order-making power to transfer those powers under clause 28(2), and I shall take into account his observations about the exercise of that power.
      Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 are purely technical and add further offences to the list of those in relation to which the Advocate General for Northern Ireland must give consent before a prosecution can be undertaken. After devolution, the new local Attorney General will have no power to consent to prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions will exercise most consent provisions, but a very few—in relation to national security and international relations, for example—will be exercised by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. Schedule 7 lists the offences for which the Advocate General's consent will be required.
      I ask the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendments and invite the hon. Member for North Down not to press her amendment.
      Question negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 29

      PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE
      Lords amendment: No. 6.
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10 and 21.
      Mr. Browne: Lords amendment No. 6 makes it clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be responsible for the funding of the prosecution service prior to the devolution of justice functions. At the time of devolution, this provision will be amended to shift the responsibility for funding to the devolved Administration. Concerns have been expressed in the House that the Bill was not clear enough on the issue, and I hope that the amendment aids understanding of our intentions.
      Lords amendment No. 7 is in keeping with the criminal justice review's recommendation that the public prosecution service should establish local offices from which the bulk of prosecutorial work in the respective areas would be conducted. We had originally thought it unnecessary to provide for this in the Bill. However, given that such a power exists in the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, we thought that we should replicate this in the Bill for the purposes of clarity.
      Lords amendment No. 8 expands the existing definition of "police force" in clause 31(6) to include constables appointed under section 57 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I am advised that there are no such constables in Northern Ireland, but as there is the potential for the appointment, it has to be covered. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to take over proceedings instituted by the police forces defined in the clause.
      Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are technical. The Bill makes some changes to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to add the Director of Public Prosecutions to the list of persons able to refer matters to the police ombudsman. When the Policing Board was established, the 1998 Act was amended so that references to the Police Authority were changed to the Policing Board. Inadvertently, in referring to the 1998 Act the Bill did not reflect those amendments. The amendments that we have tabled would correct that error.
      Lords amendment No. 21 deals with the time scale for the establishment of a new public prosecution service for Northern Ireland. That proposal has been widely welcomed and work is already under way to provide for the expansion of the existing Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are aware of the potential pitfalls and have learned from the difficulties experienced in setting up the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales.
      Our priority is to ensure that standards in the administration of justice are maintained, that there is an orderly roll-out and that the new service is properly resourced. However, the time scale for establishing the new service should not he left open-ended. The Attorney General has agreed that we should include a sunset clause in the Bill, which would set a time limit of five years for this to happen, although we hope that the actual time scale will be shorter.

      197
      The updated implementation plan will, of course, provide further detail on the time scale for the piloting and full roll-out of the new service.
      Mr. Blunt: On Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10, I have nothing to add, other than to thank the Government for proposing them, having tabled them in another place in response to concerns expressed in Committee. They certainly make the position clearer.
      I thoroughly welcome Lords amendment No. 21 and the fact that it contains a sunset clause. Again, I draw the attention of the House to a concern represented to me when I was preparing for the Bill, about the prosecution service taking over police prosecutions in Northern Ireland. It was said that there was a collapse in the confidence and enthusiasm of police inspectors who have been responsible for the conduct of prosecutions. I do not know whether those remarks are fair. I sincerely hope that they are not and that there will be a seamless transition within the next five years to the new service.
      The Minister told the House that the Government are alive to the potential difficulties—difficulties that were experienced far too widely in England when this process was undertaken. It would be regrettable if we had not learned from that experience to ensure that we could avoid such a situation in Northern Ireland.
      I caution the Minister that those concerns have been expressed to me and that it may be necessary to roll out the new prosecution service more quickly than would otherwise be the case, given that it is definitely going to happen. I advise the hon. Gentleman to keep an eye on that and to reassure the House that the new service will be up and running without the difficulties that attended the CPS in England.
      Lady Hermon: First, I am delighted that Lords amendment No. 7 is to be included in the Bill, which makes it clear that the Director has the discretion to set up offices in such places in Northern Ireland as he considers appropriate. Hopefully, he will read the text of this debate. I encourage him to think about offices west of the Bann. As someone who comes from County Tyrone, I would be delighted if services were set up there instead of always being focused on Belfast.
      Secondly, I am disappointed that the opportunity was not taken in Lords amendment No. 8 to clause 31 to amend the proper title of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to what should be the legal title—the Police Service of Northern Ireland incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The title was changed for operational purposes only. I regret that that amendment was not made in another place.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Browne: With the leave of the House, I will deal with some of the issues raised in this short debate.
      The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) rightly draws on his experience in talking to the people in Northern Ireland with whom he meets regularly, which—along with our own discussions with such people—is a valuable source of information to the Government. If concerns have been expressed to him about the confidence of officers who are conducting police prosecutions, he is right to bring them to our attention and I thank him for doing so. However, the police are playing a key role in
      198
      the establishment of the new service and I am not aware of any lack of confidence or ability on their part. They are represented on the project board that has been set up to take forward the implementation of these provisions. There is ongoing and close co-operation between the police and the DPP's office on the practical outworkings of the changeover.
      I will draw the hon. Gentleman's comments, which were made constructively, to the attention of the DPP to ensure that they are addressed in the context of the joint work that is under way with the police.
      I welcome the welcome given by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) to the Lords amendments. Her argument about the necessity for the offices of the DPP to be spread across Northern Ireland, to reflect the work load and to ensure that the service is provided to communities locally was well made. I know from my conversations with the Director of Public Prosecutions that he is aware of and alert to the need to ensure that that service, which will be a valuable part of the modernisation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland is seen to be serving local communities. Indeed, if the system is to meet the objectives set out in the Bill and in the recommendations of the review report, particularly with regard to victims, people in the communities will need to have a relationship with the DPP's office so that information can be communicated. I know that her arguments, which were well made, are part of the DPP's planning for the eventual roll-out.
      Given the issues that have been raised, it is appropriate quickly to report on some of the progress that has been made on the programme for the DPP's office since the publication of the Bill. As I said, under the sponsorship of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, an implementation board has been set up, with representatives not only of the police, but of the Northern Ireland Office and the DPP's office, as well as two independent representatives.
      An implementation plan for the establishment of the new service has been approved by the board. It is intended to roll out the new service as quickly as possible and recruitment of professional staff and managers has commenced. People who have seen the Northern Ireland press in past weeks, will have seen the advertisements. Those staff will form the basis of the new service. I can assure the hon. Member for Reigate that I and other Ministers who share responsibility for that area will be keeping a close eye on developments to ensure that the speed with which the changes are made is commensurate with the best interests of justice.
      Work is already under way on a revised implementation plan, which the Government hope to publish some time in the autumn. We expect that plan to be a fuller document than the plan that was published in November 2001. A number of respondents to the consultation exercise that followed publication of the original plan said that they would appreciate greater detail, particularly in regard to time scales, which have exercised a number of people, and we will take that on board.
      I think that those comments deal with the issues raised and I urge the House to accept the Lords amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10 agreed to.

      New Clause
      Lords amendment: No 11, insert the following new clause—Equality and non-discrimination—
      (1) Section 75 (duty on public authorities to have regard to need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups) and section 76 (discrimination by public authorities) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) are amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (3) of section 75, after paragraph (cc) insert—"
      (cd) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland;".
      (3) After subsection (4) of that section insert—
      "(4A) The references in subsections (1) and (2) and Schedule 9 to the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland do not include any of his functions relating to the prosecution of offences."
      (4) In subsection (7) of section 76, after paragraph (e) insert"—
      (ea) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland;".
      (5) After that subsection insert—
      "(8) This section does not apply to a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland not to institute, or to discontinue, criminal proceedings or, where such a decision has been made, to any act done for the purpose of enabling the decision whether to institute or continue the proceedings to be made or for securing that the proceedings are discontinued.
      (9) No injunction may be granted in respect of a contravention of this section by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland unless the court is satisfied that it would not prejudice any decision to institute criminal proceedings or any criminal proceedings.
      (10) Where a party to proceedings for a contravention of this section applies for a stay of those proceedings on the ground of prejudice to a decision to institute criminal proceedings, or of prejudice to particular criminal proceedings, the court must grant the stay unless it is satisfied that continuance of the proceedings for the contravention would not result in the prejudice alleged.""
      Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, after "functions of the" leave out "Director of Public Prosecutions" and insert "Public Prosecution Service".
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: amendment (b), after "decision of the" leave out "Director of Public Prosecutions" and insert "Public Prosecution Service".
      Lords amendment No. 30.
      Lady Hermon: I preface my remarks by reminding the Minister that he has only a limited opportunity to show his generosity in accepting our amendments, but I hope that on this occasion he will take them on board.
      Amendments (a) and (b) relate to the new public prosecution service for Northern Ireland. Members will see that clause 29 defines the new service as consisting of
      "the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland…the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, and the members of staff of the service appointed under subsection (3).
      The service thus consists of three elements. What I dislike about the Lords amendment is the fact that the equality and non-discrimination duties under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 extend only to one of
      200
      those elements—the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I am sure that Members are familiar with sections 75 and 76 of the Act, which place a duty on public authorities in Northern Ireland to ensure that they promote equality of opportunity among various communities and good relations between people of different political opinions and religious beliefs.
      Those statutory obligations are important; they are a positive duty, not to stand still but actively to promote equality of opportunity and good relations. They are twin duties and are mutually compatible, and I can see no good reason why they should attach themselves only to the director and not also to the deputy director and to the members of staff appointed to the new prosecution service for Northern Ireland.
      The tenor of amendments (a) and (b), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and other members of my party, would make the provision more general so that it included all elements of the prosecution service.
      Mr. McNamara: I was under the impression that a provision that applied to the Director of Public Prosecutions would include the whole of his department. If it does not, I support the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will show in his speech that my conclusion is correct.
      I welcome the Lords amendment, which responds to concerns expressed by Labour Members, by members of the Social Democratic and Labour party and by many non-governmental associations. I welcome the Government's response, although I should have preferred them to table proposals whereby all in one go—in one Act—all the bodies and agencies associated with the criminal justice system were designated for the purposes of sections 75 and 76 of the Northern Ireland Act. That would have been the neatest solution.
      Can the Minister tell us if and when other aspects of the criminal justice system will also be brought under sections 75 and 76? Those sections are extremely powerful; they go to the root of enforcing the spirit and philosophy of the Good Friday agreement.
      I note that subsection (5) of the amendment is a response to fears expressed previously by the hon. Member for North Down when she raised the spectre that perhaps the DPP would have to fulfil a quota for the prosecution of Protestants or, conversely, of Catholics, in order to maintain parity. The provision would exempt him from that.
      Not everyone in Northern Ireland—whether nationalist, republican, loyalist or Unionist—shares the rose-tinted view of some hon. Members that the DPP, judiciary and criminal justice system in Northern Ireland have a blameless past, free from the allegations of discrimination and sectarian practices that plagued the former Royal Ulster Constabulary. On the contrary, many fears exist and they will persist despite the Bill. One element of disquiet, for example, is that some people believe that judges employ differential sentencing policies for Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland convicted of similar offences in similar circumstances.
      That is a serious allegation. How can we determine whether it is true or false? Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure the House and all sections of the community that the system operates fairly? That could be done by careful monitoring.

      201
      Such allegations are not unique to Northern Ireland. Statistics show that the same practice is true for whites and non-whites in Britain. Despite the fact that there is provision for equality, the exercise of discretion by any administrative body must always be carefully examined. Will my hon. Friend ensure that those matters are monitored? It is not only in employment practices that discrimination can occur.
      I give nine tenths of a wholehearted welcome to the amendment. I should have preferred it to cover all the institutions in the criminal justice system, but my hon. Friend has done that in part and he has listened to what we said.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: Like other Members, I welcome the amendment for the most part. However, in Northern Ireland during the past 15 to 20 years, there have been concerns about section 75 and predecessor legislation relating to the commitment to non-discrimination and the need to promote equality of opportunity for various groups. For example, there is deep concern in some local authorities that the flying of the Union flag acts, in effect, as a cold house for some people—that it is being used as a lever to try to engender complaints or action by public bodies under section 75. That is not only to be regretted, but should be resisted.
      However, those public bodies appear not to be concerned that many people in various parts of Northern Ireland—whether in the west, to which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) alluded earlier, or in the southern border areas—feel that section 75 has not protected their interests or their Britishness. They may endeavour to get local authorities to act under section 75, but because of Irish language groups or the maintenance and promotion of Irish republicanism in various areas, they feel that section 75 has not protected their interests in the way that it should.
      6.30 pm
      Lords amendment No. 11 is welcome, but future Governments should be prepared to take a very even-handed approach so that those in Northern Ireland, from any section of our society, who feel that they are actively discriminated against or that they are not afforded the same opportunity as others in Northern Ireland can have recourse either through section 75 or other aspects of the law, so that true equality will be offered not just to a section of Northern Ireland, but to everyone in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Browne: I am sure that hon. Members are aware that section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 places a statutory duty on bodies to
      "have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity"
      between groups in the nine categories of people set out in that Act. It also requires them to
      "have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group".
      Section 76 makes it unlawful for a body to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
      I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's observations and I am glad that he welcomes Lords amendment No. 11. I was not surprised that his welcome
      202
      was qualified; nor was I surprised that the qualification was that equality was for others than those whom he and his party feel they represent exclusively. Of course, part of the purpose of sections 75 and 76 is to set a statutory framework for just the sort of parity and equality requirements that he seeks for unidentified, generalised groups of people in various parts of Northern Ireland.
      As an elected representative, it is for the hon. Gentleman, as it is for me as a Minister, to articulate the importance of such equality and, indeed, human rights to all people across the whole community in Northern Ireland and to help people to exercise their rights under the equality and human rights provisions.
      If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns about the equality requirements in Northern Ireland not being applied evenly to certain categories of people in particular locations, there is the Equality Commission. I am sure that he has brought all the concerns that he has articulated to the attention of the Equality Commission. If he has not, I recommend that he does so because those on the commission are the experts and can advise the individuals involved how to get redress and, where rights are judicable, to seek to enforce them if necessary.
      If just the sort of people whom the hon. Gentleman mentions take advantage of the equality and human rights provisions in the settlement for Northern Ireland, in the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—and in other provisions, we will drive forward the new Northern Ireland. So he should not only identify the problems, but seek the legislative solutions that exist and take advantage of the support offered by the commission, particularly in relation to equality.
      If the hon. Gentleman cannot do so and if he writes to me specifically about his concerns, I will seek to ensure that he and his constituents or others receive the advice that they need about how to take advantage of the statutory structure that we have put in place since coming to power to ensure that people are not treated in the way in which he says that they are being treated. However, I have limited responsibility for equality issues—much of the ministerial responsibility for such matters lies with Ministers in the devolved Administration, not with the Northern Ireland Office. Having been a Minister in the devolved Administration, the hon. Gentleman will know full well how to get the necessary advice from the Executive in Northern Ireland.
      I am sorry that I have had to refer to those issues, but it seemed from the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate that he did not know how to seek redress in relation to them. If he does not, my office is open to give him the advice that he needs, although he may need to approach other Ministers as well.
      I shall now come to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Sections 75 and 76 cover the bodies created under the Bill, by virtue of Lords amendment No. 11. My understanding is that other criminal justice agencies are already covered, but he seemed to suggest that some in Northern Ireland were not covered. I am not sure to which organisations or agencies he was referring, but if he cares to intervene now to tell me, I shall try to give an answer. However, if he wants to write to me, I shall deal with the issue in detail.
      Mr. McNamara: I refer to the judiciary apart from the justice system.
      Mr. Browne: I think that my hon. Friend will find that those in the justiciary in Northern Ireland are more than adequately covered because of the oath that they take. I repudiate his suggestion that the criminal justice system—in particular, the judiciary and the Director of Public Prosecutions—act in a discriminatory fashion in prosecuting those involved in crime in Northern Ireland.
      Indeed, I want to put on record, not in any rosy fashion, my and my fellow Ministers' appreciation of the significant bravery of prosecutors and other lawyers, including judges, in Northern Ireland in the face of significant danger for some 30 years. They have ensured that justice has been done and earned an enviable reputation for Northern Ireland in the face of significant dangers and problems for justice.
      That is not to say that there have not been miscarriages of justice. Indeed, there have been in Scotland and England—and I suppose that there have been in Wales, although I cannot think of one off the top of my head now. There probably have been miscarriages of justice throughout Europe and the civilised world. However, the fact is that, in the United Kingdom, if judges act or are thought to have acted in a discriminatory fashion in the way that my hon. Friend suggests—although non-specifically—there is a review process that allows such issues to be raised on appeal. The same cannot be said for all parts of the world.
      It may have taken too long for some miscarriages of justice to be corrected, but increasingly over the years the House and Parliament have sought to address those issues as they have become apparent. I am not saying that there have been no miscarriages of justice; I am saying that there has not been the discrimination in relation to prosecutions that my hon. Friend suggests has taken place. If he is suggesting that such discrimination is systemic in the judicial system of Northern Ireland, it behoves him not to refer in an airy-fairy way to some studies, but to suggest specifically where the evidence can be found.
      Mr. Blunt: I simply want to thank the Minister for going to the trouble of making such a robust statement, with which I fully associate Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
      Mr. Browne: Finally, on this point—for the sake of completeness—the Northern Ireland court service is covered by section 75, which places an equality duty on all Government agencies. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for such provisions to cover the judiciary, as, of course, those issues are covered by the judicial oath.
      Lords amendment No. 11 makes the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions subject to those duties. We have identified certain limited safeguards that will give the protections necessary to ensure the continuing independence of the DPP. As is clear from the amendment, we have exempted the prosecution process from this duty, for the reasons that I articulated on several occasions in Committee and perhaps even on Report. The exemption can be found at subsections (3) and (5) of the new clause introduced by the amendment. That means that prosecution decisions and policies relating to such decisions are exempted. I explained in Committee the sorts of difficulties that would arise if we attempted blanket coverage of the DPP's office, but we have assured
      204
      ourselves that, with those safeguards in place, we can meet the duties that we have accepted. That explanation refers to some of the other remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
      The obligations under sections 75 and 76 will apply to the DPP, for example, in relation to the recruitment of public prosecutors, despite the exception for which we have provided in Lords amendment No. 11. Of course, they will continue to apply in the same manner once the new public prosecution service is established.
      The purpose of amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), is, as I understand it, to ensure that the DPP's entire organisation—the entire public prosecution service—is covered by these duties and not just the head of the organisation. To aid the House's understanding of the way in which the Act is structured, I should point out that sections 75 and 76 do not bite on individuals but on functions. That is why the functions are transferred, not the service. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured when I say that all of the functions of the prosecution service are, in fact, vested in the DPP. Without going into too much detail, that is done particularly in clauses 31 to 33 of the Bill, in which the functions are transferred, and conferred on the director.
      We agree with hon. Members that the whole organisation should meet those duties. The duties are imposed on the functions, and the functions are conferred on the DPP, although they are carried out in a delegated fashion, in some cases by others. By the process of making the DPP subject to the provisions, the functions of the DPP are bitten on. I hope that hon. Members are satisfied that the Bill already provides for that.
      The equality obligations under sections 75 and 76 will also apply to the criminal justice inspectorate and the Law Commission, which are designated by Lords amendment No. 30 in this group. We examine every new body created by the Government to see whether it should be designated under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for equality purposes. I see no reason why any exception should be made in respect of those bodies. We intend them to operate in an open and transparent fashion.
      Question negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 55

      CUSTODY CARE ORDERS
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 38, line 3, at end insert
      ";but the appropriate authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, at any time discharge a child who is being so kept."
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 17.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Browne: All the amendments in this group relate to part 4 of the Bill—the provisions dealing with youth justice—and all effect minor refinements to those provisions.

      205
      Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 14 amend the provisions dealing with the new form of disposal for children under 14—the custody care order. The relevant provisions are found in clause 55. Within clause 55, new article 44B provides for the legal regime under which a child subject to a custody care order will be detained. It does that by applying certain provisions of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to such children and by excluding the application of all other provisions. Children held under a custody care order will be held in accommodation provided within the care system. We therefore think it right to draw on the provisions contained in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 in shaping the legal regime under which children should be held.
      It was brought to our attention, however, that we had inadvertently excluded the application of certain provisions of the 1995 order that apply to all children, whether looked after by an authority or not. We did that by referring exclusively to certain provisions, and, because reference was not made to other provisions, those would be deemed not to apply. It is a principle of statutory interpretation that if one expresses some provisions and excludes others, one is deemed not to have wanted the others to apply to that situation.
      On any view, those provisions should not have been excluded. That is addressed by Lords amendment No. 13, which has the effect that those provisions of the 1995 order which apply to children being looked after by an authority, and which we consider should be applied to children who will be held under a custody care order, are applied. However, the key difference between Lords amendment No. 13 and the provision in the Bill is that the amendment is predicated on the basis that all the other general provisions of the 1995 order will apply unless specifically disapplied. As a result, important wider protections, such as those contained in article 3 of the order—which provides that when a court determines any question with regard to the upbringing of a child or the administration of his property, the child's welfare will be the paramount consideration—continue to apply.
      I should also draw the attention of hon. Members to two specific points. First, the amended article now applies the provisions of article 45 of the 1995 order. That will mean that the case of a child being held under a custody care order must be reviewed by the authority holding the child, and that the authority must have a procedure for considering representations by or about the child. That will help to strengthen the process of managing a child's period in secure accommodation and thus deserves to be included in the clause.
      Secondly, hon. Members may notice that the recast article—new article 44B—does not contain provision relating to the discharge, at any time, of a child in secure accommodation by the appropriate authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State. That provision is currently in new article 44B(4). Hon. Members will be reassured that there has been no change of substance here, merely one of drafting. By virtue of Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 14, the provision has simply been moved to a more logical position, in new article 44A(6) and new article 44F(3)(b), where it is associated with the definition of periods to be spent in secure accommodation. Again, the meaning and purpose of the provision has not changed.
      206
      Let me now deal with the remaining amendments in the group, which address youth conferences. Again, the amendments do not change the substance of what the House has agreed to.
      New article 3B(1) provides that the Secretary of State may make rules governing the procedure of youth conferences. It is expected that the rules will be used to set time limits for the various stages of the conference process, and for the performance of the various functions of the conference co-ordinator. Because of the way in which they are drafted, however, they cannot be used to make provision about youth conference plans—in particular, to set a time limit within which the person monitoring compliance with a plan arising from a diversionary conference must submit his final report to the director.
      As the director may, on the basis of the report on compliance, still instigate proceedings against the child if he believes that the plan has not been complied with to a significant extent, we think it right to set a time limit for this stage of the process. Without it, the child may have the threat of prosecution hanging over him for an indefinite period. Lords amendment No. 15 therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make rules establishing a time limit for submission of the report to the director.
      As we intend to specify a time limit, it is not appropriate for the Bill to require the making of the report
      "as soon as is reasonably practicable",
      as it does currently in new article 10D. Lords amendment No. 16 therefore seeks to delete those words from new article 10D.
      New article 33C(1) provides that a child may be referred to a conference only if he lives in an area where the new system is in place. That will allow us to pilot the new arrangements and also, if necessary, to stagger the subsequent roll-out of the conferencing system.
      The purpose of Lords amendment No. 17 is simply to clarify that this applies equally to both mandatory referrals to a conference, provided for in new article 33A(1), and discretionary referrals, provided for in new articles 33A(3) and 33A(4).
      Mr. Blunt: What a treat is the opportunity to debate youth justice! Of course, we owe the privilege to the passing of amendments in another place, having failed so conspicuously—given the programming—to engage in substantive discussion of any youth justice provisions here.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Disgraceful.
      Mr. Blunt: It was indeed disgraceful. The only good thing to be said as we begin our very brief and, sadly, tangential discussions is that this is an appropriate time at which to welcome the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) to the Government's Northern Ireland team. Unfortunately he is not present to hear this paean of praise, but I would like to tell him—he being a Whip—that things can only get better from our point of view, after the shocking way in which the first part of this process was managed.
      It might not have been necessary to remedy the unintended results of the legislation if we had had a chance to consider here the matters put right by Lords

      207
      amendments Nos. 12 to 14, but I am happy to accept the Government's view. I merely want to draw their attention to my slight anxiety about the timetables that would be introduced by the Secretary of State under the powers that Lords amendment No. 15 would confer on him.
      The arguments in favour of the amendment have focused on the establishment of a set time within which a child who was, as it were, at the wrong end of the provisions would wait for the identification of non-compliance and of the reasons for it. It is just possible that if the Secretary of State lays down a timetable that is too tight, and the bureaucracy that will inevitably surround youth conference orders bogs down the limited number of people who will administer the system—thus preventing them from meeting the timetable—we will inadvertently let off offenders who have not complied.
      In other respects I welcome the proposals. I am concerned only about the ability of the timetable to be consistent with administrative resources.
      Mrs. Calton: I welcome the amendments, which go a long way towards meeting the concerns of, in particular, the Liberal Democrats. We tabled a series of amendments on youth justice. I am especially pleased to note the amending of clause 55 in Lords amendment No. 13(3)(g).
      The introduction of article 45 deals with many of the issues that concerned me. It ensures that there will be an opportunity for review; it requires the views of the child to be taken into account; it provides for a review of the suitability of accommodation; it informs the child of his rights; it ensures that he is kept informed; it ensures that arrangements are monitored; and, most important, it requires the establishment of a complaints and representation procedure to include the child and others with an interest in his welfare. I am also pleased to note that an independent person will take part in the representations and follow up discussions.
      Lords amendment No. 14 responds to some of the worries about children under 14 being given youth custody orders for up to 30 days. In some cases that may take them to the age of 14. I am glad that the amendment will allow the sentence to be varied.
      As the Minister said, Lords amendment No. 15 allows the Secretary of State to make procedural rules for youth conferences. I am pleased that the Minister concerned will have an opportunity to ensure that young people's needs are full met. I am also pleased that Lords amendment No. 16 tightens the requirement for a report on compliance with the youth conference plan, and will ensure that there is no drift in procedures.
      I think that we are closer to recognising that although young offenders should be given a chance to reform and make restoration, and while it may occasionally be necessary to protect the public from them, they will often be in need themselves—in need of the protections afforded to children in the care system generally. Their human rights must be protected.
      Mr. Browne: I am glad that the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) welcome the proposals. As the hon. Member for Reigate probably knows, I share his regret that we could not
      208
      debate the provisions relating to this part of the Bill, but I am buoyed by the scrutiny that they received in the other place.
      The hon. Gentleman made a limited but, I think, important point about the timetable, suggesting that if it were too tight it might not be met. He said that that might be detrimental to the young person involved, because if there was not enough time for administration that would be taken to constitute his failure to comply.
      I think that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it would be unfair to allow the threat of prosecution to hang over a child for an unspecified period. The establishment of a timetable is more consistent with our intentions in regard to the various stages of the conference process. In setting limits, however, we will bear in mind the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I will specifically ensure that as the programme is introduced progressively, with pilot schemes, we regularly take account of the inevitable tension caused by demands on administration, along with the need to ensure that young people are given enough time to carry out the requirements of an order.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 17 agreed to.
      7 pm

    Clause 71

      LOCAL COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS
      Lords amendment: No. 18.
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following:
      Lords amendment No. 19
      Lords amendment No. 20, in clause 82, page 67, line 2, at end insert—
      "(za) in paragraph 9, after sub-paragraph (g) insert—
      "(h) local community safety partnerships.","
      and amendment (a) thereto, leave out line 3 and insert"—
      (h) community safety.",".'.
      Mr. Browne: Lords amendment No. 18 will make it absolutely clear that the membership of local community safety partnerships will be drawn from organisations exercising statutory functions. These organisations will be invited to nominate individuals from within their organisations to represent them on the partnerships.
      The amendment is designed to clarify policy and to put our intentions in this regard beyond doubt. We have already taken steps to clarify the policy in discussion and in correspondence, and we have taken the opportunity of the amendment to set out the policy in statute. The amendment will allow the relevant organisations exercising statutory functions, such as district councils and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to be included. Lords amendment No. 19 provides that the Secretary of State must publish or require a local community safety partnership to publish the plans and reports produced by the community safety partnerships.

      209
      Lords amendment No. 20 will add local community safety partnerships to the list of organisations set out in schedule 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This will pave the way for them to be devolved along with other criminal justice functions once a decision has been taken to transfer responsibility for such matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      A similar amendment was made in this House in respect of the other new bodies created under this Bill—the criminal justice inspectorate and the new Northern Ireland Law Commission. It makes sense to treat these partnerships similarly. It is essentially a technical amendment designed to facilitate the devolution of these bodies in due course and, as such, I trust that it will meet with the approval of the House.
      Amendment (a) is in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and it seeks to add the words "community safety", rather than "local community safety partnerships", to schedule 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which sets out the list of reserved functions. The term "community safety" covers a wide range of functions and activities. Many of them are already devolved to the Northern Ireland Administration. For example. the provision of street lighting and traffic-calming measures is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development.
      Social services have a statutory responsibility to divert young people from crime. It would therefore be inconsistent with the devolution of these functions to include a generic term such as "community safety" in the schedule. The local community safety partnerships are being added to the schedule to facilitate their being devolved when the time is right. I do not think that we need to extend the provision more widely, so I ask that amendment (a) be withdrawn.
      Mr. Blunt: Her Majesty's Opposition welcome Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 as significant improvements to the Bill. We shall support them, as we understand that they were the product of informal discussions between the Government and the Opposition. They are a satisfactory way to proceed.
      However, it is appropriate to remind the Government that their approach to community safety receives the support of only a minority of parties in Northern Ireland. We continue to have serious concerns about the continued overlap between district policing partnerships and community safety partnerships. That concern is shared by all parties to the Policing Board—they do not want separate partnerships established—and by the review that took place. I shall not delay the House by reading out paragraph 11.61 of the review, as the Minister will be familiar with its contents. The recommendation there is precisely the opposite of the Government's intended action. Indeed, recommendation 196 of the Government's implementation plan is put down for further consideration.
      I invite the Government to continue to give the matter further consideration. The plethora of bodies in Northern Ireland and the different duties placed on district councils, in particular, and on the bodies to which the councils have to nominate people is a strong argument for the Government to find a way of simplifying the way in which they establish community safety. They should do that within a proper partnership for community safety and by using the institutions of the district policing partnerships.
      210
      We hope that, in due course, the Government will make the position clearer and remove the overlapping responsibilities that currently exist.
      Lady Hermon: The Minister is left with one opportunity—this is it—to be generous to me this evening. I hope that he will respond appropriately.
      Amendment (a) specifically requests that the reserved matter should refer not just to "local community safety partnerships" but more broadly to "community safety". In fact, clause 70 refers to "community safety" and subsection (1) says:
      "The Secretary of State must devise a strategy for enhancing community safety in Northern Ireland."
      Subsections (3) and (4) add:
      "The Secretary of State may from time to time devise a new strategy or make alterations to a strategy…Before devising or making alterations to a strategy the Secretary of State must consult…the First Minister and Deputy First Minister"
      even when they are not acting jointly. With that in mind, we wished the reserved matters to be extended to include community safety per se and not just the narrow matter of local community safety partnerships.
      We are delighted with Lords amendment No. 18. It is a huge improvement on the original provision in the Bill. Clause 70(3) originally left the membership of local community safety partnerships to be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. We are pleased to see him in the Chamber and are in no way questioning his integrity, but the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 goes to great lengths—five pages in all—to set out the composition of district policing partnerships. The Bill, however, contains only one and a half lines on the composition of local community safety partnerships.
      We wanted the Government to cast some light on what the proposal would mean in practice. We were therefore delighted that the Government listened to the representations made in the strongest terms by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—I am sure that we all recall that meeting—and accepted Lords amendment No. 18. We now know that a local community safety partnership
      "is to consist of such number of persons nominated by such organisations exercising statutory functions as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
      That will include the new Police Service of Northern Ireland and organisations such as health boards, which we welcome. It closes the door to paramilitary infiltration into local community safety partnerships.
      The one outstanding issue relates to the functions of the local community safety partnerships, and we would welcome further meetings and correspondence with the Minister on that. It arises from a concern that stems from the Patten report, which recommended that the district policing partnership boards, as they were then called, should have the power to buy in additional police facilities and services. However, that recommendation was omitted from the 2000 Act. It remains a live concern to party colleagues and the Unionist community that local community safety partnerships may be the vehicle by which the partnerships have that function.
      The Secretary of State has the power to make grants to local community safety partnerships. Guidance and clarification has to be given on how the safety partnerships will spend that money. We need to know that

      211
      paramilitary organisations will not organise themselves into local security firms that take advantage of the grants. The issues are still relevant and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss them with the Minister.
      Mr. Browne: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate.
      A number of important issues have been raised. As I said, I am afraid that I cannot be generous and accept amendment (a). I know that that spoils my reputation for generosity, but the phrase that the hon. Lady wants to insert would put functions that are already devolved into the reserved category. I understand and agree with her arguments, but we cannot put the generic phrase "community safety" into the provision and consequently reserve everything to do with community safety because that would reverse the decision to devolve some functions.
      I cited the specific examples of provisions relating to street lighting and traffic calming, which are important for community safety. Those are already the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. I also explained that the work by social services to divert young people from crime is devolved and cannot be put back into the reserved category. My instincts are to be generous to the hon. Lady because I understand her concern, but what she wants cannot be achieved in the way she suggests.
      7.15 pm
      However, discussions about the issues in relation to community safety can continue. The hon. Lady will be aware from the meeting to which she referred that the Northern Ireland Office published a consultation document, "Creating a Safer Northern Ireland Through Partnership", that deals with the membership of community safety partnerships, operational matters relating to community safety partnerships and the functions of community safety partnerships.
      Strictly speaking, that consultation period has concluded, but the door remains open if the hon. Lady's party wants to respond. In addition, if a party does not want to respond but has issues to raise, I will discuss those with it. Indeed, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss aspects to do with safety with any party.
      It is not the Government's intention to create tension between DPPs and community safety partnerships. We want to create a sensible working partnership between DPPs, community safety partnerships and other organisations that exercise statutory functions. One problem in Northern Ireland is that there are 26 local councils to deal with, which is a significant amount for a comparatively small number of people.
      Mr. Blunt: Twenty five oppose the Government.
      Mr. Browne: I know where the hon. Gentleman got that figure from but, as the person who possesses the responses to the consultation document, I know that it is not correct.
      Mr. Eric Forth: It is only 24.
      Mr. Browne: I had the figure checked today and it is only one, but it is not a question of how many people are
      212
      against or in favour of an argument. What matters is the strength of the argument. The Government do not intend to create an administrative structure for community safety partnerships that works against the grain of other structures. We are aware of the recommendation of the criminal justice review that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) mentioned, and I have addressed the idea of creating a single body to undertake the role envisaged for DPPs and community safety.
      The recommendation was considered carefully. At the time, DPPs had not been established, and they still have not been. The Government thought that it would be inappropriate to give the new body additional functions before it was established. There were also more fundamental reasons for not following the recommendation. It is essential that community safety partnerships are composed of those statutory organisations with responsibility for service delivery. The DPPs, however, will be made up of elected representatives and independent members, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The criminal justice review recognised that it is important not to disturb that balance and did not propose changing the membership. It suggested that the proposed body should work in partnership with statutory bodies.
      In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers, I concluded that that arrangement would not be as effective because it excluded the service delivery organisations from the partnership. Experience in England and Wales shows that crime and disorder partnerships are most effective when statutory organisations are engaged in the process. Legislative changes are being made in England and Wales to ensure that that happens, and I am sure that they will have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his party.
      This point will not be lost on the hon. Gentleman: it is essential that the police are involved in community safety. They must be actively involved in community safety partnerships, but they are not members of the DPP. Those are the fundamental, logical and sensible reasons for the conclusion that the DPP, as envisaged under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act, is not the appropriate vehicle for the delivery of community safety, although it was considered by the review.
      Mr. Blunt: We can change that.
      Mr. Browne: Of course we can change it. That is why there is a Parliament—so that we can change the law. It can be changed, but not without consideration of the consequences for policing and the structure of the Policing Board and the DPP. It should not be changed to allow community safety to be the driver when there are many other policing considerations that relate to the structure of the Policing Board and the functioning of the DPPs—in fact, the DPPs have not yet been set up. Both of those organisations have a long way to go. No final decisions about functions have been made.
      The Bill, as amended by the other place, contains enabling legislation for community safety partnerships. A structure is in place that allows a significant degree of flexibility, but the Bill, rightly, also includes the safeguards sought by hon. Members. It is not that we want to keep the bodies separate, it is just that the DPP was established for a particular purpose, with a particular membership and has a policing focus. Clearly many of the

      213
      issues that are the responsibility of the DPP and the Policing Board impact on community safety. There are shared functions and responsibilities. To change the function now would require a completely different membership of the DPP.
      We may need to return to those issues later. However, the current framework allows us the flexibility to respond, through the consultation, to the concerns that others share about how the process will work. The Government intend to have a process that will work sensibly and with the grain of other organisations, particularly DPPs. All that takes place in the context of the review of public administration undertaken by the Northern Ireland Executive. Many aspects of the structure of Northern Ireland society that are relevant to community safety are currently changing, and those changes must be taken into consideration. The dialogue continues. We now have provisions in the Bill that allow us the framework, but with the necessary safeguards sought by hon. Members. We can continue the dialogue in that context, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) requested.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments No. 19 to 21 agreed to.

    Clause 89

      STATUTORY RULES
      Lords amendment: No. 22.
      Mr. Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 32.
      Mr. Browne: I am delighted that we have come to the last group of amendments in the time allocated for the debate, which, on this Bill, is a significant achievement. and I am pleased that we have been able to debate the amendments to the extent desired by hon. Members.
      The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee accepted that the 16 powers in the Bill to amend it or other legislation were an appropriate delegation. However, it recommended four changes in favour of the affirmative procedure.
      First, the Committee felt that the Assembly's power to omit an office from the list of those subject to the Judicial Appointments Commission under schedule 1 was of such constitutional importance that it should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Secondly, the Committee felt also that any order removing an office from the list of those for which the oath must be taken or affirmation made merited the affirmative procedure. The third change concerned orders adding or omitting organisations from the list of organisations within the criminal justice inspectorate's remit. Finally, the Committee also recommended that the affirmative procedure is appropriate for any decision to abolish the court service, as Parliament would also want to debate such a change.
      Lords amendment No. 22 effects the changes recommended by the Committee, and Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 32 are consequential.
      Lady Hermon: We are very pleased that the use of the affirmative resolution procedure has been extended. Lords
      214
      amendment No. 22 caught my eye because it refers to clause 45(6)(a), which says that the Secretary of State may by order amend the list of bodies to be inspected by the chief inspector of criminal justice. It is with bitter regret that I find that the comprehensive list, which we understood would be with us before the Bill left the House, has not appeared this evening.
      The Minister wrote to me about the matter on 18 March. I thought that it was more recent, but obviously time flies when I am enjoying myself. In that letter, he said,
      "I am using my best efforts to produce a comprehensive list of organisations to come within the remit of the Chief Inspector. I will aim to maintain this momentum, while providing for proper consultation with the organisations concerned before final decisions are taken."
      I take it that the final decisions are to be taken this evening, and we will not have a comprehensive list.
      I accept that the Minister uses his best endeavours, so I should like him to explain where the foot-dragging has occurred. Was it by the organisations that were consulted? Why has it taken so long to draw up a comprehensive list? Will he tell the House about four specific organisations that have been consulted for months? They are Consignia—that dreadful name will quickly be replaced by "Royal Mail" again, thank goodness—the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Financial Services Authority and the Electoral Office. Specifically, how many meetings took place with those organisations, particularly the police ombudsman? It would have helped to restore confidence in her office if it had been included in the remit of the chief inspector of criminal justice.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for giving me an opportunity to explain why I could not meet the target that I set myself in that list. I hope that I can reassure her that the list will be subject to affirmative procedure and must be debated, so we have not lost the opportunity to discuss it in the House.
      I could not meet the target that I set myself despite the fact that I kept in close touch with the process and ensured that my officials kept in touch with our correspondents. The hon. Lady is right in her interpretation—certain organisations did not respond. Unfortunately, I do not have specific information with me, and do not wish to say which organisations did, or did not, respond in time, lest I make an error and wrongly list one as not having responded. Consignia's response, however, was not lost in the post, as was thought—I received it today. In Consignia's favour, my recollection is that it was almost unique in unequivocally welcoming inspection. I know that there has been a response from meetings with the police ombudsman. I cannot speak about the Financial Services Authority or the other organisation that the hon. Lady mentioned, as I do not have specific information to hand, but I will write to her.
      A surprising number of organisations asked for more time to work out the implications of inspection. We granted an extension because if there was to be a consultation, that was the sensible thing to do. In another place, my noble Friend Lord Williams undertook to provide an update letter when Members return after the recess. I give the same undertaking to this House, and that

      215
      letter will be provided to hon. Members too. I shall write to the hon. Lady about all the organisations, giving her precise information about when they were written to, how many meetings have taken place and who has responded. I guarantee that over the recess I will ensure that that process is pursued with vigour.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments 23 to 32 agreed to.

Opposition Day
17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Northern Ireland Peace Process
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
  That this House regards the Belfast Agreement as representing the best hope for peace and normalisation available or likely to be achievable in Northern Ireland; is deeply concerned, therefore, at the failure by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries to implement essential aspects of it, including decommissioning, which should have been completed two years ago; welcomes recent conciliatory statements by the President of Sinn Fein and the Loyalist Commission; believes that continuing evidence of military activity by Sinn Fein-IRA makes it clear that this organisation has been in breach of its obligations under the ceasefire and the Agreement; regards as quite inconsistent with any declared adherence to democratic methods the failure by the chairman of Sinn Fein to condemn the attempted murder of a Catholic policeman in Ballymena; considers that no peace process can succeed unless rewards only follow performance, and that there is some penalty for breaches; and calls upon all parties to do all they can to contribute to the implementation of the Agreement, forbearance, mutual understanding and respect between the two communities in Northern Ireland, and avoidance of all forms of violence.
  Our intention in tabling the motion and our decision to call this debate appears to have borne fruit already. It is significant and welcome that the IRA issued a statement of apology at 5 pm—presumably the time when it thought the debate would start, not knowing that it would be preceded by a statement in the House. A fundamental premise of the Opposition's policy on Northern Ireland and the peace process, to which I shall have occasion to return in the next few minutes, is that it should include an element of reciprocity or balance. Good behaviour should be rewarded, but bad behaviour should be penalised. People who fulfil their obligations should get their due reward, but people who break them should face sanctions.
  Mr. David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: There is almost no other Member to whom I would give way so early in my speech. If the First Minister will allow me to finish the next few sentences, I shall give way to him then.
  The IRA statement is clearly an exceptional event in Northern Ireland—apologies do not come easy to any of us, and are rare in the history of Northern Ireland and, I believe, unprecedented in the peace process and the troubles, which together have lasted for 30 years. It follows that we should be prepared to respond positively to what, after all, are only words, albeit important words. Deeds will and must follow, but it is right for us to take account in our deliberations of the positive aspects of the IRA statement. My recommendations to the Government will be influenced by this evening's event.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that the apology from the IRA tonight may have been prompted by the investigative pieces on which some journalists have been working for the anniversary of bloody Friday in a few

  217
  days' time and questions being asked about the complicity of certain individuals in those murders and bombings? He said that good actions should be rewarded and evil deeds punished. Does he not agree that it is significant that the statement says nothing at all about the recent violence in which the IRA has been involved and nothing about its future conduct? Consequently, it does not release the Prime Minister from the need to make clear what the Government will do in the event of breaches by the republican movement. If the Government use it as an excuse not to fulfil those undertakings, they will create a very dangerous situation indeed.
  Mr. Davies: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly an apology of that kind, as I said, is not a deed or act of decommissioning, or the winding-up of the IRA. We need dramatic deeds from all concerned if we are to make a success of the peace process. Nevertheless, what has been said this evening should not be ignored—it would be irresponsible to do so. People who have lost family members to terrorism in the past 20 to 30 years will not be minded to take seriously any statement from that quarter—I thoroughly understand that. However, we have a responsibility to determine policy for the nation as a whole, and must do so on the basis that I have set out. We must respond positively when there is clearly a will on the other side to take a positive step forward.
  The reason for the IRA's decision to make a statement is a matter of speculation, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has given the House his interpretation. The fact that he and I in our different ways have been putting pressure on the Government to introduce more discipline in the process is probably not irrelevant to this evening's news. As for the timing, it looks as if the debate brought the statement forward. Clearly, however, there has been a careful rethink in the IRA, and we must think carefully about how to respond.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Did my hon. Friend note with regret that the IRA statement fails to make any absolute commitment that there will be no more violence? The absence of that commitment must be treated cautiously.
  Mr. Davies: I thoroughly agree. That must indeed be treated cautiously, as I have suggested. As my hon. Friend said, the statement is far from adequate but, nevertheless, it is a remarkable and striking document. We should therefore proceed on the basis that I have already set out.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall not take any more interventions at the moment, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if he wishes to persist.
  The motion was deliberately drafted to avoid any overt criticism of the Government, although it may well be that not only ourselves but others in the House may have occasion to make such criticism in this debate. We have an opportunity this evening to make criticism when we believe that that is both necessary and constructive. The motion has been drafted in the hope that it could form a broad basis for agreement across the House on the peace process.
  218
  I have discussed the motion with the Secretary of State. I understand that the Government do not feel able explicitly to support it, but the right hon. Gentleman and I have agreed that if the Government do not table an amendment to it, I will not press it to a Division, and on that basis it will, I hope, stand uncontested on the Order Paper. That agreement means that if there should nevertheless be votes at the end of the debate, I shall call on my right hon. and hon. Friends not to take part in them.
  There are three reasons for holding the debate today. Each one forms a proper theme for the debate, and I shall deal with each in turn. First, the intention was to give Parliament a badly needed opportunity, which I fear would otherwise have been denied it, to discuss this vital issue. We shall listen open-mindedly to everything that is said from all parts of the House this evening, with particular attention to the views expressed by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I hope that the Government will also listen open-mindedly to the points made by the official Opposition and Back Benchers on both sides.
  Secondly, the purpose is to set out our own reading of events, and our own concerns, which remain considerable. Thirdly, since I fear that I have been, and continue to feel that I must often be, critical of the Government's tactics in handling the matter, although we are entirely united on the objective and on our commitment to the Belfast agreement, I think it right to set out in a little detail this evening our alternative view of the right tactics, and to try to influence the decisions that the Prime Minister this morning recommitted himself to take by the time the House rises for the summer recess.
  On the need for the debate, I do not feel it necessary to apologise for that. One of the criticisms of the Stormont period that is often made in Northern Ireland—very legitimately, in my view, and it applies as much, I fear, to the period of the MacDonald or the Attlee Administrations as it does to times when the Conservative party had a majority in the House—is that we consistently ignored Northern Ireland. I am afraid that that mistake is in danger of being repeated.
  The Government have not given us any opportunity for a debate this Session. They did not offer a statement on the Weston Park decisions last year, which went quite outside the Belfast agreement and considerably changed the agenda of the peace process—in my view, they unbalanced it. Our own attempts over the past two weeks to secure the promise of a debate or even a statement on the Hillsborough meeting and on the decisions that the Government have promised to take before the House rises have failed, although we have tried on many occasions.
  Whether that reluctance to account to Parliament and to discuss the issue in the Chamber is a reflection of the Government's own unease with their policy on Northern Ireland, or whether it is simply a manifestation of their general attitude to Parliament, I do not know. In either case, it is regrettable.
  On the situation in Northern Ireland as we see it, the Government like to repeat that everything is far, far better than it was during the 30 years of the troubles before 1998. That is most certainly correct, and a very welcome change it is. The institutions are undoubtedly working well, and there is far less violence than there was 10 or 20 years ago. However, there are dangers in reciting that

  219
  mantra too often, even if it is followed, as it usually is, by the statement that of course the Government are not complacent.
  The fact that the situation is better does not mean that it is satisfactory. There have been 13 sectarian murders over the past year in Northern Ireland, instead of more than 100 a year, as was typical during the 1970s and 1980s, but that is still a hideous state of affairs. As the latest excellent Select Committee report makes clear, there is a terrorist beating almost every day; and we ought to be concerned with the direction of events, as well as with the present state of affairs. Although things are far better than 10 or 20 years ago, the Government's mantra tends to ignore the fact that things are a good deal worse than we were entitled to believe they would be at the time of the Belfast agreement four years ago. Very little progress has been made with IRA decommissioning, and none at all with loyalist decommissioning, though decommissioning was supposed to be completed two years ago.
  No progress has been made at all in dismantling paramilitary organisations. The recent Select Committee report suggests that many of them have been considerably strengthened. Last month, for the first time in four years, there was shooting in the streets after vicious rioting in east Belfast, and five people were wounded. I dread to think what would have happened had one of them been killed.
  I suppose that one good measure of progress—or perhaps I should say one bad measure of regress—is the walls. They are such an obvious, hideous symptom of the abnormality of life in Belfast and Londonderry. Since 1998, they have been considerably extended. The Government are extending them in east Belfast as this debate proceeds. I hardly think that anyone in the House would regard that as a measure of positive progress.
  The truth is that confidence in the peace process in Northern Ireland, especially but not only in the Unionist community, is at an all-time low since the establishment of the process itself. That has many consequences. One is that the political parties that have invested most in the process—I pay tribute to their political courage in doing so—by accepting the agreement wholeheartedly and by implementing it, the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party, are currently on the defensive.
  Given the recent course of events, there is every reason to suppose that after the Assembly elections next May, the two largest parties will be one that rejects the agreement in principle, and another which, while saying that it accepts the agreement, continues to fail to implement it, does not recognise the police force and continues to maintain a paramilitary organisation on an active footing, and cannot bring itself to condemn terrorist murder—a disgraceful failure by the chairman of Sinn Fein-IRA, to which we refer in our motion.
  As I said earlier, we shall give full credit where credit is due for positive statements or positive moves, but we shall be ruthless in meeting statements and above all moves away from the agreement or breaches of it, of which there have been far too many.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the man responsible for the
  220
  Abercorn bombing was Mr. Gerry Adams? He was in charge of the IRA at that time. Is it not interesting that in the document that has been issued, the IRA offers apology to non-combatant families? Thus the police are viewed as a legitimate target, and those serving in all the forces of the Crown and in the other back-ups are looked upon as legitimate targets. Surely, in the light of that, the letter prompts the people of Northern Ireland to ask, "What will be the pay-off for the letter?"
  Mr. Davies: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and I understand why he says it. As I said earlier, I do not believe that the statement is the last statement that needs to be made—far from it. It is not even the first of the deeds that we require to complete the process; it is a beginning and a positive move. We would be foolish, and we would be betraying the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, if we attempted simply to ignore it.
  David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will, but I shall not give way very much this evening, for the simple reason that we do not have long. This is an Opposition day. We had to get the time for the debate this evening. The Government did not want a debate. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman feels frustrated at not having opportunities to express his views on Northern Ireland—his views are always well thought through, and for many years he has played a distinguished role in the matter—he will add his own probably more convincing and persuasive pressure to mine on the Secretary of State to ensure that in future we get debates in Government time.
  David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman may have a point, and I am grateful to him for giving way. He said that the chairman of Sinn Fein did not condemn a terrorist murder. He was right to refer to that, and it was wrong of the person concerned not to have condemned it. Where is the difference between the two sides?
  Mr. Davies: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by the two sides.
  David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman condemns the chairman of Sinn Fein for not having condemned the terrorist murder. What is the difference between the hon. Gentleman's condemnation and ours?
  Mr. Davies: I hope that there is none. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that there is none, and we can agree on that, I shall be delighted. I have already said that the whole purpose of our motion was to try to establish a basis for common agreement, and the motion includes that condemnation, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.
  I mentioned a possible scenario at the elections next May. I suppose that one could devise a scenario in which, irrespective of the outcome in May, the peace process could go forward uninterrupted. However, one would have to be quite optimistic to do so, and positively Panglossian to assume that the peace process will go forward on that outcome of next May's elections. Good policy is never made on the assumption of a best-case

  221
  scenario. That prospect should make us all consider very seriously the actions that we need to take now, rather than delaying the difficult decisions until we approach next May.
  Of course the Government genuinely, and indeed desperately, want the peace process to succeed, as we all do. They are rightly proud of the Belfast agreement. It is not an ideal document, but it was never going to be, and we accept it with its imperfections as the best available basis for peace in Northern Ireland. What a terrible irony it would be if that achievement by the Government—I pay tribute to them for it—were eroded by their own inept actions, failures to act or abdications. But can they really escape responsibility for the failures of implementation thus far and for the decline in confidence to which I referred? After all, it was the prospect of a complete and permanent end to violence that persuaded many people to swallow their objections to measures such as the early release of terrorist prisoners and the inclusion of parties such as Sinn Fein in government before IRA weapons had even begun to be decommissioned.
  All parties to the agreement are supposed to be committed to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence. They pledged in the agreement to use their influence to bring about
  "the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations"
  by May 2000. We were told by no other a person than the Prime Minister that there would be effective sanctions against those parties that failed to deliver. As he put it in the House,
  "The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good…There must be an absolute giving up of violence, and it cannot be just a tactical ceasefire for a tactical reason."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
  Then there was the Prime Minister's speech at the Balmoral showgrounds, in which he set out the factors by which any ceasefire should be judged—a judgment which he said
  "will necessarily become more rigorous over time".
  Then we had the Prime Minister's handwritten pledges. I quote:
  "prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good".
  I quote again:
  "those who use or threaten violence excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland".
  Those were all fine assurances. Yet what happened in reality? Almost the exact opposite: the prisoners were all released, despite the fact that there had been no decommissioning whatever. That was a colossal error—we said so, and voted against it, at the time—and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), whose judgment, sadly, has been vindicated by events.
  Why was it a colossal mistake, and could that have been anticipated at the time? Indeed it could, first because the Government abandoned their major instrument of leverage for nothing at all; and secondly because they deprived any member of the IRA army council who might have been willing to decommission of his major argument. We can all make mistakes, but the extraordinary thing is that, when no decommissioning had taken place and three years had passed, the Government
  222
  made the same mistake again. At Weston Park they offered a whole new raft of concessions—including an amnesty to on-the-run terrorists and former terrorists allowed to sit as independent members of district police partnerships—that were not required by the Belfast agreement. Last December, the Government offered yet another concession: special status in the House for Sinn Fein-IRA Members of Parliament. In other words, they made full payment for no delivery, then, when there was still no delivery, they further rewarded the other party with an unanticipated bonus. Few people in the history of human affairs have found it very profitable to negotiate in that way.
  How did the IRA respond? Two weeks after Weston Park, it showed its contempt by publicly tearing up the agreement on the methodology of decommissioning that it had signed with General de Chastelain. It looked as though decommissioning would never even begin. It certainly did not do so as a result of Weston Park. Then followed, fortuitously, the FARC incident and, tragically, 11 September, and American pressure produced the first act of decommissioning. The electoral imperatives of the Irish elections produced the second act. Now, the vital question is who or what will produce the third act. The IRA may be rethinking its strategy—we shall have to evaluate tonight's statement—but the fact remains, and it must be faced, that in its deeds the IRA has been going in the other direction. The Castlereagh break-in and the evidence of new targeting in March this year were evidence of that.
  We cannot go on like this. The Government must appreciate that the peace process, like any peace process, must be based on two things. First, there must be a sense of balance and fairness. Both sides must be seen to be gaining benefits—all the dividends and bonuses cannot be paid only to one side. Secondly, there must be some proper structure of incentives, so that rewards follow performance and breaches result in penalties.
  Lembit Öpik: To pursue the hon. Gentleman's list of criticisms of Government policy, the actions of the Conservative Administration in negotiating and having secret discussions with terrorists who had not declared a ceasefire were in the same category of strategic decision as the actions that the hon. Gentleman is describing. Why does he think that the previous Government's actions were acceptable, whereas those of the current Government are not?
  Mr. Davies: There is no comparison at all to be made between opening negotiations with someone and actually making concessions. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not see the distinction between those two things.
  So much for general analysis and principles, important as they are. In the rest of my remarks I shall be strictly pragmatic and practical, because that is what is called for. I shall answer this precise question: what should the Government do now? I urge them to do five things. First, to restore confidence in the communities, especially those in Belfast and Londonderry affected by the recent violence, the Government need to act to tackle the crisis of morale and numbers in policing. The regular force has already fallen below the levels envisaged by Patten—and Patten assumed an environment in which there had been a complete end to sectarian violence. That is why, in the

  223
  circumstances, it would be madness to get rid of the full-time reserve. Without the full-time reserve, the Police Service of Northern Ireland simply could not cope.
  Thus the Government should give two commitments immediately: first, that they will not allow numbers to fall further; and, secondly, that the full-time reserve will be offered new contracts when they fall due for the foreseeable future, and until a new determination has been made by the Chief Constable that there is a qualitative and sustainable improvement in the security situation.
  The second thing that the Government should do now is act on the vital issue of linkage, reciprocity and a proper structure of incentives to perform. The official Opposition have the greatest sympathy for the First Minister's demand that the Government take powers to exclude from the Executive parties that are in breach of their obligations. It may be a little late now to use those powers in respect of past breaches, but it had been my intention to urge the Government immediately to introduce legislation to take those powers so that it was clear that they could be used immediately and decisively if there were any further breaches. In the light of the IRA's statement this evening, it is perhaps not the right moment to introduce legislation of that kind, but I hope that the Government will take every opportunity to make it absolutely clear, in private or by whichever other means they feel is expedient, that they will not be taken for a ride for a third time—that no more free concessions will be available and that at last some element of reciprocity and discipline will be introduced into the peace process.
  I also urge the Government to concert with our Irish partners and American allies to ensure that there are real financial and other penalties for organisations, be they loyalist or republican, that are specified as being in breach of the agreement. The Secretary of State will know that that is a technical term in relation to the peace agreement, and the present procedure, which he has already used once, is a complete paper tiger, a sword of clay. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I hope that he will take action to remedy it.
  Thirdly, the Government should make it clear that there can be no question of making the Weston Park concession of an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists at the present time, or at any time, except as part and parcel of a final settlement involving the winding-up of paramilitary organisations and the end of the armed struggle. That offer has, in any case, never been endorsed, ratified or even considered by Parliament, and any moral obligation on the Government has now surely been obliterated by the successive IRA breaches since it was formulated. Those breaches started with the IRA's involvement with FARC, which we now know was going on while the Weston Park negotiations were taking place.
  Fourthly, the Government should have the courage explicitly to endorse the Taoiseach's demand that decommissioning be completed by next May. I taxed the right hon. Gentleman with this the other day at Question Time, and he again evaded the issue, offering a mealy-mouthed fudge to the effect that
  "the Government have no disagreement with the Taoiseach on the need for urgent decommissioning."
  That was precisely the phrase used by the Prime Minister in his letter of two weeks ago to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and more or less the wording
  224
  used by the Secretary of State to me last week. That formula is simply not adequate. There is a devastating lack of conviction and credibility in a fudge of that kind, and I am surprised that the Government cannot see that.
  The Government should make it clear that, whatever the result of next May's elections, no party can sit on the Executive if it has not fulfilled its undertakings under the agreement or remains tied to a paramilitary organisation that has not done so. The parties should know the score now, and the Northern Ireland electorate should know the score as soon as possible—certainly well in advance of the elections.
  Finally, the Government should look again at the suggestion that I made last October, which they ignored, confident perhaps that their own approach would work. Since then, there have been successive serious IRA breaches. My suggestion was that the Government should attempt the negotiation of a comprehensive solution—what I called a programmed process leading to full decommissioning. I emphasise that that should involve not a renegotiation of the Belfast agreement, but simply a timetable for its implementation, for decommissioning by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries, and for recognition by Sinn Fein of the new police force. I urge the Government to accompany that with an attempt to negotiate an arrangement on other issues, including the Weston Park issues, provided that they are balanced by the disbanding of all paramilitary structures and the definitive ending of the armed struggle.
  The negotiation of a comprehensive, timed or programmed global package such as this may seem ambitious. Of course it is. Perhaps the IRA's statement makes it clear that the time is more fertile for this than it has been up to now. In any event, I am convinced, after many months considering the problem and speaking to all sides in Northern Ireland, that no one there will make real concessions unless it is clear what proportion of the final price to be paid any particular move represents, and precisely what they will receive in return. Unless the package being negotiated is demonstrably final, everyone will hold back to keep something for the next round. On that basis, it will take until kingdom come to get to peace and genuine normalisation in Northern Ireland.
  I know that the Secretary of State has been battling hard, and that he has been particularly active in recent days and weeks in trying to broker some de-escalation of the tension in the flashpoints of east and north Belfast, and in the context of the marching season. I want genuinely to congratulate him on that. He has already had considerable success, and of course he has our full support in continuing those efforts, as I have already told him privately.
  The Secretary of State knows, however, as we all do, that violence such as this is more the symptom than the cause of the problem. The cause is a sense of unfairness, a sense that the other side is getting a much better deal, and a belief that the peace process is a failure or a fraud, or, if it was not a fraud at the outset, that it has now become one, and that people must look to their own sectarian groups or even paramilitary organisations to protect themselves and their interests.
  No one in the House can or should rest content until the people of Northern Ireland can enjoy the same peaceful and normal life under the rule of law as exists elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or, indeed, in the

  225
  Republic of Ireland. I am convinced that the peace process is the only way of getting there. It is in genuine trouble, but the flame is still there and it needs to be fanned back into full and vigorous life. I hope that the signal that we have had from the IRA this afternoon is an indication that this is a good time to do that, and to negotiate the full and final completion of the peace process. That will require not only considerable effort but considerable toughness, but, if it succeeds, it will finally bring about the peace in Northern Ireland that its people have prayed for and dreamed of for so long.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the Secretary of State, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 12-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches in this debate.
  8.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I welcome this opportunity for the House to consider the peace process in Northern Ireland. This is a short debate in which to consider a subject that is immense both in its historic magnitude and in its complexity. Because of that complexity, it would be easy for any of us to grasp each or any passing event to justify the no doubt contrary opinions that will be expressed tonight.
  Although there is no inevitability about the success or otherwise of any human endeavour, I have no doubt that some hon. Members who speak tonight will claim scientific—in some cases dogmatic—precision in relation to their predictions and prescriptions for the future. Those of us not blessed with such foresight recognise that, in the midst of any massive social or political transformation, it is often difficult to discern the broad sweep of historical change above the headline of the moment. It is all too easy to concentrate on the minutes, thereby losing some appreciation of the movement of the hours, especially when the minutes show up all the imperfections that we have inherited from an imperfect past.
  Some of those complexities can be seen in the last few weeks' contrasting, contradictory, complex and, at times, seemingly incompatible series of events. For example, we have just seen an almost unprecedentedly peaceful few days over the 12 July period. I thank the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for ascribing to me the efforts that I have made, but efforts have also been made by the people in the communities themselves. We have recently seen the apparent paradox of the Assistant chief constable warning against the potential for mobilisation of republicans into given communities one day, and, within 24 hours, the same officer congratulating not only republicans but leading members of the IRA for having helped to contain the violence.
  David Burnside: The only reason why the police officer to whom the Secretary of State refers changed his mind was that spikes, bottles and weapons of terrorism that were being lined up in Ardoyne to attack a planned Orange parade were revealed by the good intelligence of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and people such as Gerry Kelly and others were put on the back foot because they had been denying that they were
  226
  planning that kind of republican violence. Is the right hon. Gentleman not misrepresenting the facts of what happened over the weekend?
  Dr. Reid: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. The assistant chief constable said that he changed his mind because he saw that leading republicans—in his own words—helped to marshal and restrain some of the young people. The point that I was making was about the complex and contradictory nature of events that we have to assess, and the difficulty of distinguishing passing events from the greater movements of historical change.
  As I said, we had an unprecedentedly peaceful 12 July weekend, and I was going on to say that it came at the end of a worrying few weeks in which we had ghastly reminders of just how far we have to go: the home of four young children gunned and petrol bombed in Coleraine; a house petrol bombed in Antrim; a funeral cortege insulted and assaulted in Londonderry; a Catholic church burned out—and so it goes on. Those are all testimony to the bigotry, sectarianism and mindless hatred that still exist with some people and in some areas of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State mentioned a number of incidents. I am sure that he would want to add to that list the murder of my constituent William Morgan, who was buried today. He was a young man with a wife and family—his wife is pregnant—done to death by vicious sectarian thugs. The police have described it as a murder. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to convey his condolences and those of the House to the wife and family.
  Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed, I have no hesitation in doing just that. Tragically, what I was presenting to the House was not a comprehensive list of the ghastly reminders of which I spoke.
  It should not surprise us, then, that a series of surveys—the most recent from the university of Ulster only last week—has illustrated the decline in the optimism generated by the first IRA ceasefire in 1994 and then by the Belfast agreement in 1998. In 1996, for instance, 44 per cent. of Protestants and 47 per cent. of Catholics thought that inter-community relationships were better than five years previously. By last year, the totals had dropped to only 25 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively.
  That drop in confidence has been particularly noted—and sometimes highlighted in the House—on the Protestant side, but that is not the whole story, because between 2000 and 2001 there was a significant increase among both Protestants and Catholics who viewed their own community as the underdog. Both sides see their own community as beleaguered or besieged. As someone remarked to me recently, sometimes the problem in Northern Ireland is the inability of either side to acknowledge the other side's victimhood.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford mentioned balance. It is important to get a balanced appreciation of exactly where we are. If we look at the broader canvas, despite some of the ghastly events that I mentioned, we can see a much more balanced picture. There have been real gains in the everyday life of the Province, and it does not contribute anything to our appreciation of where we are if we dismiss them too

  227
  lightly. Of course, we must not regard them as exclusively optimistic without taking into account the balancing factor of how far we have to go, but there has been real progress.
  We now have a Northern Ireland which in the recent past has achieved the fastest economic growth of any region in the United Kingdom. For the first time in decades, more people are staying in or returning to the Province than are leaving it. Economic investment, tourism and commercial activity have been returning and accelerating. For the most part, young people and families can enjoy a night out. For all the imperfections and blemishes, normality is returning—perhaps more slowly than we would like, but we can still trace its advance.
  Troop levels, at about 13,500, are the lowest since 1970, and routine military patrolling is down by about 50 per cent. over the past four years. Over the same period, employment has grown by almost 5 per cent., with 650,000 in work—more people than ever before. Unemployment is at an historic low, and the standard of living for the vast majority of people has been improving.
  All those factors must be weighed in the balance in any discussion of the peace process. Above all, that terrible index, the total of the tragic loss of life, which has been the dreadful hallmark of three decades of conflict, is at an all-time low. None of that should be dismissed lightly. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the worst year of the troubles, as a direct result of which, in that single year alone, 470 people in Northern Ireland died. Twenty years ago—10 years later—there were still nearly 100 people who lost their lives in a single year. Even 10 years ago, there was almost the same total of people who died directly as a result of the troubles. Last year. 16 people were killed, and this year four people have lost their lives to date. That is four too many, and every single death is one too many, but it does no justice to how much we have achieved to pretend that it is not significantly different from the huge total that we lost even 10 years ago.
  Let me give one figure that I have given before: in the three and a half years before the IRA ceasefire, no fewer than 350 lives were tragically lost in Northern Ireland, while in the three and a half years after the Belfast agreement, 50 lives were lost—a seventh of the earlier total. As I said, there are still huge problems and every death is one too many, but let us not embark on this debate without realising how far we have come.
  This afternoon, to add to the complexity of the course of events in Northern Ireland, we had another statement from the Provisional Irish Republican Army, to which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford referred. That IRA statement is, I believe, a welcome acknowledgment of the grief and loss that that organisation has caused over the years of pointless and tragic conflict, and the deaths for which it was responsible.
  I especially welcome the fact that the statement includes an open apology to the families of many of those who died. Of course, actions speak louder than words, but the words that we have heard today are, I believe, more persuasive than those that the IRA had hitherto brought itself to utter. I strongly hope that it means that at last the IRA has turned its face unequivocally against violence. If it has, Northern Ireland has a bright future, but the real test is whether the transition from violence to democracy continues and gives confidence to the whole process.
  228
  To make a reality of the acknowledgement and the expression of regret, in terms that ordinary people, and especially those who have suffered, can appreciate, they need to be able to have the confidence that the events that caused that tragic misery, pain and loss will never return, that the conflict is in the past, and that the resolution of difficulties in the future will be carried out by democratic means.
  Mr. John Baron: I fully accept that progress has been made, but the Secretary of State will also accept that the situation is far from satisfactory. If the IRA was truly sorry, would not the best way of showing that to the people of Northern Ireland be to agree to disarm totally and unequivocally?
  Dr. Reid: I would not disagree with that sentiment, and that is what we want to see. We want all paramilitaries in Northern Ireland to disband completely, and I shall in due course comment on the other side of the coin, as it were. Here, I am merely trying to give the balance for which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford asked, by saying that we have come a very long way indeed. Yet the risks, challenges and dangers are there for all to see. In a sense, if what has been achieved so far gives succour to those who hope for the best in Northern Ireland, the blemishes and the imperfections that remain are all too often a portent to those who fear the worst in Northern Ireland.
  How is it, then, that we have come as far as we have, and yet still face a future clouded in uncertainty and in threat? One analysis argues that moving any long-standing conflict towards settlement requires at least four elements. First, there has to be leadership that is willing to compromise for peace. Secondly, that leadership has to be sufficiently courageous and strong enough politically to make the compromises, to make them stick and to sell that agreement. Thirdly, the outlines of the settlement have to enjoy wide support across the dispute. Fourthly, there has to be a process that people are willing to enter into—a process that is sufficiently robust and resilient to stand the setbacks. At times, there will be setbacks, violence and other backward steps, because of circumstances, or because there are opponents of the entire process itself.
  That is not a synopsis of my analysis, but one written some time ago by ambassador Richard Haass, President Bush's envoy, who went on to say:
  "I think over time our ability to continue moving forward in Northern Ireland would depend on the political ability of leaders to make the kind of gestures and statements and compromises they are going to have to make. And they are only going to be able to do these things if they have prepared their own people and essentially made the case for compromising, saying yes, we are going to have to start doing this or stop doing that, but here's why, on balance, we are better off. And I think we need to see more of that".
  The truth is that in Northern Ireland we have come as far as we have only because people on all sides have been prepared to give that leadership. Everyone has had to compromise, but there is still too much of a tendency to play down the compromises that others have made. It took guts as well as vision for the Ulster Unionist party to go into government with republicans. That was not easy, and it took courage. The UUP and everyone else knew that Sinn Fein continued to be linked with the IRA, but it accepted that a process of transition was under way, and that it would not be completed unless everyone was prepared to take some degree of risk.

  229
  The republican leadership took considerable risks by entering into and participating in a partitionist Government, moving into the arena of decommissioning, and taking responsibility for making Northern Ireland work, rather than simply destroying, or attempting to destroy, it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party showed great courage and leadership by opening up dialogue with republicans when others were not prepared to do so. I also pay tribute to the previous Prime Minister, John Major, who took tremendous risks and showed tremendous courage in opening discussions with the IRA not at a time when there were some imperfections or local orchestration of violence, but when that organisation was in the process of murdering innocent civilians through terrorist activity. John Major's action was heavily criticised in many quarters at the time, but I pay tribute to him for his courage and his leadership, for withstanding that criticism, and for recognising the historic immensity of the opportunity that had opened up to him and the then Conservative Government.
  However, it was not easy to authorise secret contacts with the IRA in the course of an active terrorist campaign. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford made an emollient speech. I hope that, in recognising that we are perhaps taking risks and making judgments, he also recognises that we are at least doing so after a prolonged ceasefire. The courage required by his own former party leader some years ago to take such action in the midst of a terrorist campaign was even greater, but perhaps the criticisms of him would also have been even greater. It was not easy for John Major—and nor was it easy for this Government—to agree to the early release of prisoners, or to try to tackle the problem of the "on the runs".
  None of this has been easy—especially, of course, in Northern Ireland. Leadership there has traditionally been of the exclusive type—speaking for one's own community—rather than the inclusive type that is demanded, almost by definition, by this peace process. However, in a very real sense this process will work only if one person's problem becomes everyone's problem.
  Of course, it is not just Governments and party leaders who have had to show leadership; hundreds of thousands of people throughout Northern Ireland have done so in their own communities. I believe that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford was in Londonderry yesterday, speaking about some of the problems, and I welcome his regular visits. The accommodation that the Apprentice Boys and the residents in Londonderry have reached in recent years has required real local leadership and a willingness to accommodate conflicting aspirations.
  I understand the anxieties of those who express concern about a current imbalance in the process and about its underlying moral integrity. There are genuine and legitimate questions that the Government must answer in that regard. We have all faced some tough decisions, and I will continue to do so. On occasion, there is real anguish involved in making such judgments. However, it not good enough for serious politicians who wish to change history to will the ends without having the courage to confront the means of reaching them. Anyone who seriously wishes to change our country and the future in a major way must not merely pay lip service to outlining and supporting some
  230
  beneficial objectives; they must have the guts to face up to the tough means that are sometimes required to achieve those objectives.
  We will not change the course of history simply by wishful thinking or risk aversion; nor will we do so by being fastidious over every step required along the way. General de Gaulle once wrote that achieving the right outcome sometimes necessitates—[Interruption.] I am asked to read the quotation in French. It sometimes necessitates
  "une certaine rudesse dans les procedures".
  C'est très simple pour les ècossais parce qu'en Glasgow on parle dans la gorge.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Secretary of State that if he is going to quote in a foreign language, it is imperative that he give the English translation immediately afterwards.
  Dr. Reid: D'accord, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The rough translation of General de Gaulle's contribution is, "It is worth putting up with some imperfections and rough edges if it's the only way to achieve a worthwhile objective." Roughly translated too, my later comment was that it is very easy for Glaswegians to speak French because they also use the back of the throat when speaking.
  The difficulty—and I freely admit that it is a difficulty—is determining how much it is legitimate to accept by way of imperfection. Let me say clearly that the Government do not believe that there can be peace at any price. I want to clear up some misconceptions. It is simply not true that the Government have been prepared to turn a blind eye to continuing illegality, or to regard any level of violence as somehow acceptable, depending on who carries it out. The police continue to pursue with vigour all those responsible for sectarian violence, on both sides of the community. Any imputation that the police in Northern Ireland would respond to political directives or persuasion and stop doing what they do best reflects badly not on the police, but on those who make it.
  Since 4 May, there have been 30 arrests in connection with violence in north and east Belfast. It is not the case that no one is ever arrested. There has been a thorough investigation—and it is continuing—since the break-in at Castlereagh, and it will follow the truth wherever it leads. irrespective of the outcome. The police will be correct in acting in that way.
  Our efforts against organised crime are overseen by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for security. Those efforts also cover organised crime linked to paramilitary groups, and they have been stepped up considerably over the past 12 months. They have achieved considerable success, and that will continue.
  It is not true either that we apply a double standard to Sinn Fein, or that we will be content if the IRA's transition from violence to democracy for some reason gets stuck part way through. Ultimately, there can be no half-way stopping house or comfortable staging post between violence and democracy where people can rest indefinitely.
  We recognise that there is a process involved, but it goes far beyond ending violence alone. It involves establishing institutions, liberties, rights and opportunities

  231
  in a context in which violence becomes ever more illegitimate, even for those who have used it before and tried to justify it.
  Full rights carry full responsibilities, and participation in the Government of Northern Ireland carries particular responsibilities. I believe that the republican leadership understands that, and that it is committed to the completion of the transition. However, we accept that others—some of them are in this House—have concerns, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated that he will say more on this issue before the House rises.
  I wish to make it clear that neither the enemies of this process, nor our partners in it, should misjudge our motives or our resolve in completing that transition. They should not misjudge our commitment to the process. Some people portray the process as one of appeasement, and suggest that there is something weak-kneed, lily-livered and intrinsically appeasing about engaging in a process of talk, words and jaw-jaw. I remind them that the person who coined the phrase that jaw—jaw is better than war-war was no appeaser. People who have suffered from the conflict know more than anyone else what price has to be paid when politicians fail to solve problems through democratic means. Our security forces and armed forces have suffered more than anyone else, because they are the ones who have been asked to try to solve those problems with their lives.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I hope that the Secretary of State is not going to set up an Aunt Sally of his own invention and then attack that. No sensible person—certainly no Opposition Member—has ever suggested that entering into a dialogue or a negotiation constitutes appeasement. We have been concerned that the negotiation has not been balanced, and that there have not been clear demands that the other party in the negotiation fulfils its obligations under accepted agreements. It is essential that that balance and discipline be maintained, and that is what we are asking for. Under no circumstances would the Opposition suggest that we should not talk. We should talk to everybody.
  Dr. Reid: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. However, let me say, in as non-partisan a manner as possible, that it does nothing to promote confidence in the peace process or our sincerity in it to characterise the process, in a misleading way, as a one-way series of concessions to republicans and to talk—inadvertently at times—in the language of the sweetie shop or the headmaster's study. A human rights commission is not a concession to republicans. Human rights are the rights of everyone in the United Kingdom and, indeed, wider.
  Mr. Davies: I have no problem with that.
  Dr. Reid: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. An equality commission and equality of opportunity are not concessions to the republicans or gestures to a ghetto in west Belfast, but things to which every child and family in Northern Ireland should have access. A police service that the whole community can participate in and support is not a concession. [Interruption.] I am going through all the elements about which the hon. Gentleman appears to give the impression, perhaps inadvertently, that he regards
  232
  as concessions to one side. I am glad if he agrees that these are not concessions but elementary rights that should be extended to all the people in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Davies: I do not want this evening's debate to proceed in too controversial an atmosphere. However, we have always supported the Equality Commission and human rights—never have I characterised them as concessions. The right hon. Gentleman knows our concerns about concessions such as amnesties, but I hope that we will not spend our time in this debate criticising each other for something that we have not done.
  Dr. Reid: Okay. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is worth saying that we are dealing in this process largely with rights that should be extended to all the people in Northern Ireland.
  David Burnside: Will the Secretary of State please explain why, for the first time since 1920, we have institutionalised sectarian discrimination in employment policy for the police in Northern Ireland? How can he define that as equality by any definition of the term? If he has an example of institutionalised Government discrimination from 1920, perhaps he will tell the House.
  Dr. Reid: I would like to say that once again the hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole community in Northern Ireland, but I do not think that he would receive cross-community support for his assertion that there was previously no institutionalised discrimination in employment or any other field. Indeed, I would go further—we are trying to create a fair and just society in Northern Ireland. I agree with what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said earlier. Perhaps if we—by which I mean successive British Governments—had spent a little more time considering Northern Ireland between 1921 and 1972, we would have had a different past and perhaps a brighter future. However, we are now concerned with the establishment of a just and fair society in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hunter: Before the Secretary of State concludes his speech, will he address the specific point of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) about the argument for legislation to facilitate expulsion if it is deemed necessary?
  Dr. Reid: I think that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford decided that he would not press the case for that tonight. In any case, there is provision in the existing legislation, should such a course of action be judged proper, in that a resolution can be placed before the Assembly on which it can make a decision. Despite the fact that the issue was not raised tonight—
  Mr. Davies: Abdication.
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman says "abdication", but I suspect that we have an entirely different view both formally and in terms of our general attitude towards devolution. I believe that devolution means devolution—that if we create a police board, we do not dictate to it how it should deal with the full-time reserve, as he suggested that I should do tonight. If one creates a local

  233
  authority, one does not dictate to it how it should do things. If one creates an Assembly to bring together the people of Northern Ireland then, for goodness' sake, give it some role in the major decisions. Incidentally, if one goes into an agreement with other parties, it is not as easy or as beneficial as he makes out unilaterally to rip up that agreement and start adding bits to it.
  My argument is that there are already mechanisms to reach the objective that the hon. Gentleman appears to want to reach if it is decided that we have reached such a crisis in the peace process.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: If what the Secretary of State said is the case, why on 10 April 1998 did the Prime Minister say this in a letter to the leader of the Ulster Unionist party:
  "if…these provisions"
  meaning the provisions for exclusion—
  "have been shown to be ineffective,"—
  as they have been on a number of occasions—
  "we will support changes to these provisions to enable them to be made properly effective in preventing such people from holding office"?
  Dr. Reid: First, the provisions can hardly have been proved to be ineffective when they have never been tried.
  Mr. Donaldson: They have.
  Dr. Reid: The provision that I mentioned—the Secretary of State putting a resolution before the Assembly to exclude Sinn Fein—has not been tried, so the hon. Gentleman cannot assert that it has been found to be ineffective. Unless it has been tried and failed, there is no evidence for that.
  The hon. Gentleman and I know each other well enough—I hope that that does not hinder his career—to get to the point. As he said when he was making a speech the other day, splendidly bedecked—I watched him on television—he wants Sinn Fein excluded. That is his judgment. Therefore, his complaint is not about the mechanism for exclusion; it is that the Government do not want to exclude Sinn Fein, and certainly not at this point in time. That is a genuine political difference and a political judgment. He need not be so modest as to hide that behind a deficiency in the mechanism that exists. It is a difference of agreement. He is absolutely plain that he wants to exclude Sinn Fein from government, on the basis, presumably, that that will help Sinn Fein move towards politics and away from violence. That is his judgment. To me, it is not instantly, entirely and intuitively a logical position, but I understand that it is a political position, and it is a credible one.
  Mr. Davies: I think that the Secretary of State may be missing the point, which is purely practical—that one has no credibility in this life in threatening a sanction that one is not in a position to enforce. The right hon. Gentleman will get no leverage in the negotiations with Sinn Fein by suggesting that one day there might be a majority of Sinn Fein and Social Democratic and Labour Members who might like to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive. If he wants to use that mechanism, he will have to take powers in this House. That was my point. However, he quoted me correctly. Due to the fact that the other circumstances
  234
  have been changed by this evening's statement, I have not pressed him as I had intended to introduce that legislation immediately. If things deteriorate and there are further problems, we will do that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long intervention. I remind the House once again that this is a very short debate.
  Dr. Reid: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not want to ignore anyone who wanted to intervene. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, however, that is a debate for another day. Whatever the differences here, there is no disguising the fact that we face difficulties in the peace process and it is right that the House should have an opportunity to discuss those tonight. All I ask is that in so doing we try to measure up to the scale of the challenge. The British Government certainly recognise the role that we have to play during the coming days and weeks to try to re-create the trust and confidence that the process requires.
  I hope that the Opposition and other hon. Members will do likewise and that they will clarify the ambiguity, or equivocation, about their support for bipartisanship. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford knows that, despite our differences, we have tried to facilitate matters and to work together when that was merited. I hope that we can continue to do that whatever our tactical differences, because the people of Britain and the people of Northern Ireland want to see us united in our determination to make the process succeed if it is humanly possible to do so. We cannot guarantee success; there is no preordained destination for the journey we are on.
  All of us in these islands would do well to take to heart the words—I am glad that they are in English—of Abraham Lincoln at the end of another long and painful conflict. He said
  "let us strive—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves".
  Whatever differences the debate may reveal over tactics, I hope that I, too, can say, let us stand united in our shared objective of securing a peaceful and just end to an ancient conflict.
  8.46 pm
  Lembit Öpik: First, may I say how pleased I am that the Conservatives have abandoned what was bound to be a short-lived policy of pulling out of the cross-party agreement on Northern Ireland? I understand why they did so, although more than anything else, I suspect that their position was unsustainable.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I do not know how many times I have had to correct the hon. Gentleman on that point. The Conservative party never gave up on the Belfast agreement. It never gave up on the bipartisan approach in so far as the agreement was being followed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will finally get off that tack.
  Lembit Öpik: I apologise to the Conservatives for so profoundly misunderstanding their position in the past. I offer my complete and unequivocal apology. Goodness knows how I got that impression.
  I shall take the hon. Gentleman at his word. It is great to hear the Conservatives reaffirming their commitment to the bipartisan agreement. I need say no more on the

  235
  subject—the record is clear as to what the hon. Gentleman and I have said. That is a matter of celebration because some of us were confused—at the very least—as to the Conservative position.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: If the hon. Gentleman is confused, may I refer him to his remarks last week, as his words are becoming repetitive? He said:
  "I am pleased that his party has abandoned its short-lived withdrawal from the cross-party consensus on Northern Ireland. That always struck me as an unsustainable position, and it is to the Conservative party's credit that it is inside, rather than outside, that process."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 277WH.]
  I hope that clarifies the hon. Gentleman's memory, if nothing else.
  Lembit Öpik: The words are repetitive only because the hon. Gentleman has repeated them. He will of course be aware that they were spoken during an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. The good news needs celebration in an even more public context because I am sure that I was not the only person in the United Kingdom who was unclear about the Conservative position. Let us put the matter to rest; it could not be clearer, from the exchanges of the past few minutes, that the Conservatives are expressly involved in the bipartisan agreement in a positive and strategic way. There can be no one in this place who is not pleased about that.
  However, the Conservatives still paint a fairly gloomy picture of where we stand as regards the Northern Ireland peace process. Surely, no one can deny that things are better than they were 10 years ago, despite the underlying level of violence in the communities—a point that has already been mentioned.
  No one can question the seminal importance of the work of former Prime Minister, John Major, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland rightly pointed out. As I have said in other speeches, there is no doubt that John Major kick-started the current peace process by taking significant risks as Prime Minister and straying beyond what might have been regarded as the safe path in respect of Northern Ireland. No one can question whether the Good Friday agreement, for all the strains on it, exists and was signed by the majority of parties in the Province.
  Those unquestionable facts, which have come to pass in the past decade, have served considerably to reduce the level of conflict in the sense of an organised campaign of terror in Northern Ireland and, indeed, on the United Kingdom mainland. Nevertheless, the Conservatives have raised a number of concerns, as they are entitled to do, and I should like to explore two of them—their criticisms of past political activity by the Government and their predictions for the future.
  As for the former, it strikes me as ironic that a number of activities, such as prisoner release and the apparent non-enforcement of the decommissioning conditions, are so heavily attacked by the official Opposition. It seems to me that the Conservatives have set a great many of the precedents with regard to Northern Ireland political decision making. Their past approach tends to imply that we must allow the flexibility for a Government to make those kinds of tough choices.
  236
  For example, the Conservative party decided to launch the Anglo-Irish agreement. We must remember that that agreement was tremendously controversial at the time, not least in the Province itself, yet if that decision not been taken then, it would have been much less likely that the south of Ireland would have renounced its constitutional claim on the north.
  Hon. Members have already mentioned the secret talks between John Major and the active terrorist organisation, the IRA, at a time when there was no ceasefire at all. I heard what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said in response to my intervention on that, but I take a different view. I feel that there is a great deal of similarity in making that kind of decision at the beginning of the 1990s and some of the decisions that have been taken to try to give the peace process momentum now. Obviously, I respect other hon. Members' right to differ on that issue.
  Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman recall of course that those three great steps forward were taken under Mrs. Thatcher?
  Lembit Öpik: Indeed, some hon. Members may be even more surprised that Mrs. Thatcher, who was no friend of terrorism—no one would suggest that she was—presided over some comparably or perhaps even more controversial decisions in government than those that we have seen subsequently. There is no point in discussing in detail which decisions were more controversial; the crucial point is that successive Governments in the United Kingdom have found themselves operating in a way that one might regard as outside the norm of mainstream political activity in this country, but, at the same time, that seems to have delivered some results.
  Of course another example is the introduction of an amnesty. Again, that concept was inspired by the Conservatives, not by the current Government. I do not say that to condemn the Conservatives in any way. In fact, I praise them for making those difficult decisions, and the only reason to discuss them in this context is that I believe that what we say in the House materially influences public opinion, not just on the United Kingdom mainland, but in Northern Ireland. To that extent, our self-restraint in accepting the risks that the Government are taking and not seeking to make it more difficult for those decisions to be played out in Northern Irish politics is an important aspect of what we can do to influence the process positively.
  A responsible Government take difficult decisions, and a responsible Opposition reflect that. Certainly, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, we try to respect, from our position of opposition, what the Government are attempting to do. We make our concerns known publicly as well as privately, but we do so in the sense that, at heart, we are all trying to achieve the same thing and therefore that these are matters of judgment, rather than of principle, when we try to go in that direction.
  I also heard the Conservatives' concerns about predictions of the future. Perhaps the most worrying predictions involve the 2003 Assembly elections in Northern Ireland.
  If I understood correctly what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, he would be implying that an anti-agreement party on the unionist side—a loyalist

  237
  party—and Sinn Fein on the nationalist or republican side could, in their prediction, be the two largest parties in Northern Ireland. That may be possible, but who are we to predict aloud and to think that it will not have a material impact, to some extent, on the fortunes of parties in Northern Ireland? There is an interrelation in that sense.
  Even more crucially, were that analysis correct, there is a contradiction in the argument that we heard. This is the contradiction: if we assume, for the sake of example, that Sinn Fein becomes the largest party on the nationalist or republican side, and if we impose further restrictions that prevent it from being able to function within the Executive, we are basically saying that we would be willing to disfranchise all the people in the community who chose to vote democratically for the voice of Sinn Fein. How could that benefit the process?
  Much of the time we have sought to bring these organisations—the paramilitary background is intimately linked with an organisation such as Sinn Fein—into the peace process. In effect, we have tried to say that there is a better, peaceful, democratic way to achieve outcomes than the paramilitary way that has been tried previously. I do not feel that using the stick of excluding such organisations from the Executive will have any effect other than, first, strengthening support for them in the communities that they represent, and, secondly, providing a degree of pressure within those organisations that makes it even less likely that we will manage to resolve these issues.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lembit Öpik: I shall do so in a moment, as I want to say one more thing.
  There must be a limit. We cannot keep writing a blank cheque and retreating, allowing these organisations to do anything they want and to disrespect completely, in this case, the Good Friday agreement. I worry, however, that the threshold is being set rather low by those who feel that we should take the approach of wielding a very large stick and a relatively small carrot.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is getting into the area of difficulty. Will he tell us exactly what threshold he has in mind? Plainly, it is not acceptable—whatever democratic mandate the party may have—for a party that advocates the use of illegal violence to achieve its objective to be part of any Executive under any system. Where does he want the threshold to be drawn?
  Lembit Öpik: Surely this is the problem. When I am the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I will have to make decisions with all the information available to me in 2006. At this point, however, we cannot pretend that there is a table of figures and conditions determining what is and is not acceptable. There are too many variables in the system. The hon. Gentleman knows well that previous Conservative Secretaries of States continually made course corrections to Northern Ireland policy because that was the only way that they could operate. In the same sense, if the solution now were as simple as describing the particular threshold, we would not spend so much time discussing it, and I am absolutely certain that the Conservatives would not have chosen to devote their Opposition day debate today to this matter. The reason it
  238
  was helpful that this subject was chosen is that we must discuss these matters and accept that there are grey areas on which we can disagree but on which, nevertheless, a Government must make decisions.
  Were I to attempt to give a more specific answer to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that I would probably set the threshold rather higher than him. I would therefore guess that if, or when, the Liberal Democrats run Northern Ireland policy we will set the threshold in a slightly more flexible way than the Conservatives will do in 2090—[Interruption.] I shall leave it to the listening public to determine whether that is an optimistic or pessimistic assessment. We may be hit by an asteroid before then anyway.
  Mr. Dodds: The Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Ahern, has made it clear—as did all the parties in the Republic during the recent general election—that the presence of Sinn Fein in their Government cannot be contemplated. Why is it so difficult for the hon. Gentleman to set a threshold in terms of part of the United Kingdom?
  Lembit Öpik: I observed Sinn Fein's performance in the south of Ireland election with great interest. It is not for me to tell the Irish Government what to do.
  Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The reason why it is so difficult for me to set a threshold is that we have a peace process which is in part implementation and in part negotiation between the parties in Northern Ireland, and which takes place at the same time as interaction with Dublin and with Westminster. In my judgment—this is a crucial point—the process seems to be working: it seems to be taking us to a place where we have not been for three decades. I mean that in a positive sense. As I have said, the organised campaign of terrorism against the state has been, if not entirely removed, massively reduced. The troubles in the communities themselves—the levels of community violence—remain, but I think that on balance we are making progress.
  I say this to the hon. Gentleman. If a process is to be judged on the basis of outcomes, it seems reasonable—to the Liberal Democrats, anyway—to say that the outcomes delivered justify the approach taken. I accept that others have different views—we have already heard them—but the Government are reasonable at least in making that calculation. Then we enter the grey area of thresholds, which we have now probably covered adequately.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I accept that the only outcomes the hon. Gentleman or anyone else can consider on the basis of knowledge are those that we have experienced already. Surely the problem here is considering future outcomes of which we are not certain.
  Lembit Öpik: If that were not the challenge, and if there were not such difficult questions to answer, we would not have jobs, because there would be no such thing as politics. Essentially we are sharing our predictions of what we think we can achieve, probably agreeing by and large on the desired outcome of peace and normality in Northern Ireland, but differing in our identifications of the best way forward. That is the point made by the hon. Gentleman. This is a debate about process rather than outcomes, and I think the differences between the parties are based on our assessments of what is most likely to work.

  239
  What the Liberal Democrats still think is most likely to work is the Good Friday agreement. It contains the conditions for power-sharing and devolution, for human rights legislation and for many other developments—including, obviously, decommissioning and reform of the police service. In itself it cannot deliver peace, but it provides the preconditions for the achievement of peace. It basically constitutes conflict management, but if the conflict is to be resolved it is necessary to address the underlying institutionalised sectarianism in Northern Ireland.
  We agree, then, with the Good Friday agreement. My suggestions and observations relate partly to it, and partly to other ideas that we would like the Government to take seriously. First, let me point out that the Good Friday agreement itself institutionalises sectarianism. By referring repeatedly to two communities, it implies that the objective is to get those two communities to live in peace. I suggest that the objective is actually to get Northern Ireland to regard itself as one diverse community living in peace. That would be more productive—quite apart from the fact that talk of two communities tends to exclude those who do not see themselves as naturally falling into one camp or the other. There is certainly an opportunity for reform in that context, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will consider seriously how to take sectarianism out of the agreement.
  Secondly, there is a great need for symmetry. The Government have sometimes been shaky on that. For democrats here who take the process seriously, one of the greatest strains is imposed when they feel that there has been a unilateral agreement with one side or the other. I would cite what looks like a unilateral agreement involving "on-the-runs" as a rather badly managed example. As far as I can tell, the Prime Minister probably exceeded his brief in terms of maintaining symmetry, thus creating a poisoned chalice that has been bouncing around in our debates over since word came out from Weston Park that there seemed to be some kind of agreement.
  Symmetry works, but the apparent absence of symmetry does not and that simply makes it more difficult for those who feel hard done by to maintain support within their communities. That is one of the great strains on the Unionist side at the moment.
  Transparency is important. When people say that there is no plan B, no one believes them. There is always a plan B in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Dodds: There is always an alternative.
  Lembit Öpik: There is always an alternative. Although we may disagree about the alternatives, it is naive of the Government to say that there is only one route forward, not least because that disfranchises those who, for perfectly respectable reasons, take a different view. The Government are more likely to include all sides if they acknowledge that there is more than one way forward and that we are discussing which is the best. Transparency will come if the Government acknowledge that and are willing to open the door even to those groups and individuals with whom they disagree. That takes place much of the time, but some groups, particularly those who are sceptical about the agreement, have been excluded. That has not helped the process as whole.
  240
  Decommissioning needs to occur, but the issue must be kept in context. It is easy to use decommissioning as a means of barring progress. Let us remember the symbolic importance of decommissioning and recognise that what has already happened is quite significant. To that extent, it is disingenuous for us always to call for full decommissioning as the precondition for progress. Full decommissioning must occur, but it is likely to take place in parallel with progress.
  It is important that there is a greater flexibility in the Government's handling of legislation when everyone but a Minister agrees on something. On more than one occasion, time has been wasted in the House because the Government have not shown flexibility in a debate or taken on ideas that are evidently common sense and shared by a cross-section, from nationalist through to loyalist representatives.
  I am an optimist with regard to Northern Ireland. The Orange Order deserves nothing but the highest praise for its handling of Drumcree this year. That is an example of responsible management in what could have been a very difficult and fractious occasion. By the same token, today's statement by the IRA is strategically important. It does not go all the way to saying that the war is over, but it goes a long way towards having the kind of tone that we need to hear from the IRA if people are to become more confident about its true intent.
  It takes courage, cool judgment, symmetry and time to achieve peace in a region that has been troubled not for 30 but for hundreds of years. All of us want the same peace, but we argue about the process. Although I have criticisms of the Conservatives' position, I do not question the sincerity of their commitment to the peace process as a whole. I am glad that they have chosen to allocate their time to this debate, because all views need to be heard. We leave it to the public to draw conclusions about with whom they agree.
  I pay credit to the many people on both sides of the House who take the peace process seriously. They have invested an enormous amount of time and resources and have taken personal risks. I would like to think that, in a couple of years, we will have a further debate in which we can celebrate the mutual contribution of all and move on to other matters with regard to Northern Ireland.
  9.8 pm
  David Winnick: There are certain things on which we can agree. There remains in Northern Ireland far too much paramilitary violence, including punishment beatings and other acts of violence and hooliganism that are directed at both the majority and minority communities. When the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spoke about such matters, I intervened to say that the chairman of Sinn Fein should certainly have condemned terrorist violence. I am not aware of any Labour Member—certainly not those on the Front Bench, or any Back Bencher—who would take a very different view. We can also agree that the IRA has not turned itself into a pacifist or semi-pacifist organisation. No less than the hon. Gentleman, I would like Sinn Fein to urge the IRA to disband. Although I welcome the decommissioning, which took place under pressure, further acts of decommissioning would be welcome, and that includes decommissioning by the loyalists. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford

  241
  (Mr. Davies) is right: we should recognise that there has been a lack of decommissioning by paramilitary loyalist groups and terror gangs.
  It is easy to draw attention to what is wrong and what we condemn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who now plays a leading role in Northern Ireland affairs, recognises that what he condemns, we condemn—on that, there is no divide. However, when we consider what has been achieved, we should accept that substantial progress has indeed been made since the Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998.
  For the first time since Northern Ireland came into existence as a separate state more than 80 years ago, a devolved Administration represents both communities. All the main political parties serve on the Executive, including the Democratic Unionist party, which has never accepted the Good Friday agreement. Surely it is progress that Northern Ireland is governed by elected representatives of both communities. That differs greatly from what happened there all those years before direct rule was imposed by the Heath Government in 1972.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to draw attention to the fact that far more people would undoubtedly have been murdered had the terrorist violence continued to the same extent. Surely that is progress. He mentioned what happened in 1972. Terrorist outrages, which did not occur only in Northern Ireland, took the lives of many innocent people, including members of the military and the police. They, too, were innocent, like the civilians who were killed. I have never questioned their innocence, and I have condemned IRA violence from the beginning, as hon. Members who have served in previous Parliaments know. There has been no ambiguity in my position, and I am not a lone voice; my party has always taken that position. The fact that lives have been saved from terrorist violence and murders cannot be ignored.
  It has been argued—it is an unfortunate argument and not one that the Tory Front Bench makes—that only one side has won from the Good Friday agreement. We will hear it argued tonight that the nationalists and republicans have won and that the Unionists have lost out. That is a false argument, and it is not only the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party who employ it; too many people in the main Unionist party—including some hon. Members, although not the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, and constituency activists—argue that the Good Friday agreement has sold out the Unionist community. I see hon. Members nodding in agreement, but it is simply not true that only one side is a winner.
  IRA and Sinn Fein had to recognise that terror would not force the United Kingdom to end partition. The IRA's standard argument was that terror upon terror would force a British Government to leave Northern Ireland. I am not aware that that has happened.
  Before the agreement, Sinn Fein strenuously denied that Northern Ireland had any legitimacy. It said that Northern Ireland was a statelet, that it had no right to exist and that its existence as such should end. Now Sinn Fein Members sit, rightly, in an Executive in a devolved Administration. They have accepted the partition that they always refused to recognise. Is that in any way a sell-out of the Unionist community?
  242
  Sinn Fein has had to accept that there can be a change in Northern Ireland's status only with the support and agreement of a majority of the community. That is democracy. That has been the view of Members on both sides of the House and of Governments for over 30 years during the violence. There has been no sell-out on that principle. For years, the constant complaint of Unionist politicians was that it was unacceptable for articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution to lay claim to Northern Ireland. Following the Good Friday agreement and a necessary referendum in the Irish Republic, those parts of the constitution have been dropped.
  I do not see how it can be argued with any logic that the Good Friday agreement has been of benefit only to one side of the community. Some Unionist politicians simply cannot accept the whole concept of power sharing in Northern Ireland, the changes in the police force, which were long overdue, or the legislation to outlaw all forms of sectarian discrimination.
  The shadow Secretary of State was absolutely right to say that we neglected Northern Ireland for years on end. He complains that there are not enough debates on the subject, and he may well be right. We should, however, consider the sheer neglect of Northern Ireland. There had been no change since 1920—a Protestant state for a Protestant people. There was a great deal of discrimination, and the minority community was treated in a shabby and brutal manner. That was the position for years, and we all ignored it, including Labour Members and Labour Governments. That has changed, and it is absolutely right that it has done.
  There are those on both sides of the sectarian divide who are totally opposed to the Good Friday agreement. We know from the horrifying tragedy at Omagh that there are those on the republican side who believe that there has been a sell-out by the IRA and Sinn Fein; and, unfortunately, as I have said, there are those on the Unionist side who do not accept the Good Friday agreement.
  It is essential that the agreement is defended in every conceivable way by hon. Members on both sides of the House. When we combated terrorism over the years we had a united House. I understand the Opposition's view that their support for the agreement does not mean that they should not be willing to point out the difficulties, as they have done today, and to recognise that certain things need to be done. However, what needs to be recognised, not only by Unionists but by Conservatives, is that some Opposition Back Benchers have never accepted the agreement.
  I make an appeal, with all the sincerity that I can command, to Conservative Members, and in particular to the shadow Secretary of State: if we believe that the agreement is the best way forward for Northern Ireland and that significant gains have been made, we should stand together in its defence despite all the blemishes that have been identified, many of which have yet to be tackled. We should form a united front against the wreckers, who have but one objective—to destroy the agreement that was signed four years ago.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: May I deal first with the statement from the IRA that has been referred to by a number of speakers? It has been

  243
  welcomed by a number of people, but as someone whose family have lost two members, murdered by the IRA, both police officers serving in Northern Ireland—Samuel Donaldson, who was murdered in Crossmaglen in 1970 and his brother Alexander who was murdered in the mortar attack on Newry police station in 1985—I cannot see anywhere in it an apology for their murder.
  No one should lose sight of the fact that the IRA is still playing a game in which it regards police officers and soldiers as legitimate targets. Gerry Adams, I remind Members, recently said of recruits to the new Police Service of Northern Ireland from the Roman Catholic community:
  "I think that they will be accorded exactly the same treatment the republican movement accorded to the RUC. No more. No less."
  Of course, there was recently an attempted murder of a police service recruit in Ballymena—an attack that Sinn Fein refused to condemn. None of us should fall into the trap of giving legitimacy to a statement that still plays the game of claiming that police officers or soldiers are legitimate targets. My family have not received an apology from the IRA, yet their grief and sense of loss is as deep as anyone's. More than 300 police officers have been murdered over the past 30 years—their families deserve an apology as well.
  But apologies are not enough. We have heard words from the IRA before. Every time we get those statements, they receive the same welcome and the pressure is relaxed. Surely, that is precisely the time to keep the pressure on the paramilitaries. If we are to move towards the real and lasting peace that the people of Northern Ireland want, we cannot allow the paramilitaries to set the agenda. Let us be in no doubt that that is largely what has been happening in the peace process. The Prime Minister, before the referendum on the agreement, set out in detail the criteria by which he would judge whether ceasefires were genuine and whether the commitment of paramilitaries was for real. At Coleraine on 20 May 1998, for example, he said that those who use or threaten violence would be
  "excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland."
  The Prime Minister went on to say:
  "And I say to you that is a reason for supporting this Agreement because in this Agreement we can provide that only those who renounce violence for good, once and for all, can take their place in the government of Northern Ireland or can get the benefit of the other arrangements under the Agreement."
  Is not the reality, however, that the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force have all committed acts of violence and continue to do so and to threaten violence, yet have benefited from the agreement? All their prisoners have been released and Sinn Fein is in the Government of Northern Ireland. Where is the Prime Minister's commitment now?
  At Balmoral showgrounds on 14 May 1998, the Prime Minister went into even more detail, setting out a series of criteria by which he and the Government would judge whether the ceasefires were genuine. He talked about
  "a clear and unequivocal commitment that there is an end to violence for good"
  the words "for good" are underlined—
  "on the part of republicans and loyalists alike".
  244
  He went on to say:
  "as the Agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal"
  and that there is to be
  "an end to bombings, killings and beatings…to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures"
  and
  "full co-operation with the Independent Commission on decommissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement."
  Then, crucially, he said:
  "These factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgement—a judgement which will necessarily become more rigorous over time."
  But is it not the case that the judgment has become less rigorous over time, and that while the Secretary of State claims that there is no acceptable level of violence, violence today is at a higher level than it was when the agreement was signed? That is not my conclusion; it is the conclusion of the Police Service of Northern Ireland from its statistics, yet the Government say that the IRA ceasefire is still intact.
  Using the same criteria, the Government announced that the UDA ceasefire had broken down. Is anyone suggesting that the UDA is guilty of a higher level of violence? Was it the UDA whose members were in Colombia developing new weapons? Was it the UDA that had three members convicted of running guns in a court in Florida? Was it the UDA that broke into Castlereagh police station? Was it the UDA that shot five Protestants in Belfast? Was it the UDA that was targeting me and other Unionist politicians in Northern Ireland?
  Yet the IRA ceasefire, we are told, is still intact. I do not deem it to be intact, judging by the criteria laid down by the Prime Minister. Why do the Government differentiate between the UDA ceasefire and the IRA ceasefire? Of course, at the heart of the process are the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, to which all the political parties in Northern Ireland without exception signed up. Those principles have been demeaned and broken on numerous occasions by all the paramilitary organisations.
  One cannot help but conclude, therefore, that there are occasions and circumstances when the Government are prepared to turn a blind eye to the breaches of the Mitchell principles and of the ceasefire. I believe that we have reached a moment when decisions must be taken about the process. The evidence is clear. The IRA has not made a commitment to peace and democracy, it is in breach of its ceasefire and of the Mitchell principles, and Sinn Fein has failed to deliver on the undertakings that it gave in the agreement.
  On 22 April 1998 here in the House of Commons the Prime Minister told us:
  "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 to threaten terrorism."—[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 811–2.]
  We are entitled to ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State why Sinn Fein Ministers are still in the Government of Northern Ireland when there is incontrovertible evidence that the IRA is continuing to use and to threaten violence on the streets and to engage in re-arming and in international terrorism.

  245
  A deadline of 24 July has been set by the First Minister for the Government to act and to deal with those transgressions. Let us be clear that another form of words from the Prime Minister will not suffice. In my opinion, nothing short of the exclusion of the Sinn Fein-IRA Ministers from ministerial office will suffice. The promise to act in the future is not enough. We have had those promises before and they have been broken.
  The Unionist community wants to see action taken against those who have transgressed. If we simply admonish them and do not follow that up with some kind of sanctions, what we are saying effectively is, "Colombia is okay. Castlereagh is okay. Florida is okay. What happened on the streets of Belfast is okay. Just don't do it again." But they will do it again. History has taught us that if we let the terrorists off the hook, they will come back to do it again. The idea that we can draw a line under Colombia, Castlereagh and the recent street violence in return for the paramilitaries making some kind of recommitment to the peace process is a non-starter. The agreement has been broken by the paramilitaries, and the Government must now act to hold them to account and to restore public confidence. That must mean altering the terms to ensure that we have effective exclusion mechanisms to deal with those who are in default. That is what the Prime Minister promised that he would do on 10 April 1998 and that is what he must now do. That is where I depart from those on the Government Front Bench. It is time for the Government to legislate to introduce powers for effective exclusion mechanisms. We have to send the signal that no level of violence will be tolerated and that the terrorists must adhere to the agreement, or there will be consequences. That has been the problem in the past. Terrorists on both sides believe that they can play fast and loose with the process and get away with it, and to date—let us face it—they have got away with it.
  It is time for the Prime Minister and the Government to draw a clear line to create the circumstances and make provision for the exclusion of those who have failed to honour their commitments under the agreement. I am told that that is not workable; that the way to bring Sinn Fein-IRA and others along the path to peace is not to exclude them from government. So why did the Prime Minister say that he would do it in the first place? Why does the agreement make provision for it? Why does the legislation make provision for it? Sometimes, we have to deal with the terrorists by taking sanctions and action against them to make them realise that, as the Secretary of State said, there is no halfway house and that when we say that we will exclude, we will exclude. Otherwise, they call our bluff, and the Government's bluff has been called too many times in the past. It is time for the Government to act. The people of Northern Ireland expect them to do so.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the peace process in Northern Ireland. The positive statements made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in moving the motion and the eloquent response by the Secretary of State indicate the progress that has been made in the aftermath of the Good Friday agreement. I must say that I cannot completely agree with the Opposition spokesman's description of today's IRA
  246
  statement as having been precipitated by the threat of the debate—that stretches credulity rather far. I would proffer the explanation mentioned by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) as a more likely cause, but my favourite choice would be the imminent prime ministerial statement that is forecast to take place before 24 July, which is only next week.
  No single Act of Parliament, no single event, no single speech, no single comment and no single tragedy sums up the peace process. It is an accumulation of all those things. In Northern Ireland, the peace process is the assimilation of the experiences that we all have while living in that community on a day-to-day basis. It is not surprising that our experiences vary, even from area to area, nor that all have not benefited equally from the peace process. But to argue that it is collapsing is a false argument indeed. Anyone who lives in our community knows quite well that even the most superficial comparison between the past four or eight years and today would indicate very clearly that the peace process is working. That is not to say that it is a complete or perfect peace. A physicist once explained to me that darkness is the absence of light, so I can parallel that by saying that peace is the absence of violence or of those things that are the antithesis of peace. So, our interpretation of peace is that it is a summation of all our experiences, but that is not to say that they are not important milestones for us to note and to gauge as retrograde or progressive.
  The ceasefires and the decommissioning were significant events for both sets paramilitaries. Last weekend, it was terrible in certain areas of east and north Belfast, but, generally speaking, 12 July 2002 was the most peaceful 12 July for many years, and, as a community, we are thankful for that. I pay tribute, as have other hon. Members, to those responsible members of the Orange Order who did not besmirch their true tradition by engaging in violence, to the general good order and to the by and large non-political expressions from the various platforms throughout Northern Ireland.
  Let us dwell for a moment on what we mean by peace. It will not simply involve another round of decommissioning—important and welcome though that will be—or the disbanding of the paramilitaries' apparatus and the cessation of their activities, essential though that will be. As I said earlier, peace will be the sum total of our experiences.
  The Secretary of State described the enormous strides that Northern Ireland has made over the last eight to 10 years in terms of economic improvement, industrial growth, social betterment, the equality agenda, amendments to criminal jurisdiction, and the reform and re-organisation of the police, all of which have made a major contribution to pinning down the existing quality of peace.
  Neither peace nor the prosperity to which the Secretary of State referred have been enjoyed equally throughout our community, however. In fact, one could generalise by saying that many of the areas that suffer sectarian strife are the very areas that have not benefited from the peace dividend of higher employment, permanent jobs, better social conditions and better housing. It is no coincidence that that should be the case.
  One of the most difficult aspects of progressing the peace process in the months and years ahead will be the question not of whether there is another tranche of

  247
  decommissioning, nor of whether there will be evidence of complete demobilisation of the paramilitaries whom I abhor. It will be the question of whether we can create an atmosphere in which we can overcome the sectarian hatreds of centuries—not decades—that have been expressed by petrol bombs and pipe bombs, by the burning of houses, and by the eviction of one community by the other and vice versa.
  Everything that we say contributes to the question of whether that problem can be resolved. Each of us, in the House and in Northern Ireland, has a responsibility to ensure that nothing that we say or do adds to the sense of injustice felt—correctly or incorrectly—by many. The reality is that injustices are felt, and we must do our best to alleviate them. That will eventually eradicate the hatred and sectarianism that are the root cause of all the inter-community strife that poses such a threat to the peace process.
  I have no doubt that there are forces in Northern Ireland intent on destroying the peace process. There are others—we have heard expressions of this in tonight's debate—who, in some perverse way, would like to see the peace process falter, purely for political purposes. That would be a grave tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland, and I hope and pray that it will not happen.
  It all depends on the approach that we take to these issues. Quite honestly, the 24 July deadline referred to by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson)—I heard it said also by a Member of the Legislative Assembly, possibly for Belfast North—which threatens withdrawal from the Executive by the Ulster Unionist party, is an invitation to disaster. It is playing into the hands of those who want to wreck the entire process and the relative stability that our community has established with great difficulty and sacrifice.
  Sacrifices have been made by all parts of our community. No one can claim the privilege of being alone in making sacrifices for the greater good. We should acknowledge those sacrifices and compromises for what they are: a massive contribution to the common good of our community. It is legitimate to make robust statements on the political platform, but not to the extent of jeopardising the peace process, which has been so tenderly nurtured.
  Lest my remarks on decommissioning and paramilitaries be misunderstood, I stress that it is an anathema that we have bodies in Northern Ireland with access to illegal guns and bombs. It is a constant background threat to the peace and stability that we are discussing, and it must be eradicated.
  It is imperative that, in the fullness of time, without putting a deadline on it, paramilitary trappings be done away with. The organisation of paramilitarism has been translated partly into a political machine and partly into a mafia-type machine. It is a disgrace that the sovereign Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland should tolerate the existence of unofficial armed, trained and active armies within their jurisdictions.
  Unfortunately, however, we shall have to wear that anomaly for yet another short while. I hope that that stain will soon be removed from our community.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Has it struck my hon. Friend that many of those who urge the leaders of the
  248
  community to destroy the current basis of the Northern Ireland Executive are those who did not support it in its current form right from the start?
  Mr. McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I agree entirely with the implication of what he said. Certainly, those who opposed the Good Friday agreement from its inception and those who oppose the concept of partnership, of working it out and living together, are the very ones who are now saying that the peace process is in danger, and exacerbating that danger by so doing.
  I welcome some elements of the motion. It asks the House to regard the Belfast agreement
  "as representing the best hope for peace and normalisation available or likely to be achievable in Northern Ireland".
  I subscribe fully to that. It then calls on "all parties"—I hope that that includes the Conservatives' sister party, the Ulster Unionist party—
  "to do all they can to contribute to the implementation of the Agreement, forbearance, mutual understanding and respect between the two communities in Northern Ireland, and avoidance of all forms of violence."
  I support that.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Hugo Swire: In last Wednesday's Westminster Hall debate, the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) suggested that a better description of that debate, which was entitled "Northern Ireland Peace Process", would have been "Northern Ireland political process". In doing so, he made a fair point. As I said then, it is difficult to reconcile Northern Ireland's recent history with anything remotely resembling peace.
  We have heard again today of the IRA's alleged involvement in the break-in at Castlereagh police station. There are also the revelations of IRA activity in Colombia and its links with the narco-terrorist FARC group. We still await the chairman of Sinn Fein's unequivocal condemnation of the attempted murder of a Catholic policeman in Ballymena. The personal details of more than 200 people have been discovered on IRA intelligence files—from senior Conservative Members of Parliament, to forensic scientists. A rural police station in Rosslea, County Fermanagh, was attacked by Sinn Fein-IRA youth wing members, and violence recently broke out in Drumcree and the Short Strand area of Belfast.
  That is hardly the stuff of peace. One need only look at the statistics on the shootings and assaults carried out by so-called loyalist and republican groups to see the hard evidence. There is the cowardly and brutish behaviour of the thugs and gangsters who carry out so-called punishment beatings. A stench of fear and intimidation is created by people who are little more than criminals. They carve out their turf in order to extort, threaten, peddle their illicit wares, and contribute to the misery of thousands of decent, law-abiding British citizens. The behaviour of those groups—their members are not all paramilitaries; some are straightforward criminals—would not be tolerated on the mainland, and nor should it be tolerated in Northern Ireland.

  249
  The problem is that organised crime in Northern Ireland is becoming institutionalised. As the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's detailed report on the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland states:
  "Nor is there any room for complaining that the problem is confined to Northern Ireland: these criminals are now turning their attention to the larger and potentially more profitable markets of Great Britain."
  The report includes a chilling table that estimates the running costs and fund-raising capabilities of such groups, according to which the Provisional IRA's running costs are in the region of £1.5 million a year, and its fund-raising capabilities are between £5 million and £8 million. The Real IRA's running costs are estimated at £500,000 a year, and its fund-raising capabilities are between £500,000 and £1 million. The UDA's running costs are estimated at £500,000 a year, and its fund-raising capabilities are between £500,000 and £1 million.
  It is clear that many of those organisations have money left over to invest—to launder—in perfectly respectable mainland businesses, as well as in Northern Ireland itself. Indeed, it is reported that the Provisional IRA has employed accountants. One can only hope that the firm was Andersen.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I agree entirely with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he none the less agree that the Bush Administration, who have taken on global terrorism, should also address Sinn Fein-IRA's funding of terrorism in Northern Ireland through their fund-raising activities in the United States?
  Mr. Swire: I do agree, although there is some evidence that the sums raised in America have dropped substantially in the post-11 September environment. The problem is more endemic in Northern Ireland because paramilitaries and terrorists are finding other ways to institutionalise fund raising and criminality.
  We are told that there have even been instances of paramilitaries from opposing traditions acting together to further their illegal business aims. I welcome the Government's attempts to tackle that ever-growing problem through the establishment of the Assets Recovery Agency. However, I regret that, in the Westminster Hall debate to which I referred, the Minister of State while rightly stating that the Government take the recommendations in the Select Committee's report seriously—chose not to respond to my request that they commit to providing the agency with the resources that it needs from day one. Can it really be true that only 10 officers in the police service are assigned to investigate general organised crime by the paramilitaries? As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said, the police ombudsman in Northern Ireland employs 103 staff. That is 10 times more people to investigate complaints against the police than are employed to investigate complaints against criminals.
  Many aspects of the Belfast agreement are either not working, or not working as well as they should. The Prime Minister, Jonathan Powell, or whoever is still driving these matters from No. 10, seem so preoccupied with the concept of a peace process that they ignore the reality of what is going on under their noses. Paramilitaries are making a mockery of the Belfast agreement. Whenever the Government make a concession or turn a blind eye, it only serves to undermine the agreement.
  250
  If the Government are serious about saving the peace process—there is every reason to suppose that they are—they should remember what the process was all about originally. The Prime Minister should be reminded of his famous speeches at the Balmoral showground and at Coleraine in 1998, when he set out the tests against which any ceasefire had to be judged. He said that they had to be complete and unequivocal, and bring an end to targeting, shootings, beatings and the procurement of new weapons. He said that paramilitary organisations would have to be dismantled and that the tests would become more rigorous over time.
  The Government must get their priorities right. They should concentrate on helping those people who have been driven out of their country by fear and intimidation—something about which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) always argues so positively. The Government should not concentrate on locating and absolving on-the-run terrorists, as was discussed at Weston Park.
  The Government must get tougher on decommissioning. More guns have come into Northern Ireland recently than have ever been decommissioned. The Minister of State said last week that the two acts of IRA decommissioning were of enormous symbolic significance. To whom are they symbolic? To whom are they significant? We need real, unequivocal decommissioning, not piecemeal decommissioning carried out at times of political advantage to the terrorist organisations.
  The Government must act firmly and fast. More importantly, they must commit whatever resources are needed to break the backs of the godfathers who are responsible for the misery in Northern Ireland, and to whom the peace process is a threat. If the police are given the resources to weed out the criminal gangs, the never-ending cycle of violence will be significantly reduced. The temperature in Northern Ireland will fall, and the peace process will have a chance of working. I cannot believe that there is one hon. Member in the Chamber tonight who does not want that, at least.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am sad to think that some people do not consider the statement made by the IRA today to be significant or important, and that they would disregard it. Such people talk of past pains as though they were suffered only by people on one side of the community, or by one family.
  I believe that the IRA statement and its intentions must be tested. We must see where it leads us, but the statement contains an acknowledgement of the pain and grief suffered by the relatives of the people who the IRA consider to be combatants. It also makes apologies for the people who were viciously wounded or killed as a result of IRA activities. That makes it the most profound statement from the IRA that we have had, and we should recognise and welcome that.
  We should welcome the statement, and then test it. The statement's penultimate sentence reads:
  "We remain totally committed to the peace process and to dealing with the challenges and difficulties which this presents"
  Some of those challenges and difficulties are within the IRA. One problem for the IRA's political leadership is maintaining the movement's unity and leading the

  251
  movement through the peace process. That is part of the challenge facing IRA leaders, and we should understand that.
  I am not making an apologia for the IRA. I regard it as responsible for the greatest setback in constitutional nationalism in Ireland and for the destruction of the civil rights movement there. It has caused attention to be turned away from the real grievances of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, and towards the violence that it caused to take place on the streets. People should be in no doubt about where I stand with regard to the IRA, but we must recognise the importance of the IRA statement.
  Among various speculation about the significance of the timing, Conservative Members claim that the IRA statement has been made in light of the statement that is to be made next week. That may be the case. However, the date that the IRA has chosen to commemorate in the statement is the anniversary of one of the most bloody events that has ever occurred in Belfast, as a result of its bombing. Not only did people die, as it says in the letter, but hoax calls were made and terrible casualties were caused. For those of us who were active at the time and who remember, it was a most horrific occasion, and the IRA has chosen the anniversary of that day to issue its statement. We should recognise that and understand what has happened.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as I lost my message boy, paper boy and a member of my choir on that occasion. However, does not the IRA's "search for freedom" imply that the fight goes on until it ceases to be ruled by this Government?
  Mr. McNamara: I think that the IRA is talking about its political wish to obtain a united Ireland, which was recognised in both the Good Friday and Hillsborough agreements. That is what its political fight seeks to achieve. I understand that. However, it has grasped the constitutional, political method of seeking to achieve it. Again, we must remember that.
  In our debate last week, I welcomed the progress that had been made by the pro-agreement parties and the implementation plan to consider progress under the Good Friday agreement and keep it going. I argued then, as I argue now, that the greatest thing to be achieved is the communities' acceptance, through their political representatives, that the Good Friday agreement and all that has flowed from it is theirs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) spelt out the political advantages for both parties and the material advantages for both communities. They said that it was not all give on one side and take on the other, but that both sides had to reach their communities. Powerful speeches were made.
  Last week, I, along with many other colleagues in the House, received a delegation of women from Short Strand, who gave an account of what was happening in their community. They conveyed the nightmare that they, their families and neighbours experienced every day. That is no doubt repeated in other communities. They spoke
  252
  with fear but not hate, and were confident of their own abilities and in the process of peace. They looked to their political leaders to promote political remedies.
  I welcome the moves that have been made by all communities to address street violence in recent days. The Orange order has maintained a calming influence; in Derry, Sinn Fein stopped the persecution of people in the Fountain and the Waterside. I understand that Sinn Fein also took some of its young republicans to stay for a while in the Short Strand to understand what intimidation meant, so that they could understand what they were doing to the people in the Fountain. That was an extremely educative action.
  I believe that in the year ahead, the institutions created by the Good Friday agreement must be made more robust and durable. That can be done only if the people operating the institutions reach out to others.
  All eyes are focused on the Assembly elections, and all sorts of hypotheses are being put forward. The great thing is that everyone is concentrating on the election and what is going to happen. They are wondering about the results of a political process, which is something that did not happen to such a degree before. This is real politics. We should welcome and encourage that and do everything positive that we can to ensure that the arrangements that are established continue and flourish. The best way to achieve that is not to create new deadlines next week or new hurdles and obstacles to progress—hoops through which one particular party must jump.
  Opponents of the Belfast agreement have pursued a relentless campaign to exclude Sinn Fein from the political process. The louder they shout for republican exclusion, the more disturbing is their silence over violence emanating from violent Unionism—from the loyalist paramilitaries. Conversely, the more they shout for the exclusion of Sinn Fein, the more they strengthen those elements within the republican movement who did not want the Good Friday agreement anyway and who say to their leadership, "There you are. You took these steps and everything that you have done is being thrown back in your face."
  That is a dangerous attitude and one that I hope we will avoid in next week's statement. I hope that we will encourage the parties. Obviously, we cannot accept any degree of violence. There is no tolerable side to violence wherever it is—Sinn Fein, the UDA or anyone else.
  We must also take steps to understand sectarianism better. One sad thing is that the police in Northern Ireland keep no record of sectarian attacks, whether those are balloon water bombs or pipe bombs. Sectarianism is not noted.
  Macpherson's definition of a racist incident ought to be adapted for sectarian incidents in Northern Ireland. A sectarian incident should be any incident that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be sectarian. We should set about establishing the criteria laid down in the Macpherson report, adapting his definition of racist crime to sectarian crime. Such crime should be catalogued and followed through using the procedures suggested by Macpherson to try to root out sectarianism and hatred, in what will be difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland.
  David Burnside rose—
  Mr. McNamara: I will not give way as I only have a minute and I do not wish to take colleagues' time.

  253
  By adopting that sort of policy, we can achieve much. The process will be long and difficult, but we should accept it as a positive challenge.
  10.3 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall dwell on matters that are relevant to my constituency, which I have represented in this House for more than 30 years.
  At the heart of that constituency lies a middle town, Ballymena, where there is a mixed housing estate. A young man there—a Roman Catholic—desired to join the new police organisation. He applied and was accepted and appointed. IRA-Sinn Fein commenced a campaign in that estate with posters and leaflets to every house, depicting the new police service as another Royal Ulster Constabulary and branding it for murders, discrimination and other activities. The result was that the IRA came to destroy that young man. Its leaflets called on the people to treat new recruits of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in the same way that the police had treated the IRA. It was a miracle—an act of God—that the bomb did not go off and that that young life was not destroyed, and his father and mother as well.
  How can any organisation say that it is for peace when its chairman was asked, "Do you condemn what happened in Ballymena", and he refused to condemn it? I have before me a statement from the IRA and I shall read from it in the light of that. Why should I not? It is an up-to-date reference to what has taken place. Indeed, in Rosslea, there was a vicious attack on the police station and Gildernew, a leading member of Sinn Fein-IRA, defended and justified it. She was elected to this place and has an office here, but does not take her seat. She refused to condemn that attack.
  The statement includes condolences but they are limited only to the families of non-combatants. It states:
  "We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families…we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us…There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides. We also"—
  What? "Express our sincere apologies"? No. "Tender our condolences"? No. The sentence continues—
  "acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives."
  If ever there was a whitewash, that is it.
  Do we really expect the people of Northern Ireland to believe as they listen to this debate that we are bearing some wonderful fruit? The statement concludes:
  "The IRA is unequivocally committed to the search for freedom, justice and peace in Northern Ireland. We remain totally committed to the peace process."
  They tell us that they are committed to the peace process, but since they commenced their ceasefire they have murdered 14 people, shot 160 people and carried out paramilitary beatings on 250 people. They have run guns from Florida, carried out exercises in training narco-terrorists in Colombia and raided the special branch offices at Castlereagh to gather information better to target people. They have even targeted members of the Conservative party as well as all the Unionist Members of this place.
  So this is peace. What do people in Northern Ireland with anguish in their hearts think of this House when it expresses defence of that statement? I leave it at that.
  254
  The Mitchell principles stated that there must be a total and absolute commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues. The IRA signed up to that but they do not keep it—they break it. There must be total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. I was amazed to hear people in this House say how terrible it was that we should think—how could we possibly?—that all decommissioning could take place and all beatings could finish overnight.
  On 22 May 1998, the Prime Minister said:
  "Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't just mean decommissioning, but all bombings, killings, beatings and an end to targeting, recruiting, and all the structures of terrorism."
  There are people in the House trying to pillory the people whom I represent and the view of those people because we have asked for what the Prime Minister promised. The time has come for the Prime Minister to deliver his promise. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want, and they have a right to do so. There is not an hon. Member from the rest of the United Kingdom who would have such things going on in their constituency and lie down about it—they would be up in arms about it, and they would protest in the House—yet the Northern Ireland people have endured great hardship.
  The Mitchell recommendations call on the parties
  "To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations".
  Is the IRA living up to that? The recommendations go on:
  "To agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached at all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree".
  Does the IRA do that? The recommendations continue:
  "To urge that 'punishment' killings and beating stops, and to take effective steps to prevent such actions."
  That is what the IRA said that it would do. All of us signed up to that, but only some have lived up to it.
  We expect the Government to do what a Government are supposed to do: to make people subject to the law. All men equal under the law. All men equally subject to the law. That is what we are asking for tonight.
  I must say that I take it rather hard from the Secretary of State because he read a statement by Ambassador Haass, who changes his attitude to terrorism when he leaves America. I am glad that I am telling the House tonight what I told him face to face. When he leaves America, he does not suggest war to the death against terrorism. America is not going to declare war against other countries because of terrorism—Oh, no!—and he told me and my party that he believes that IRA-Sinn Fein must be in the Government.
  The idea that the Americans broadcast for the good of their people is that they cannot have terrorists about the place at all, but when they come to Northern Ireland they suddenly say that IRA-Sinn Fein must be in the Government. Why do they say that? They do so because they want to keep the Prime Minister of this country on their side.
  What is the end of all this going to be? On 24 July, we will hear from the Prime Minister. I understand that there will be a question high up on the Order Paper in the name

  255
  of an official Unionist, and the Prime Minister will reply to that question. That is all we will have—a question and an answer—and then the House will adjourn.
  I say in closing that no one was more relieved than the people of Northern Ireland about the comparative quiet that we had on 12 July. I was certainly very pleased when an SDLP Member of the Assembly congratulated the independent Orangemen in Ballycastle on the way they ordered their march. Although there was great antagonism at the beginning by people in the street, nothing happened to cause a breach of the peace. I am glad that even our opponents acknowledge that. Long may that continue in Northern Ireland.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: I am aware that some of my colleagues wish to speak, so I hope that I will be forgiven if I speak a little faster than I would normally speak.
  I want to give the House some background to my interest in Northern Ireland. It started in 1985 when I made a visit as a student journalist to Northern Ireland, along with half a dozen or so of my colleagues. We visited Connolly house in Belfast and spoke to Sinn Fein members who had served time for arms offences in the Maze prison. We visited Knock barracks and spoke to officers of the RUC. We spoke to members of the UUP and the DUP at their headquarters, to the SDLP and to trade unions.
  Three things occurred to me at the time and shortly afterwards. First, everyone in Northern Ireland at the time had their own idea of how the troubles could be resolved if only everybody else would listen to them and be persuaded of their point of view. Secondly, everyone to whom we spoke was very keen to listen to our perspective on the troubles in Northern Ireland, coming from mainland Britain. They were just as keen to listen to us as we were to listen to them until we said something with which they did not agree, in which case they would say, "What do you know? You don't live here!" Thirdly, the metaphor of an immoveable object being acted on by an irresistible force was never more accurately used than when describing Northern Ireland politics.
  One of the most moving tributes that I have ever seen to victims of violence in Northern Ireland was at Knock barracks. I do not know whether it is still there—Unionist Members may be able to tell me. There was a book encased in glass, and on each page of that book was the name of an officer of the RUC who had been killed by terrorism during the troubles. Every day, the glass is lifted, and one page is moved on. I found that a very simple but incredibly moving tribute, and the image has stayed with me. Whenever I show friends, relatives or constituents around the House of Commons, I am always careful to point out the shield above the main door as we enter the Chamber bearing the name of Airey Neave, a genuine world war two hero who was murdered by terrorists in 1979.
  I have no intention of going through a long list of the many victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland over the past 35 years. What I believe is that the peace process is not simply about addressing long-held political grievances; it is primarily about ending the dreadful waste
  256
  of life and restoring a degree of normality to Northern Ireland. No greater monument to the victims of violence could be imagined than long-term, secure peace for the people of Northern Ireland.
  I understand completely why Members representing both Unionist parties have reservations about the way in which the peace process has developed. When I voted for Sinn Fein Members to have offices in this place, I did not do so with a spring in my step. I did not enjoy seeing convicted murderers being released from the Maze and being welcomed home as if they were conquering heroes. I am extremely worried by the fact that many terrorist organisations are still sitting on a stockpile of lethal weapons. Any assessment of the Good Friday agreement must go beyond a simplistic score chart, however, on which so-called concessions are listed in one column or another as a plus or a minus.
  The question that we must answer tonight is this: is Northern Ireland today a better place to live? What are the poverty and unemployment levels? Do young people in Northern Ireland now have an opportunity to pursue a career, to thrive, to marry and to have a secure life in Northern Ireland instead of moving out? For the first time in 35 years, I think that we can answer yes to that.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, in the three and a half years up to the IRA's first ceasefire in 1994, there were 343 killings. In the past three and a half years, there have been only 50. I will not adopt the position of Reginald Maudling, a former Home Secretary, who said that there was such a thing as an "acceptable level of violence", as, clearly, there is not. I will mention, however, this one factor: the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has seen a 22.8 per cent. drop in unemployment between May 1997 and May 2002; every one of the 11 constituencies represented by official Unionist and Democratic Unionist MPs in the House has seen a far greater reduction in unemployment. Surely that is something that we should value in this debate.
  Time is pressing on me and I do not want to detain the House any longer, as colleagues want to speak. I want to make one comment, however, on something that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) mentioned. He spoke of deadlines. I am not aware of a single occasion—I certainly know of no recent occasion—on which imposing a deadline helped. I do not believe that deadlines are helpful at all. Surely it is better to drive slowly and reach a destination than to drive fast and be unable to manoeuvre at the next bend.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: One thing achieved by the vote by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) to give Sinn Fein MPs their peculiar and unique status here was our ability to receive an e-mail from Fisherj@parliament.uk containing an IRA statement 50 minutes before the embargo. That is at least one bonus.
  I believe that the tone of the debate has entirely vindicated the Opposition's decision to devote our last Supply day before the recess to this important issue, and to a process that has now reached a serious stage. Let me briefly dispose of the least serious contribution, that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). He failed to deal with any of the hard questions, and

  257
  continued his efforts to be misleading about the Conservative position. He really must become serious, and his party must address the hard questions without seeking to avoid them as its members did in voting for Sinn Fein membership of the House, when there were 14 votes in favour, 14 against and 24 abstentions. I will remind the hon. Gentleman of that for as long as he continues to misrepresent the Conservative position.
  The Secretary of State was right to draw attention to the contradictory signals that are emerging in regard to events in Northern Ireland—some good, some bad. He also told us, however, that the real test lay in the fact that the transition must continue. He mentioned the four elements identified by Richard Haass. I particularly endorse what he said about the requirement for leadership, strength and courage on the part of all involved in the process, to condition their own communities and help take them towards peace.
  The Secretary of State spoke of risk aversion. All too often, the tactics of Her Majesty's Government have seemed to be risk aversion—doing whatever is necessary to keep the process going. Now, however, we are hearing much more robust language from both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, which I welcome. There should be no halfway house. The difficult questions must be faced now, and rights and responsibilities must be exercised in full.
  Notwithstanding that language from the Secretary of State, there was equivocation when he hid behind the issue of devolved power. Ultimately, he cannot expect the SDLP to do the Government's work for them in delivering a cross-community vote—as the Assembly is currently made up—to take Sinn Fein out of the Executive, if that is what is required if Sinn Fein does not deliver on its obligations.
  Both the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) quoted the Prime Minister. I think that we can be pleased with the words the Prime Minister used today when facing questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), a Select Committee Chairman. He said "I do accept that we've reached a point where we say these things are unacceptable—that it is the right moment to reflect on this—and I hope we can do this." I have relied on my own notes rather than producing a transcript of what the Prime Minister said, but I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that his language today seemed to be entirely in line with the language that he used in 1998 at the Balmoral showground and in the House—language that has been quoted extensively by Unionist Members. The tone of the Government's approach to the debate is now correct. The seriousness with which all Members have contributed to it reflects that.
  I have to say to the Secretary of State that there is now a requirement to take risks. That does not mean taking risks to court unpopularity in making further concessions. The Government may have to take a risk with the process itself, and test what Richard Haass has identified. He said that the process must be robust and resilient enough to withstand setbacks, violence and its opponents. The Government may now have to take those risks and test the words of the IRA. To use the language of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the IRA statement is welcome as far as it goes. However, Sinn
  258
  Fein and the IRA are two sides of precisely the same coin, and we must take them at their word to see what their commitment to wholly peaceful means really is.
  10.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): In the best traditions of the House, we have had a useful, lively and good-humoured debate. Several points have emerged that would command the agreement of all, or almost all, Members on both sides of the House. Given the time that I have, I hope that hon. Members will accept that I will not take interventions in my short contribution.
  The first point of agreement is that the carrying forward of the peace process under the Belfast agreement must be about exclusively peaceful means. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said—hon. Members have referred to this—there is no acceptable level of violence. Indeed, the street violence of recent days is not acceptable. It is wrong, futile and must not go on if those concerned have any interest in the development of a happy and prosperous future for Northern Ireland. We will not see the development of a normal society while people resort to violence. All those involved—the rioter, the paramilitary delivering beatings and shootings to teenagers, the racketeer feathering his nest while claiming to "protect" his community—ruin lives and destroy hope.
  Paramilitary violence, anything that appears to constitute preparation for such violence or the keeping of a war machine in existence are also unacceptable. There must be clear signs that the process of transition to exclusively peaceful means is advancing and is, indeed, irreversible. Anything else would be inimical to confidence. That brings me to the second point of agreement. The process must command the confidence of both communities. It was the essence of the underlying bargain embodied in the Belfast agreement that all sides would put down arms, work exclusively peacefully and work together in co-operation. All those elements must be present.
  The third point that would command general agreement is that the leaderships of both communities must work for confidence and to address the concerns of the other community. The Government, and I believe the Irish Government, will do what we can, but delivering confidence is essentially within the control of the parties and their associates. I believe that the leaderships are working in that direction, but that work must go on. Recent events have caused serious questioning of the basis of trust on which the agreement depends, but the great majority of hon. Members would agree that there is no way forward other than the agreement. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) acknowledged that.
  The benefits that the agreement has brought to the people of Northern Ireland have been rehearsed here and in a debate in Westminster Hall last week. I will not reiterate them, but they are fundamental. The difficulties that we face, serious as they are, must not be allowed to mask the enormous advances that have been made. We were in a much more serious position a few years ago. All those advances are at risk if the present process is not carried forward. It must therefore be for all us of to work to ensure that that happens.
  There has been talk of sanctions. That is understandable. The Government realise that there must be consequences if those involved in the process are not

  259
  all clearly set on the democratic and exclusively peaceful path. I take issue with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). The debate should not be about exclusion. We will have failed if anyone is excluded. We are about ensuring that the agreement works properly and that people complete the necessary transition from violence to exclusively peaceful means.
  However, that is not to say that there will be no sanctions. Our approach is not passive. If violence continues, there are bound to be consequences. That is what we will consider in the coming days, but there is no point in being punitive for the sake of it. Our purpose has to be to change behaviour, building on the great advances that have been made.
  I am aware of the sense of hopelessness in some areas. I see it regularly when I receive deputations not just from the Unionist community, but from people on all sides, especially those who live with and experience the difficulties in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge that in some instances there are poor material prospects, and that some people feel that their identity and place in the UK are under threat, but those fears are unfounded. However, it behoves us—the Government, the devolved authorities, the police, local politicians and community leaders—to redouble our efforts to reduce tensions, to improve conditions and to invest in peace. When we do so, the dividend will be a more harmonious and prosperous society for all in Northern Ireland.
  I wish to take issue with something that the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said. The Assets Recovery Agency will have the resources that it needs at the outset. His representation of my comments was inaccurate. Does he think that the amendments that his party supported in the House of Lords, which hamstring the Assets Recovery Agency—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, the debate stood adjourned.

  Northern Ireland Peace Process

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 92) (HC 877) on Special Grant for Asylum Seekers Support (Adults and Families of Asylum Seekers) for 1999–2000, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 92) (HC 877) on Special Grant for Asylum Seekers Support (Adults and Families of Asylum Seekers) for 1999–2000, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

      CONTRACTING OUT
      That the draft Contracting Out (Functions of Local Authorities: Income-Related Benefits) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 26th June. be approved.
      PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
      That the draft Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 3rd July. be approved.

      TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
      That the draft Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
      That the draft Part-time workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
      Question agreed to.

      PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS
      Ordered,
      That the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1807) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Kemp.]

  PETITIONS

    Traffic Congestion
    10.33 pm
    Andrew Selous: The petition, which has been signed by more than 25,000 local residents, states:
    To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
    The humble petition of residents of South Bedfordshire showeth
    That the traffic congestion in Dunstable and Houghton Regis, and the consequent rat-running in the surrounding villages, is appalling; that the people of South Bedfordshire have had to put up with the congestion for far too long; that plans for local bypasses, in place as long ago as 1936, have been repeatedly ignored; and that a proper bypass will enhance the quality of life for all who live and work in South Bedfordshire and is vital for their future.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that a northern bypass is built for Dunstable and Houghton Regis, extending the Leighton Buzzard southern relief road, the A505, from its junction with the A5 to the M1 and on to the A6 and that an HGV ban (other than for access requirements) is imposed through Dunstable and that the A5 through Dunstable is detrunked as a result; and that at the same time the Secretary of State shall undertake a detailed study into the most suitable way of achieving a link from the northern bypass to the Woodside Industrial Estate to relieve congestion in Houghton Regis and the Poynters Road and Luton Road areas of Dunstable and to provide uncongested access for businesses to the M1.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    International Trade
    10.36 pm
    Valerie Davey: I am pleased to present this petition, signed by 500 people, and I give them my support. The petition reads:

    To the House of Commons,

    The Petition of St Bonaventure's Parish, Bristol,

    Declares that poorer countries should be able to lift themselves out of poverty.

    261

    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to push for Fairer International Trading Rules,

    And the Petitioners remain, etc.

    To lie upon the Table.

    Driving Offences
    10.37 pm
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I support the petition and the 14,520 people who signed it. It states:
    The petition of residents of Orchard Park, Greenwood and Hull North, and others,
    Declares that they are concerned about the insufficient sentences imposed by magistrates for driving offences; that in a recent case in Hull, the court fined a driver £200 and disqualified him from driving for 12 months despite having established that he had no car insurance, no MOT, defective brakes, two defective tyres, defective lights, a defective windscreen washer and no registration plate and that, sadly, the driver in this case had hit a nine-year old boy, resulting in the boy's death, and that the driver had failed to report the incident to the police.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to review the range of sentences available to the courts in such cases, and to take such measures as lie within his power to ensure that magistrates use the full rigour of the law at their disposal.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Policing (Merseyside)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  10.38 pm
  Dr. John Pugh: When I was standing at the taxi rank at Euston following my arrival in London on Monday, I noticed a sign saying, "You are safer in Merseyside than you are in London". I do not know what effect that sign is supposed to have—whether it is meant to make one get back on the train to Merseyside or to make people look over their shoulder while they stand at the taxi rank—but it is none the less a fact.
  I want to engage the Minister in what I hope will be a constructive and thought-provoking dialogue about the position of Merseyside police. I apologise to him and to you, Mr. Speaker, for keeping us up so late, but I want to present a reasoned case for increased resources for Merseyside. I know that the Minister will probably say that under the comprehensive spending review, everyone will get increased resources. Increased resources are the order of the day. The Government's coffers are now open and largesse is pouring out.
  There has, however, been a systematic failure by the Home Office to appreciate what policing Merseyside means. Historically, there has been a stand-off between the Home Office on the one hand and Merseyside police authority and the Merseyside police on the other. Merseyside police authority and the Merseyside police have repeatedly said that they want more resources, but the Home Office has remained firmly indifferent. I am a veteran of that process. Many years ago, I was a member of the Merseyside police authority when it was a truly democratic body, and went down to London with an all-party delegation to the Home Office. I saw the then Home Secretary—to give the House an idea of how long ago that was, the post was held by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). We complained about the cuts facing us, our problems and the lack of police manpower. We were given sympathy and, I think, tea, but not very much money. Part of the problem was that the Home Office was persuaded that demographic factors were against the Merseyside area. The population was falling so why, in the circumstances, should more police be required? Logically, I suppose, the Home Office could have argued that fewer police were required. I dare say that it was encouraged when subsequently some crime figures in the Merseyside conurbation went down, particularly in connection with burglary. When they did not go down, they did not necessarily go up at the same rate as in other conurbations.
  The Home Office said one thing, the police authority another, and Merseyside police reiterated the views of the authority—that scenario has been repeated year after year. I want to dwell for a second on the reaction of Merseyside police, which is constructive, rather than negative. The force has progressed civilianisation throughout the force, so that front line officers are doing front line duties, and ancillary tasks not related to policing are taken on by civilians. That is commendable and desirable, and in line with Home Office policy.
  Decriminalisation of parking offences has taken place in at least two authorities in the Merseyside police area. Consequently, the police are less preoccupied with those

  263
  chores. The business of school crossings has been transferred to local authorities. The police have therefore done what they can to cope with diminishing resources. There has also been much concentration on target hardening, making it difficult for burglars to gain access to domestic and business premises. Operation Bumblebee was successful in reducing substantially opportunities for burglars and the burglary figures on Merseyside. There has been a plethora of community partnerships, including the safer Merseyside partnership and satellite partnerships. The public has been consulted on ways of addressing the causes, effects and incidence of crime. There has been wholesale encouragement of home watch schemes and bids, successful and unsuccessful, for closed circuit television. All of that has made calls on the police less necessary because the causes of crime have been addressed.
  The police have therefore done what they can to keep their house in order against a background of what they believe to be insubstantial resources. In turn, they have addressed some of their internal problems. In the early stages of the police authority's existence, there was a distinct tendency to save money by forcing expensive, highly paid officers into early retirement. That saved money one year but, of course, cost money in subsequent years. The police authority backed away from that strategy, and has since taken an intelligent approach to managing its resources. To be perfectly honest, absenteeism figures for Merseyside have not been the best in England. The police have paid attention to that and brought the figures down. They have done their best to resolve their problems against the background of the resources that they have, but the fundamental problem is that on Merseyside there is still a manifest fear of crime and a perceived and real shortage of police.
  That registers as public concern, especially about public order offences—youths creating annoyance in local streets, and more substantial annoyance in town centres, where crime occurs. There is general public concern throughout the whole Merseyside area, and certainly in my constituency.
  Something that worries, excites and energises the public is the reaction time of the police when dealing with crime. The fact is, if there are not enough police, few of them can reach the scene quickly.
  Clearly, the public want the police not just to deal with crimes when they occur, but to be there so that crimes do not occur. They want a more visible and effective police presence. The entire Merseyside community wants a greater degree of neighbourhood security. That can be provided only by a proper number of uniformed, trained police. Although other strategies have been tried, such as community wardens—I do not in any way denigrate such a scheme—it is a fact that only a uniformed, trained bobby can have the impact on a scene of disorder that the public expect, want and legitimately look to the police force to provide.
  Merseyside police have recognised the need for proper neighbourhood policing schemes and the need to be properly embodied in their community. They have done all they can to involve themselves in their community, to involve themselves with youth and to involve themselves in various sporting occasions where people who may be
  264
  thought to cause annoyance can be occupied profitably. I pay due respect to those in the police force who have done their best along those lines.
  That is all very good. It is entirely desirable and in line with Home Office policy, as I am sure the Minister would agree. However, it is against a background of a perceived fall of 500 in the police force in Merseyside. That is not a fabricated figure that I have produced for the occasion. It has been repeated by the chief constable on several occasions. He believes that there has been a historic fall in police numbers, and Merseyside has to live with that.
  Last year, for the council tax payer of Merseyside, the facts were stark and not too encouraging. The precept for the police last year went up by 11 per cent. It would have gone up more, had it not been for the fact that £1.6 million of balances were used. It could conceivably be more next year. For that sum, there were no extra police. There was no contribution to the increasing number of police who are required by the Government across England. Worse still—this is a point on which I will press the Minister—there is the spectre of matters getting worse.
  Last year Merseyside police managed by virtue of having a damping grant. The expectation is that that damping grant may not be there in future under the comprehensive spending review. Simply to make ends meet next year, therefore, there may need to be a higher rise in the council tax or a bigger problem for the police budget.
  Other problems, which I am sure the Minister would recognise, although he is not prepared to do anything about them, because in a sense they are historic, are the substantial problems created by the burden of police pensions on the police budget. It may interest the Minister to know that last year it was calculated that more retired policemen were funded out of the police budget than active policemen. That is why the leader of the local city council, Councillor Mike Storey, asked for an investigation into how Merseyside was being policed.
  I believe that the Home Office has not appreciated the reality of the situation facing Merseyside police, and I should like the Minister to comment on that. It is not just a matter of how many people there are to police; it is a matter of the policing task that the force has to perform. Merseyside police are doing not just a local job, but a national job, and some would say an international job. Liverpool is a port, it has an airport and it has all the problems associated with that.
  I am reliably informed—the source is the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency—that 60 per cent. of all drugs consumed in Scotland, which I imagine to be a considerable amount, are routed through Merseyside. Fifty per cent. of all Customs and Excise seizures have Merseyside links. Merseyside is identified by criminal intelligence as the main distribution centre for class controlled drugs and increasingly is a major centre for black market cigarettes.
  That is a national and an international problem. It draws substantial sums out of the mainstream budget available for ordinary policing in Liverpool. The police calculate that the figure could be about £14 million. That excludes any contribution to the national crime squad. In addition, following any attempt that the police make to address the issues of well organised crime, costs are incurred by schemes such as witness protection. There is some very high profile, very expensive crime in Liverpool, and my

  265
  message to the Minister is that that is drawing resources from other budgets. There is, however, no apparent awareness of that reflected in the performance indicators presented to the Home Office.
  To be fair, crime has fallen in Merseyside, which could now be said to be safer than other conurbations. I have seen statistics that appear to suggest that, and perhaps the claim on the poster outside Euston station is not too far from the truth. The invisible crime, however, is serious, and it is never far away. Last month, in my own constituency of Southport, which people might consider to be a safe, law-abiding place, two individuals were beaten to death with baseball bats in a drug-related crime. That crime, undoubtedly horrific in itself, will also be very costly to clear up, as all such crimes are.
  On a parochial note, both my own constituency and Liverpool are developing tourist industries involving substantial amounts of European, private, Government and local government funding. That investment is pouring in, but with it come tens of thousands of extra visitors, who appear on a seasonal, nightly or occasional basis. No adjustment is made for the extra policing needs that that provokes. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how the expansion of the tourist industry creates additional policing needs and requirements.
  A big event in one part of the Merseyside conurbation seems to take resources from another. Even a simple event such as Liverpool playing at home can draw policemen out of Southport, St. Helens and other parts of the conurbation, because manpower is spread very thinly. That is particularly manifest at night, and Liverpool and Southport both have a thriving night life. There is clearly a need to control that environment and to provide a safe and secure environment in which young people—not just young people, all people—can enjoy themselves without fear of crime. That is not easy in a conurbation in which the police recognise that one third of security firms have criminal connections.
  Correlated with the thriving night life must be a vast amount of unreported crime—some minor, some major, but an awful lot of it preventable. If I had a few extra policemen in Southport to stand at a taxi rank at pub closing or club closing time, I could almost certainly guarantee a significant reduction in incidents and a safer environment for all and sundry.
  I am making a plea to the Minister to consider Merseyside a special case with regard to police resources and manpower. I have read with interest the comprehensive spending review, and I note that it speaks of technology. It is, however fairly unspecific—perhaps the Minister can be more specific—about people, bodies and police. That is what we require: human beings to staff the force. I have nothing against technology; it makes an important contribution to the fight against crime, but, so far as we are concerned, there is no substitute for manpower. In fact, any attempt to make it a substitute for manpower would really ruin matters.
  To keep a presence on the streets, Merseyside police have been driven at times to evacuating the police stations. At such times, people call the police only to find that they are not there, or to be confronted by an exotic call-waiting system. The call-waiting system that the Merseyside police have is bizarre in the extreme; it seems to have been built for business, not for the needs of people who urgently require the police. I have genuinely been
  266
  put in a calling queue after dialling 999, and I am told that, on certain such occasions, one can listen to Vivaldi. That is fair enough for people with only a trivial inquiry, but for people with a serious problem that they want immediately addressed, such as a burglar in their house, perhaps listening to Vivaldi is not altogether the right outcome.
  I understand—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the police force on Merseyside is soon to be inspected. I welcome that, and I hope that there is nothing to hide. I know what we want, and I think I know what the Minister wants, namely a peaceable, active, economically vibrant Merseyside. That is what I want, too, and I hope that we agree on the ends and the means. The comprehensive spending review needs to offer some hope for the area's long-standing ambition to have more police. Does he accept that Merseyside has peculiar features that may require additional policing?
  If earned autonomy is the Government's theme of the moment, we in Merseyside have surely earned something. We are hampered by organised crime and challenged by commercial expansion, and we have been discouraged by successive Home Secretaries, but still people have tried their best to make do with what resources we have, trying actively to develop a strategy of neighbourhood policing. I am sure that the population devoutly wishes that it will work, but we really need the police numbers to deliver, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some hope that we will get them.
  10.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this debate, and on the measured way in which he presented his case. This will be a useful opportunity to air some of the concerns that have been raised about policing on Merseyside. As he will recognise, the Government are improving police resources so that they can play their key part in tackling crime and disorder and improving community safety. Resources for policing overall have increased by 6.1 per cent. in 2002–03, building on a 10 per cent. increase in 2001–02. We are currently considering the provisions made under the 2002 spending review, so I cannot tonight go into the detail that he requests.
  Under the funding settlement for 2002–03, Merseyside police authority has been allocated grant of £229.1 million, an increase of £5.2 million, which is broadly in line with the average increase in the year in grant for forces in England and Wales.
  Merseyside also receives £7.5 million through the crime fighting fund and £5.6 million in capital allocations. The overall increase in funding over 2001–02, including those elements, is £9.4 million. In addition, Merseyside will benefit from money for DNA profiling and extra money for Airwave, the new radio communications system. It can expect up to £9.1 million for Airwave this year.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the funding formula. He knows that the Government's consultation document covering reform of the system used to distribute grant to English local authorities was published on 8 July. The system covers all the key local government services, including education, personal social services, police, fire and a wide range of other responsibilities. The consultation paper draws together potential changes for

  267
  funding for all local government services. There is a 12-week consultation period before decisions will be taken. The aim is to provide a fairer, simpler and more stable formula as a basis on which to allocate grants. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will make representations as an individual, and I will be interested to see his party's representations about any changes that should be made to the allocation formula.
  With the help of the recruitment funded by the crime fighting fund, police strength is well on track for the Government's target of 130,000 police officers by spring 2003, which will be an all-time record for police numbers in England and Wales.
  I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says about areas with falling populations and the particular problems that that can cause for all local government services. However, I should point out that, excluding the Greater London area, Merseyside has the highest ratio of officers to population. In September 2001, there were 292 officers per 100,000 population, compared with the figure for England and Wales of 236. Police numbers in Merseyside fell by 484 between 1990 and 1997, and numbers continued to fall by a further 149 between 1997 and 2001. The position has been stabilised with the help of money from the crime fighting fund. Between March 2001 and January 2002, numbers rose by 28, to 4,113.
  The CFF has helped to halt the decline in police strength in Merseyside. The force has been allocated 332 CFF recruits, over and above previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003. Merseyside police recruited 125 officers through the CFF, and in 2002–03 it recruited 94 officers through the CFF. It will be able to take on a further 114 recruits in 2002–03.
  We sometimes felt that the contributions of the hon. Gentleman's party were a little stifling, but they were not entirely negative in respect of the Police Reform Bill's proposals. I hear what he says about numbers on the streets and the need for officers. By next year, there will be 130,000 officers on our streets—an all-time record—but there remains a need for reassurance. The measures in the Police Reform Bill have the potential to provide such reassurance through community safety officers—the extended police family.
  The hon. Gentleman talked of Merseyside's contribution to the national crime squad as if it were entirely outgoing. For obvious reasons, we cannot discuss the detail of the squad's work with Merseyside police, but I should point out that extensive work is being undertaken in that regard. As he knows, in June a major drug supply network, based on Merseyside and with contacts throughout the world, was busted with the help of the national crime squad. So when we talk about the contribution being made, we should remember that Merseyside receives considerable support from the national crime squad. I hope that that point is appreciated.
  In making his plea to me, the hon. Gentleman knows that the substantial organised crime that exists in Merseyside also exists in other big cities throughout the length and breadth of our country. Will he please consider his party's position on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is going through the House? That legislation has the potential to make a substantial hit against the profitability of organised crime in this country. With the greatest of
  268
  respect, I should point out that his party is supporting amendments in another place that could do serious damage to that proposal. They could limit our ability to take the profit out of crime, and to dismantle the gangs that cause him and his constituents on Merseyside a potentially disproportionate problem, compared with some other places.
  My research shows that, since 1986, we have been talking about adopting effective measures to take the proceeds of crime away from serious organised criminals. We have held out that possibility to the British people, and it is about time that we delivered effective legislation that makes a serious hit on the profitability of crime. If we are going to hedge our bets every time, we will, in effect, present people with a difficult tool to work with. It will not be operated effectively, and will not dismantle the sort of criminality on Merseyside that the hon. Gentleman described. The Merseyside police, with the help of the national crime squad, have put a great deal of effort into the fight against that criminality.
  We are aware of some of the problems. We know that crime on Merseyside rose by 5.6 per cent. in the year ending March 2002, and that violent crime increased by 1.1 per cent. in that time. Vehicle crime fell by 1.3 per cent. in the period, but there remain two areas of particular concern—domestic burglary and robbery.
  The rate of domestic burglary on Merseyside rose by 14.6 per cent. compared with the previous year. That is well out of line with the national figures, and we should be happy to hear any information that the hon. Gentleman may have about that problem. The number of robbery offences rose by 31.1 per cent. in the year to March 2002. That broadly reflects the national situation. It has been well reported that there has been an increase in the numbers of robberies, and that is why we have introduced the street crime initiative.
  The street crime initiative represents a step change in cross-Government action to tackle street crime with a focused programme of action, in the 10 police force areas with the highest level of robbery and street crime. The street crime initiative money announced for the Merseyside force after the Budget amounts to £1.7 million. With the aid of that additional money, the Merseyside force are making a concerted effort to reduce street crime. We are beginning to see some results, as police and other criminal justice agencies—such as local authority health and education departments, and the drug action team—adopt a strong multi-agency approach.
  The hon. Gentleman alluded to the problem of drugs and their impact on crime. I hope that I have made it clear that we are fully aware of the difficulties facing Merseyside, and that he will make a personal contribution to the consultation on the funding formula—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.