Commons Sitting of 28 October 2002

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

    COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 October].
    That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee— [Mr. Woolas.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Drug Offenders
    Ian Lucas: If he will make a statement on the provision that his Department makes for treatment of drug offenders. [75310]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): To break the links between drugs and crime, we are taking every opportunity to get offenders into treatment. There is a range of initiatives to ensure early intervention to identify drug misusing offenders and to help them gain access to treatment, for example arrest referral, drug treatment and testing orders, and drug testing and treatment services in prisons.
    Treatment works and is the most cost effective tool in tackling drug misuse. Effective treatment, accessible to all who need it and when they need it, is essential to the drugs strategy as a whole. Funding has increased from £234 million in 2000–01 to £401 million planned in 2003–04.
    Ian Lucas: I am very pleased to hear the general tenor of that answer. In Spain, this year's national plan for drugs refers to
    "a decrease in heroin consumption in all forms"
    for the period since 1985, which is in stark contrast to the consequence of drugs policy in this country. Spanish policy is based on harm minimisation and, wherever possible, political consensus in dealing with the issue.
    524
    Will the Minister take heed of the Spanish experience and accept that better treatment, and the resources that go with it, will achieve far more in confronting this horrible problem than a war on drugs that can never be won?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are conducting a review of the 10-year drugs strategy. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he wants harm minimisation to be central to our treatment and demand reduction initiatives. My hon. Friend must wait for a final announcement on that, but I think he will find that Government thinking on harm minimisation is not removed from the regime that he describes.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Minister agree that a high proportion of burglaries are carried out to feed a heroin addiction? For that reason alone, there are persuasive arguments why the treatment of the heroin addict should be given a high priority in sentencing.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The acquisitive crime that flows from problematic drug use is caused almost entirely by those people who have either a heroin or a cocaine addiction. The hon. Gentleman is right in that regard. We require not only good quality treatment where it is needed but effective criminal justice interventions to make an early analysis of the problem and to get people into that treatment. That is why we introduced drug treatment and testing orders, and why we are considering where and how we can have initiatives that come into effect earlier. We need to be as effective as possible when dealing with such acquisitive crime.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: May I take this opportunity to thank the Home Secretary for the £1.5 million of extra funding that has been given to police forces in my area for drugs intelligence work? Is the Minister aware, however, that only 31 beds are available in Wales for the treatment of drugs offenders? Will he discuss with Welsh Assembly Ministers the need to increase that and to improve the service, bearing in mind the emphasis that he places on the treatment of drugs offenders?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend may be aware that we set up the National Treatment Agency to increase the planning of the provision of drug treatment, to improve its quality and to involve the medical profession in such work. We need to be certain that the NTA works closely with the Welsh Assembly to ensure that there are no gaps in what we are trying to provide.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Although I acknowledge that quite a bit of work has been done on drugs recently, and echo what the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said, may I suggest that one way to fund the rehabilitation centres that are so badly needed is to ring-fence drug confiscation moneys, many millions of which are taken every year from drug barons in crown courts?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I agree that much could be done with confiscated money. The whole purpose of pushing the Proceeds of Crime Bill through the House of Commons last year was to increase substantially the confiscation that takes place, which is woefully below international levels. That money is available. Some 50 per cent. is earmarked for the communities that have been damaged by the drug problem. We also want to improve our performance on the confiscation of criminal assets. In principle I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to use the money as effectively as possible, but for the purposes of reducing crime we need to increase the amount of money that we confiscate from criminals because it is nowhere near as high as it should be.
    Ann Clwyd: May I say how pleased I am that the Home Secretary came to my constituency on Friday and met the families of drug users, some of whom are dead, some are in prison and some are receiving treatment? Does the Minister agree that we must think about the problem globally? Since 90 per cent. of the heroin on the streets of the United Kingdom conies from Afghanistan, we must offer Afghan farmers alternatives to growing the poppy, and we must do so as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right to say that we must think of the problem from end to end. We must not only have a demand-reduction strategy but try to limit supplies as much as possible, which means chasing the problem back to source countries. I assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to do our level best to intervene in Afghanistan in the most appropriate and effective way. We are trying to build civic society in that country; there have been encouraging signs, and we are trying to build on those. At the same time we are trying to tackle the problem of the opium poppy.
    Simon Hughes: What assurance can Ministers give to society and to Rob, a divorced man in his 30s with two children whom I met on Saturday on a train from King's Cross to the north-east? He was discharged from a prison in southeast England five weeks ago, and he told me that although he has been inside three times for short periods in the last three years, he has had no follow-up support to deal with the drugs problem that was the cause of all three offences apart from four weeks' signing on with the probation service. Given last year's joint probation and prison inspectorates' report saying how important it is to give people follow-up support to keep them off drugs, will next year's sentencing Bill guarantee people discharged from prison as much support outside as they can receive inside? Has the Treasury provided the money for that support?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman exposes a problem. I cannot announce exactly what we will do as a result of the stocktaking review that is under way, but I can tell him that, like him, I feel that the problem of through-care and aftercare for those leaving treatment or leaving prison is one of the biggest weaknesses in the system, and we seek to tackle that. If the hon.
    526
    Gentleman will wait for our planned announcement, hopefully he will find that it addresses the issue that he has raised.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: It is encouraging that there is clearly a consensus emerging in the House that to lift people off the conveyor belt to crime we have to find means of dramatically increasing the availability of treatment and rehabilitation for young heroin and cocaine addicts. Has the Minister calculated the number of places that would be required to accommodate all those addicts, and has he compared that number with the effect of the plans that he announced a moment ago?
    Mr. Ainsworth: Information on this matter is incomplete precisely because of the illegality involved, but our best estimate of the number of problematic drug users in this country—most of whom, but not all, are heroin addicts—is about 250,000. We have treatment places for more than 118,000, and we are managing to expand our capacity by 8 per cent. a year. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there are easy ways of quickly expanding that capacity, we would be happy to hear from him.
    As I said, we have substantially increased the amount of treatment available since the drugs strategy was introduced, and we plan to double that amount by 2008. We are on course to achieve that target, and if there is any way to achieve it sooner, we will seek to do so. We have to bear in mind that the treatment must be available where it is needed most, in the areas with the highest levels of acquisitive crime. We are considering those issues with the NTA.
    Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister also agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and with us that we desperately need to find some means of compelling young heroin and cocaine addicts to take up that treatment? Is he aware that at present drug treatment and testing orders regularly fail because they are not properly enforced, and because there is not sufficient available intensive and residential treatment? When will the Department stop treating the matter as a problem that can be handled over many years, and start treating it as the crisis that it has become?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech to his party conference, and it was good to hear. I hope that it is true that we have a growing consensus as to how we deal with the problem. However, he should not seek to rubbish drug treatment and testing orders, because they are being used effectively. As magistrates learn and grow confident in the way that they use them, they are indeed behaving flexibly sometimes towards the problems that arise. I was surprised at the absence of a number of issues from the hon. Gentleman's conference speech. For example, having made mischief in south London, what exactly is his policy on the classification of cannabis, and how on earth does he think he will increase treatment places tenfold with £500 million? I wait to see what kind of treatment and what quality of treatment he is proposing. It may look good as a headline figure in a policy document, but I think his maths needs a little refining.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Chris Pond: What further measures he proposes to deal with antisocial behaviour. [75311]
    Mr. John Randall: What his policy is to reduce antisocial behaviour in suburban areas; and if he will make a statement. [75312]
    Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's policies for tackling antisocial behaviour. [75323]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I do not think that there is a Member of the House who does not feel the scourge of antisocial behaviour. Uncontrolled antisocial behaviour is the breeding ground for more dangerous and long-term criminality. The new slimmed-down antisocial behaviour orders, action against vehicles on and off the road, the new community support officers, the street wardens scheme, and now the consultation that has been undertaken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will help us to put in place support mechanisms for those at local level, whether in the inner city, the suburbs or rural areas, who are, first, tackling the problem and, secondly, helping those who are at the receiving end of it.
    Mr. Pond: My constituents will be pleased to hear that response from the Secretary of State. He will be aware that the headline figures on crime in north Kent have come down substantially in the past five years—by about 30 per cent.—but the fear of crime persists, because of the loutish and antisocial behaviour of a few people in my constituency, as elsewhere in the country, who blight the lives of the many. What further measures does my right hon. Friend propose to help councils such as mine to push through antisocial behaviour orders, and has he any further plans for the use of parenting orders and final warnings to try and stem the problem of youth offending?
    Mr. Blunkett: There is a combination of the strengthening of the powers, the slimming down of the bureaucracy, and the imperative at local level for the crime reduction partnerships. Over 90 co-ordinators now exist at local level to act at local level. We have to deal with the dichotomy between people wanting the Home Office to intervene and do things from the centre, and at the same time wanting to stop the Home Office intervening and doing things from the centre. I appeal to local authorities to pick up the new powers, whether through antisocial behaviour orders or parenting orders, and to co-operate with the police and the community to make them work. So often, the reluctance to use them stems from a fear that they will be overturned. The new powers allow the slimmed-down initial orders to be issued before the hearing, and send a clear message that we will no longer put up with antisocial behaviour.
    Mr. Randall: The Home Secretary is right to describe antisocial behaviour as a scourge on all our constituents. I welcome many of the measures that the Government
    528
    have tried to put in place, some of which have been more successful than others. However, we must all try to deal with the problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would help a great deal to have more visible local policing? Will he join with me in urging the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to reopen West Drayton police station?
    Mr. Blunkett: I would certainly encourage the Commissioner to use his operational accountability to ensure that there is accessibility for local people and that, above all, response times are improved. That is why the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the non-999 number will be important. Response times to antisocial behaviour are commensurate with the commitment to reassure and support people rather than to ignore their calls, and to ensure that community support officers and street wardens can play their part. By joining together at local level—I understand that that is happening in Hillingdon by tackling graffiti and other abuse in the environment—an atmosphere can be created in which people believe that they can play a part in improving their community. They can be a strong community that can tackle antisocial behaviour.
    Helen Jones: Progress is undoubtedly being made but there are still parts of my constituency where a small minority cause mayhem for those around them. Will my right hon. Friend take more steps to encourage local councils to make better use of the powers that they already have? Will he discuss with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister ways of enabling councils to take swifter action against antisocial tenants, to ensure that the system protects the vast majority who pay their rent and do not cause trouble, rather than the small minority who make life hell for the people living round them?
    Mr. Blunkett: We are doing well this afternoon because we all agree on that. The review that the office of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been undertaking will be a crucial further strand in the extension of work in the Home Office in tackling the problem. People are sick and tired of cheap housing being bought up and of public funding going into tenancies, with no control, no proper contractual arrangements and no responsibility on the part of landlords. If we could combine the action that we are taking with a massive clampdown on what is a complete scam, we would all be much better off at local level.
    Lady Hermon: As antisocial behaviour orders have still not been introduced in Northern Ireland, will the Home Secretary kindly initiate discussions at the earliest opportunity with the newly enhanced team at the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that the orders are extended to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the newly-appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with his experiences across the board, including Wales, will be keen to do so. I will take the opportunity, as quickly as possible, to do what the hon. Lady asks.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a great deal of antisocial

    529
    behaviour is generated by out-of-control youths with air weapons. What plans does he have to address the problem? Does he have any plans to raise the age limit at which youths can handle these weapons? We have to take our chances where we can.
    Mr. Blunkett: Very neat. I know that the issue is close to my hon. Friend's heart. I stress that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be bringing forward quickly a series of measures that will proportionately address the matter. It is becoming a scourge and people are genuinely frightened. The nature of the weapons has changed to the point where we need a rapid review.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Home Secretary will be aware that Opposition Members were pleased when he listened to the concerns expressed by Government Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the original antisocial behaviour orders were far too bureaucratic.
    The right hon. Gentleman will be aware also that there is still a problem in that not enough antisocial behaviour orders are being made. Although we welcome the backing that has been given to the orders by acceptable behaviour contracts, does he feel that enough of those are being used? Does he agree with his hon. Friend, who said to me shortly before the summer recess that the Government had in mind to consider whether police forces were to be allowed to name those who were the subject of antisocial behaviour orders? Many police forces, including Surrey, have been greatly concerned that the courts have not been able to name those at whom the orders are targeted.
    Mr. Blunkett: As far as I am aware, the courts are under no restriction in terms of naming those who come before them, although I am certainly prepared to check out the matter. In the spirit of this afternoon, I agree that we have not got in place sufficient behaviour contracts or antisocial behaviour orders. I think that slightly more than 650 antisocial behaviour orders have so far been issued, but we will issue new guidance and support in November to back up the change in the law. I am always amenable to pressure, especially when it is in the direction in which I was already going.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that constituents of mine were both relieved and appreciative when an antisocial behaviour order was imposed on 14-year-old Lorraine Ogden, whose name was circulated by the police in a leaflet? However, she breached the order six times, was arrested by the police and charged six times and, after five months, was subjected to a supervision order, a curfew order and a parenting order served on her mother. Does he agree that although the orders are an excellent institution that was introduced by this Government, to allow people who have been placed under the orders to defy them and to waste the time of police and the courts is to undermine their purpose? Will he consider what action he can take to stop that happening?
    Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend demonstrates the very worst tip of an iceberg in terms of constant
    530
    reoffending leading to action that is too weak and failure to reinforce the agreed penalties. With my right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, I am doing everything possible to get the sensitive, proportionate message across. It is important that magistrates, as well as district judges, who sometimes overturn the decisions of magistrates on enforcement, understand the damage that they can do to the signals that need to be sent out to young people in particular saying that they can no longer make a monkey of tile police and the judicial system. That will be one of the tasks of the new criminal justice legislation that will be introduced following the Queen's Speech.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Is the Home Secretary aware that, in parts of my constituency, there will be cuts in youth programmes for 11 and 12-year-olds, even with Connexions and the children's fund? What will he do to ensure joined-up thinking in this very important area of tackling antisocial behaviour?
    Mr. Blunkett: I sincerely hope that that will not happen and that the local council and the Connexions service can respond with the Youth Justice Board. The board announced only last week that, with resources allocated by the Home Office, we will be developing for eight to 13-year-olds youth inclusion panels and programmes to link up with the work done over the summer, including the Splash programmes and the very imaginative work done in excellence in cities areas, and carry it forward throughout the year. Instead of carrying out youth policies appropriate to the 1950s, we are now adapting our policies to the 21st century.

    Open Prisons
    Mr. Tom Cox: What plans he has to review the procedures to be followed by inmates on day release from open prisons; and if he will make a statement. [75315]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): It is important that prisoners in open conditions can re-establish links with the community, for all the reasons set out in the social exclusion unit report on reducing reoffending. That is the purpose of granting release on temporary licence. The Prison Service is currently reviewing all forms of such release and will report to Ministers in due course.
    Mr. Cox: While I note that reply, is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous publicity that a convicted criminal has recently received as to the sort of lifestyle that he was leading while on day release, including driving to work in his own car and having lunch in top restaurants? Did the prison authorities know about that, and if so, why did they not stop it? Is my hon. Friend further aware that public confidence in the day release system has been seriously eroded? It really is time that prison governors are clearly told what inmates can and cannot do when they are on day release from prison.
    Hilary Benn: Although I entirely understand the concerns that gave rise to my hon. Friend's points, it is important that we do not allow the activities of one individual—who could not in any way be described as a "quiet man"—to undermine the use of release for rehabilitation and resettlement. The fact is that prisoners on facility or resettlement licences are advised of the terms of those licences, and they are placed on trust to comply with their requirements.
    As for travel arrangements, it is not uncommon for prisoners in open establishments to use their own transport to travel to work placements. Indeed, while Lord Archer was at North Sea camp, about 24 prisoners did that each day. The fact that the Prison Service has been criticised both for being too harsh and for being too lenient on Lord Archer suggests that it has got it about right bearing in mind the unusual challenges posed by this particular prisoner.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I put it to the Under-Secretary that too many prisoners are held in overcrowded local prisons such as Lincoln and that they could quite well be held in open prisons? It would be a great help if he could expedite the process of categorisation so that yet more people now held in the crowded local prisons could be transferred to the open prisons.
    Hilary Benn: I agree about making sure that categorisation is undertaken as quickly as possible, and I have recently raised the issue with the Director General of the Prison Service for precisely the reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given. However, it is important to ensure that the prisoners allocated to open conditions are suited to those conditions. The proof of the success of the current arrangements is that, from memory, about 250,000 licences for leave from open prison were granted last year, and the failure rate is 0.1 per cent. That is testament to the robust nature of the current arrangements.
    David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that more prisoners should be allowed on day release schemes when that is considered appropriate and that any abuses committed by Archer should not be used as an excuse to discourage such schemes? They can be very useful in making sure that, when the prisoner leaves prison, he or she can lead a useful life. Are there not other ways of reducing the prison population? When the offence is less serious or there is no danger of violence, could not non-custodial sentences be used more than at present? Our prisons face a crisis, and I believe that my hon. Friend understands that.
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that the prison system currently faces considerable pressures. He will have heard the statements on sentences made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor and about the need to consider the appropriate use of custody and to reserve it, in particular, for dangerous offenders, sex offenders and persistent offenders. My hon. Friend is also right to speak about the importance of allowing prisoners to resettle within the community. My original reply referred to the social exclusion unit report, because all
    532
    the evidence demonstrates that, if prisoners lose contact with their families and lose their job or their home, it is much more difficult for them to resettle when they come out of the prison gates. Having a job is an effective crime prevention measure, because the statistics clearly tell us that a prisoner who walks out of the prison gates with a job to go to is half as likely to reoffend as someone with no job.

    Community Policing (Nottingham)
    Mr. Graham Allen: What recent discussions he has had with the chief constable of Nottinghamshire about community policing, with particular reference to the city of Nottingham division. [75318]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have met the chief constable of Nottinghamshire on several occasions on which a variety of issues, including community policing, have been discussed. My right hon. Friend visited Nottingham on 18 April.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Home Secretary and the Minister for the personal interest they have taken in Nottinghamshire constabulary. They will know that we in the city of Nottingham division are losing bobbies on the beat. In addition, our local police stations are losing large numbers of officers to response units—in effect, those stations are being hollowed out. Is the Minister aware that, at a time when the Government are, rightly, being congratulated on having more officers employed in the United Kingdom than at any other time in history, people on some of our estates and in some of our communities are seeing less of those police officers? Will he please keep a watchful eye on the issue, so that the Government's rhetoric about community policing, which we all support, is matched by the reality of policing on the ground?
    Mr. Denham: I recognise that my hon. Friend has deep concerns about the reorganisation of policing in the city of Nottingham. There is honest disagreement between him and the chief constable about the implications of the reorganisation—the chief constable would argue that it is increasing the number of officers available for beat work. We need to find a way forward. In January, the city of Nottingham will be subject to a routine basic command unit inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Having listened to my hon. Friend, I have written to the regional HMI and asked it to ensure that it examines those matters during the inspection.
    Mr. David Cameron: Is the Minister aware that Nottinghamshire, like many other areas, will be a beneficiary of the unfortunate fact that police officers are fleeing the Thames valley in record numbers because of the high cost of living there? Is he aware that, within months, half of our police officers will be probationers? Will he comment on the concern felt by many superintendents about rumours that the Government are to tax pension lump sums? The Police Superintendents Association has announced that 20 to

    533
    25 per cent. of total numbers might be lost. Will he have a word with the Treasury and tell it to drop that stupid plan?
    Mr. Denham: We recognise the concerns about the south-east of England, which is why I, as Minister with responsibilities for the police, took the initiative a few weeks ago to bring together a team of people from police forces in the south-east and London to examine those concerns, as well as a range of issues including housing and transport. However, it is worth bearing in mind that in the next couple of years those forces will receive a ring-fenced part of their settlement—equivalent to 2 per cent. of their current pay bill in two years' time—for special priority payments; that funding can and should in part be used to address retention issues. As for the hon. Gentleman's final point, I have no knowledge of any such proposals.
    John Mann (Bassetlaw): Is the Minister aware of the fact that, despite the major problems that my community has with drug-related crime, while I was carrying out an inquiry into those problems, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, as part of his Nottingham city community policing scheme, transferred 10 experienced officers from north Nottinghamshire into the city of Nottingham? Is it not about time that areas such as mine had equal priority with cities in policing matters?
    Mr. Denham: All areas have crime problems that must be tackled. My hon. Friend has rightly been persistent in raising his concerns about drug problems, but the chief constable of Nottinghamshire has to be able to make tactical decisions about priorities from day to day, and problems such as crack cocaine and gun-related violence in Nottingham have demanded a response. My hon. Friend mentions 10 officers, but let me put that in context: last year, the number of police officers in Nottinghamshire increased by 55, and this year—according to current projections—it should increase by a further 104. That is a substantial increase.
    Mr. James Paice: Does the Minister not recognise that it is not only in the city of Nottingham—or, indeed, in the county of Nottinghamshire—that there is concern about police numbers, whether for community policing or any other purpose? Does he agree with the assessment that his proposals for the distribution of police grant might result in 34 rural or semi-rural forces—similar to Nottinghamshire's—losing large numbers of police officers? Dorset might lose 270 officers, Surrey 260, North Wales 300, and so the list goes on.
    What will he say to people in those areas who, despite the Government's assertions about record numbers of police officers, are seeing their forces being denuded of resources for other forces and the replacement of those resources by a very small number of community support officers? Would not the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, along with every other chief constable, prefer to have the lump sum of resources that he is supposed to have and to make his own decisions about how many officers or community support officers
    534
    he employs to provide the existing—and, preferably, enhanced—levels of policing that people expect in rural and semi-rural areas?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman should wait to see what happens about the police funding formula. The Government have published a consultation paper that proposes six or seven different options, some of which point in one direction and some in another. It is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to calculate the worst possible case for every police force and say that that is what the Government are going to do. I recall that, when his party was in power, police officer numbers were falling. We now have record numbers of police officers, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced a new target of 132,500 police officers. That option was never on the table in the 18 years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power.

    Migration Schemes
    Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on his plans to set up new sector based migration schemes next year. [75320]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 7 October two new schemes to help employers in the hotel, leisure and food manufacturing sectors to recruit workers from abroad to fill vacancies that they have been unable to fill from the resident work force. This is part of the continued development of our comprehensive policy of managed migration.
    Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that such managed schemes are good news not only for the economy but for key cutting-edge technology areas such as engineering, information technology and medical research? People can enter the country legally and make a great contribution to our future wealth, thereby providing extra jobs that can give a real boost to the economy. In addition, are we not sending a clear signal to those who try to smuggle individuals into this country by clandestine measures that we want to undermine their terrible acts and put a stop to the despicable smuggling of people?
    Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Recent estimates suggest that migrants contribute a net benefit of about £2.5 billion to the economy, over and above any resources they consume. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is chairing a new Cabinet Committee that is looking into the social and economic impacts of migration. My hon. Friend is also right that the White Paper marked a radical shift in policy, based on a recognition of the positive contribution of migration while acknowledging that we need to manage it, return asylum to its proper purpose and bear down on the gangs that encourage people to enter the country illegally to work. We need better integration of refugees, including a UNHCR gateway, and to open up legitimate

    535
    routes into the United Kingdom for people to work. These schemes will be additional to the work permit and other existing schemes.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Everybody accepts the terrific benefits that this country has enjoyed over the years and centuries from the immigration of people with key skills, but is not this scheme one more example of the Government trying to paper over the disaster that is their asylum policy? Are not we still failing to deport even one in 10 of failed asylum seekers? At what stage will the Government recognise that they must look at more imaginative ways of tackling the asylum problem if they are going to avoid the sort of pressures that Members on both sides want to avoid?
    Beverley Hughes: We are already removing more failed asylum seekers than the Conservative Government did—indeed, we are now removing more than any other European country. The hon. Gentleman misses the point. We will not get on top of the extent to which the asylum system is being used by people to get into the country unless we send out the right signals to the countries that they come from, and part of that is being clear that we will bear down strongly on traffickers and smugglers and that people who arrive here will be dealt with swiftly and removed if their claim fails. At the same time, we want to make it clear that we welcome people coming here legitimately and that we are opening up new legitimate routes.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that the attitude that all immigrants should be used as cheap labour should be stamped on firmly? Will the working party examine closely the way in which immigrants are constantly and deliberately being used in an attempt to keep down wages and conditions in certain industries?
    Beverley Hughes: Indeed, the role that illegal working plays in encouraging people to come here, with the consequences for indigenous workers in some parts of the labour market and the economy that my hon. Friend describes, is a serious problem. That is precisely why the strategies of bearing down strongly on abuse of the asylum system and opening up legitimate routes in, as I outlined, are the two essential strands of a coherent policy—one that the Conservative party signally failed to introduce when it had the opportunity.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: I listened with interest to the Minister's comments on the new migration schemes. Will she amplify as fully as possible the meaning, effect and means of implementation of the new external gateway proposals?
    Beverley Hughes: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the new migration schemes that the original question was about or to the UNHCR gateway. That gateway, to bring in refugees from out of country, is currently being discussed with UNHCR and the voluntary organisations. We intend to institute a pilot scheme from April next year. We aim to start fairly small, with about 500 people. We are currently working up the details of the scheme, considering both how the gateway will work and how we can ensure more effective
    536
    integration of those people once they are here. Several European countries already operate such schemes, and we will draw on their expertise to ensure that we have an efficient and effective system in place early next year.

    Coroners Service
    Mr. Kevan Jones: If he will make a statement on the review of the coroners service. [75321]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): We established the review group last year. It published a consultation document in August and will report back by the spring.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local coroners should be both accountable and sensitive to their communities? Clearly, that has not happened in Durham. I raised serious concerns about the death of one of my constituents, Maureen Malta, in the local accident and emergency department, but the local coroner, Mr. Andrew Tweddle, arrogantly refused to publish the letter or even to give reasons for that refusal. Will my right hon. Friend take a look at that case and have a meeting with me and others who have concerns about the service in Durham?
    Mr. Blunkett: The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), will write to my hon. Friend shortly. We certainly need to open up consultation on how to improve the services. I do not want to make a statement about the individual case, other than to say that openness and transparency are very important and I hope that the health care trust will respond positively to his approaches. The consultation paper in August showed that existing systems for the investigation of deaths were fragmented and failed to provide clear participation rights or standards of service for the bereaved. They lacked appropriate mechanisms for skilling and training those involved, and a proper auditing processing system. They did not even respond to modern legal baselines, so there is a great deal of room for improvement in a process that has been left to fester for too long in the 19th century rather than being brought into the 21st century.
    Mr. Colin Breed: May I make a plea that, as part of the review, the Home Office examine the need for a formal appeal procedure for coroners' decision processes? The relatives of people who have been killed are often left in an unhappy state of mind because of their lack of ability to appeal against the coroner's decision.
    Mr. Blunkett: I certainly do not rule that out, but we need much greater clarity as to what an inquest is for, how it fits in with the wider criminal justice system, and what the rights of the bereaved should be. We also need to narrow the number of occasions on which an inquest would be appropriate, so that we can use the resources, not least the pathology services, more effectively. I am always listening to the radio or watching the television and learning, as we did from ancient films, about the "Home Office pathologist"—but of course there are no Home Office pathologists, only a range of people who are taken on, for individual payments and on individual

    537
    contracts, to do the job. All that needs to be brought together if we are to ensure that the whole system is geared to providing answers to questions, to a search for the truth and to action on the findings, rather than the present vagaries.
    Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Law Officers' Department is holding an inquiry into the way in which deaths in custody are investigated and dealt with by the justice system. Clearly there is some overlap with the review of coroners, especially with regard to the investigative process. Although suspicious deaths in custody are few, one could argue that there is not currently great public confidence in any of the investigatory processes. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the coroners service review team and the Law Officers' inquiry will liaise to work towards a better and more open mechanism for dealing with this difficult problem?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I shall be happy for the review to do that, and to do it in conjunction with the development work for the establishment of the independent police complaints mechanisms that will provide a more transparent route for those who raise complaints about what has happened to people in custody. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety will publish the latest statistics shortly.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Does the Home Secretary also accept that all too often the coroners service is signally failing the public? I shall give him a specific example about which I have been in correspondence with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn). The parents of constituents of mine were killed in a car crash in Teesside more than 18 months ago, but because of incompetence and alleged short staffing, there has been no inquest, and the coroner has still not acted. Is there really a shortage of staff, and is the Home Secretary doing anything about it? When will my constituents who are suffering have their minds put at rest?
    Mr. Blunkett: Those are all extremely good questions, but because the Home Secretary has no remit in such matters at the moment, the review will need to tell us how to develop sensible accountability, which will not take away the responsibility at local level, but will enable us to ensure that there is consistency and proper monitoring, and that we train those involved to be able to do the job. There is a kind of "ad hocism" here, which dates back to a distant bygone era. It is time to shed light on the process, and ensure that we use it sensibly so as to link it in with the criminal justice system in a meaningful fashion.

    Police (Paperwork)
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What plans he has to reduce the paperwork police officers have to deal with. [75325]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): We published the report of Sir David O'Dowd's taskforce on policing bureaucracy in September. It shows us how the police service can cut administrative burdens and reduce inefficient working practices, which together keep police officers off the streets. The Government have set up a joint group co-chaired by the Association of Chief Police Officers to take forward and implement the taskforce report.
    Dr. Ladyman: I am very appreciative of my right hon. Friend's answer, but what progress has so far been made in implementing the report? More importantly, since this is really about getting police officers back into frontline policing, how are we going to monitor whether reducing bureaucracy is in fact equalling more policemen doing what they are employed to do?
    Mr. Denham: On my hon. Friend's first point, we kept in close touch with the taskforce while it was doing its work, so we were able to make a number of changes to, for example, the powers that can be exercised by civilian custody staff in the context of the Police Reform Act 2002, which received Royal Assent in July. We have therefore already made a start on the issues identified by the taskforce. Equally, we are discussing with the police service the best way to measure the taskforce's impact. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we need to develop an effective measure that indicates to us and to the public how we are gaining greater visibility and more officer hours on the front line as a result of these and other changes. When we have completed that work, we will publish that indicator for the police service.
    Bob Spink: Will the Minister tell us when the new computer systems in respect of arrest and taking into custody will be available for use in the service?
    Mr. Denham: The case and custody system, to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers, is being successfully trialled in Warwickshire. I hope that, during the three years from next April, the system will be rolled out across the police service. We are looking in detail at the deadlines and timetables, but that is the time scale towards which we are working.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Has my right hon. Friend seen a piece of paperwork that is doing more to reduce the number of police officers on the streets of Slough than any other? It is an advertisement, issued by the Metropolitan police, showing a photograph of two terraced houses, both of which are occupied by police officers. The rubric states the following about the occupiers:
    "Both in their late 20s, both became police officers 6 years ago. One earns £22k a year and pays to travel to work and one earns £29k a year and travels to work for free."
    What can the Minister do to help those police forces on the periphery of London whose members are being poached by the Metropolitan Police Authority? In the

    539
    case of Slough, such activities are leading to an increase in crime in precisely those areas that we are targeting for reduction.
    Mr. Denham: I have not seen the advertisement to which my hon. Friend refers, but if that is what it says, that is not the way in which forces should compete for police officers. A few years ago, an agreement was reached and police forces did not attempt to recruit from each other's areas. At the instigation of the Association of Chief Police Officers, that was changed some time ago, when it was agreed that such recruitment exercises be carried out. However, it is essential that they be conducted in a responsible manner.

    Reoffending Rates
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on reoffending rates among young offenders in the last five years. [75326]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): Reoffending rates are not normally measured, as they rely on self-reporting by offenders. Our target is therefore to achieve, by 2004, a 5 per cent. reduction in reconviction rates for young offenders within 12 months of original conviction, reprimand or final warning. Statistics published in June this year for the group dealt with in July 2000—just after
    540
    the start of the main youth justice reforms—showed a 14.6 per cent. reduction in reconviction rates compared with 1997.
    Mr. Robathan: Notwithstanding the hard work put in by many staff, does the Minister agree that young offenders' institutions such as Glen Parva in my constituency are not happy places? Contrary to what the Minister says, the number of those in such places who are reconvicted has increased by 58 per cent. in the past five years throughout the country. Does the Minister think that there are any lessons to be learned from past regimes—for example, approved schools—in terms of why the offending rate was so low then? Does he think that a case exists for a challenging regime of support, rehabilitation and training after custody, to prevent people from re-offending and being reconvicted?
    Hilary Benn: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. If he looks at the work that the Youth Justice Board is undertaking, what he describes is precisely what makes up the intensive supervision and surveillance programmes that youth offending teams are running up and down the country. They provide the rigour that is required to get young people to face up to the consequences of their offending, and they give them the support that they need to live their lives differently in future. That is precisely why we have invested in youth justice reforms, and the whole House will doubtless welcome the early indication that those reforms are succeeding in helping to reduce reconvictions.

European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the European Council in Brussels on 24 and 25 October.
This European Council set the framework for the final stage of the enlargement negotiations. We are on course to finish those negotiations in December, sign an accession treaty with the candidate countries next spring and welcome them into the European Union at the beginning of 2004.
Enlargement has been a goal of successive British Governments. It was an historic obligation to offer membership to those nations that won their freedom after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their membership will establish a single market of some 500 million people. We hope that those 10 countries will be joined by Bulgaria and Romania no later than 2007.
The European Council also welcomed the reforms undertaken by the Turkish Government. The Council agreed that Turkish progress had brought forward the opening of accession negotiations. At the Copenhagen European Council in December, we will decide on the next stage of Turkey's candidature. For our part, the British Government look forward to Turkey's membership of the European Union in accordance with the conditions that all candidates have to meet.
The last stage of any negotiation is always the most difficult, and the last stage of the negotiation between the existing members of the European Union and the candidate countries is of course about money: what they pay into and receive from the EU budget, including structural funds and the common agricultural policy.
The European Union will be generous to the new member states. It is right that we should he, given our own interest in their stability and prosperity. But at the same time, we do not want to jeopardise the progress that has been made in reducing agriculture's share of the EU budget from more than 60 per cent. 20 years ago to 45 per cent. now. The reforms agreed in Berlin in 1999 are worth €7.5 billion to EU consumers and taxpayers. We want to extend that reform in two ways. First, the Commission has brought forward proposals for the mid-term review of agriculture under paragraph 22 of the Berlin conclusions of 1999 which, if agreed would de-link agricultural subsidies from production for the first time in the history of the European Union. Secondly, we want to limit the growth of direct payments to farmers once the candidate countries become full members.
Before the summit, the main argument was whether enlargement could be blocked by the disagreement between France and Germany over limiting agricultural spending. Fortunately, before the summit, they reached agreement that future agricultural spending should be capped up to 2013 at the levels of 2006 envisaged by the Commission. In effect, because of allowances made for an inflation rate of only 1 per cent., that will mean a real-terms reduction over and above the original Commission proposals. That aspect of the agreement was welcomed by all. However, there then arose the question of whether in return for that, reform of the
542
CAP, prior to 2006 when the current financial perspective runs out, would be postponed. That then dominated the latter stages of the summit.
In our view, such a blanket opposition to reform would have been wholly unacceptable. It would mean effectively destroying the current reform proposals of the European Commission. It would seriously inhibit the offer the EU can make in the World Trade Organisation Doha trade talks. Those talks are vital both for free trade and for the developing countries of the world. Those poor countries need agricultural reform in Europe and they need it badly.
Eventually, we agreed specifically that the limit on agricultural spending would be without prejudice either to the European Commission's mid-term review of agriculture based on paragraph 22 of the Berlin conclusions or to the Doha trade round. Those issues can now be taken forward by the Agriculture Council, which, of course, operates by qualified majority voting. Despite the difficulty in negotiating that, it would have been quite wrong for the possibility of CAP reform to have been hindered in that way. As a result of the summit outcome, enlargement remains on track and fundamental CAP reform remains on the agenda.
During the European Council, I also discussed with colleagues the issue of Iraq. We are all agreed on the need to ensure that Saddam has no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programmes. We are working hard for agreement on the terms of a tough new Security Council resolution. The key point has to be that the weapons inspectors should return, free to do their jobs properly, without any of the restraints wrongly imposed before. Should there then be a further breach by Iraq, I have no doubt that action must follow.
We also discussed the development of European defence. We agreed that Macedonia would be a good place to start and that we should therefore work urgently to complete the agreement between the EU and NATO.
In addition, we had a presentation from President Giscard d'Estaing on the convention on the future of Europe. In his speech today, I am pleased that the president makes it clear that Europe should co-operate as a union of European states, not a federal super-state, and I believe that his proposals on subsidiarity, the role of national Parliaments and Council reform will be welcomed, at least here. We are well placed in this vital debate.
Before concluding, I would like to update the House on the hostage crisis in Moscow that ended tragically with the loss of so many lives. At 9 pm local time on Wednesday, around 50 armed Chechens took several hundred hostages in a theatre in south-east Moscow. Among the hostages were three British nationals: Peter and Sidica Low and their son Richard. Peter Low and a few others were released on Thursday morning. I spoke to President Putin from Brussels on Friday. Britain sent a team of counter-terrorist experts to help. President Putin told me that he had no doubt that the terrorists were prepared to kill all the hostages; that they were heavily armed with explosives; and that whatever decision he took would be immensely difficult. After the siege had ended at 5.30 am local time on Saturday, I rang him again to welcome the ending of the siege. I asked him and he was able to tell me that the safe release of Sidica and Richard Low had been ensured.

543
It is too early yet to know the full facts of what happened, but I ask people to understand that when it was clear that the terrorists were starting to execute the hostages, the Russian authorities had to act. I know how hard it will have been to make the right decisions. But there are no easy, no risk-free, no safe solutions to such a situation. And I hope that people will understand the enormity of the dilemma facing President Putin as he weighed what to do, in trying to end the siege with minimum loss of life and recognising the dangers of doing anything that conceded to this latest outrage of terrorism from Chechnya.
Although it is clear that hundreds survived, many did not, and the loss of each innocent life will be mourned not just in Russia but throughout the world, and we in Britain send our deepest condolences to the Russian people at this time.
The attacks in Bali, the occupation of the Moscow theatre, the other terrorist attacks around the world, the murder of the American diplomat in Jordan this morning are all brutal and horrifying reminders of this new form of terrorist extremism. A deadly mixture of religious and political fanaticism is being pursued by those who have no compunction about taking human lives, no matter how innocent, and little about losing their own. The only answer is to defeat them by security, intelligence and policing but also to tackle head on, especially within the Muslim world, their perversion of Islam in the cause of extremism. I remain of the view that it is not only the methods of extremism but the extremists' ideas that must be countered.
Thanks to the outcome of the summit, the way is clear to finish the enlargement negotiations by December. In the worst days of the cold war it would have seemed incredible that countries that were under Soviet rule for nearly half a century could find their freedom. But they did. This opportunity and the challenge of enlargement have helped them catch up half a century in the last decade. I hope the House will welcome this important step towards a Europe united, democratic and free.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement and I join him in offering the Opposition's condolences to the Russian people for the terrible tragedy that they faced during the past few days. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in expressing our horror at the actions of terrorists in Moscow and in extending our sympathies to all the victims and their families.
As the Prime Minister said, hostage taking and terrorism are utterly unacceptable whenever and wherever they occur. I also agree that a huge and terrible dilemma faced the Russian President. No matter what we discover during the next few days and weeks, it was no less than one of the most difficult decisions that could have been made, although in due course we shall need to understand more fully exactly what weapons were used. Our condolences go also to the family of the US diplomat. As the Prime Minister rightly said, those events bring home to us the fact that the war on terror must continue and that those who say that we can take a break from it, or that we do not need to pursue it with so much vigour, are fundamentally wrong. They must remain on the sidelines of the argument.
On Europe, I congratulate the Danish presidency on keeping EU enlargement on track. The Prime Minister is right to say that enlargement is a great prize that is
544
worth fighting for. The 10 new countries seeking membership of the EU will bring 70 million customers for British goods and services in a single market extending from the Atlantic to the Baltic. The prospect before us is of a new Europe built on co-operation between stable democratic nations and the prosperity of open markets—[Interruption.] I know open markets make Labour Members very uncomfortable but they will have to live with them.
The choice will be between an old Europe that is always seeking to centralise power or a new Europe that is apparently about open markets and less regulation. In that context, it is a pity that the Prime Minister allowed the forces of old Europe to sideline him so convincingly at Brussels. Only four months ago, he told the House of the EU's commitment to breaking down the trade barriers, including those in agriculture. Yet he comes back from the summit saying that it was fortunate that France and Germany reached agreement. Well, if ever there was spin to cover failure, that was it. The Prime Minister welcomes a reduction from a position that should never have existed in the first place.
If the deal after Friday is so welcome, why was the Prime Minister storming around on the sidelines of the meeting saying that he was furious and angry. Apparently he even insulted President Chirac—[Interruption.] Terrible!—[Interruption.]—Oh yes, be careful; he will be joining us.
If the deal was so welcome, why were British officials unable to comment on the details of the deal between France and Germany for about 24 hours from the moment they arrived? Was that not because neither the Prime Minister nor his officials knew anything at all about the deal because they were not present in the first place? How does that square with the fact that, six months ago, the Prime Minister told the House:
"Britain is in there, shaping Europe's future … We will continue to get the best for Britain out of Europe. Under this Government, the days of weakness and isolation will not return"?—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 23.]
The Prime Minister said that reform of the common agricultural policy remains on the agenda. I assume that he means that reform is on the agenda in the same way as his colleague in No. 11 Downing street believes that leadership of the Labour party remains on the agenda for him.
Will the Prime Minister tell us what the total cost of the CAP will be after enlargement and how he will pay for it? [Interruption.] Labour Members hate the idea that the nonsense they have been pushing that they are at the heart of Europe has been exposed—they are not.
Will the Prime Minister tell us about the total cost of the CAP after enlargement and how it will be paid for? Will the money be found by cutting existing EU budgets? If so, why has so little been done to reform the EU structural funds and why did the Prime Minister not raise the fact that about £3 billion of the EU budget is still wasted in fraud and mismanagement?
The Prime Minister has made much of the fact that the British rebate did not make it into the presidency conclusions, yet President Chirac even today continues to state publicly that it is part of the deal. So will the Prime Minister confirm what we believe his Foreign Secretary said last week? [Interruption.] Oh yes. He said that the rebate won by Mrs. Thatcher is not up for

545
negotiation and never will be up for negotiation. If the Prime Minister agrees with that, when did he first tell President Chirac that he should drop the whole issue of the rebate; or did he ever tell him at any point during the conference?
Only two years ago, the Prime Minister assured the British people that the charter of fundamental rights would not impact on national law, yet his former Minister for Europe said that Britain would be prepared to compromise on allowing the CFR to be legally binding. So in the light of the report that was tabled at the meeting on the convention and given at the Brussels council, will the Prime Minister make it absolutely clear that Britain will veto any proposal to compromise and make the CFR in any way legally binding?
I have lost track—[Interruption]—of the number of times that the Prime Minister has come to the House. [Interruption.] Oh no. Again and again, we hear that this country is leading for Britain in Europe, but seldom has his failure to practise what he preaches been so transparent: a deal to extend the life of the common agricultural policy has been struck behind Britain's back; proposals to give away yet more powers from national Governments to the Commission have been tabled over British objections; and fundamental reforms that would secure the financial future of an enlarged European Union have been passed over despite the warnings.
The Prime Minister normally gets up at this point and lectures everybody about how he has been ahead of everybody else in leading for the Government. Instead of getting up and blaming the last Government or the Opposition, will he now tell British taxpayers how much more they will have to pay to foot the bill for his failure?
The Prime Minister: First, on Russia, we are in agreement. May I echo—I should have referred to it in my statement—the right hon. Gentleman's praise of the Danish presidency? It handled a difficult meeting extremely well and prepared the Council very well indeed, and the Danish Prime Minister's handling of the summit was excellent.
In relation to the agreement between France and Germany, I have to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are two quite separate aspects of the agreement—one was an agreement about limiting expenditure in the European Union. That is actually an advance on what was there before. Before the summit, there was no agreement that, after 2006, spending on agriculture should be limited at all. That was one aspect of the French-German deal, which was struck as a result of the disagreements between them.
There was then a second aspect: what France wanted in return for that deal was the abolition of any possibility of common agriculture reform prior to 2006. That is precisely what was resisted at the summit. That is why it was important to make sure that, after the summit, the mid-term review of the Agriculture Council continued. The purpose of the French proposals was to ensure that that review was effectively dead in the water. That review now carries on, and, as the EU Commissioner said in his statement today, it is important that the mid-term review is there, and it
546
should be completed at the earliest possible opportunity. [Interruption.] With great respect, whatever is shouted at me from the Opposition Front Bench, we are fully supportive of the first point of the agreement—an additional limit on expenditure. We are not in support of the price for it—no CAP reform—and that was defeated at the summit.
Secondly, of course, it is extremely important to ensure that the European Union can make a proper commitment in the Doha WTO round. If we had ended up saying effectively that there would be no CAP reform prior to 2006, it would have been very difficult to make a constructive EU offer next year. I want to make it clear that I believe that it is in the interests not just of Britain but of Europe that we are able to make an offer in that WTO trade round that is of benefit not just to the developed world but to those poor and developing countries that desperately need access to our markets.
That is the importance of CAP reform. The reason why it is important that CAP reform is still on track is that the decisions on it will not be taken in the Prime Ministers' Council but in the Agriculture Council. That is important because the Agriculture Council will take its decisions by qualified majority voting.
In relation to the abatement, it is not up for grabs, for a very simple reason: the abatement compensates Britain for what would otherwise be a wholly unfair distribution of contributions. Even with the abatement, our contribution is three times that of France, for example, and without it our net contribution would be 13 times that of France. Only after enlargement, even with the abatement, will our contributions for the first time—as a result of the deal struck in 1999 at Berlin—come into line with those of France and Italy. It is therefore extremely important that we maintain it. As for French designs on it, that is a classic example of how Britain must take a sensible view. Of course, the French will want to take action against the British abatement, just as we want to take action on the common agricultural policy. They will make their position clear, and we will make ours clear; that, I am afraid, is the way that things happen. What is absurd, however, is to take the view that, just because there is an attack on the British abatement, we must give it up. We held firm at Berlin, when the Conservative party was telling us that we were going to give it up, and we will hold firm again.
In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's points about the charter of fundamental rights, we have made it absolutely clear that it should not extend the legal competence or jurisdiction of Europe in any way at all.
In relation to the issues that he raises about leadership in Europe, it is, of course, important that the Conservative party—which, effectively, has an anti-European position—says that Britain loses all the time in Europe. It must say that Europe is essentially something done to Britain against our interests and our designs. The shadow Leader of the House is nodding, unsurprisingly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Again!"] The shadow Deputy Prime Minister is nodding, too, as well as one or two others with an eye to the main chance. On economic reform, European defence and the future of Europe, I believe that, with other countries, we play a key leadership role. The right hon. Gentleman's problem is that, in order to make the case against Europe, he must always say that we are losing in Europe. In fact, Britain is not losing in Europe; Britain is gaining through a

547
constructive attitude in Europe. I say unhesitatingly something that he did not say: our membership of the European Union is in Britain's interests, and we will carry on playing our full part in Europe because it is the right thing to do.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the leadership of political parties, if he wants a piece of free advice, he should not raise that topic again.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends entirely with the expressions of condolence and sympathy for all the Russian people who have lost their lives in the terrible events in Moscow at the weekend, and I express our relief that at least the Low family from our country have escaped with their lives. I thank our ambassador and all the diplomatic staff, who, as we know from media reports, have worked so hard on our behalf and on behalf of the British citizens immediately involved in that terrible situation.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the grotesque events in Moscow again underline the fact that, even in this day and age, some within the wider perimeter of Europe are still prepared to wage conflict on an indiscriminate basis? Although we rightly talk about the detail of these summits, it is surely always worth bearing in mind the fact that the whole European ideal was built out of the ashes of the second world war—out of two grotesque conflicts in the last century—and that the goal of growing stability, security and maintenance of peace and prosperity is something of which we should never lose sight.
In the context of this weekend's summit, we welcome the further progress made on enlargement, although perhaps the Prime Minister, like me, reflected just a few minutes ago on the fact that, if enlargement is to be made a reality, those who pay lip service to the practicality of enlarging the European Union also have to go through the motions and the Division Lobby of the House to give effect to treaties such as the Nice treaty, rather than opposing them at every juncture. So me of the comments that we heard a few minutes ago need to be viewed in that context.
Will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that aspirant states wish to come into the Europe Union? Although it is marvellous that they are at last being liberated from old-style central command-and-control economies, they are none the less finding that existing member states and the Commission are still putting too much red tape and bureaucracy in their paths. Further emphasis needs to be given on ensuring that the enlarged Europe that evolves is more liberal and more free-trading than it is at the moment.
On the specific issue of common agricultural policy reform, which has to be the big disappointment of the weekend, too little progress—if, indeed, much progress at all—was achieved. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the agreement reached simply to cap subsidies is not a long-term solution? Does he agree that Commissioner Chris Patten was correct yesterday when he said that far-reaching reform remains inevitable? In that context, we have to get away from the wastage of EU resources and the unfair discrimination against emerging economies elsewhere, in the third world in particular. We also have to recognise the unfair penalties that the existing CAP imposes on our hard-pressed agricultural community in Britain.
548
How does the Prime Minister reconcile the outcome of the summit with the commitment to the phased withdrawal of EU subsidies in favour of the wider Doha commitments, to which we are already a signatory? Does he see any potential in coming times for assembling a coalition of interests within existing EU member states towards that end? Will the Prime Minister also reaffirm that the British budget rebate still requires unanimity for reform, and that some of the scaremongering in the media and elsewhere in politics is simply trying to mislead people on that fundamental issue?
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that our country would have greater leverage, not least on agricultural reform, if we were seen to be more of an active participant at the top table in Europe, especially as we are the fourth largest economy in the world? Are we not in danger of missing the boat at the formative stage of the single currency in the same way as we did at the outset of the establishment of the CAP? Did the Prime Minister have bilateral discussions on the single currency with other Heads of Government over the weekend? In that context, when will the next bilateral summit between France and Britain take place, and what items does the right hon. Gentleman propose to discuss with the President of France?
The Prime Minister: I am sure it will be a wide-ranging discussion as always.
The position on the single currency is the same. We are in favour of it in principle, and in practice the tests have to be passed. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the abatement. Unanimity is required. It is important to explain, however, that abatement is merely a form of compensation. Sometimes it is treated as if it were a marvellous and unusual device that allows us to get an unfair advantage. That is not the case. In fact, it is the minimum necessary to compensate us for what would otherwise be a highly unfair situation. That will change over time because of the deal struck in Berlin in 1999. In the ensuing years after enlargement, Britain's net contributions to the EU will come into line with those of France and Italy for the first time since we joined the Common Market. At the moment, however, even with the abatement, our net contributions are three times those of France. It is hardly surprising if we are vigorously defending our position.
Again, it is important to understand the two completely different aspects of CAP reform. The summit was originally not about CAP reform, but about enlargement. Germany took the same view as Britain, which is that we need some cap on overall agriculture spending. This summit delivered such a cap, and we can do more on that if we do more on agriculture reform. That is why it was so important to resist the notion that, as the trade for the spending cap, reform should be taken off the table. It was never the case that the nature of reform would be decided at the Council, but it had to remain on the agenda, otherwise the continuing work of the Agriculture Council would have been suspended. Reform is on the agenda.
The right hon. Gentleman remarked on the Doha treaty, which is vital. He is right about the Nice treaty. I had forgotten that the Conservatives voted against the

549
Nice treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] In that case, it is a little difficult for them to say that they are in favour of enlargement, but we shall leave them to sort that out.
Finally, to emphasise a point made by the right hon. Gentleman, it is important that the next few months are remembered as those in which enlargement takes place. If anyone had said two or three years ago that we would have 10 new countries in the EU, they would have been thought very bold. Those 10 countries will join the EU, and they have made enormous strides to do so. When all is said and done, and leaving aside all the differences that emerge at any summit, what should be remembered is the enlargement of the EU, which is an historic and massive step forward for Europe.
Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that so far as the Government are concerned, enlargement is not a means of slowing down or hampering the development of the EU but an investment in democracy in the new member countries and, positively, a means of enhancing the potential of our new Europe? Does my right hon. Friend expect the new European force to be in Macedonia by 1 January? Is it the Government's view that Turkey should be given a start date for negotiations at the Copenhagen summit? What are the prospects of that happening?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that, over the next few weeks, there will be discussion of timetables for Turkey, and I do not want to prejudge the results of the Copenhagen summit, but I hope that we can give further significant welcome to the steps that Turkey is taking. On the possibility of European defence taking over the Macedonian operation, I think that that is an excellent idea, and it underlines why European defence is a good, sound project, because these are circumstances in which NATO does not want to be engaged. Obviously, it is important that European defence is used only in light of an agreement between Europe and NATO because it is important that European defence is seen as wholly complementary to the existence of NATO.
Mr. David Curry: The Prime Minister is right to welcome enlargement and to talk about the importance of the world trade round, but on agriculture reform, he has clearly taken his eye off the ball. Does he not recall that on 23 September the Financial Times carried a letter from six EU farm Ministers entitled "The CAP is something we can be proud of", and that as France, Italy and Spain were all signatories, there is a clear blocking minority?
Is the Prime Minister further aware that on 3 October the Financial Times had on its front page a story headed "Berlin and Paris close to deal on farm reform"? What have the Government been doing in the meantime? Why did the Prime Minister's great friend Herr Schröder, whom the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to have rescued from election defeat, team up with the French and apparently defeat his own interests? Faced with that coalition, how can the Prime Minister believe that the mid-term review of agriculture reform is still on track?
The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely why—for the very reasons that the European Commissioner Franz Fischler gave today, when he said:
"the fundamental issues and the aims that we addressed in the MTR remain unchanged … The underlying question is: Is there an urgency to arrive at a decision on the future common agricultural policy …?' My answer to this is clear. We must seize the opportunity to build a strong and sustainable CAP before it is too late."
That is what he said today.
The point that I am trying to make to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is that one part of the French-German agreement, the limit on CAP expenditure after 2006, is an advance on what existed before the summit. Before the summit, there was no such agreement. If we had simply had the European Commission proposals, there would have been no limit on agriculture spending after 2006; now there is.
What was unacceptable was the idea that in return for that, we should abandon CAP reform in the Agriculture Council and the mid-term review. As Franz Fischler has just stipulated and as was agreed at the summit, that mid-term review continues, so the way is open for agricultural reform. Of course there will be attempts by countries to get together a blocking minority; that is the same as it was before the summit—but the important thing is that, as a result of the decision of the Council summit, there is no way that the matter can now be taken off the agenda.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: We welcome the progress that has been made on Turkey. But have we misunderstood the Prime Minister? Did he undertake that there would have to be a breach by Iraq of the freedom of weapons inspectors before military action was taken? How does that lie with the statements over the weekend by Colin Powell that there would be no difficulty in getting a coalition, and that this was the key week in relation to Iraq? If there is no difficulty about getting a coalition, who is to form that coalition, other than the British and Ariel Sharon?
The Prime Minister: I think that there is a large measure of agreement. We are obviously working on a UN resolution now. Most people accept that the weapons inspectors should go back in, without any restraint or hindrance, unlike what happened before, but that if Iraq again plays the same game as before, action should follow. Most people can agree to that. It is a reasonable position which gives Saddam the chance to come back into compliance with the UN, but makes it clear that compliance will be enforced.
Sir Peter Tapsell: What is the point of the policy of step-by-step sacrifice of aspects of British national sovereignty as the price of being, as the Prime Minister likes to put it, at the heart of Europe, if, when a crucial negotiation about the future of the common agricultural policy is held, the matter is settled at meetings between the French and German leaders behind his back, and all he gets is an unprecedented insult from the President of France?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should make up his mind who is insulting whom. He is wrong

551
about the summit. The part of the deal that was unacceptable was the part of the deal that was resisted, with the greatest respect—a point that, no matter how many times one makes it, does not seem to have penetrated the Opposition. The reason for that is exactly the point that he makes in the first part of his question. He and his fellow Conservative Eurosceptics must say the whole time that Europe is something terrible. They therefore have a view of British national sovereignty that really means in the end that Britain being in Europe is a giving up of British national sovereignty. The fact is that Britain gains as a result of co-operating with other European countries. We gain through the single market, we gain through co-operation on issues such as defence, we are gaining on issues such as economic reform, and it is important for Britain to be in Europe and at the centre of Europe—[Interruption]—yes, I believe that, because I believe it to be in the British national interest.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an air of unreality about the arguments on the common agricultural policy? I listen to the Tories every time the matter is raised. They give the impression that they do not like it. The truth is that if it were ever proposed in the House, every Tory MP would vote to put the money in the pockets of the farmers and the Countryside Alliance. As for the dustup with President Chirac, if there is to be another row, let us have it about the euro. I will give my right hon. Friend a bit more advice: he should take the Deputy Prime Minister with him. He would put President Chirac in his place.
The Prime Minister: I always get immensely constructive and occasionally idiosyncratic advice from my hon. Friend, and I will reflect upon it.
Mr. Michael Portillo: I welcome the Prime Minister's reference to Turkey in his statement. Does he agree that Turkey is a particularly valued ally because it is an Islamic state, but it is also pluralist and pro-western? Does he also agree that it occupies one of the most important squares on the strategic chessboard? Have not the EU leaders sometimes been unwise in the past to appear to shun Turkey? Given that Britain understands our strategic interests, will the Prime Minister become a positive advocate of Turkish membership of the EU in the future?
The Prime Minister: I agree exactly with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. It is important for Britain to be an advocate for Turkey, on the basis that Turkey abides by the rules of the European Union. I hope that there is a growing recognition within Europe and within Turkey that Turkish membership of the EU is in the end a good thing for Turkey, for Europe and for the wider world. We have tried consistently to support the case for Turkey while making it clear that it must abide by the same rules as everybody else in Europe.
Joyce Quin: I welcome the progress that has been made towards enlargement. However, is not one of the strongest cards in the hands of those who want CAP reform the fact that an excellent alternative to the CAP already exists
552
through the rural development regulation, which is a much more flexible way of helping rural areas and avoids distortions and the effect on the world economy that the present CAP has? Therefore, will it not be vital during the review of the CAP to build as wide a coalition of support as possible in favour of the rural development approach?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The rural development regulation is important. Our ability to move forward on that was untouched by any deal at the summit.
Mr. Alex Salmond: My hon. Friends welcome enlargement. Indeed, we would rather see Europe even larger.
Did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to discuss the fishing industry at the European Council? The industry will be affected by enlargement and it faces an immediate crisis with the proposed closure of the white fishery around Scotland, which will cost thousands of jobs and economically dismantle entire communities. Can the Prime Minister offer two commitments? The first is that the fishing interest will not be traded away in pursuit of wider British interests in Europe, as has happened so often in the past; and the second is that, over the coming weeks he will fight as hard for our fishermen as the French do for their farmers.
The Prime Minister: On the common fisheries policy, hugely difficult decisions will have to be taken because of the depletion of fishing stocks. Of course we shall fight very hard for the interests of our fishermen; we do so on every occasion. As any Government will find at present, the situation is difficult. There is no doubt, as the scientific report shows, that there is significant depletion of stocks. I am well aware of the effects of that on fishing communities not only in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom. We will do our utmost to ensure that any deal that is secured protects, in so far as it is possible, the interests of British fishermen.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's careful and precise words on Iraq, which should have wide support on the Government Benches, and I share his pleasure that the year after next we are to be joined in the European Union by two Commonwealth countries—Malta and Cyprus. Does he agree that it is out of the question for Turkey to become a member of the European Union as long as its armed forces are occupying a third of Cyprus? Does he also agree that the best way to get Turkey into the EU, as we would wish, is for its Government to facilitate and use their influence to obtain a settlement in Cyprus?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand if I say simply that we are working very hard to try to secure an agreement in respect of Cyprus, and I hope that that can be done. That is in the interests of everyone within the EU and it is in the interests of Turkey. We are supporting strongly the United Nations efforts in that regard. It is probably better if I do not comment on the matter further as the negotiations are at a delicate stage.
Dr. Julian Lewis: As the Prime Minister raised the question of hostage taking in

553
Moscow, will he tell us whether he can think of one good reason why President Putin is refusing to divulge to his own doctors the nature of the poisonous gas that has made so many of the hostages so ill? Will he use his good offices to make representations to President Putin to enable his own doctors to know what antidotes they need to apply? Otherwise, much of the sympathy which President Putin deservedly had for his dilemma will promptly evaporate.
The Prime Minister: I understand the concern behind the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that, consistent with Russian security, further answers will be given to such questions. I hope that people understand that the Russian President, as I could tell when I spoke to him on Friday, was faced with an agonising and painful decision. These people will stop at absolutely nothing and have no hesitation in killing large numbers of innocent people. We know that those taking hostages had explosives strapped to their bodies and were willing to give their lives in a massive terrorist attempt to destroy as many lives as possible. These are difficult decisions, but I am sure that, in due course, we will get some answers on those points and others.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that throughout the countries in eastern and central Europe whose joining the European Union has been agreed to, the part played by him and the Government in seeking and supporting enlargement has been very much welcomed. Does he recognise that his statement with regard to Romania and Bulgaria and the target date that he envisages for them is seen as very important? Once the other 10 countries have joined, it is vital that those two countries can also do so at the earliest possible opportunity, in line with the indications that he gave.
The Prime Minister: I very much hope that we will see the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria not later than 2007. I know that both countries are making enormous efforts to ensure that that happens. When we reflect on Europe and the balance of advantages and disadvantages, there is no doubt that it is the prospect of membership of the European Union that has had a transforming effect on the countries that used to be under the control of the old Soviet Union. Indeed, even in parts of the Balkans that have troubled this nation and other European nations for 100 years or more, there are signs of change and improvement as a result of their hope that in due course, obviously over a long period, they will secure European Union membership.
Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the Prime Minister's equivocal answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), will he give the House an absolute assurance that at Copenhagen he will not agree a rendezvous date for Turkish entry into the European Union unless a settlement on the Cyprus problem has also been reached by that time?
The Prime Minister: I will not give such an undertaking. Very difficult issues need to be resolved. We both want Turkey to be inside the European Union
554
if we can possibly achieve that and we want a resolution of the Cyprus issue but, frankly, I do not think that that will be encouraged by my laying down ultimatums or adopting fixed positions at this point in time, in the light of a set of circumstances that is obviously changing.
Keith Vaz: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his continuing to play a pivotal role in the enlargement process. He will know of the case of Catherine Meyer, which has been raised with him before. He will also know that last week at the Foreign Office an undertaking was given to Lady Meyer that he would raise her case with Chancellor Shröder. Was he able to do so and what action does he think Chancellor Shröder will take to improve the operation of the German courts?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the issue to which he refers has been raised many times in the past few years. I should tell him that I have today written a letter to Chancellor Shröder about the subject. I am well aware of the concerns that he expresses and he will know that they are shared by many people.
Mr. Michael Jack: Commissioner Fischler is entirely correct to say that the CAP should be reformed, but in my reading of the written presidency conclusions, there was nothing in terms to say that all parties would be committed to the process of reform of the CAP. The statements from the French and Germans indicated a postponement in that process until 2006. Where can I find a clear written statement that France, Germany and others will actively support and participate in all the discussions about CAP reform?
The Prime Minister: The short answer is that, certainly in relation to France, some countries may well not agree with common agricultural policy reform. It is their right not to do so. However, the fact is that, with regard to the attempt to ensure that that reform would not take place—or, in other words, that the discussion would end—their position on such reform was the same before the summit as it is afterwards. They are entitled to take whatever position they choose. What they were not entitled to do, in my view, was to say that the issue of CAP reform should be taken off the agenda. That is what was prevented at the summit and what is important.
Although I understand that it is sometimes difficult to follow such issues all the way through, I emphasise again that the basic part of the French-German agreement on limiting CAP expenditure was a step forward on what existed before the summit. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect, it was. Prior to the summit, there was no agreement that there should be any limit on CAP expenditure. There is now a limit on CAP expenditure, and—[Interruption.] The shadow Foreign has not understood, which is hardly surprising or, indeed, unusual.
As a matter of fact, there is already a financial perspective up to 2006, so we have already got a financial deal up to 2006. The question was what would happen after that. Before the summit, there was no agreement to limit CAP expenditure, but the demand of Germany—supported by Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands and other countries—was that there had to

555
be a limit. What was unacceptable was that, in return for that limit, CAP reform bit the dust. That is not now going to happen. Of course, France will carry on arguing its position, but we are able to argue our position in the Agriculture Council where, unlike the Council of Ministers, the decision is taken by qualified majority voting.
Mr. Derek Foster: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's report on progress towards enlargement. This must be a historic moment for European peace and democracy. He also holds out the prospect of further progress on reform of the CAP. Does he agree that if, by the end of the negotiations in the Agriculture Council, the European Union is not able to grasp this unique opportunity radically to reform the CAP, that would be greatly to the EU's shame?
The Prime Minister: It would be. The other thing that means that CAP reform must happen in the end is the world trade round. Nothing is more important than making sure that the trade round succeeds. Europe will have to make an offer in the trade round and that offer will have to be about reform and about the reform of agricultural subsidies. That is why it is so important that we carry on the fight for that.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Prime Minister will be aware that the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that, for the first six months of this year, the United Kingdom had the highest number of asylum seekers in the world, with the Federal Republic of Germany coming second. Is there any prospect of the Dublin convention being made to work by our EU partners? Following enlargement, will it not be even more difficult to control immigration in the wider EU, particularly if there is visa-free access to and from the Kaliningrad enclave, as the Russians propose?
The Prime Minister: It is correct to say that Britain and Germany have the highest number of asylum seekers in Europe, though countries of a similar size, such as France and Italy, use different ways to calculate the figures. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this subject and the Dublin convention as a serious issue. I had lunch today with the Prime Minister of Greece, which takes over the presidency of the EU in the first six months of next year. We discussed the issue at length and we agreed that there had to be fundamental reform of the asylum system in Europe. Otherwise, in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman indicates, the problems will intensify on enlargement. That is why it is important that we get the reform in place, and we will certainly support it. However, the position has changed in that there is now a common will across Europe that recognises that we all face the problem and that we must return integrity to the asylum system in Europe.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the significant constitutional changes that there have been in Turkey over the past couple of years, notwithstanding Turkey's strategic importance to the EU, and notwithstanding most people's hope that Turkey will
556
eventually join the EU, does it not have some way to go in terms of respecting human rights before its admission into the EU can be hastened along?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, certain criteria have to be met by any country that joins the EU. It is worth pointing out that Turkey has made progress, and the summit specifically welcomed that progress. Of course, Turkey has to abide by the same rules as any other member of the EU.
Mr. John Maples: Did the Council have any time to discuss the stability and growth pact? Presumably, the Prime Minister agrees that fiscal discipline is an important ingredient of currency stability, but that agreement is now being deliberately flouted by major members of the eurozone, in particular France and Germany, where, he tells us, he has good contacts. If that agreement is to be so flouted, does it make him more or less inclined to take Britain into the euro?
The Prime Minister: There are two issues. The first, which Britain has raised on many occasions, is the flexibility of the stability and growth pact, in particular the differences between borrowing for different reasons—for example, for investment or for consumption. That is why we have an attachment, born out of experience, to the rules set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. On the other hand, it is important that any changes in the stability and growth pact reinforce discipline within the eurozone and do not undermine it. It is for that very reason that the current discussions about the best way forward are taking place.
Mike Gapes: Mr. Putin would have been damned if he did not act and damned if he did. Is it not clear that extremist terrorist actions involving suicide bombers will be with us for the foreseeable future? Will the Prime Minister hold urgent discussions not only with our EU partners, but with other members of the Security Council and NATO, to co-ordinate best practice, advice and techniques for dealing with the more extreme forms of hostage taking?
The Prime Minister: We will continue to discuss that important issue at every level. One thing is clear: those groups are operating anywhere and everywhere in the world and they will stop at nothing. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As a major part of the CAP is spent on dumping surplus food production, and as the EU is still increasing its food production and as east Europe has fantastic potential for increasing food production, how on earth can the Germans and the French propose that spending increases be restricted to 1 per cent.? Does that not remind the Prime Minister of the accountancy principles used by Enron? Seriously, is he not beginning to find, like all his predecessors did, that the policy of cooperation and reform in Europe simply does not work?
The Prime Minister: Actually. for once, the hon. Gentleman has rather effectively made the point that I was trying to make to his colleagues. He is absolutely

557
right to say that by, for the first time, limiting spending after 2006—in other words, limiting overall spending, including for the accession countries—a squeeze will be put on agriculture spending. That has now been agreed—
Sir Teddy Taylor: It will not happen.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says it will not happen, but instead of trying to predict the future, let us both agree—unlike his party's Front Benchers—that it would be a very good thing if we did manage to achieve that limit. That is the very point that I am making, and I am glad that he has come to my assistance in educating his party's Front Benchers.
The part of the French-German agreement that is right and should be supported is the limit on common agricultural spending. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we have to ensure that that is achieved, and I agree. However, one of the things that people wanted to do in return for that is to abandon any idea of delinking subsidy from production—delinking the two being part of the Fischler proposals from the European Commission. It is for precisely that reason that we rejected the idea that we should abandon reform and abandon those proposals, and that is what was secured at the summit. For once, in a European debate, I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must move on.

Points of Order
4.28 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have in my hand the 22nd edition of "Erskine May", and I seek your guidance. Many of our constituents would consider it extraordinary that tomorrow the Commons is to discuss whether we close down at 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, rather than Colin Powell's statement that this is a key week and that there would be no difficulty in forming a coalition against Iraq.
My point of order is this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me where in "Erskine May" the parliamentary rules suggest that there is any rule to prevent an hon. Member raising an issue of urgent public importance under what used to be Standing Order 9 and then 10, and which is now 24?
As I understand it, pages 309 and 310 suggest that it is practice and custom rather than rules that prevent an hon. Member who is determined to do so from raising an issue under Standing Order No. 24. If it is custom and practice, it is one thing; if it is rules, it is another. Were it not so important a subject, I would not be difficult about custom and practice. However, the issue that I wish to raise—war and peace—should surely take precedence over tomorrow's business, which, however important it is to Members of Parliament, can surely wait.
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allow me to move as a matter of urgency that the House discuss Colin Powell's statement at the weekend that this was a key week and that there would be no difficulty in finding a coalition? If that is so, the only coalition that one can think of is the British Prime Minister and Ariel Sharon. When Secretary Powell spoke about there being no difficulty in getting a coalition—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who has long experience as a Member of Parliament, which we all respect. However, he is in danger of turning a point of order into a point of debate. I must advise him that, within the powers given to Mr. Speaker to interpret the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker has already ruled that he cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's subject for debate. I certainly cannot alter the ruling that the Speaker has made in that respect.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm whether the ruling existed before Madam Speaker Boothroyd and whether it is enshrined in the rules of the House of Commons? Perhaps there could be reflection on that subject, because custom and practice is one thing; rules are another.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been the custom and practice of this House for 10 years, as was established during the time of Mr. Speaker Weatherill.
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Order Paper, the Government propose to move two orders tomorrow suspending the devolved Administration—the Executive and Assembly—in Stormont. You would

559
not want me to go into the substance of that issue, and I will certainly not do so. However, the proposal involves the suspension of the constitution of part of our country and imposing, essentially, a form of colonial rule on Northern Ireland. This is an important and controversial matter. Obviously, the Government do not want the arguments to be aired too publicly and the issues to be exposed to public view, so they have decided to take the orders in Committee, rather than on the Floor of the House—where, self-evidently, they belong. Is there any power open to you to enable us to debate that controversial procedural decision?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The short answer is no. This is a matter for the Government to decide, as is laid down in the Standing Orders, and is not a matter that the Chair can determine.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to my previous point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At your convenience, could we have the reference for when Mr. Speaker Weatherill made such a ruling? Mr. Speaker Weatherill was a very benign Speaker in these matters, and I am curious about when the ruling was made.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was 16 October 1991. I should say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that all Speakers are benevolent.

Opposition Day
[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Access To Facilities Of The House
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the first Opposition motion. I have to advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the serious breaches by Sinn Fein/IRA of their obligations under the Belfast Agreement and the ceasefire, which have been recognised by the Government in the decision to suspend the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland; believes that good faith has not been observed by Sinn Fein/IRA; and, unless Sinn Fein honourable Members commit themselves to a public statement that all terrorist organisations. including the IRA, should rescind violence, resolves to rescind the resolution of 18th December 2001 granting facilities and other support to Sinn Fein honourable Members who have chosen not to take their seats.
  I should like to take this opportunity to welcome, very sincerely, the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. He comes to this delicate task with a distinguished record of service in Northern Ireland and knows the position well, which is encouraging for all of us.
  Although we shall no doubt disagree from time to time, I hope that I shall be able to co-operate constructively with him in tackling an issue that both our parties agree is of great importance.
  Let me try to dispose of a rather unattractive, although I fear all too characteristic, piece of cant and spin doctoring that this issue has suffered from over the past couple of weeks. The Government know perfectly well that the special status conferred on Sinn Fein Members last December has not worked. They know that it was a mistake: a part of at least four sets of crucial mistakes in their Northern Ireland policy. They know that we were right to oppose it, and they are now trying surreptitiously to distance themselves from it and imply that the resolution last December was not their fault. They want to make it sound as though the House spontaneously decided that the creation of a special status—what Baroness Boothroyd called an associate status—would in itself be a desirable reform, and that if it was a mistake, that is nothing to do with them.
  When questioned on the special status by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the former Secretary of State said:
  "that is a matter for the House."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 204.]
  He simply dismissed the question and evaded all responsibility. The Prime Minister used the same formula last Wednesday, when he said: understand"—what a wonderful way of distancing oneself—
  "that office facilities are a matter for the House, not me."—[Official Report, 23 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 272.]
  In fact, that is mere eyewash—I might have been tempted to use a less parliamentary expression. The decision to confer the special status and override

  561
  Baroness Boothroyd's ruling in 1997, as well as the ruling in 1924, was taken solely and exclusively at the Government's behest, purely and simply as part and parcel of their misconceived Northern Ireland policy. Before it was even revealed to, or discussed in, the House, it had been discussed with, and offered to, Sinn Fein. I do not say that the changing of our parliamentary rules was bartered or sold to Sinn Fein, as that would hardly be the appropriate word, given that nothing was received in return, but it was secretly and squalidly promised to them by the Government, who must take full responsibility for that act, about which they now evidently feel guilty enough to wish to dissociate themselves from it.
  I said that the decision was part of four grave sets of errors in the Government's Northern Ireland policy. The first mistake was the decision to release all the terrorist prisoners without any decommissioning having occurred. That was a fundamental error—I should perhaps say a foundational error, as it is the origin of the other mistakes. It sent the wrong signal from the start about how the Government intended to manage the peace process and may well have sacrificed the best opportunity that we had to get decommissioning concluded within the time scale set out in the Belfast agreement.
  The second mistake was not to respond at all to successive Sinn Fein-IRA breaches of the agreement and the ceasefire. We all know what they were: Florida; Colombia; the evidence of active targeting in March this year; the Castlereagh break-in in April; and the spy ring in the Northern Ireland Office, which the Government have apparently known about for some time. In short, we are talking about the Government's whole policy of turning a blind eye. No wonder those in the republican movement who are least committed to the peace process were encouraged to believe that they could get away with almost anything. The Government had given them an irresistible argument to use against their colleagues in the army council who might genuinely have wanted to take their obligations seriously and move towards adopting an exclusively democratic and peaceful course.
  The third error—an egregious and unpardonable one—was not merely to fail to respond with any sanction or penalty to those breaches, but to offer new concessions, going beyond the agreement, to Sinn Fein-IRA during that period. There were several such concessions, but the worst were the promise to give an amnesty to on-the-run terrorists—so far we have succeeded in resisting the implementation of that—and the special status for Sinn Fein MPs, which unfortunately we did not succeed in resisting.
  The fourth error was the suspension of devolution, rather than the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the Executive, as a result of the latest crisis. That was an error in two senses: it was a moral and political error because it penalised the innocent—indeed, the whole peace process—rather than the guilty alone; and it was a pragmatic error because, although it is easy to suspend institutions, it is very much less easy to envisage, still less to bring about, the circumstances in which they can be restored. It is generally a mistake, in politics as elsewhere, to walk into a problematic situation when one cannot see the exit on the other side.
  562
  There was another way; we spelt it out for the Government in the debate in Opposition time last July. It was not to propose an exclusion motion in the Assembly—although that is what the previous Secretary of State promised, but failed, to do. We explained in July why that procedure would not work. We said that it was unfair and unreasonable to expect one party in the nationalist camp to bear the main onus of the exclusion of the other. We therefore offered to support the Government in taking the powers here in Westminster, and permitting the Secretary of State to exclude from the power-sharing Executive any party in breach, or associated with persons in breach, of the ceasefire or the agreement.
  Of course the Government, with their vast majority, did not take the slightest notice and, when the crisis came, that power was not even in the Government's armoury; that option was not available to be considered. Government policy has now brought us to this regrettable and worrying impasse. However, the Opposition do not intend to satisfy ourselves simply by pointing out the Government's errors. We have an obligation to say what we would do if we had those responsibilities now.
  We would do two things. First, we would pass the Opposition motion tonight. Let me make our position on special status clear. In case anyone needs reminding, let me repeat that we wholeheartedly support the Belfast agreement—[Interruption.] We support the Belfast agreement, and that concession was never required by the agreement—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Leader of the House wishes to quarrel with that idea, but the concession never had anything to do with the agreement itself.
  Secondly, we find special status obnoxious in principle, and I am surprised that the Leader of the House and the rest of the Labour party do not feel the same. Anyone elected to a democratic Assembly or Parliament should take his or her seat on the same basis as everybody else who has been duly elected, or not at all.
  Chris Ruane: If the rules of the House were changed so that the oath of allegiance was made, say, to our constituents, so IRA Members—or rather, Sinn Fein Members—said that they would be prepared to sit in the House, would the hon. Gentleman object to their having offices in the House of Commons then?
  Mr. Davies: Of course we would not object to Sinn Fein members taking their seats on the same basis as everyone else. If for some reason the rules of the House were changed—indeed, we are to discuss certain changes in those rules tomorrow night—the changes should apply to everybody. Whatever the rules happened to be at any time, we would expect all Members who wished to take their seats, and get offices and public money, to abide by them. I should have thought that that was a pretty simple idea.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman nevertheless accept that those of us who take the oath do so in the belief that we come here to serve not only our constituents, but the state as well? That is the very basis on which we serve here.
  Mr. Davies: Indeed. I echo entirely the hon. Lady's words, and I do not think that any difference exists

  563
  between us in that regard. She is a very distinguished parliamentarian indeed, and she must have been as offended and concerned as the rest of us were when the Government suggested creating special status for some in this place. I should make it plain that we would not expect special status for ourselves, and we would oppose giving it to the Scottish nationalists, the Liberal Democrats or anybody else.
  We hope that, in due time, Sinn Fein MPs will, just like other hon. Members, take the seats in this House for which they were duly elected. I remind the House that, for a long time, Sinn Fein had a policy of abstentionism from all democratic assemblies. In the case of the Dail in Dublin, it has overcome that inhibition; its representatives take their seats there and they play a normal part in the democratic life of the Republic of Ireland, which is how it should be. Sinn Fein also overcame that difficulty in the case of Stormont, and before the Assembly's recent suspension its representatives took their places in it. I hope that, in due time, it will overcome the problem here and Sinn Fein MPs will take their seats. But whether or not they do so, the same rules must apply at all times to all duly elected Members of this House, and on the same common basis.
  Kevin Brennan: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman in hoping that Sinn Fein MPs will one day take their seats in this House, but how will excluding them from its facilities in the manner suggested in the motion encourage them along that path?
  Mr. Davies: If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman has got it precisely 180 degrees wrong. If Sinn Fein were considering overcoming its particular difficulty and changing the policy of abstentionism—as it has done in respect of the Dail and of Stormont—the Government have relieved it of that dilemma by introducing special status last December. They have made it unnecessary for Sinn Fein to take that third step.
  Kevin Brennan rose—
  Mr. Davies: I have just given way to the hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to intervene again he will have to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He will certainly not prevent me from finishing a point that I am glad to make, and which he has enabled me to make.
  The fact is that the Government's ill-conceived decision to confer special status on Sinn Fein last December has actually released it from that dilemma; it has not had to take, or has at least been able to postpone, that decision. If we had gotten our way and that provision had not gone through, Sinn Fein would indeed have had to face that dilemma. It would have needed to decide whether there was any sincerity in its claim to want to represent its constituents' interests in this House, or in its signing of the Belfast agreement, which states explicitly that, until the matter is changed by majority opinion in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland remains a full part of the United Kingdom. Sinn Fein should therefore have no objection to taking its seats, even though, perfectly honourably and respectably, it wants—like the Social Democratic and
  564
  Labour party—to change the position in due time. Of course, the SDLP has always pursued that objective by entirely constitutional and democratic means.
  I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), to whom I am grateful for his intervention, that the Government have got the matter precisely 180 degrees wrong.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that one Sinn Fein MP went to the heart of the issue in pointing out that one reason why he has not taken the oath and sat as a full Member is that he regards this as "a foreign Parliament"?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, I remember that clearly, and that has been Sinn Fein's position for a very long time. If we are democrats, we have to accept a majority decision that goes against us. One would hope that, if there is any sincerity in Sinn Fein's signing up to the Belfast agreement, its representatives would accept that, for the time being and under the terms of the agreement, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that this Parliament is not, therefore, a foreign Parliament.
  They can come and take their seats here without in any way weakening that desire ultimately to change Northern Ireland's status. In that event, Northern Ireland would be part of a different country. There is no contradiction between Sinn Fein saying that its aim is to have a reunited Ireland and a separate Parliament and, in the meantime, its representatives taking their seats here. Until such time as Sinn Fein is able to persuade a majority of people in Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Belfast agreement, to vote to change Northern Ireland's status, there would be no contradiction in taking those seats, as long as Sinn Fein is prepared to abide by democratic rules and live up to the promises made in the agreement. Those two conditions go to the heart of the quandary about Sinn Fein's behaviour.
  Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I agreed so much with what the hon. Gentleman said about terrorism a moment ago that I shall give way to him.
  Mike Gapes: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend— I call him that because we have similar views on Europe—but does he accept that the logic of his position would be much stronger if the Northern Ireland Assembly had voted to exclude Sinn Fein? His argument does not take account of the fact that the Sinn Fein members are in the same position regarding the suspension of the Assembly and, therefore—although there are reasons why it was suspended, which we can doubtless debate later—his position is premature.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman's point is slightly convoluted, but I think that I followed it. He has not followed what I have said. We have never suggested that anybody should be excluded from the Assembly in Northern Ireland; we say that they should be excluded from the Executive, and that is a different matter. The power-sharing Executive is an artificial construct—the Unionists sometimes call it an involuntary coalition—

  565
  and people sit on it not by virtue of having received a majority of the votes in Northern Ireland but by virtue of the Belfast agreement. Therefore, if they cease to comply with the Belfast agreement, they lose that entitlement to sit on the Executive. On that basis, the exclusion of Sinn Fein would be justified by its bad behaviour, as I have outlined.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend accept that the only person being premature in this debate is the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), because his argument would mean that we would have to wait to catch Sinn Fein-IRA spying on us in this place before we could exclude them?
  Mr. Davies: The evidence for the breaches that I have listed is overwhelming. The Florida gun-running episode, for example, was the subject of a determination by an American court—in other words, a legal process in a country with a recognised judicial system. Moreover, it is a country that is not known for a bias against Irish nationalism or republicanism—far from it. It is difficult to think of a more objective validation of an accusation. Similarly, the Colombian situation was the subject of a report by the international affairs committee of the House of Representatives, so it was also objectively validated. The other breaches that I listed have been subject to a determination by the Chief Constable, and all parties have accepted that.
  Of course, the guilt or innocence of individuals must be determined by a court, but whether a crime has been committed is normally determined by the police. If someone burgles my house, I may have to wait some months before it is decided whether the suspect whom the police have arrested is guilty, but the fact that a burglary took place can be determined on the spot by the police. I have been rigorous when I have talked about the breaches. They happened and that cannot be denied. I would be sorry indeed if the Government were in denial about those breaches, because that would be very alarming. They are such grievous breaches of the ceasefire and the agreement that the Government should have done something about them. It was indefensible that they did not.
  We lost the vote last December, but it was passed on the basis of assumptions by the Government that have proved excessively optimistic. It has now become clear that the hope of better behaviour from Irish republicanism, on which the Government were counting, has simply not materialised. We have seen all the breaches that I mentioned and we have also seen very little progress in decommissioning. However, the Leader of the House expressly said last December that we would be "more likely" to see more decommissioning if we granted the special status.
  Of course, there has been no progress on other implementation issues in the Belfast agreement, such as Sinn Fein accepting the new Police Service of Northern Ireland.
  The expectations that the Government were counting on—some would say naively—which the Leader of the House made explicit when he was trying to justify the unjustifiable last December, have been shown to be
  566
  false. The Government made a major miscalculation and, in my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the position should be rectified.
  The motion represents a sanction, and a sanction is badly required, but the motion itself is conditional. That is a vital point. I have said that special status is not viable or acceptable in the long term, but we have a choice about when and how we end it. Under our motion, it would still be open to Sinn Fein to keep its special status for the time being—pending a global solution, when I hope that its members take up their seats in full—if it unequivocally renounces violence. That must of course mean a commitment to disband the IRA, renounce the armed struggle definitively, abolish its military structures and complete decommissioning in accordance with the agreement to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain. In other words, we have lived up to the tactics that we have consistently urged on the Government. Our sanctions are contingent and balanced, as our concessions would be. They are not unilateral and unreciprocated.
  What has happened over the weekend further vindicates our approach. When we called the debate in July to press for the power of exclusion from the Executive, on the very hour of the very day that that debate was timed to start—5 o'clock in the afternoon—we had the IRA apology. This time, within 36 hours of our putting down a relatively robust motion, Gerry Adams has made his most encouraging statement yet—not excluding disbandment. [Laughter.] Perhaps it is all coincidence, or perhaps we should initiate debates on Northern Ireland more frequently, and put the matter to the test.
  Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he and his party genuinely believe that, on account of their motion, the IRA and Sinn Fein altered their strategy?
  Mr. Davies: It was an extraordinary coincidence, was it not? The Opposition debate in July, which had the clear and announced aim of introducing a motion to enable the Secretary of State to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive, coincided with the IRA apology. It was timed for that very moment. It could, of course, be coincidence, as could the link between this motion and the statement made by Gerry Adams over the weekend. I merely say that perhaps we should initiate more debates and put the matter to the test. Presumably, in good scientific fashion, when the correlation recurs after a certain number of experiments have been conducted, we shall be able to draw a conclusion.
  We have been urging another issue on the Government for more than year. We first asked them last October to attempt to negotiate a global and comprehensive accord that is multilateral, interlinked and timetabled, which I have called a programmed process, covering the implementation of the Belfast agreement and the resolution of all other outstanding matters, including the Weston Park matters. I urge the Government once again to take on board, as they sadly have not done yet, what I said over and over again and at great length in our debate in July. No party in Northern Ireland will make a significant move unless it knows in advance what proportion of the total price to be paid that move represents, what it will get in return,

  567
  and when, so timetables must be involved as well. Everyone needs to see the end game and to know the details and timing of each step towards it. There must be clear provision for what happens if there is noncompliance along the way. All the concepts that, until now. the Government have resisted—linkage, penalties for non-performance, timetables—will be essential if real progress is finally to be made.
  Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that even if the Government set down such a timetable they will adhere to it? He will recall that the Government said that the release of convicted prisoners from the Maze would be phased with decommissioning. They made that clear but, at the end of the day, every convicted terrorist was released before any decommissioning took place.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. I made that point myself and we should make it over and again. The Government should never be allowed to forget it. The Belfast agreement provided that decommissioning should be completed within two years and that prisoner releases should be completed within two years. It is hard to believe that anybody could be so naive as to have delivered 100 per cent. of their side of the bargain while nothing whatever on the other side was delivered. That was not merely an error, but a fundamental error which set the Government on the wrong course, and they have been following that course ever since. Through this debate, I am trying to ensure that they get back on the right course and go forward in the right direction.
  I hope that the Government have learned that their policy of unilateral concessions and turning a blind eye, or even their attempts to reach piecemeal agreements or understandings with one party or another individually—a course that immediately arouses the suspicions or opposition of others—simply will not work.
  My hon. Friend asked what guarantees there would be that, if we set a deadline, Sinn Fein or others would meet it. I have not suggested that anybody should set a unilateral deadline; I have been putting forward a multilateral and comprehensive concept. It is extremely important that everything in the package is interlinked and that everybody knows precisely who has to do what and by when.
  I hope that I have made it clear that there is a fundamental conceptual difference between us and the Government on the right tactics to be pursued. Their tactics have not worked and we are in a terrible mess, so I hope that they will pay serious attention to good advice from the Opposition.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his argument? I thought that he was arguing that giving special status to Sinn Fein MPs was unacceptable and unsavoury, and wrong in principle. However, he also seems to be arguing that the Government's tactics of negotiating and horse trading are not being followed perfectly. The process that he describes is one of horse trading, negotiation and concession, inducements and rewards to Sinn Fein. Can he confirm that that is his argument and that there would thus be nothing wrong in principle with agreeing to what he describes as an amnesty for on-the-run
  568
  terrorists, to changes to the policing legislation or to giving access to facilities in this place, but merely that he wants the horse trading to be done more perfectly? Is that right?
  Mr. Davies: As always, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is known for both his experience of Northern Ireland and his mental agility, so if anyone were able to defend the Government from the Back Benches it would be the right hon. Gentleman. I notice that the Leader of the House has been remarkably silent during all my strictures against the Government.
  The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is wrong, however. He is right to the extent that the type of comprehensive solution that I have set out involves incentives and deterrents. I am happy to agree that those concepts are involved.
  However, introducing the whole issue of special status was the Government's doing, and it was quite otiose, gratuitous and extremely foolish; it was never in the Belfast agreement.
  The right hon. Gentleman probably knows the Belfast agreement backwards—I have tried to learn it at least forwards if not backwards during the past few months—and there was no suggestion of special status. It was wrong to offer it because it was wrong in itself. First, it is obnoxious in principle, as I have already said, and, secondly, it was perverse. I have already explained why it was perverse: it prevented Sinn Fein from grappling with the real issue of whether it would end up taking its seats here properly.
  Mr. Mandelson rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall have to wind up my speech in a moment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he wishes to do so later, and I look forward to his contribution. He is right to say that a package approach is required, but introducing into the package an element that was not required under the agreement, such as special status, seems to have been extremely damaging from every possible point of view.
  The new Labour Government have a vast majority and are protected by their army of spin doctors—[Interruption.] Of course, that is the case, and the whole country knows it now. However, I am particularly sad that they chose to play fast and loose with the honour of Parliament, with the procedures of the House and with the fundamental equity that ought to exist between all Members who are elected to take their seats.
  I shall end on a positive note. The Government are now embarking on at least a change of personnel, and I have sincerely welcomed the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) to the Front Bench. If, in the light of the disappointments of the past four years—they must be extremely disappointing to the Government privately—and the failure of their tactics, they are prepared to reconsider and to go forward on a more realistic and robust basis, we shall be delighted to support them, and I mean that very sincerely.
  However, we can make a good start tonight by making it clear that, if there is no movement and no compliance, we must have the courage to withdraw

  569
  concessions as well as to make them, and that the concession of special status for Sinn Fein cannot stand if there is no countervailing and appropriate response from those who have benefited from it. I hope that the House will think that a reasonable and sensible signal to send to all concerned in Belfast, and I look forward to hearing the Government's response.
  5.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the fundamental need for the affairs of Northern Ireland to be settled on an exclusively peaceful, democratic and inclusive basis; and does not believe that expelling any party to the peace process from the parliamentary precincts is likely to encourage them to renounce violence and to pursue a political settlement within that process."
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for his kind words of welcome, and I look forward to working with him and other Conservative Members who are interested in Northern Ireland.
  I am very conscious of the accomplished act that I have to follow: my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) led Northern Ireland affairs with a very sure touch. I have admired—I am sure that many others have done so, too—his commitment, toughness and breadth of thinking, and Northern Ireland will miss the unique contribution that he was able to make. The nature of his new role as Minister without Portfolio means that the House may hear less of him for a while, although those listening to the "Today" programme may well be more fortunate.
  Despite my sadness at leaving my previous job as Secretary of State for Wales, it is very good to be back among so many people in Northern Ireland's political life with whom I worked closely when the Belfast agreement was prepared. I still believe that that agreement was one of the greatest achievements of statesmanship anywhere in the world in recent years. That is not just, or even mainly, to the credit of the British and Irish Governments: the main contribution came from those in political life in Northern Ireland who worked on it, and often took great risks for it, and they deserve our admiration. Some of those people are Members of the House—the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Some are members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which I profoundly hope we shall see up and running again before long. However, many in both of the governing parties in the House have also shown great breadth of vision and willingness to take risks. Without those qualities on the part of the last Prime Minister, as well as the present one, and on the part of my predecessors before and after 1997, we should not have made the strides that we have. We should have in mind their insight and their courage as we consider the motion this evening.
  Of course, some political parties in Northern Ireland disagree fundamentally with aspects of that agreement. I respect their convictions, too, and I believe that they are driven by a commitment to advance Northern
  570
  Ireland towards a happier and more peaceful future. I look forward to discussing those matters with them in the coming days.
  I have happy memories of my encounters with those in Northern Ireland politics. I am therefore very sorry, in many ways, that on my first appearance in the House as Secretary of State the motion obliges me to disagree with a number of hon. Members, including some who would support the Belfast agreement. As the motion refers to larger questions about the circumstances that have led to the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland, I hope that I may set out some of my impressions of those matters, of how we might move forward and of how the issue of facilities here may impact on that.
  Four and a half years on from the conclusion of the agreement on Good Friday 1998, I still believe that it offers the only way forward for Northern Ireland. I believe that Northern Ireland has benefited substantially from it, and many of those benefits were delivered through the mechanism of devolved government. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford referred to the fact that mistakes have been made over the last few years—mistakes by Governments, perhaps mistakes by the Assembly, and mistakes by politicians. The thing that I remember most vividly about Good Friday 1998—probably no one in the House this afternoon was present for those negotiations—was that, when the business was concluded in the late afternoon, George Mitchell, who chaired the talks, said that the agreement had been signed but that the difficulties lay ahead, and that, inevitably, the road would be bumpy in the years following the agreement.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford also said that, in his view, the Government could have done certain things during the past four years to improve the situation. I am not saying for one minute that this Government or any Government do everything right, but I know that governing with a big majority in the House of Commons—the biggest for many years—was not the answer to the problems of Northern Ireland. It helped, of course, but, as far as Northern Ireland was concerned, if the agreement was to be successful—as I believe that it will be—majorities in the House of Commons did not matter. Ultimately, it does not matter what a British or Irish Government can do. With a majority of 100, or whatever it was, of course we could have passed the Belfast agreement, perhaps in a matter of weeks. We could have imposed an agreement on the people of Northern Ireland, but it would have failed miserably, as we know, and an agreement is only possible if it has support among all political parties in Northern Ireland, as far as that can be ensured.
  Of course, not every party in Northern Ireland agreed with the agreement. Those who did agree, however, knew full well that, without each other, it would surely fail. That is the fundamental error in the remarks of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. He thinks that the Government or Governments can achieve that end, but we cannot. It can only be achieved through the parties, and, of course, through the endorsement of that agreement by the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum.
  Mr. John McFall: I welcome my right hon. Friend as Secretary of State. I know of the great

  571
  work that he did in the lead-up to the Good Friday agreement. He will make mistakes in the future, because the political situation is imperfect, but he will listen to the politicians and, more than anything, he will listen to people in the community.
  Will my right hon. Friend keep the headline issue in mind as he undertakes his privileged job? Since 1994, when the IRA ceasefire began, many families have been able to stay intact because fewer people are in their graves as a result of the disorder. That is the success of the Northern Ireland peace process. The aim of ensuring that there is safety and peace in those communities should keep my right hon. Friend and others going.
  Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend, who was a Minister in Northern Ireland for some years and played his part in the development of the process. Anyone who returns to Northern Ireland and reflects on what it was like before the agreement will understand that irrespective of what problems we face now and have faced since the agreement was signed, the world has changed in a remarkable way. I started to take an interest in Northern Ireland when on the Opposition Front Bench in the mid-1990s. Anyone who compares the earlier Belfast, or any other town or village in Northern Ireland, with the city now will see the difference not simply in the number of people who have died, which is the most important consideration, but in the quality of life.
  As Secretary of State for Wales, I worked with a successful Assembly in Cardiff and I know that the benefits of a devolved Assembly are enormous, as are the benefits of the agreement. It is not just what the Assembly has done in Northern Ireland, but the fact that people from Northern Ireland run their own affairs.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Used to.
  Mr. Murphy: Of course, and we aim to ensure that the Northern Ireland Assembly is up and running as soon as possible.
  Real achievements have been made and there is greater potential in the devolved government system. Northern Ireland has been changing rapidly and for the better. For example, there have been new policy initiatives on travel for old people, the organisation of industrial development promotion and the better performance of services for agriculture and health. The physical fabric has been improved with, for instance, the building of the Odyssey centre, which is new since I last worked in Belfast. I believe that people in Northern Ireland want devolution back and I shall apply all my efforts to securing that at the earliest opportunity. I am glad that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and I have at least that much in common.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister must realise that the fundamental problem is the lack of trust in Sinn Fein-IRA. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) highlighted the improvements in Northern Ireland, but there have been increased terrorist activities in Colombia as a result of Sinn Fein-IRA's activities. Sinn Fein-IRA could not be trusted in Stormont. Can they be trusted here?
  Mr. Murphy: Trust is important, but it has to be between all parties. Everything that might go wrong,
  572
  everything that has gone wrong now and again and everything that went wrong before the agreement was signed stems from the lack of trust. That is not confined to one side, however. Both sides have a problem with trust, which has been the case traditionally and historically. Trust cannot happen overnight.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to tell the House that events in the past months and years have caused trust to evaporate. The suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly is a direct result of a lack of trust between political parties there. It is the job of the Government and Members of the House of Commons to ensure that that trust is restored. The motion does not help to achieve that end and trust between parties in Northern Ireland will not be helped one jot if the House agrees to it. I am not suggesting that hon. Members who believe that the motion is right are insincere, but it will not do the trick.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend address the fundamental problem that there are two classes of Members in the House of Commons? There are some who accept responsibility to the United Kingdom and their constituents and some who do not. The Leader of the House may shake his head, but that is the case.
  Does the Secretary of State accept that situation, because it is not only fundamental but extremely dangerous?
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend raised those issues in a previous debate, and of course she is entirely right to say what she thinks. However, the motion that we are debating would perpetuate the situation, because if Sinn Fein agreed with the conditions that it sets down, there would continue to be two classes of Member in this House. The Leader of the House will deal with the matters specifically related to the House when he winds up the debate. He will have heard what my hon. Friend said. My interest in all this, which I am sure is the same as that of most Members, concerns the fact that if there is any action that the House can take to improve the chances of peace in Northern Ireland, we should take it—it is as simple as that.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of trust. He said that passing this motion would not enhance trust in Northern Ireland, but when trust has been given, as it was given by the Government last December, and abused, should nothing be done about that?
  Mr. Murphy: Indeed it should, and I hope to address some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman later in my speech.
  Mike Gapes: I add my voice to those that have congratulated my right hon. Friend on his new appointment. I had the pleasure of serving as his Parliamentary Private Secretary when, as Minister of State, he played such a vital role in negotiating the Good Friday agreement, and his appointment is well deserved.
  Does my right hon. Friend accept that the agreement is not the property of any of the eight parties who signed it or of the two Governments but remains the property of the people of Northern Ireland because of the referendum in which they endorsed it? It is therefore

  573
  foolish for people to try to play games with issues surrounding the agreement which could undermine it and reverse the progress that my right hon. Friend so excellently negotiated.
  Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. When he was my PPS he, too, played an important role in the events leading up to the Good Friday agreement.
  As the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach jointly emphasised when devolved government was suspended, an inclusive Executive built on trust, along with the other related institutions established by the agreement, offer the only means whereby Northern Ireland can be governed in the best interests of the community. They offer a sustainable basis for fair and honourable accommodation between Unionists and nationalists.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Murphy: In a moment.
  As the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach also stressed, it is essential that concerns about the commitment to exclusively democratic and non-violent means are removed. The time has come for people clearly to choose one track or the other. I know that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will agree with every word of that.
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I genuinely wish him well in his new appointment.
  On the question of trust, is it the case that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have been not only inextricably linked to the IRA but heavily involved in the IRA for several years, and they are probably still on the army council? Is it the case that Sinn Fein-IRA were plotting and spying in the Stormont Administration with a view to possibly using the information later in terrorist activities? What leads the Secretary of State to believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are not using the facilities in the House of Commons to plot and to spy on Members here, including himself, with a view to possibly using the information later in terrorist activities?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that it would not be right for me to comment on those matters because they are the subject of an inquiry.
  Kevin Brennan: I echo the words of congratulation to my right hon. Friend. I have known him for some years so I will not go into detail, as others have.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be equally, if not more, dangerous to deny normal facilities to Members of this House, even if they have not taken the Oath, when they have been democratically elected in their own constituency by people who may not believe that they should be part of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Murphy: The answer is yes. It would be wrong to deny the constituents of those constituency MPs the right that every one of us shares. I will touch on that matter in a moment.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: The motion seeks to deny access to this place not to the electorate in
  574
  Northern Ireland, but to the people who were elected to it and who will not take their seats. If they do not take their seats, they cannot participate in the House. What. therefore, does the Secretary of State imagine their allowances are being used for?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman refers made it clear in their election campaigns that they would not take up their seats. Under our constitution, the way in which we elect Members to the House means that they were elected by a majority of the people in their constituencies. There is still an onus on them to represent not only those who voted for them, but those who did not vote for them. My right hon. Friend the Leader will return to that.
  As the Prime Minister made crystal clear in Belfast earlier this month, nothing other than what I have described can work. The essential trust underpinning the agreement cannot be restored unless it is clear to everyone that debate and peaceful resolution of differences is the only track being followed. With that exclusive commitment, we can make very rapid progress. Without it, the Government will do all they can to secure the continuing benefits of the agreement, but the future of the devolved institutions, and of Northern Ireland more generally, is inevitably cast into doubt.
  There is of course a need for commitment. Everyone must be assured that there is a willingness to work in the institutions on a genuinely inclusive basis. Again, all parties in Northern Ireland—and all parties in this place—must leave that in no doubt. It is highly relevant to the motion that we are discussing tonight.
  As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, the question of violence, and preparations for violence, is crucial. The Prime Minister has said that he believes that the leaders of Sinn Fein, who are Members of this House but have not taken their seats, want the agreement to work. From what I knew of them in the past, I am also convinced of their commitment. I believe that they have brought their movement a very long way in the cause of peace. I believe that they are dedicated to making the agreement work on a constitutional basis.
  Let us not forget how far the republican movement has come in its record in making constitutional politics work in Northern Ireland. The conscientious and industrious participation of Sinn Fein Members in the Assembly and Executive in recent years could not have been imagined a few years ago, and I interpret the remarks of the president of Sinn Fein at the weekend as continuing in the same direction. It was a thoughtful and detailed speech, which merits careful consideration. I hope to discuss it with him shortly when I meet all the parties in Northern Ireland this week.
  However, much that has happened in Northern Ireland in recent months has led to doubts—doubts that I entirely understand—about the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, in line with the Mitchell principles, on the part of the republican movement as a whole. There has been deplorable violence on the part of loyalist paramilitaries as well. It is one of the most acutely painful reminders of the past that we had hoped that Northern Ireland had left behind. We will make every effort to deal firmly with that violence, as we will with violence and criminality from any quarter.

  575
  My predecessor took resolute steps, as has the new Chief Constable. That work will go on with vigour while I am Secretary of State. But there is a difference, in that the loyalist parties have not formed part of the Administration in Northern Ireland, whereas Sinn Fein has.
  Activity appearing to be the work of parts of the IRA has had a profoundly destabilising effect, and we must tackle it. However, we must be clear about the extent of that activity. The context of the motion would have been different had that activity been considered a breach of the ceasefire. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my predecessor set out how they would deal with the question of ceasefires in their statements on 24 July. I, of course, stand behind that approach, and I will act with no less resolution.
  There has been much to cause worry, and entirely understandable worry. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio expressed concerns about violence from paramilitary groups on all sides in Northern Ireland. He had not reached the conclusion that there had been a breach of the IRA ceasefire of 1997. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his recent speech, we need to move beyond ceasefires to acts of completion.
  The challenge that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has laid before the republican movement is to complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means. I believe that all who uphold the agreement should do all that they can now to help the republican movement to do so. I do not believe that the motion would help lead the republican movement to that further transformation.
  We are asking that those within the movement who still believe that violence, or the implicit threat of violence, still has a place in the advancement of their legitimate political aims should change that position. I do not see how the withdrawal of office facilities and other associated entitlements in this place could realistically influence the paramilitaries to abandon the course of violence. I cannot for one second agree that the debate has led to what the president of Sinn Fein said during the weekend. I am sure that that is not so.
  Withdrawal of the facilities that were accorded at the end of last year would give only further grounds for saying that both Parliament and the Government are unreliable, and that their word to nationalism can never be relied on. Whatever we may think of the merits of that view, it is a widespread one. [Interruption.] I shall repeat that because those who know Northern Ireland will understand that whatever we may think of its merits, it is a widespread view there. We must do all that we possibly can to neutralise such suspicions and make it clear that legitimate nationalist aspirations, like legitimate Unionist aspirations, will be allowed the fullest opportunity to advance by consent within an exclusively non-violent and democratic process.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: I too welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am interested in hearing his argument about not applying sanctions to IRA-Sinn Fein. Why did the Government take sanctions against
  576
  the Ulster Defence Association and why did they not believe in that instance that that would not help to bring the UDA into a democratic process?
  Mr. Murphy: The sanctions to which the hon. Gentleman is referring would have had an entirely different impact from the sanction that the motion would introduce. The motion would not move Sinn Fein in the direction that we want it to move. If the motion were passed, it would have exactly the opposite effect. That is my fear. In my mind, we have been left in no doubt that that would happen. That was the central thrust of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. That is central to the full implementation of the agreement. Indeed, on entering the political talks in 1997, it committed itself to the Mitchell principles. One of Martin McGuinness's concerns was to subscribe to a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, as one of the elements derived from the Mitchell principles, in the pledge of office when he took the post of Minister of Education in Northern Ireland.
  David Burnside: I also congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position. We have had Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen, and I look forward to the day when we will have an Ulsterman as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Then we will truly be British.
  Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, will he define what a ceasefire is? We still await the resolute action from his predecessor on defining the term. The present definition, from the Provisional IRA, is that it does not kill British soldiers or shoot members of the police force. Everything else, both nationally and internationally, is allowable. Does he accept that definition?
  Mr. Murphy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the terms were laid out in the conditions of 24 July and have been repeated over a number of years. The Secretary of State has to take into account all the difficulties that he or she might have, consider the circumstances in the round and take a decision on whether the ceasefire has been breached. The hon. Gentleman knows the conditions that must be met. My predecessor took the view that they did not apply and that the ceasefire had not been broken. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman inasmuch as I, too, look forward to the day when an Ulsterman is in charge of devolution and the Northern Ireland Assembly—the day when the right hon. Member for Upper Bann returns as First Minister.
  All those who know Northern Ireland politics, including, I suspect, the authors of the motion, know how a condition of the sort that is proposed would be seen. It would be taken as a clear snub to people whom the Prime Minister and I believe are sincere in trying to bring the necessary transition to a conclusion. The fact that that transition has been too slow is not a reason for making it more difficult for the journey to be concluded. Hon. Members may protest that that is not their intention, but in the light of recent history, that is how it would appear. Both the Prime Minister and the

  577
  Taoiseach have made it clear what steps are needed. I do not believe that the proposed declaration adds anything to them.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State is arguing that it is generally right to exert pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA to observe peaceful and democratic means. In that case, why is it wrong specifically to exert pressure on them as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) proposed, by denying them facilities in this place? Why would that not exert pressure on them to use peaceful and democratic means?
  Mr. Murphy: Negotiations are dealt with and pressure—if that is the right term—is applied to everybody in the process in the proper way, within the terms of the process. It strikes me that the tabling of Opposition motions on the Floor of the House is not the right way of developing a peace process in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case. At the end of the day, as one of his colleagues said, for the people of Northern Ireland, the question is one of trust. How should trust be restored? I do not think that one restores trust by supporting Opposition motions in the House of Commons. The points that have been made in the debate should certainly be made, but deciding unilaterally to take a course of action outside the proper process will not necessarily mean that we arrive at the desired outcome that all of us want—the restoration not only of trust between the parties in Northern Ireland, but of peace. The combination of the two is very important.
  The message that all of us who wish Northern Ireland well and want to see it advance politically need to send out is that Sinn Fein and its associates must pursue their objectives in purely constitutional ways. The resolution on facilities was passed last December as a further opportunity for them to proceed down that constitutional path. It was not an endorsement of their abstentionist policy. It would be much more satisfactory if Sinn Fein Members took a full part in the proceedings of the House, but for the present, they decline to do so. Their attitude is regrettable, but a very curious message, liable to be interpreted in a very negative sense, would be sent out if we agreed to the motion at a time when we are pressing Sinn Fein more intensely than ever before to follow constitutional ways. The motion would at least conditionally cut off an avenue to constitutional activity. I do not believe that that makes sense.
  Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State said that the motion would send a very negative sign to the nationalist-republican community and especially to IRA-Sinn Fein. What sort of sign does he think it sends to ordinary, decent pro-Union people in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Murphy: I agree that everybody in Northern Ireland wants peace and prosperity whether or not they agree with the Belfast agreement and that, of course, everybody's views must be taken into account. We must understand that. However, I return to the central point: if we want Sinn Fein and the republican movement to
  578
  take a certain route, I do not believe for one second that we would improve prospects in that regard by taking away what this House granted some months ago. There are other ways in which pressure should rightly be exerted on everybody who is involved in violence in Northern Ireland, but we delude ourselves by thinking that people will look at this debate and say that taking away facilities will somehow completely change the atmosphere in Northern Ireland. Of course that will not happen.
  Instead, it will send the signal that we in the House of Commons have unilaterally used the motion to go down this path when everyone knows that the only way to bring back the Assembly and to get Sinn Fein and the republican movement into the process is to go through the process that was set up by the Belfast agreement. The agreement was not formed after a couple of debates in the House of Commons or anywhere else. It happened because people in Northern Ireland voted for it and because there had been months and years of negotiations involving my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the previous Prime Minister and previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland of both parties. The only way to proceed is by continuing that process, not by having debates every now and again and hoping that they will change the world. It will not work like that. The only way that the process will develop is by sticking to what we have already done in the agreement and ensuring that we implement it in the fullest possible form.
  Mr. Mark Francois: The Secretary of State appears to be arguing that allowing Sinn Fein-IRA to have facilities in the House of Commons is integral to the Belfast agreement. That is his argument and the whole tenor of his speech. Will he therefore tell the House, on his first outing in his new role, which particular sections and paragraphs of the agreement state that that is the case?
  Mr. Murphy: That is not my argument. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would not have said what he has just said. I am saying that the only way that we can move forward in Northern Ireland is to ensure that we implement the agreement in all its forms and ensure that there are proper discussions, negotiations and talks with all the parties in Northern Ireland—and between Governments as well—so that we arrive at a settlement that would satisfy all sides. That is the only way to proceed.
  The House decided some months ago to give these privileges to the Members concerned, and I do not believe that taking those privileges away today would help the peace process at all. In fact, I think that it would probably hinder it. However, this debate is not central to the peace process—far from it—and that is why I am saying what I am saying.
  Mr. Waterson: The Secretary of State may be right that the debate will make not a jot of difference to what happens in Northern Ireland. However, does he not think that there is a hint of irony in the fact that one reason why it may not is that those hon. Members who might have something to contribute to the debate from

  579
  their side of the argument may be in their offices watching it on television without the slightest intention of coming to the Chamber to participate?
  Mr. Murphy: I do not know whether those hon. Members are watching the debate on television. However, if they are, I hope that they will take the main message in my remarks. If they commit themselves to exclusively peaceful and non-violent means and people in the republican movement understand that they have to earn the trust of those in the Unionist community—and vice versa—we will have an Assembly back in Belfast working for the benefit of all the people in Northern Ireland. That is what we want. To repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we have reached the stage when we must address such issues. We cannot carry on in the way that we did in the past. What the president of Sinn Fein said at the weekend was a move in that direction, but I wait with interest to hear what he will say to me later this week.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) said, we should bear in mind another important interest group—the constituents of hon. Members who follow the policy that I have described. There are about 250,000 of them and some will have voted for Members who sit for their constituencies, and others will not have done. They should all be entitled to a proper constituency service. That was another reason why we provided last year for these facilities to be made available in the House. That reason remains as valid as ever.
  I also know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House had serious concerns last December about the resolution that was approved. It was a departure for the House, and I understand why they hesitated over it. I nevertheless believe that it was the right thing to do. In my view, it has led Sinn Fein Members to more engagement with other hon. Members, and that is wholly beneficial. I am aware that a number of Members have attended open sessions that Sinn Fein Members have organised. That kind of opportunity for dialogue should not be lost.
  Helen Jackson: I welcome my right hon. Friend back to the Northern Ireland Office team. Does he acknowledge that during last December's debate the point was made, and accepted by the Leader of the House and by the House itself, that any facilities that the House offered should be offered to Sinn Fein Members on exactly the same conditions—in terms of constituency work and the purposes for which office costs allowance was used—as exist for any Member of Parliament; and that, in addition, Sinn Fein Members were equally required to fulfil the obligations of the Register of Members' Interests and so on?
  Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's points. I am told that those requirements have been met.
  Much though the position in Northern Ireland has improved over the years, everyone who has spoken today, whatever their point of view, understands that we are at a sensitive juncture. On the question of those who are involved in government being committed to exclusively peaceful means, we have come to what the Prime Minister described as a crunch. Unless we have such a demonstrable commitment, we risk all the progress that we have made being stalled.
  580
  I come back to the Northern Ireland Office after an interval and with a determination to see the process brought to a conclusion. The Prime Minister has made clear his view about what is now needed. My first step will be to listen carefully to what all the parties have to say about the way forward. It will be very important for us to work in close consultation and partnership with the Irish Government to ensure that the implementation of the agreement continues and that the obstacles to an early restoration of the devolved institutions are removed.
  The motion before us is not likely to speed us towards that objective. Indeed, I think that it would take us in the opposite direction. I believe, therefore, that the House should reject it.
  5.47 pm
  Lembit Öpik: I welcome the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) to his new appointment. As I am the longest-serving Northern Ireland spokesperson in the House, I was hoping to get the job myself and thus fulfil the dream of the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) that an Ulsterman would finally be Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, I bear the right hon. Gentleman no malice and look forward to continuing the close and constructive working relationship that he and I enjoyed when he was Secretary of State for Wales.
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who is now Minister without Portfolio and chairman of the Labour party. No doubt, his experiences in conflict resolution as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be barely adequate to the task he faces in his new role.
  It is clear both from this afternoon's debate and from previous debates that Sinn Fein having access to the facilities of the House is a highly sensitive question and one that has caused division in all the major parties represented here today. It is easy to understand why the pressures have grown recently, given the dramatic television pictures of the police raids on Sinn Fein's offices in the Assembly and the subsequent suspension of the devolved institutions. The arrest of a Sinn Fein member of staff at the Assembly and the accusations of an informer in the Northern Ireland Office have brought the process, which was already under massive strain, to near breaking point. However, I remind the House that those pressures have been building for 12 months and that they have always been present. To draw short-term conclusions from what is simply another step in a long-term process is therefore rather inappropriate.
  Little more than a month ago, some two weeks prior to the police raids on Sinn Fein's offices in Stormont, the collapse of the Assembly appeared to be inevitable because the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), had already promised his party's ruling council that he would pull Ulster Unionist Ministers out of the Executive if the IRA had not disbanded by January. Now let us be clear about this. It is inappropriate for the Conservatives to suggest in their motion regarding Sinn Fein Members' access to the facilities of the House that the recent activities of Sinn Fein—or a breach by it of the ceasefire—have directly, specifically and unilaterally led to the suspension.
  This is not the first time that we have discussed these matters, nor is it the first time that some parties have sought to gain political capital out of a difficult

  581
  situation. Last November, after much negotiation, the Assembly met to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister. More than 70 per cent. of MLAs voted for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and Mark Durkan but, because of the divisive voting system in the Assembly, they were not elected. A few days later, the vote was repeated, with a similar number of MLAs voting as they had done before. This time, the vote was carried because some members of the anti-sectarian Alliance party pretended to be sectarian to maintain a framework within which everyone has declared that we hope to build a non-sectarian society.
  So we are discussing today a series of difficulties that are not that different from what we have observed before. It comes as little surprise to me that the strains have come to the fore, but it is somewhat disappointing that the question of access to facilities in this House is being tied into a strategy for long-term gain when what is under discussion today is a tactical question.
  The political crisis in Stormont has been brewing against a backdrop of continuing violence across Northern Ireland. There is no question about that, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said. He is right to suggest that a number of people in Northern Ireland have not experienced a peace dividend and still suffer punishment beatings and the underlying levels of violence that they would have expected or hoped to cease by now on account of the Good Friday agreement four years ago. Ordinary and decent citizens who support the agreement are fed up with the daily toll of stone throwing, graffiti painting, sectarian intimidation and pipe bombs.
  However, in considering the access to facilities and how to move forward, we must remember that various parts of the community that have been involved in violence in the past are still involved in violence. There are loyalist elements in Northern Ireland who are doing every bit as much to destabilise parts of Northern Ireland as republican paramilitaries.
  It is in that context that I want to focus on what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said in moving the motion. It is rare that I find myself so much at variance with the hon. Gentleman. Although I will seek to disagree with much of his argument, he is perfectly entitled to take that position, as is the Conservative party.
  Mr. Eric Forth: That's very good of you.
  LembitÖpik: I am pleased to hear how heartened and relieved Conservative Members are that the effective Opposition in this Chamber have granted them the right to be wrong.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford gives us the opportunity to take a cool-headed and deeper look at the true dynamics of the question of how we move forward. He suggested that, a mere 48 hours after the Conservative party had tabled the motion, the IRA had acted accordingly to move
  582
  forward. That is fantastic and if, on that basis, 48 hours from now, similar progress can be made, a tremendous service will have been provided to the peace process. If, as the motion says,
  "Sinn Fein honourable Members commit themselves to a public statement that all terrorist organisations, including the IRA., should rescind violence"
  within 48 hours, I might be tempted to join the Conservative party myself, and I have little doubt that the Secretary of State will do the same. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps that is a bridge too far in the world of hope. If it were that simple, we would have made more progress in the past.
  I am concerned about the four fatal errors that the Conservative party believes the Government have made. The first is the decision to release all prisoners without conditions at the time. The second is the policy of turning a blind eye to transgressions; presumably primarily on the republican rather than the loyalist side. The third is to offer new concessions on what, by implication, was a unilateral basis. The fourth is the suspension of the Assembly, instead of the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the Executive. I want to examine those criticisms and compare them with what the Conservatives themselves had to do in government to move forward.
  Let us examine the real world of Northern Ireland politics, and the dealing, bartering and pragmatic decision making in which any Prime Minister of any party and any Northern Ireland Secretary must engage to make progress in Northern Ireland. There are four things for which the Conservatives could have been criticised up to 1997: first, the squandering of an opportunity by having talks with the IRA at a time when the IRA had not even declared a ceasefire; secondly, turning a blind eye to all the carnage of the bombing, which, thankfully, has ceased in large part, but which was going on when discussions were held at the top level of a Conservative Government with people who had in no sense renounced violence; thirdly, giving concessions to terrorists—and let us remember that the whole debate about amnesties was commissioned by a Conservative Government, not by a Labour or a Liberal Democrat one; and, fourthly, failing to suspend those talks when some particular atrocities took place and before the discussions came to public light.
  Unsurprisingly, other parties who understand the need to interact responsibly in this Chamber did not condemn John Major when he took a risk by having background talks at a time when the level of violence was significantly higher than it is today in England and Northern Ireland. It is to the credit of John Major, and not his damnation, that he was willing to do that.
  I find it disingenuous in the extreme that the Conservative party in 2002 is willing to condemn a Government who are making rather less dangerous decisions on negotiations with former and allegedly current paramilitaries than it did when in government six or seven years ago. My counsel to the Conservatives would be that hypocrisy is the most dangerous strategy of all to pursue in Northern Ireland. Even though the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is being perfectly sincere in what he says, the mere semblance of hypocrisy is dangerous. As the Secretary of State

  583
  implied, what is said here can on occasion be interpreted in a damaging way among those who take a moderate line on both the Unionist and nationalist side in the discussions.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lembit Öpik: I am happy to give way, but let me stress again that I am not seeking to score points but to make progress.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned hypocrisy several times and connected me with it, implying that I am speaking or behaving hypocritically. In other words, he assumes that I do not believe what I am saying. He knows that I have said consistently exactly the same thing about Northern Ireland and delivered exactly the same analysis and recommendations since I assumed these responsibilities. On what possible basis does he think that I do not believe what I am saying?
  Lembit Öpik: As the record will show, not 30 seconds before the hon. Gentleman got to his feet, I was very careful to say that I did not question his sincerity. It is not my style to seek to gain political points against individuals by personalising attacks. I shall underline again the point that I am making, which is an important one. The semblance of hypocrisy, or the appearance of a contradiction between what the Conservative party says in opposition and what it did in government, right up to the Prime Minister himself, is what can cause damage to those, particularly on the Unionist side, who seek to take a moderate course, because we all know that there are significant elements that are seeking to move the Ulster Unionist party in particular in a more hard-line direction. I have absolutely no axe to grind about the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman speaks.
  I often disagree with his analysis, but he is perfectly entitled to his view. I am not denigrating him but simply suggesting that the Conservatives have some explaining to do—perhaps they will take this opportunity to do it—about why their policy is so different now from what it was six years ago.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: In the pushmi-pullyu world of Liberal Democrat thinking, can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is castigating the Conservative Government for talking to the IRA or congratulating them on getting the peace process rolling?
  Lembit Öpik: The great thing about being a Liberal Democrat is that we tell the truth, so we do not have to remember what we said. I think that I have made it pretty clear today, and in other debates that the hon. Gentleman may or may not have attended, that I do indeed congratulate John Major and Conservative Secretaries of State on having initiated the very process that the current Government are seeking to proceed with. I would like to think that there is not a soul in the House who would detract from that achievement. Indeed, I have said that it was the one enduring contribution that John Major made to British politics. I hope that I do not have to spell it out any more clearly
  584
  than that. It is disappointing that that achievement is apparently being fogged by the party's current move away from his strategy.
  A cool analysis of the motion reveals an inference that the ceasefire has been breached. Individuals may believe that, but as the Secretary of State clearly stated, there has been no determination that the IRA has breached the ceasefire and it is not helpful to suggest otherwise. [Interruption.] No, there is a clear process to determine whether the ceasefire has been breached, and we could have a separate debate on that.
  Let me emphasise again that the trigger for the suspension was quite evidently a judgment call that this was the best way to continue the peace process. Allowing the institutions to collapse by the walk-out of loyalist politicians would have been much more destabilising than the current situation. The motion does not appropriately reflect what is going on in the real world of Northern Ireland politics. That may be a drafting issue, but the record does not make allowance for that, so we should not approve it simply on the grounds that it makes the erroneous inference that the ceasefire has been breached, quite apart from the question of facilities.
  The subject of facilities is one on which I would be less inclined to take strong issue with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and his party. Different views are taken on it, even within my party. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and I take the view that it would be inappropriate to take away the facilities, as Sinn Fein moderates have done a lot to try to convince their hardliners that political dialogue is the most effective way of achieving their objectives. To his credit, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford often visits the Province, as I do. I have been left in absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of Sinn Fein activists and officers now recognise that peaceful dialogue is the best way forward. Let us not pretend or suggest that Sinn Fein or the IRA now actively desire violence as an outcome. However despicable or unforgivable it may be, it was always regarded as a process.
  There are divisions between hardliners and moderates on both the loyalist and the republican side. In my judgment, allowing access to facilities in the House has considerably helped the republican moderates in trying to persuade their skeptics—those who would be more inclined to revert to violence—that peace can work and political dialogue can be effective, and that the republican cause is best served by moving away from the damaging approaches of the past.
  Those who take a different view should consider that not as a profound matter of principle—although some have expressed it in those terms—but as a judgment about the best way of strengthening the hand of the moderates in the republican community, whom we desperately need to support, allowing them to point to what is going on in Westminster and show what will be destroyed by reverting to violence. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, it depends whether we take a carrot or a stick approach. By and large, I believe that in this situation the carrot will work better than the stick.
  If we take away the facilities, it will be a gift to the hardliners and those who would say that we were never sincere about giving them the chance to participate

  585
  actively in Westminster. Still worse, there could be a change in the power arrangements on the republican side, simply because the promises that had to be made from the inside to maintain what has been largely an effective ceasefire would have been broken.
  There is an even more fundamental reason why I believe that the access to facilities should continue. In truth, all the major parties have taken advantage of the fact that they can now have direct dialogue with individuals from Sinn Fein. Only a few days ago, I witnessed a heated discussion between Mitchel McLaughlin and a Conservative spokesperson. There was no love lost in that discussion, but I was pleased to see the dialogue, because dialogue has probably been the single most important key to unlock progress on peace.
  Continuing to allow access is a relatively modest measure. Access has afforded us much better opportunities to talk to Sinn Fein and understand its perspective, and it further ties the party into the democratic process. I have been grateful for the opportunity to speak informally to Sinn Fein Members in the Corridors, just as I talk to colleagues from other political parties. That is where much of the work gets done in Northern Ireland politics.
  This is a free vote for the Liberal Democrats, but I advise my colleagues not to support the motion. Those who seek to deny Sinn Fein access to facilities should tell us the answer to this question: why would the removal of the opportunity to be at the heart of the democratic process in the United Kingdom make republicans more likely to want to participate?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. As time for the debate is somewhat limited, I make a plea to hon. Members to be brief so that as many as possible can contribute.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: I share hon. Members' profound sense of disappointment about the suspension of the devolved institutions. Surely we all agree that the sooner they are back up and running the better. The motion, which stems from that suspension, represents yet another departure from the bipartisan consensus that used to exist on Northern Ireland affairs, but seems to have disappeared along with Conservative Members' ministerial cars and red boxes. That seems an irresponsible approach to Northern Ireland affairs, which I have criticised in the House before, as I did in the July debate. It is symptomatic of the Tory party's failure not only to act as an Opposition, but to emulate a Government in waiting.
  Let us compare the Tory's stance with the stance taken by the Labour party in the 1992–97 Parliament. At every opportunity, those on the Labour Front Bench avoided trying to score political points off the Government, not only because we agreed with the general thrust of the Conservative Government's policy in Northern Ireland, but because we understood that scoring political points not only undermined political reputations but risked people's lives. We also
  586
  understood that if we were to form a Government, which we fully intended to, we would have to live with the consequences of all our pronouncements on Northern Ireland policy. Because the Labour party took a responsible approach to Northern Ireland, it could build cross-community support for the Good Friday agreement when it came to power.
  The current Conservative policy and approach to Northern Ireland can only mean one of two things. Either the Conservatives do not believe that they will be in Government any time soon—that is the explanation that many of my hon. Friends think is true—or they would like to sound the death knell of the Northern Ireland peace process if they were in government. Does anyone seriously believe that if the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the peace process could continue for five minutes after his appointment? It would be dead and buried, and all the effort that has gone into securing the peace in Northern Ireland would be behind us.
  I must conclude that the Conservative motion is nothing but a red herring and an excuse for the Conservative party to attack the Good Friday agreement and the Government's policy of implementing it. It does not deal with the substantive issues that led to the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is opportunistic, partisan and cynical, and does nothing to address the real issues facing the people of Northern Ireland.
  I ask the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen to tell me, given what they know about Northern Ireland's history and the personalities and parties involved today, in what way the motion, if carried, would benefit the peace process? What would be achieved for the people of Northern Ireland, not least for the constituents of the four Members of whom we are talking, if we returned to the situation that prevailed before? Nothing. The motion is simply an excuse to kick the Government and the Good Friday agreement—and, consequently, the people of Northern Ireland.
  Last time the Opposition arranged a half-day debate on Northern Ireland, I said that when I voted to allow Sinn Fein office accommodation in the House, I did not do so with joy in my heart or a spring in my step. However, I can honestly say that I am glad that the Members for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Michelle Gildernew) and for West Tyrone (Mr. Doherty) now use the facilities here.
  I remember how, when members of the IRA were invited to come to Westminster during the 1980s, often at the invitation of Ken Livingstone, they would set up their soapboxes with slogans such as "Troops out" or something similarly sophisticated. However, now Sinn Fein has office accommodation in the House, when its Members come into the Palace they are confronted by other MPs who want the Good Friday agreement to succeed, and they have to justify their position. Because that courageous step was taken, we now have the opportunity to challenge Sinn Fein Members on the real issues, instead of their surreal sloganising of 10 or 20 years ago.
  It should be remembered that, whatever the wording of the motion, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and

  587
  Bellshill (Dr. Reid), did not cite the activities of Sinn Fein when, on 15 October, he told the House the reasons for the suspension of the devolved institutions. He said:
  "the recent difficulties in Northern Ireland stemmed from a loss of trust on both sides of the community."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 191.]
  I will not say that it is dishonest, but it is certainly misleading for the Conservative party to suggest that anything that has happened in the past month should change the decision of this House to allow Sinn Fein office accommodation. Surely the question that we must now ask is not whether we should take away Sinn Fein's right to accommodation, but what we can do to foster trust between the different parts of the community in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's loyalty in being here for his Front-Bench colleagues today, but can he ever foresee a situation in which it would be appropriate for a Labour Government to withdraw those facilities?
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes a salient point, but I have to remind him that it was not the Government's decision to allow Sinn Fein office accommodation in the House of Commons. If Sinn Fein—or rather, the IRA—were to stop the ceasefire and return to violence, I would certainly consider voting to take away Sinn Fein's right to offices in the Palace—but the decision was made by the House of Commons, not the Government.
  Mr. Duncan rose—
  Mr. Harris: I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question pretty truthfully.
  Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Sinn Fein-IRA have been involved in breaches of the ceasefire? What positive action would he recommend the Government to follow to try to stop those breaches of the ceasefire?
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. There is art accepted process for deciding whether any party to the agreement has broken the ceasefire, and that has not happened. Under the agreement, the IRA has maintained its ceasefire. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the three years leading up the signing of the Good Friday agreement 343 people lost their lives in Northern Ireland, whereas in the three years following the signing 53 people lost their lives? That was 53 too many, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that that reduction is not a prize worth holding, I have to doubt the priorities of his party's policy on Northern Ireland.
  Bob Spink: I accept that, as the hon. Gentleman says, there have been tremendous advances over the past decade—advances started by John Major. However, does he accept that there is not a perfect peace in Northern Ireland now, and that we need positive action to try to return Northern Ireland to peace?
  Mr. Harris: I find the whole basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument spurious. I believe that the hon.
  588
  Member for Grantham and Stamford was a member of the Conservative Government, although I am not sure; I could be wrong, and the hon. Gentleman can correct me if he wants to. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) when I say that that Conservative Government conducted negotiations with the IRA before a ceasefire was even—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I bring all hon. Members back to the motion under discussion?
  Mr. Harris: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall conclude now, because I realise that some of my hon. Friends would like to speak.
  I would welcome the day when the Conservative party decided to contribute positively to the debate on Northern Ireland—but the motion before us makes no positive contribution, and in the meantime I deeply resent having to waste precious House of Commons time debating an utterly pointless and cynical motion that adds nothing to the debate and provides nothing—not even a glimmer of hope—for the people of Northern Ireland, whom the Conservative party claims to want to represent.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackay: The best news in last week's Government reshuffle was the news for Northern Ireland, and I am genuinely delighted to see the new Secretary of State take his place. Those of us who have been involved in Northern Ireland matters for some years warmly recall the immense amount of work that he did as a Northern Ireland Minister of State—work that often went unsung, and was not often in the headlines or the publicity. The right hon. Gentleman will have the confidence of all parties in the Province in what will clearly be a difficult job in the months ahead, with direct rule. Naturally, like my Front-Bench colleagues, I wish him well.
  I must point something out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), although I shall do so gently because he is a new Member of the House and was not present when there was a Conservative Government and, as he said, a so-called bipartisan policy with the Labour Opposition. We immensely resent the suggestion that there has been a breakdown in the bipartisan policy now, whereas it was sacrosanct when there was a Labour Opposition.
  I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that year after year, when we renewed the prevention of terrorism orders—[Interruption.] If he thinks that they have nothing to do with Northern Ireland, he should not be representing Glasgow, Cathcart. Time and again, the then Labour Opposition voted against the renewal of those orders. When the Prime Minister became leader of the Labour party, new Labour was gradually introduced and the attitude changed: it went so far as to abstain, although no further than that. So we need no lessons in bipartisanship.
  As the Secretary of State, who was actively involved in the events surrounding the agreement, and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) have rightly and kindly said, the original architects of the agreement were the then Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, and Lord Mayhew. That work was

  589
  continued by a new Administration, a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State. Since then, we have strongly supported the Belfast agreement, which we consider the right—and, indeed, the only—way forward for lasting peace in Northern Ireland. What upsets us immensely is that not everybody has stuck by the agreement. Let me be blunt. The British Government, the Irish Government, the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party have stuck by the agreement; it is Sinn Fein-IRA that, from time to time, in a significant sense, has not.
  I shall not rehearse the arguments that were put so well today by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). We all know about the failure to decommission illegally held arms and explosives, the terrorist activity in Florida and in Colombia, and, most recently, the very serious incidents that caused the then Secretary of State to suspend the Executive and the Assembly and to return to direct rule.
  The concession to allow Sinn Fein MPs to have office facilities and special status, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) described it, forms no part of the Belfast agreement. It is separate from it—a point on which there seems to be some confusion in the House. I should just about have been prepared to make that concession if Sinn Fein-IRA had fulfilled everything that it signed up to in the Belfast agreement: if it had renounced violence for good and if there was no terrorist activity, intimidation, extortion, or any of the other problems to which the Secretary of State rightly alluded, and which gave rise to the suspension. To have offered that concession in the prevailing circumstances was a serious error of judgment, which has since been underlined by events. Since last December, matters have got worse rather than better; otherwise, the Executive and the Assembly would not now be suspended and the Secretary of State would not have made the robust remarks that he rightly made today about the problems of Sinn Fein-IRA.
  I find it extraordinary that the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Glasgow, Cathcart should imply that my colleagues on the Front Bench are somehow wrong to table this motion for the first half of our Supply day. This is a serious issue on two counts. First, should we give concessions to people who have let us down? Surely, the answer is no. If a concession is given in the hope of receiving more, and less is received, in most normal circumstances that concession would be withdrawn. That would be the reasonable, straightforward thing to do. Secondly, there is the question—raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and others—of the principle of having two classes of MPs with differing status. I am extremely worried about having two such classes. I believe that every Member should take the oath and, having done so, enjoy the full facilities.
  Mr. Tom Harris rose—
  Mr. Mackay: I shall not give way because, as you have rightly said, Madam Deputy Speaker, many others want to speak.
  590
  The circumstances must be very special indeed to warrant allowing two separate tiers of Members. The Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP have the perfectly legitimate policy of not wishing their respective parts of the United Kingdom to remain part of it. Nevertheless, as non-violent parties, their representatives swear the oath, take part in the proceedings of this House and have full facilities. The provision is a huge slap in the face to them. It is almost saying to them, "You might as well be violent." The message that it sends in Northern Ireland is particularly bad. The Secretary of State will share my view—
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to take interventions, may I ask whether it is in order for him simply to rehearse the arguments of last December's debate, rather than discussing the motion before us?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point of debate and argument.
  Mr. Mackay: That might have been a better point of order if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) had bothered to turn up for most of the debate.
  The key point of the motion is that, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, the matter is one of judgment. We believe that the judgment was wrong last December, and that it is doubly wrong now in the light of events. We also think that only in the most exceptional circumstances should two tiers of Members be allowed, and that such circumstances are not apparent at the moment. I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and other Members—I know that some Labour Members will be voting with us tonight—to vote for this motion and reverse the decision that was wrongly taken last December.
  6.27 pm
  Chris Ruane: I shall try to be as brief as possible, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) wishes to speak as well.
  The peace process is one of the greatest things that Labour has achieved since we came to power in 1997. I have a personal perspective on this issue. In 1916, my taid—my Welsh grandfather—Ned Roberts was in the trenches of the Somme, and my Irish grandfather, Torn Ruane, was imprisoned in Frongoch, in Wales, for his part in the uprising. When I talk to my cousins in Ireland, they agree that the peace process is the greatest thing that we have achieved. We need to keep a sense of history and a perspective on where we are today. We are looking at the potential solving of a 900-year-old problem, and that is the way in which to pursue it. We must not behave like political pigmies who try to score cheap party political points on this issue. We must retain a sense of the moment, and of the magnitude of our achievement, in the context of the past 900 years. As far as I am concerned, the progress that we have made is as great as the ending of apartheid in South Africa, and, from a UK security sense, as the collapse of the Berlin wall.

  591
  It was Winston Churchill, a previous Conservative leader, who said:
  "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."
  This issue is about opening dialogue at all levels: in Northern Ireland, in the voluntary sector, in the Churches, and in the trade unions. It is also about opening dialogue between politicians who have not talked to each other, and whose main means of communication for 50 years has been the bomb and the bullet. Channels of communication have indeed been opened by Lord Temple-Morris—again, a former Conservative—who set up the excellent British-Irish inter-parliamentary group. I recently joined that group, which includes representatives from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, from the Assemblies of Northern Ireland and of Wales, and from the Parliaments of Scotland, southern Ireland and the UK. Indeed, all political parties are represented—except the Unionists. I urge them to join the British-Irish inter-parliamentary group.
  David Winnick: It is called the council.
  Chris Ruane: Indeed. I should at this point pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on behalf of that organisation.
  When I go to those meetings, I am impressed by the contributions of Conservative members of the council. They seem to lose their party political bias—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the motion on the Order Paper.
  Chris Ruane: Conservative Members speak on that council with a clarity that is missing in the Chamber today.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that opening the facilities of the House to Sinn Fein has led to that party holding open sessions here, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House have attended those. I attended one last week, with Mitchel McLaughlin, and I made several points to him, the key one of which was the need to look after the working class Protestant vote in Northern Ireland. Everybody else appears to have benefited from the peace process, except that group. They have lost trust, and that was the message that I—as the Catholic grandson of a 1916 man—took to Sinn Fein. Without the Palace being open to Sinn Fein, I would not have been able to pass that message on. Sinn Fein is realising that more needs to be done for working class Protestants and understands that trust needs to be earned. It is not present at the moment and we all need to do as much as we can to foster it.
  We have seen what can be achieved through dialogue. The abstentionism that we used to see in southern Ireland is now gone. Sinn Fein is in the Dail. It is part of an effective partnership in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its representatives do not talk about bullets there, but about bed spaces and the educational curriculum—the bread and butter of ordinary politics in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein representatives sit on committees and act as Ministers. That is the way forward—opening dialogue and building peace and trust, through forums, groups and elected bodies.
  592
  We have seen the benefits of the peace process: no members of the police or Army have been shot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) pointed out, 353 members of the public were shot in the three years before the peace process started, but only 53—still 53 too many—in the years after. Unemployment has fallen dramatically; house prices are up; the café culture is back and people can go to nightclubs. A sense of normality is now present.
  There has been some progress—Sinn Fein members in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly have been talking to British Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Movement has taken place on decommissioning. We have also seen an apology—although some people view it as only weasel words—from Sinn Fein for the deaths on all sides over the past 30 years. This weekend, Gerry Adams even said that he could foresee a day on which the IRA would disband.
  Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Chris Ruane: No, I do not have time. I have been told by my Whip that I must finish, and I never disobey the Whips.
  Progress has been made and will continue to be made, as long as we are not party political. I ask Opposition Members to give peace a chance.
  6.33 pm
  David Burnside: If I were not an Ulster Unionist Member of Parliament, I would still vote the same way tonight because of my concern about the double standards being set for Members of this House. If I had never been to Northern Ireland or known anything about it, I would still recognise the double standard that has been set, with two classes of MP. Because Sinn Fein threatens violence, it gets something special that would not have been allowed to a Scottish nationalist or a Welsh nationalist. That is a double standard. It demeans this House to grant facilities to that organisation,
  I am slightly concerned by the suggestion in the motion that Sinn Fein should say something and then everything will be all right. The issue is larger and it is a matter of principle. When I came to the House for the first time, I swore my allegiance—some choose to affirm theirs. I then had the responsibilities of a Member of this House and can he called to account by it. I can be disciplined by this House. Can Sinn Fein Members be disciplined by the House? Of course not, but they can take £400,000 out of the generous office costs allowance to help the campaign of a political and terrorist organisation.
  I do not know what dream world the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) lives in—somewhere near Hollywood, I think, and I do not mean Hollywood in Northern Ireland—but the proof has been seen in the last four and half years. It includes international terrorism in Colombia, which saw drug money from FARC going into Sinn Fein-IRA's coffers. That needs to be investigated. We have seen violence on the streets with Sinn Fein-IRA involved. It is one unitary organisation. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are on the army council. Decommissioning is a joke and the 2008 deadline is meaningless. The importing of arms from Florida was a major crime.

  593
  What took place while we were fighting an election? The £5 million robbery of spirits and cigarettes from the docks in Belfast was by Sinn Fein-IRA—one organisation. The Secretary of State should ask his security advisers who carried out that robbery. He should also ask his security advisers about the events at Castlereagh and Mr. Bobby Storey, who reports to the army council and is on the general headquarters staff, Belfast, which reports to Adams and McGuinness. Is that a ceasefire? We are not fools in Northern Ireland.
  We have seen spying at the heart of Government in the Northern Ireland Office. The Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), was supposed to be tough. He was not very tough when the NIO was infiltrated. If the Home Office or the Foreign Office had been infiltrated, would those responsible be granted concessions in this House? Of course not, and that is double standards. We await the report on that spying at the heart of Government, but we know what will happen. It will be put behind us and we will hear nice words from Sinn Fein-IRA. Those nice words will be more lies. After all, an organisation based on revolutionary terrorism—Sinn Fein-IRA—has no problem with telling lies to the Secretary of State's face, in 10 Downing street or in the White House.
  Sinn Fein representatives should not have been granted the facilities in this House. We welcome the opportunity that the Conservatives have provided for this debate. All the democratic politicians—which excludes Sinn Fein—in Northern Ireland, certainly all Unionists, feel distaste that while we spend some £100,000 on constituency offices to provide a service as Members of Parliament, Sinn Fein-IRA is granted a special class of membership of this House. Sinn Fein-IRA is an illegal terrorist organisation that has not given up violence, does not adhere to the Mitchell principles and is involved in international crime and terrorism. That special treatment is what used to be called appeasement. There has been nothing but appeasement of Sinn Fein-IRA from the time that the agreement was signed four and a half years ago.
  I hope that the motion and debate tonight will put even a little bit of pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA to make progress. I do not trust them. I do not believe that they are committed to going the full way to become fully democratic politicians. The evidence of the past four and a half years suggests that they are still playing the double game of the Armalite and the ballot box. They talk about their mandate, but they are involved in national and international crime and terrorism. The Unionists will support the official Opposition tonight and we thank them for giving time for this debate, which is necessary because the Government continue to refuse to face up to Sinn Fein-IRA as a terrorist organisation with a political front.
  6.39 pm
  Mike Gapes: This debate is not about the facilities for four Members of Parliament or the two researchers who they employ and the cost to the public purse. This is a debate about symbolism. Unfortunately, many debates about Northern Ireland, as I learned in
  594
  my two years as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office, are about symbolism rather than reality. This is a debate to make certain people feel good: if the motion is passed, they will feel that they are not tainted by the fact that in day-to-day politics they have to deal with matters that they find unpleasant.
  The debate is also symbolic because if the motion is passed, that could be interpreted to mean that we reject the concept of parity of esteem. Those who vote for Sinn Fein—many of them young people who do not support the IRA but support a political party because of its work within the communities on issues of social and economic concern—would regard it as a rejection of them.
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mike Gapes: No, I have only four minutes.
  I have no remit and am not an apologist for terrorist organisations of any kind. I was in the Standing Committee that considered the Terrorism Act 2000. I have denounced terrorism whether it comes from Hamas, loyalists or the IRA. However, we must think about the political significance of the motion. Are we saying, in effect, that the Belfast agreement is dead and that next year's Assembly elections will not take place? Are we putting up the ramparts and telling Sinn Fein that it is out of the system because it has inched grudgingly towards the political process, rejected a partitionist solution and then taken part in partitionist institutions? Are we saying that it is out of the system because its members have rejected the concept of taking a place in the Executive but have then become Ministers with responsibility for health and education? Are we saying that it is out of the system because it has moved away from its paramilitary past insufficiently, sometimes incoherently, and often not in the best way? Nevertheless, surely all right hon. and hon. Members accept—or perhaps some will not—hat there has been a significant change within republicanism over the past 10 years.
  If we adopt the motion today, we are effectively putting an end to all that and saying to that large constituency in Northern Irish politics—some 20 per cent. of the people—that we are no longer interested in the process of moving from violence to democracy. I believe that that would be foolish and the wrong thing to do at this time. I am not saying that the House might not change its mind, but this is not that occasion. To take such a decision would be premature; it would be subject to wrong interpretations and would set back the peace process. I hope that the House will reject the motion resoundingly.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: This has been an important debate; it has been as much about signals, responses and judgments as about the precise nature of the agreement that the House made last December regarding access to the facilities here. I think that that is right, because the specifics of Westminster must be set within a much broader context, as all the speakers in the debate have done.
  In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was at pains to stress that we are talking about nothing more nor less

  595
  than the judgment about how one responds to developing circumstances and, more specifically, to the situation in which concessions or gestures are made repeatedly as part of the process yet find no response. Whether it is the release of prisoners, turning a blind eye to breaches of the agreement or, as we argue in the motion, the needless offering of House space to Sinn Fein-IRA, the judgment to be made is what is the correct response when concessions are made and nothing is given in return.
  I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. Some years ago, he and I spent many hours together in Standing Committees considering education legislation, and I have the greatest respect for his abilities. We all look to him to carry his new onerous responsibilities with his typical style and integrity.
  The Secretary of State admitted to doubts about the current circumstances. He said that recent events had had a profoundly destabilising effect. He then went on to quote the Prime Minister—he would, wouldn't he—but in this case it was the Prime Minister's challenge to Sinn Fein-IRA and the reference to "the crunch". Our complaint is that there are no crunches. That is the whole point of the debate—we want to highlight the fact that the Prime Minister wants to appear decisive, talking about forks in roads and crunches, yet none of that seems to appear in what his Ministers, in their various capacities, do. We are looking for an indication, whether it has to do with what happens in the Northern Ireland Office, as it is now reconstituted, or with what the Leader of the House says in a few minutes, that the Government are looking seriously at the subtle but important interplay between concessions that are made and expectations that are raised and constantly dashed—in this case, as so often, by Sinn Fein-IRA—when nothing happens.
  There is no response by the Government to the actions or inactions of Sinn Fein-IRA, only an endless succession of concessions. The one about which we are most interested today is a matter for the House. I resent suggestions from Labour Members that to bring this matter to the House of Commons is frivolous, in breach of some bipartisan approach, unnecessary or irrelevant. If the House of Commons cannot debate its own aspect of the peace process, if we cannot have a debate about the facilities that we have offered—wrongly, as we thought at the time, and even more wrongly now—what on earth can we debate? For Labour Members to suggest, not once but several times, that there is something wrong-headed about bringing this matter to the House, is something that I cannot accept.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) pointed out, the sad reality is that since we made this concession to Sinn Fein-IRA in December of last year, the situation has become worse. We have here another example of how a concession has been made by the House of Commons to Sinn Fein-IRA and not only have we had nothing in return but there has been a material worsening of circumstances. We are not talking about giving in yet again, turning the other cheek or a blind eye and expecting that to induce Sinn Fein-IRA to behave better. That is what Labour Members have suggested throughout the debate. We do not believe that that approach has worked or will work, because there is no evidence that that is the case. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to come forward with a
  596
  different approach. In his admirable opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford took care to suggest that there was an alternative approach, that we have given thought to it and that we have ideas on the matter. Ours is not simply a negative response, but it is one that we feel honour bound and duty bound to make. We ask the new Secretary of State to examine what his predecessors have done since he was last in the Northern Ireland Office and to make his own judgment, with the benefit of hindsight, on what response there has been to this seemingly endless series of concessions.
  What kind of signal do we at Westminster want to give the electorate, the people of Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein-IRA and the other political parties in Northern Ireland? That is what we are most concerned with today. As Her Majesty's Official Opposition, we have initiated this debate because we believe that it is the right thing to do. What response can we give? Do we turn yet another blind eye? Do we turn yet another other cheek? Will we give yet another concession to Sinn Fein-IRA, only to find that the situation gets worse and there is no response? Labour Members and the Government seem to be arguing that this is a one-way street.
  That simply will not do. It is not good enough. It is not an appropriate response. We have run out of other cheeks—if I may put it in that way.
  Our challenge to the Government, to Ministers and to the House is that we should ask ourselves whether that approach is honest and will work. Although we opposed access, if someone could have demonstrated that the concession the House made last December had brought positive effects, I have no doubt that we should have taken a very different attitude and I doubt that my hon. Friends would have felt the need to table the motion. However, sadly, one can only conclude and report that what the House did in what it—or rather Labour Members—saw at the time as a spirit of generosity has been met with repeated slaps in the face.
  There has been a negative response to the concession that has been made, so for once it is time to say that we feel it right to withdraw that concession and to give a different signal. That is the proper response at this stage. I hope that when Members vote in a few minutes, they will reflect on that point and will be prepared to take that sort of attitude rather than merely continuing to take the same stance.
  I hope that Labour Members, the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State will accept the motion in the spirit in which we offer it. I hope that we shall hear no more from Labour Members to the effect that we are wasting everybody's time, that to hold political debates in the House of Commons is inappropriate and that, for goodness sake, to be partisan is positively passé. A few us still like a bit of partisanship every now and then, but we did not table the motion in that spirit. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford set out the argument carefully and responsibly and I hope that, in that spirit, Labour Members will consider our comments and respond to them. I retain the forlorn hope that, even now, we may have persuaded the Government and the Leader of the House of our case.
  6.52 pm
  The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Let me begin by agreeing with all the contributors to the debate who have welcomed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to his new office and responsibilities. It is a privilege to support him in this debate.
  The debate has been short. Its brevity has the advantage that we can still remember with clarity the remarkable opening speech of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). It contained an extended cadenza in which he condemned Government policy in Northern Ireland as squalid, egregious and mistaken—[Interruption.] It was fairly comprehensive.
  The hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his view but I hoped that, having expressed it, he would have spared us the cant that he wholeheartedly supports the Belfast agreement, which is kept alive by those same policies. However, I found that passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech marginally more convincing than the subsequent section in which he told us that the speech made by Gerry Adams last week, in which he envisaged a future without the IRA, was entirely prompted because he was worried about what the hon. Gentleman might say in this Opposition day debate and had nothing whatever to do with the thoughtful speech made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the preceding week.
  The hon. Gentleman's passion in denouncing our wickedness in granting Sinn Fein access to these precincts would have carried more conviction if the previous Conservative Government had done anything to deny Sinn Fein access to these precincts during the 1980s when no peace process was in being at all.
  We are at a difficult moment in the peace process, when it is important that we all proceed with great care not to make worse the prospects for restoring momentum once again to the process started by the Belfast agreement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt out the gravity of the situation in his speech earlier this month, when he stressed that the core of the Belfast agreement was that in return for political equality all parties committed themselves exclusively to peace. He spelt out to republicans that retaining the option of violence does not give them leverage but increases resistance to progress. It does not push us forward, but holds us back. As the Prime Minister said, the IRA cannot continue to be part in and part out of the peace process. If it wants the political benefits of a normalised Northern Ireland, it has to give up for all time the option of ever going back to the military struggle.
  Equally, however, the House must not lose sight of how far we have come over the past five years. It is too easy to point to the faults in the peace process, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford did, and never to recognise its strengths and its achievements.
  Sectarian violence still claims too many lives, but each year they are numbered in tens, not in hundreds as they were at the height of violence. With peace has come new investment in the Province, which has the fastest growth in the UK. Tourism has risen and unemployment has come down. Those are the real gains of the peace process for the ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland. Those are
  598
  the products of what the hon. Gentleman denounced as the Government's squalid, egregious and mistaken policies.
  The rational course for reasonable people is to do all that we can to maintain the process of putting political dialogue in the place of military confrontation. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) pointedly and fairly asked how the motion would help us to talk to Sinn Fein. No one intervened during his speech to try to tell him how it would help.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I and my Front-Bench colleagues have said over and again with great emphasis that we are wholly committed to the Belfast agreement. Indeed, the agreement was a remarkable achievement for the Prime Minister, but what a pity that the mistaken and ill-conceived policies that he has adopted since have unfortunately recently taken us backwards so that we have a major reversal—the suspension of devolution in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he supports the Belfast agreement and yet fail to support any of the steps that are necessary to keep it in play and keep the dialogue going. He cannot expect the Belfast agreement to continue under its own steam with no offers of help, no progress, no debate and no negotiations, and without the compromise that inevitably comes from negotiations. That is, of necessity, what the process is about.
  I have listened to the debate throughout and I have not heard one Opposition speaker explain how the motion will help us to make progress on the peace process or the Belfast agreement, or how expelling Sinn Fein from the precincts will encourage its members to choose political dialogue. From time to time, access has been helpful. Last week, Michelle Gildernew booked a room in the House where Mitchel McLaughlin debated current developments with MPs from all parties. That is the type of political dialogue and scrutiny that access to the precincts was intended to develop.
  During the statement on the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out that he had been able to arrange a meeting in the precincts between Gerry Adams and one of the exiles from Northern Ireland. I do not comprehend how those who propose to deny Gerry Adams and his colleagues access to the precincts imagine that it will help the task of reconciliation to make such meetings more difficult.
  Last December, when I put the motion granting access before the House, I said that it was a modest contribution to the peace process. Opposition Members should not exaggerate the practical consequences of that motion, nor should they be under any illusion about the symbolic impact of withdrawing access. I expect that those who propose the current motion fully understand how seismic that impact would be.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked what signal would be sent if we passed the motion. It would be a loud signal that the British Parliament has withdrawn from a step that we

  599
  took only last year. It would be held up as evidence that even when the republican movement seeks political progress, we refuse to have anything to do with it. If we were to pass the motion, we would strengthen not the moderates in the republican movement, but the extremists who have never believed that the political route would lead to progress.
  Our strategic goal must be to draw Sinn Fein into political activities—the only legitimate way forward. No Opposition Member has told us how it will help that strategy to tell those in Sinn Fein that, even if elected, we in the House will shut the door in their face and that, even if they represent 250,000 electors, they will not be given access to the support or the offices that they need to work for their constituents. The reason why Opposition Members have not told us the answer to that question or said how the proposal would help is that there is no answer.
  I have no problem with those who want to vote for the motion because they want to have nothing to do with Sinn Fein, but I ask them not to mislead themselves into imagining that, by excluding Sinn Fein from the House, they will somehow make it easier to include them in a political process.
  Opposition days are a due part of the democratic procedures of the House. They help the Chamber to retain its role as the grand forum of the nation's political differences, and they give the Opposition and the Government the occasion to rehearse the political divisions. The process of peace in Northern Ireland should not be an issue on which the House is divided. I would acquit the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford of having proposed a frivolous motion; it is profoundly serious, and it is thoroughly partisan.
  I asked for a trawl of the records, and it failed to discover a single example, in 18 long years of opposition, when we ever opposed the Conservative Government's policy on Northern Ireland on an Opposition day.
  HON. MEMBERS: "The Prevention of Terrorism Acts."
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Cook: We supported all the openings that they made to the IRA. We supported them when they talked to the IRA even in the middle of a bloody bombing campaign on the British mainland. We supported them when they had secret communications with the IRA. We supported them in all that because people do not make peace by talking to their friends; they make peace by talking to their enemies. We supported them because there was a better chance for peace if the IRA were confronted by a united Parliament, and, for that reason, we would have a better prospect of success if they gave us the same support now.
  This is a sensitive moment in the long troubled history of Northern Ireland. It is a time when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needs to speak with the authority and backing of the House. That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give him our full backing by rejecting a partisan motion that would take us further away from the political dialogue that is the only hope Northern Ireland has of a permanent peace.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 336.

  Division No. 330]

  [7.1 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Amess, David

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Howard, rh Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Jack, rh Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bellingham, Henry

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Leigh, Edward

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burnside, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Burt, Alistair

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Maclean, rh David

  Cameron, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maples, John

  Maude, rh Francis

  Chope, Christopher

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clappison, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Collins, Tim

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Curry, rh David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Paterson, Owen

  Pickles, Eric

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Dodds, Nigel

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Randall, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Redwood, rh John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Evans, Nigel

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fallon, Michael

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Ruffley, David

  Flook, Adrian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Forth, rh Eric

  Selous, Andrew

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Francois, Mark

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spring, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Streeter, Gary

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Greenway, John

  Syms, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hague, rh William

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hancock, Mike

  Tredinnick, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Trimble, rh David

  Hermon, Lady

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  601

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Waterson Nigel

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Young, rh Sir George

  Wiggin, Bill

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  Wilshire, David

  Chris Grayling

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Alexander, Douglas

  Connarty, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Corston, Jean

  Cotter, Brian

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cruddas, Jon

  Baird, Vera

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Baker, Norman

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Barrett, John

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Hilary

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  David, Wayne

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blunkett, rh David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Denham, rh John

  Borrow, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Doran, Frank

  Breed, Colin

  Doughty, Sue

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bryant, Chris

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Edwards, Huw

  Burden, Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burnham, Andy

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Burstow, Paul

  Etherington, Bill

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Fisher, Mark

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cairns. David

  Flint, Caroline

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Challen, Colin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Chaytor, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chidgey, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Grogan, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  602

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McDonnell, John

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McFall, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKechin, Ann

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Heyes, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Holmes, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Merron, Gillian

  Hurst Alan (Braintree)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hutton, rh John

  Miliband, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Miller, Andrew

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Jowell rh, Tessa

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keeble Ms. Sally

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kemp, Fraser

  Organ, Diana

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kidney, David

  Owen, Albert

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Perham, Linda

  Picking, Anne

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lamb, Norman

  Plaskitt, James

  Lammy, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Purnell, James

  Love, Andrew

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Rammell, Bill

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rendel, David

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  603

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruane, Chris

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Salmond, Alex

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ward, Claire

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Watts, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Singh, Marsha

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Southworth, Helen

  Woolas, Phil

  Spellar, rh John

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Derek Twigg

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the fundamental need for the affairs of Northern Ireland to be settled on an exclusively peaceful, democratic and inclusive basis; and does not believe that expelling any party to the peace process from the parliamentary precincts is likely to encourage them to renounce violence and to pursue a political settlement within that process.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that at three minutes to seven o'clock, four Members of Parliament were seeking to access the car park—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the point of order that the hon. Lady is raising. Would those Members who are staying in the Chamber please be quiet?
  Miss Kirkbride: Are you aware that at three minutes to seven o'clock, four Members of Parliament were seeking to access the car park but that the security barrier had not been raised, despite the imminence of the
  604
  vote? Will you advise me what Standing Orders of the House require Members of Parliament to carry around green security passes? What advice would you give me on what to do with my car when a vote is imminent and I am not able to access the car park?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: There was fairly good warning of the vote at this time. Perhaps Members will have to be a little more aware and allow themselves a little extra time to reach the House.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I and a couple of other Members had trouble getting to the Lobby because on the passage between Portcullis House and Norman Shaw North there is a new security door where a pass is also now required. Your advice will be sufficient when we know exactly when votes will take place, but it will not be sufficient for a running Whip.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that they are required to carry their passes with them at all times. I have no doubt, however, that the office of the Serjeant at Arms will have heard the comments made in the Chamber.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Due to the inordinate length of time taken by the Front-Bench spokespersons of the three main parties in the last debate, only five Back-Bench Members were able to contribute: three of them were from the Government side, one was from the official Opposition, and one was from Northern Ireland. Although we were here during the debate, no Member from my party was called, despite the fact that this matter is of intense interest to our constituents in Northern Ireland. Is there something that you can do to ensure that, in future, those of us who have something to contribute on behalf of our party and our constituents on a matter of relevance have the opportunity to do so?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the frustration of the hon. Gentleman and others who would have wished to contribute to the previous debate, especially given their particular interest in it. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is an Opposition day and that, as the main Opposition party decided to have two debates today, a limited amount of time was available.
  Mr. John Redwood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the considerable concern that many Members expressed about the new security arrangements, which seem to impede without necessarily making things safer, are there any plans for someone to explain to the House why they have been put in place, how much they cost, and whether they will in any way enhance our security?
  Madam Deputy Speaker:I have already made some observations on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman has further concerns, I suggest that he has a word with his party's Whips.

  Human Rights Act
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the sentencing powers of the Home Secretary and in other respects; further notes that the Government has not so far made any defining statement about its intentions relating to the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights; and calls upon the Government to work with all political parties which are represented in the House in order to construct a lasting settlement that can bring the Human Rights Act 1998 into conformity with the democratic will of the people and the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long.
  Our intention is to try to enable a debate to take place on the way in which the Human Rights Act 1998 currently influences our daily lives and affects the working of Parliament.
  I declare an interest as a barrister, as registered on the Order Paper. At the time of incorporation, various barristers, including Mr. Sydney Kentridge QC, stated:
  "We are entering a new age of constitutionalism for public lawyers. Bliss it is in this age to be alive, and to be young must be the very heaven."
  The bliss has not reached me in any material form since incorporation, but nevertheless I declare an interest as a barrister.
  The Government and the House may recollect the extensive debates in the Chamber at the time of incorporation. Insofar as I participated in them, it was as a broad supporter of the principle of incorporation, as the Minister may be aware. I spoke in support of it for a number of reasons. I saw many advantages to the possibility of judicial input by English judges into the decision-making process of the jurisprudence that was being built up. I also saw the possibility of the much greater use of the margin of appreciation through the basic facts of cases being decided here and the opportunity that that would afford for our courts to be seized of matters that might otherwise end up in Strasbourg. There had been frequent complaints that the Strasbourg judges had great difficulty in grasping our customs or the background to particular cases from this country. In that context, I saw incorporation as an enormous advantage for the English judiciary.
  It is clear that in a number of decided cases, incorporation has brought about real benefits. Some have been contentious, but one can understand how the dialogue between the judiciary and the Executive has sometimes led to interesting results. At one time, there was no possibility of a child born of artificial insemination knowing the identity of his biological father. That was challenged under article 8 and has been changed. The policy that a prisoner should not be present when prison officers examined legally privileged correspondence was also held to be wrong under article 8. I cite that because I accept that those are examples of a dynamic relationship that may produce better law and enhance human rights.
  Some of the decisions have come as a surprise. My constituents were relying heavily on the possibility that a challenge to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 would enable them to get away with not disclosing their identity when they were caught by speed cameras. The European Court of Human Rights held that the
  606
  measure was proportional to what the Government intended. If litigation continues, the Court may find that there is a right to administer corporal punishment in private schools if the parent has authorised the teacher to carry it out. So Government policy on some matters may be challenged.
  I accept that the courts have not been flooded with decisions. The evidence shows that, despite early prognostications that a massive flood would paralyse the court of criminal appeal, it has not happened. Having been saddled with the responsibility, the judiciary appears to be able to deal with it without the courts grinding to a halt.
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): Before the hon. Gentleman gets deep into his contribution, will he clarify the depth of his support for incorporation? I recall that, during the passage of the Human Rights Bill, he condemned incorporation because it removed the right of Parliament to introduce capital punishment. He was quoted as saying:
  "We are usurping the rights of citizens of this country to pronounce on this issue and we are doing it for no good reason."
  Just how committed is he to the legislation?
  Mr. Grieve: I fear that the hon. Lady is badly briefed by her civil servants.
  Beverley Hughes: By The Daily Telegraph.
  Mr. Grieve: In that case, the hon. Lady may be badly briefed by The Daily Telegraph. If she reads Hansard, she will find that, in Committee, I argued against a decision taken by Back Benchers to fetter the ability of Parliament to discuss the issue of capital punishment. I explained that it was not in the Government's original Bill. Indeed, the Home Secretary resisted it in the Chamber and said that he thought it a bad move. I explained to the House—I could quote verbatim because I have reread what I said—that I was against capital punishment, which remains my view, and would not vote for its reintroduction. I also said that the House was making a grave and unnecessary mistake that would irritate public opinion. From my mailbag afterwards, I concluded that there was indeed some irritation of public opinion on something that was unnecessary for incorporation and that the Government did not intend. I hope that that deals with the hon. Lady's point. In future, she should rely on Hansard rather than on newspaper cuttings.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: May I embarrass my hon. Friend further by drawing attention to the difficulties that he experienced when we discussed the Human Rights Bill in 1997 and 1998? I think that he will confirm that he needed persuading that it was sensible to support the Opposition stance on Second and Third Reading.
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend is right. I explained that my principal concern was that I did not like the Henry VIII clause, which was why I did not vote in favour of the legislation. That clause went against the central principle of Parliament's involvement in the human rights process. If there is a basic theme, it is precisely that.

  607
  The Minister will be aware that Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, gave a lecture to the British Academy on 15 October in which he made a telling point about the way in which the Human Rights Act operates. He said that it is:
  "already obvious that the result will be changes, significant changes, to our constitutional arrangements … What is the primary concern of the Human Rights Act is not so much rights in the ordinary common law sense, but values."
  That is what the House must address. As we have watched the Human Rights Act develop, we have seen examples that have been tweakings of the law. However, we now have to deal with a series of matters that have come into the public focus that relate to fundamental issues about the role of Parliament in decision making, as against that of the judiciary, and to how the Executive should respond.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman quotes the recent lecture by the Lord Chief Justice. We read reports of that and I have a full copy with me. Will he remind the House of the Lord Chief Justice's conclusion on whether he supported the Human Rights Act? If the interpretation of his comments is right, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not only the Lord Chief Justice but all the senior judges support incorporation and believe that the present position is defensible, right and constitutionally proper?
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right and I read the text of the address, which was extremely interesting.
  Moreover, I do not necessarily disagree with that position. What interests me, and what has provoked this debate, is the role of Parliament in this process, especially in light of the Government's comments—to which I shall turn in a moment—about where they appear now to see the limits of the Human Rights Act and where they would see fit to intervene to override it if necessary. That is the matter that I seek to bring to the attention of the House and to have debated this evening.
  The first issue is sentencing tariffs for mandatory life sentences. The newspapers are full of the matter, and it is time that the House paid attention to the principles underlying it. The House will be aware that, as matters stand, it is highly likely that the Home Secretary's discretion in this matter will be abolished, and of course there will be some who welcome that. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has tabled an amendment to the motion which perfectly properly sets out his own deeply held view, which I have known for a long time, that it is high time that the discretion was abolished. That is a legitimate subject for debate.
  We face a situation in which a principle that was clearly enunciated when capital punishment was abolished may be overturned. As I indicated to the Minister, I would have supported the abolition of capital punishment if I had been in the House in the 1960s, and I certainly would not vote for its reintroduction today. When it was abolished, the Home Secretary gave a series of categorical assurances about how he would continue to exercise discretion in respect of mandatory life sentences. He put that firmly on a public policy basis, arising from the need to reassure the public, tempered of course by the role of the parole board and, as we would now have it, by potential judicial review.
  608
  That position prevailed until 1983 when, as the Minister knows, the tariff policy was announced in Parliament. The tariff was no longer a secret matter, and by 1991 it was being communicated to the person in prison and arrived at after consultation with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, acting, of course, on the recommendation of the parole board.
  We have to face the fact that that principle is now being challenged. The European Court of Human Rights accepted it, apparently without difficulty, in the case of Wynne in 1994. However, the Wynne principle seems to be fast disappearing as the legal foundation on which the European Court is likely to act, and, moreover, on which our domestic courts are acting. In the case of Stafford, the European Court disregarded Wynne.
  The facts in that case were odd because there was no doubt that the position of Mr. Stafford, who had been released on licence and then re-imprisoned for non-violent offences with his licence revoked, was unusual. Nevertheless, the Government were certainly not saying that they thought it wrong that the Home Secretary should have that power, because although the decision was made by the Home Secretary of the Conservative Government, it was endorsed by the incoming Labour Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He adopted and argued that case, and it was thrown out.
  Now we have the Anderson case, which is before the House of Lords and goes much further. If there is a decision, and there is much commentary to support the view that the way in which the European convention on human rights operates would incline the Court to overturn the Home Secretary's discretion, there will be a challenge to the Executive's discretion as exercised by the Home Secretary, and that will apparently be wholly contrary to the Home Secretary's views and principles on this matter. That raises important issues.
  After the Stafford ruling, the Home Secretary said:
  "I am concerned that this judgement may serve as encouragement for those who would like to remove the Home Secretary's powers to set tariffs for adult murderers. If this judgement were to be used to support a legal process to achieve this, I would seek to use domestic legislation to enshrine the power of Parliament to provide adequate punishment for the guilty."
  Indeed, the Home Secretary went further and said:
  "We will study today's judgement in detail. My overarching priority will remain protecting the public from dangerous offenders, while doing everything we can do to assist and support victims and their families. It is crucial that jurisprudence does not interfere with this basic right on behalf of the elected government."
  Of course, the consequences of such a decision would be profound. There are some 260 murderers in prison whose tariffs fixed by the Home Secretary are no longer than those recommended by the judges. There are between 60 and 70—I do not have the precise figure—who have already served longer than the judge's recommendation. There are 23 people on whole-life tariffs who may be subject to review, including some of those who have been sentenced for the most horrific crimes, which have excited serious public disquiet. There are also some 1,300 people in prison who would be likely to apply to the parole board for review. The Home Secretary has apparently nailed his colours firmly to the mast and said that he would not tolerate that.

  609
  That is not the only example of the Home Secretary setting out his position. There is also the matter of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission hearings and the Home Secretary's attitude to the right to detain potential terrorists who have been refused asylum in this country but are allowed to remain because, not surprisingly, there is no third country to which to deport them. Initially, the Government's claim was turned down on the fascinating ground that the Home Secretary could not discriminate between nationals and non-nationals. On Friday, that judgment was reversed.
  Although the reversal is useful and interesting, and its terms make it clear that, in a national emergency, there can be discrimination between nationals and non-nationals, it expressly does not deal with the question of what would happen if there were no national emergency. I do not know what the Government's position is on that point, and I hope that we will hear more from the Minister about that. The Home Secretary made clear in the House his concern about the fettering of his discretion in that way, and I certainly did not understand it to be confined to issues of national emergency.
  That is a second example of a case that may well end up in Strasbourg in which the Executive, in the person of the Home Secretary, have expressed the gravest concerns about the judicial interpretation of the Human Rights Act. However, there is no point in blaming the judiciary; it is only doing its job. The question for the House is what limits it wants to impose on that judicial discretion and at what point it wants to reassert itself, either to back the Executive in seeking to override such decisions or—and this option is open to it—to tell the Home Secretary that it will not back the Executive.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that before incorporation we were signatories to the convention, and that the remedy was to go through all the courts in this country and then to Strasbourg. Does he agree that the same applies now? Even if Parliament were to pass, or hold to, a law that offended the convention, and the European Court of Human Rights found against it, we would have to change the law or be in breach of the convention. So far, we have always changed the law because we have never been willing to argue that others should obey the law when we do not do so.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point and, as I tried to explain to the House earlier, one of the reasons that I argued in favour of incorporation when the House debated it several years ago was that those decisions might eventually be made. There are two riders to that. One is the number of cases likely to get to Strasbourg, and therefore the change in the volume. The second point, which we cannot ignore, is the extent to which some of the jurisprudence and some of the principles that have been enunciated are home-grown. After all, in the Anderson case, the Court of Appeal was the forum that said that the Wynne case in the European Court of Human Rights appeared to be flawed and should no longer be followed, even though the Court of Appeal felt that it was not its job to interfere with the
  610
  Executive's discretion in that case. That is an example of the much more dynamic relationship between our own judiciary and the Executive.
  Although I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that, eventually, the same decision could be arrived at, we need only look at what has happened over the past six months to see that the volume and intensity of the challenges are growing. That is why I believe the House should consider the matter. I assume that the Home Secretary's position would be identical in respect of tariffs for life sentences if the case were taken directly to Strasbourg.
  Simon Hughes: That is an interesting question.
  Mr. Grieve: A very interesting question. Eventually, irrespective of what the House does, it is possible for the case to end up in Strasbourg, and the Government are faced with a number of ways of dealing with it.
  Mr. John Redwood: Is it not the case that as soon as we sign such a convention, if we do so in good faith, we are effectively saying that we trust the convention and the international community more than our own democratic system? The purpose of signing such a convention is to fetter the discretion of our elected Ministers. Is not my hon. Friend's argument really against the idea of signing a convention, if he is a strong supporter of democratic decision?
  Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point. It is possible for the House and the Government to find themselves in conflict with the interpretation of the convention by the European Court of Human Rights.[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend says that that is inevitable. I am never quite sure about inevitability, and of course there are mechanisms available for the Government to derogate under certain circumstances, if they believe that it is necessary to do so. That is precisely why this evening's debate seems so important.
  Given the Home Secretary's repeated assertions that he will not be budged on tariff life sentences or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission because he believes that he has a duty to the public that it is important that he discharge, I should like to hear how the Minister reconciles that with the point raised by my right hon. Friend, and how she explains the Govt's position on the matter.
  Vera Baird: Is not the timing of the debate disastrous for the Opposition? Why are we trying to debate what the Executive might do if their powers are struck down, when the case in Anderson has not yet been decided, and the Home Secretary has just been upheld by the Court of Appeal?
  Mr. Grieve: I am afraid that Idisagree entirely with the hon. and learned Lady. Human Rights Act points are being taken every day in the courts, so we cannot say that matters are sub judice on the Human Rights Act, or we would not be able to discuss its generality at all. The matter is extremely topical. After all, the Home Secretary could have said nothing. He could have said, in respect of the tariff for mandatory life sentence prisoners, "I will wait upon events", but he did not. He

  611
  made the choice to come out with a series of public pronouncements that put him on a direct path of potential conflict with the judiciary, judicial decisions and ultimately, potentially, with the European Court of Human Rights. There is a very legitimate subject to debate.
  The hon. and learned Lady might have a persuasive point if the Home Secretary had said nothing. Then she could argue that we should wait and see what happens, but it is the Government who are briefing the press about the Home Secretary's position and the Home Secretary who is going on television and radio to say how he stands on the matter, and we would like an explanation of how the Government view it in principle and in practice.
  Vera Baird: The debate is premature, because the possibility cannot be excluded that, if the Home Secretary lost now and the case as to his powers to set a tariff went to Strasbourg, it is conceivable—not very likely, but conceivable—that the court in Strasbourg would find that it was within our margin of appreciation in implementing the Human Rights Act, so the issue would simply never arise. Why should we speak about theories, when there is no practical purpose to be served?
  Mr. Grieve: I am afraid that I disagree entirely with the hon. and learned Lady. The matter has arisen, and it is a matter of which the House should be seized. Are we to say that when the Home Secretary comes out with a series of public pronouncements—made, some might suggest, probably unkindly, for political advantage—the House should not debate the implications, in the light of the Government's stated approach to the operation of the Human Rights Act and its incorporation into our law?
  There are other aspects that we need to examine. It is interesting, because it is directly linked to the situation in respect of tariff life sentences, that there has been another decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ezeh and Connors, which effectively said that early release for prisoners, as previously enshrined as a matter of mercy, and possibly of administrative convenience and practice, has been turned into a right under English law. The result is that, as the Minister will know, prison governors can no longer award lost remission, because it is no longer thought to be a remission period; it is not supposed to be part of the sentence at all.
  I have had several letters—I do not know whether my hon. Friends have received similar correspondence—arguing that the sentencing system in this country, from mandatory life sentences for murders through to the tariff and period served by other criminals in prison, has become a fantasy world. That is a direct consequence of the working of the European convention on human rights. What is the Government's view on that? Do they welcome it? If so, will we move towards a system that would appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, with a determinate sentence for murderers or different categories of murderer? Or will we move towards a situation that was highlighted briefly in the "Justice for All" White Paper, with the judge imposing some different sentencing regime, where the period that one gets is the period that one serves? The Government need
  612
  to respond to these issues, which are the direct consequences of the operation of the convention and its incorporation into our law.
  Why has the Home Secretary chosen to dig his trench on the issue of adult murderers' mandatory life sentences? He opposed the ending of his discretion in the case of juveniles in the Thompson and Venables case, but he did not challenge it. I appreciate that there are distinctions, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister this evening why the Government accepted that, even though they opposed it and argued against it in court, yet nailed their colours to the mast over adults. I should be grateful to hear how that distinction was arrived at. It is an important one, which the House should know about.
  In addition, we must face the fact that there are some opposite effects of incorporation. For example, every piece of legislation coming before us now has that famous imprimatur that it is human rights compliant. As the Minister knows, that is merely a mantra that seems to be recited ad nauseam. Often, it does not appear to bear much relation to the legislation that we pass. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will know that when we discussed the Proceeds of Crime Bill serious reservations were expressed about whether the process of civil confiscation is Human Rights Act complaint. The Executive seem not to be in the least bit concerned about that issue.
  Almost daily we see massive impacts on the freedom of the citizen. During the weekend—I was struck because I had previously missed the point—I found that teachers being vetted have to give their bank account number and the maiden name of their mother, which is the usual device by which banks check people's identity. Apparently, the data are being processed abroad. The procedure was introduced with the laudable aim of preventing paedophiles and sex offenders from moving into the teaching profession.
  There was not a squeak from the Government about human rights implications. Presumably, it suits the Executive's decision-making process that such checks should be introduced, but I think that they constitute a massive intrusion into personal freedoms. That brings me—I hope that the Minister will listen—to the nub of the issue: the role of Parliament in the process that I have described. I do not know whether she has bothered to read what was said at the time of the incorporation of the Human Rights Act, including what I said. However, I made it clear—I still believe in this passionately—that if the Act is to work, Parliament's involvement in the process must be constant and frequent.
  The Joint Committee on Human Rights does extremely good work but that is not what I would see as frequent parliamentary involvement in the process. The Government should have initiated debate on certain matters a long time ago, including on tariff life sentences. It was clear that the Home Secretary had a view that might well be challenged and found to be unsustainable.
  We have had an extraordinary paradigm shift in the way in which we run our affairs. Some might argue that that is for the better. However, it involves a dialogue between the Executive and the judiciary, from which Parliament is effectively excluded. I have serious doubts

  613
  about that process. As the dialogue continues, there is a danger that the process of justice, Parliament and the Executive will be brought into disrepute with the public. We have only to see how the public respond to the news about some of these matters. In my opinion, many people are deeply concerned about—this is how they see it—their rights disappearing down the plughole, with parliamentary scrutiny lessened and the judiciary intervening in cases where frequently the public cannot see that a human right is being infringed.
  In the Simms case, Lord Hoffman said:
  "Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights … But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost."
  Surely the issue before the House is that there are compelling examples where it would appear that the Government do not feel that they have done anything contrary to human rights, but, undoubtedly, we as a House are not squarely confronting the issues before us. That is why it is important that the matter should be debated.
  7.54 pm
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the Human Rights Act 1998 is fully in conformity with parliamentary sovereignty, which enables Parliament to reflect the democratic will of the people; and further notes that the Human Rights Act enshrines the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long."
  I welcome the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to his role in opening the debate. Given that this is the Opposition's debate, I am rather surprised that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, did not choose to open it himself. I am surprised not least because the hon. Member for Beaconsfield so faithfully reproduced his right hon. Friend's thesis as outlined in various media outlets and written pamphlets recently from which it is plain that this is a subject dear to his heart. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) put her finger on it. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman did not open the debate because his plan to put the Government on the spot, as he saw it, has failed. I think that he was expecting the Court of Appeal last Friday to find against the Government on whether our anti-terrorism detention measures were discriminatory. So confident was he that he put out a press release the day before offering to help the Government sort out what he called the problems with the European Court of Human Rights.
  The right hon. Gentleman then sought this debate. Unfortunately for him, the Court of Appeal found unanimously in the Government's favour on all counts. The right hon. Gentleman having hoped to put the Government on the spot, I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who consequently found himself in a bit of a spot. That is why he made the contribution that he did: there was nothing much left to say.
  614
  Given that the Opposition selected this topic for debate, we might at least have expected the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to enlighten us on the Opposition's policy on the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. Instead, the only thing that is clear is that they are not clear. When speaking about these matters on "Today" a week ago, the right hon. Member for West Dorset admitted:
  "I don't myself yet have a clear view."
  One week further on, I do not think that it is any clearer. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to sort out some of the Opposition's misconceptions about the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, and to deal with some of their errors.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I wonder whether the Minister thinks that there are times in our political history when there are issues that arise and politicians, although they may not immediately know the answer, have the feeling that there are questions that need to be discussed, or whether she thinks that that is an impossible conjunction?
  Beverley Hughes: Not at all. I do think that politicians have a duty to stimulate debate on important matters even though they may not fully have resolved what the issues may be. However, I should have thought that they would have a reasonably clear idea of where they stood on some of the principles. What we heard from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield leaves us in a complete fog as to where his party stands and the course of action that it is proposing as a result of the dilemmas that he has outlined tonight and the right hon. Member for West Dorset has outlined in his pamphlet.
  Mr. Grieve: I must point out to the Minister that she is in government. It would be nice to hear from her the Government's position on the matters to which I referred. It is the Government who usually lead on these matters. The hon. Lady knows that in respect of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—and on tariff life sentences—we indicated clearly that we fully understood the Government's position. I do not understand what the hon. Lady is getting at.
  Beverley Hughes: The Opposition may have said that they understood the Government's position on detention measures and SIAC, but they did not agree with them. I shall try to take up that point in attempting to unravel the Opposition's motives and the course of action that they really want to propose—I suspect that they are fearful of doing so—in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.
  At the moment, we are not sure whether the Opposition support the ECHR and the HRA or are against them. Half the time, they seem to think the ECHR is bad, while the rest of the time, they think it is good. That may reflect the fact that they are divided on so many issues. Indeed, we have heard different propositions from different Opposition Members. Their official spokespeople wished the Human Rights Bill well on Third Reading and in the other place, but they talked a few months later of repealing the legislation. A year ago, their leader told the Prime Minister that the ECHR was "an obstacle". Last week, the right hon. Member for West Dorset seemed to think that the Human Rights

  615
  Act was all that stood between an over-mighty Government and our traditional liberties. He practically cheered the judges on, but this week, his party kneels at the shrine of the democratic will of the people. One wonders where it will be next week.
  I should like now to deal with one of the central aspects of the Opposition's position, which is also one of the fundamental flaws in their argument: the proposition that there is a choice to be made between democracy and human rights.
  Mr. David Cameron: I should like to ask a question before the Minister leaves the subject of great court victories won by the Home Secretary. Is she aware that in October last year, he won a great victory when Shafiq ur Rehman, a gentleman whom he had been trying for five years to deport—obviously, the process cost a lot of money—lost his appeal to the House of Lords? Will she explain why the Home Office miraculously turned around 10 days later and said that he could stay?
  Beverley Hughes: I shall not be distracted into dealing with a particular case. I should like to deal with some of the fundamental principles that the Opposition say they are raising. Their premise is that there is a choice to be made between democracy and human rights, but in our view, there is no such choice, as they go hand in hand. Respect for human rights is surely one of the hallmarks of democracy and a parliamentary system, because it shows that society values every individual person.
  Reference has been made to the well-reported speech made by the Lord Chief Justice the other week, in which he said that human rights came with true democracy, whether Governments wanted them or not. He could have added that that was the case whether Oppositions wanted them or not. He referred also to the words of another senior judge, who summed up the relationship between human rights and democracy by saying that human rights were not a substitute for the processes of democratic government, but a complement to them. We certainly strongly subscribe to that view and I would have thought that we could all agree on it.
  Mr. William Cash: On the question of the choice—
  Beverley Hughes: I have not yet given way, but I shall do so now.
  Mr. Cash: I am delighted; I am touched by the hon. Lady's generous effort. The choice between democracy and human rights is crucial and relates to the amendments as well as the motion. She says that no such choice has to be made. In that case, why did the Home Secretary recently refer to the need to change the Human Rights Act in order to achieve conformity with what he thinks will be the democratic will of Parliament?
  Beverley Hughes: I do not think the Home Secretary has proposed to change the Human Rights Act himself. In relation to some of the cases raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—I refer to the Anderson case in particular—he referred to the need to preserve the view of the House about the role of Parliament in determining policy on punishment, especially with
  616
  regard to murders. We cannot anticipate the judgment, but if necessary, we will use domestic legislation to preserve that position. That is the point that hon. Gentleman made. [Interruption.] That does not involve a choice between the two very important cornerstones of our society—human rights and democracy—in relation to any one issue.
  It is astonishing that the Conservatives find that issue so hard to contemplate. I want to deal with it later, but as they are finding it so hard to understand, I shall also rehearse it a little now. In any mature democracy, the extent to which human rights, parliamentary sovereignty and the democratic will of the people have to be negotiated around each other is part and parcel of modern life. That is part of a mature democracy and the constitutional settlement that we accepted when we helped to draw up the European convention on human rights. It is clear that Opposition Members cannot carry in their heads the idea that those issues cannot be reduced to simple edicts and are not one-dimensional. We are here to deal with the extent to which human rights, sovereignty and democracy have to be worked out in a democratic system.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she has been patient and has hence contributed to the debate. I do not seek simplicities. Does she recognise that there are times when the democratic will and the convention as it is interpreted by the judges may come into conflict? She appears to do so, as she refers to negotiation. In that case, who is to prevail in the negotiation and by what mechanism and against which criteria will they do so? That is our question.
  Beverley Hughes: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, those issues are not new. For 50 years, we have been considering the extent to which human rights butt up against parliamentary decisions and the laws of this country. What Governments of every complexion have had to do in that situation has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). They have to consider whether their obligations to the international community and international law should prevail. So far, those are the decisions that Governments of every hue have decided are important. Those are the issues that any Government face. What we are getting down to is what the Conservative party is thinking about as a solution to some of those dilemmas, but perhaps does not dare mention.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Beverley Hughes: Yes, I am a lady.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady confirm that it is the Government's view that if an ECHR ruling found against the UK Government, they would accept that judgment, as all their predecessors since we ratified the treaty—we were the first country to do so—would have done and amend the law accordingly? Therefore, if the Home Secretary were found not to be permitted by the convention to set tariffs for adult life sentence prisoners

  617
  or others, the Government would accept the ruling and the judgment that such sentences should be set by the courts and not Ministers of the Crown?
  Beverley Hughes: I can say that we have no intention of reneging on our obligations under international law or of pulling out of our commitments to working with other countries on all those issues and being part of the family that subscribes to the convention. Indeed, major changes to our law have followed as a result of decisions of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The judgments were not always convenient at the time, but in the end, all Governments, whatever their hue, have put the rule of law above political considerations. I repeat that that is what a mature constitutional democracy is all about.
  My point is that most of what the Opposition spokespeople are complaining about—this is reflected in the confusion in their motion—comes not from the Human Rights Act, but from the ECHR.
  I listened carefully to hear whether the Opposition would commit themselves to denouncing the whole ECHR as is technically possible. Is that their real agenda? That would be something when all Europe—west and east—accepts the ECHR, inconvenient though its outcomes may sometimes be, as the bottom line of civilised behaviour. The Human Rights Act does not change the ECHR or our international legal obligations under the treaty in any way. It does not change one word of convention rights, but allows us to enforce those basic rights in our courts rather than having to pursue them in Strasbourg.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
  Beverley Hughes: I shall finish this point first, because I have been fairly generous in giving way.
  The Act is primarily about access to justice in our own courts. Of course, it is true that our judges, and not those in Strasbourg, are more likely to hand down decisions that may ask the Government to think again. I wonder whether the Opposition prefer such judgments to come from Europe or from our own courts. We know what answer the Strasbourg court gives to that question, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has already referred to it. It gives what it calls a large margin of appreciation in favour of domestic legal systems—and quite right too.
  Mr. Grieve: The Minister seemed to be coming to the nub of the argument, but then shied away from it. If I understand her correctly on mandatory tariffs for life sentences, she appeared to suggest that the Home Secretary would legislate to overturn any possible decision taken by the House of Lords but might, if the decision went against him at the European Court of Human Rights, accept that. Is that the position? Would he legislate if the House of Lords were to tell him that a sentence were contrary to the convention but would accept the decision of the court in Europe itself? The House is entitled to know.
  Beverley Hughes: The House is entitled to know when we know what the House of Lords judgment will be.
  618
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said, the hon. Gentleman's speculation is entirely premature. We will face the issue if and when we meet it.
  The Opposition's second argument is that our current system of subscribing to the ECHR, and the Human Rights Act's incorporation of that, takes power from Parliament and puts it in the hands of judges. However, as we are already signatories to the convention, the Act simply means that British rather than European judges are allowed to pass judgment. The Attorney-General rightly pointed out this month in relation to the Guinness four hearing that Parliament could today legislate deliberately and incompatibly with a convention right. The domestic courts would, of course, be obliged to give effect to Parliament's expressed intentions.
  The Act is about the rule of law and not about the rule of lawyers and judges. It is crystal clear about parliamentary sovereignty. I refer Members to sections 4 and 6 that make it clear that the courts can issue a statement of incompatibility if they believe that primary legislation is incompatible with convention rights. However, that is not a strike-down power of the kind found in legislation in some other countries. Section 4 (6) clearly states:
  "A declaration under this section ('a declaration of incompatibility')—

  (a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and

  (b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made."

  That is not to say that a finding of incompatibility does not matter, but neither should incompatibility in the way that the Opposition see it be regarded as a defeat or as a disaster for democracy.
  As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, my Department faces some challenging decisions, and we are not alone in that. However, the Conservatives need to have a more mature perspective on such issues. Let us consider some past cases. Did parliamentary sovereignty, democracy or liberty crumble because the Court of Appeal used the Human Rights Act to challenge the Prison Service's blanket policy on taking all babies away from their mothers at the age of 18 months? I do not think that they did. The decision gave us an opportunity to consider the matter again. To put it simply, the judges were telling us that we could have a general policy, but that we had to be sure that it did not suffocate individual rights.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
  Beverley Hughes: No, I want to make progress because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Similarly, was it a disaster for democracy to hear that the Court of Appeal also applied the Act to overturn a system of in-built bureaucratic delay in which a tribunal made people wait eight weeks after making an application? It was not.
  Another misconception that the Tories, or at least some of them, have is that Europe forced the Human Rights Act on us. They should know—perhaps they will tell the Daily Mail—that the ECHR is not Euro-law from Brussels. It results from Winston Churchill's creation, the Council of Europe. They do not understand that the Act was not an imposition, but a

  619
  policy choice. It was the result of a clear manifesto commitment that the Government made to enable people to achieve their rights in this country.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to traditional British liberties that have served our country well for so long. Two centuries ago, John Wilkes could talk of the liberties of Britons to do what the law did not forbid. Since then, successive Governments have passed thousands of laws while, in the meantime, other countries set out the values that they shared in law. The people of those countries enjoyed the benefits of that. Apart from this country, only two developed nations had no constitutional settlement of this kind. Now there are none.
  We need to remember that, 50 years ago, British lawyers helped to enshrine our basic liberties into the ECHR. However, people could claim them only in Strasbourg. One thing perplexing about the Tories' approach to the issue is that they try to portray the ECHR as counter to British values, our way of doing things, parliamentary sovereignty and democracy and concepts of liberty as outlined in their motion. In fact, the ECHR enshrines those British values, because those values were incorporated into the convention at the outset.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister referred to views maturing. The Government have adopted the principle of a European constitution, and she knows from the statutes that emanate from the convention that a number of matters clearly set out the idea of making the fundamental charter of human rights legally binding within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That would make it somewhat autochthonous, if I can use that expression. Will she therefore acknowledge that, in relation to the European Court on Human Rights, the Government are giving way to the idea that that jurisdiction could be subsumed into an overriding supreme court as envisaged, for example, by Professor Dashwood's constitutional treaty?
  Beverley Hughes: No, I do not acknowledge that that is the logical conclusion.
  In a democracy, such as that in the United Kingdom, human rights are not an absolutely rigid set of standards to which every other aspect of social and political life must bow. Our intention in incorporating the ECHR through the Human Rights Act was to provide a framework within which important and inevitable dilemmas would be debated.
  Individual rights have to be set alongside the public interest. One person's rights can infringe on the freedoms of others, and Governments have the responsibility of balancing the rights of the individual citizen to freedom with the rights of the people as a whole, for example, to security and protection. Public protection from terrorists, dangerous offenders and others is the prime duty of Parliament; it is the Government's priority too. For individuals, rights are not absolute and unfettered: they have to be balanced with responsibilities.
  Today, the Opposition have shown, yet again, that they are not able to grasp some of those issues. They are looking backwards, not forwards. They are out of touch and that, I fear, is why they are still out of government. The Labour Government have brought the framework
  620
  of human rights into British law—a framework that now allows our courts to help us to strike the balances in the best possible way, as we develop a stronger sense of mutuality between individuals and between people and Government and, in so doing, develop a stronger, more cohesive society in which our international obligations are to the fore. The Labour Government understand that. We are committed to human rights, parliamentary sovereignty and democracy, and we have had the courage to bring those things together in a new settlement that fits us for the 21st century, and does not take us back in the 18th century, where the Opposition would like us to be.
  8.21 pm
  Simon Hughes: Although I need not formally declare the interest, I am a lawyer and I both trained and worked at the Council of Europe dealing with human rights matters, before entering Parliament.
  I welcome the debate because it is on an important issue, although I share the Government's surprise that the subject has been chosen at this time by the Conservative party. There are all sorts of reason for that surprise, including those enunciated by the hon. And learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I understand the position stated by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), that one does not have to have a view before testing the view of the Government, but it strikes me that the Conservatives have not answered the fundamental question in the motion, which is whether we in the House, and the parties in the country, think that sentencing ought to be done by judges, or that in some cases the power ought to be reserved to Ministers. On that issue, I have not heard a clear statement of position from a Conservative Front Bencher, and the Government have voiced apparently contradictory positions. I shall happily return later to the Liberal Democrats' position, because this is one of those debates—it does not always happen—in which I can in all honesty tell the House that, on all the issues relevant to the debate, Liberal Democrats as a party have a clear position and has had one for some time.
  Other reasons, not enunciated by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, for my sense of slight surprise at the motion on today's Order Paper are first, that I had always assumed that the Conservative party supports the rule of law—I hope that it still does—and secondly, that I have recently and increasingly often heard its leader voice the view that the Tory party must look after the interests of the vulnerable, which is a new approach that I laud and welcome, although we have yet to see whether it would be carried out in practice.
  If one believes in the rule of law and in supporting the vulnerable, who are often minorities of some sort, it must logically follow first, that one accepts the ultimate supremacy of the European convention on human rights, to which we have subscribed for 50 years—indeed, we were the first signatory to it as well as, in large part, its author—and secondly, that one accepts that sometimes the courts will have to stand up for the minority, which Parliament has sometimes failed to do.

  621
  I am therefore concerned about the implication of the position stated in the Conservatives' motion, which is worded as follows:
  "this House notes with concern the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the sentencing powers of the Home Secretary and in other respects".
  The one example given is the Home Secretary's sentencing power. Unless I have misunderstood the English, noting "with concern" the convention's impact on that power suggests that the Conservatives are not happy about it, which in turn suggests a degree of inconsistency with an acceptance that the European convention is right.
  On the substantive issue, it is important that the House—however difficult it sometimes is to do so in the face of public opinion in part, and tabloid newspaper opinion in particular—stands up for the position that it should be judges who decide sentences and Parliament which sets the law within which those sentences are set. For me, that means that the individual sentence has to fit the individual crime, and for me and my party, it means that there should be no mandatory sentences—none, including for murder. It should always be up to the court to decide the sentence, within the upper limit fixed by Parliament. Taking the example of murder, the reason why it is wrong to have a mandatory sentence is that there is all the difference in the world between a person who premeditatedly plans the most gruesome killing of an innocent victim, and a person who after 30 years of taunting and domestic violence reacts, on the spur of the moment, by killing their spouse. It seems to me wrong to treat both in the same way.
  The other principle that the Liberal Democrats have enunciated clearly—we did so when the Venables case, which came to court after the killing of James Bulger, was reviewed—is that it is logical and right that matters of how long a sentence should be, and then, when a case is reviewed, of whether it is safe for someone to be released, should he determined by a judge., either the original judge or a judge who takes their place. It is wrong that someone's sentence should be decided by a politician, who cannot help but be tainted by his political function. That decision should not be influenced by politics
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has, to some extent, covered the point I intended to make. He knows that I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that judges should determine sentences and that there should be determinant sentences for homicide. However, there is a problem to which he alluded, namely, the public safety. There is some merit in a life sentence that enables the Home Secretary to act if he were persuaded that, at determination of the tariff, the person remained a public threat. That is the one advantage of the life sentence.
  Simon Hughes: I absolutely understand that point, about which the public are rightly concerned and would want us to be concerned. My view is that the matter should come back to the court and the court should determine, on the evidence, whether it is safe to release the person in question. I agree that a safeguard is needed. One cannot know when one is sentencing a person whether it will be safe to release him in 10, 15 or 20 years.
  622
  I wish to give the reasons why all sentences, including life sentences, should be set by judges and not by politicians. First, life sentences—established about 100 years ago—were never intended to be life long; they were intended to be very long sentences that were subject to review. Secondly, the royal commission on capital punishment in 1953—soon after the European convention was signed by the United Kingdom—said that judges should determine the length of sentences, so the argument for change goes back to the beginning of the convention. Thirdly, when that proposal was rejected by Parliament—and we first abolished the death penalty on a trial basis—the Home Secretary was given the power to continue to decide on these matters; not to give him additional powers to extend sentences, but to prevent overlong or unnecessary detention, so the Government could allow for rehabilitation.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right, as one can see from reading the debates. Yet he will acknowledge that Sir Frank Soskice, the then Home Secretary, made clear the reverse argument: that there were some circumstances—because of the behaviour in prison, the character, or the assessment of the person who had been sentenced to imprisonment—in which he might find himself constrained to decide that the person should continue to be detained.
  Simon Hughes: Indeed, the then Labour Home Secretary was very careful and was much respected for his balanced view on these subjects.
  Mr. Garnier: Surely the real reason is the unspoken one, which is that a deal was done. As most members of the public wanted the death penalty to continue, the public had to be assuaged—or, at least, Members of this House who supported the retention of the death penalty had to be persuaded that the Home Secretary would, if necessary, keep people in prison for ever. It was just a dirty political deal.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right; this was a matter where Parliament led public opinion, which had not been persuaded of the argument. We had had cases where Lord Chief Justice Goddard sentenced people to death who were later found to be not guilty. I do not regard the matter as a dirty political deal. I understand why it happened, but we have moved on since then.
  When subsequent Home Secretaries introduced the notion of the tariff, they did so without any parliamentary debate or secondary legislation; it was introduced, as it were, by a Government statement. Many reports of the bodies concerned over the years, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, have recommended that there should be judge-made sentences, not politician-made sentences. That included the last Home Affairs Select Committee report under the last Conservative Government, a Committee that had a Conservative majority.
  The logic of the cases that have been debated here, which came from Strasbourg and dealt first with young people, was that we should apply the same principle to adults. There does not seem to be any logical distinction between the two. By signing the sixth protocol to the

  623
  ECHR, Parliament has prevented itself from being able to reinstate the death penalty, so the reason for the old position has gone.
  In addition, other parts of the United Kingdom have judge-set sentences. Scotland has them, and it is not an issue there. In Scotland, the Justice Minister—my friend Jim Wallace, a former Member of this House—does not set the sentences. In Northern Ireland, legislation is going in the same direction. We have heard the arguments and, around the world, all similar jurisdictions have moved away from the system that we are discussing. Whatever the House of Lords decision may be, sooner or later we should, and we will, have judge-made sentences, not Home Secretary-made sentences.
  Mr. Cash: Surely the hon. Gentleman conceded to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that there were questions relating to public safety. One might give as instances serial killers and paedophiles. How does he square that with what he has just said?
  Simon Hughes: I give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I am on the record as saying that it should be for the courts to make sure whether somebody who has been given a life sentence is safe to be released. When juveniles become adults, it is my view that there should be the same reassessment. Also—this will be topical in the next Session—the same should apply to people with a history of mental illness or mental disorder. I would far rather that courts made that decision in public, on the evidence, than—with great respect—parole boards sitting behind the scenes. The parole boards have done a difficult job well, but for reasons of public safety and reassurance those decisions should be made in the open.
  My party enthusiastically supported the Human Rights Act in both Houses, believing it to be right and proper for Britain to make the convention directly enforceable. Every Council of Europe country that is a signatory to the convention has now done that, with the exception of Ireland, which is considering doing so and in any case has long had a written constitution and Bill of Rights.
  The Act appears to be hugely successful. In the lecture that has already been referred to, Lord Woolf made it absolutely clear that he considered it to be a good thing and working well, and the other senior judges fully support it. The remedy for a human rights breach is now available far more quickly—one used to have to go to all the domestic courts and then to Strasbourg, and that often led to justice denied.
  The Act means that our courts can now influence the jurisprudence of Strasbourg. It has not been abused, and I think that only one case has resulted in compensation. It means that we scrutinise our legislation for human rights implications more thoroughly. Civil servants have to do that and Ministers have to certify compliance, and the Joint Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), has done an extremely good job on behalf of both Houses, ensuring that every piece of legislation is examined. I pay tribute to her and her colleagues for their part in ensuring that Parliament can do its job properly.
  624
  The Act has made us much more human rights conscious. Official secrets legislation dating from the first world war—passed in haste and repented of at leisure—could never have remained on the statute book so long if we had had this process. That is why, uniquely in the House, my party opposed the derogation in last year's anti-terrorism legislation. I understand the arguments, but we thought it unnecessary, as other remedies are available. We believed that other countries would not follow us in seeking derogations, and indeed they have not.
  The implication in the motion that the Act is inimical to democracy is, as the Minister said, completely flawed. Lord Woolf dealt with that head on at the end of his lecture. The reality is that the best remedy against the excesses of the state—often the Executive, sometimes Parliament—is to have someone outside who can say, "You've got it wrong." It is easy for Parliament to be swayed to support the view of the majority, but often we need to ensure that it looks after the interests of the minority just as much. Lord Woolf made it absolutely clear that occasionally judges are needed to do that job. They may be unpopular at the time, but they are needed.
  We should consider our history, taking in Thomas Paine and the tradition that we have exported to the United States, as well as the French revolution. Going back even further, there is the declaration of rights and, more recently, my party's traditions, with Mill and all the others. We believe that liberal democracy is absolutely rooted in human rights, and sometimes we need something other than Parliament to defend it.
  I pay tribute to those who fought the battle. When I was first interested in politics, I met the then Lord Wade, a Liberal peer, who was fighting to get the Bill of Rights incorporated in law. He kept trying, and it seemed almost cloud cuckoo land to imagine that it would ever happen, but he fought doggedly on and eventually he was proved to have been right. More recently, my noble Friend Lord Lester, who has many years experience in human rights and serves on the Joint Committee, fought hard to secure the legislation. Parliament achieved a balance, saying that it need not accept the court's decision, but accepting that eventually it could be overridden by the European Court of Human Rights.
  Mr. Letwin: No one listening could fail to be impressed by the hon. Gentleman's evident sincerity and the logic of his arguments. Does he accept, though, that there is a difference between using such a structure of argument in the United States, where constitutional amendment is available as a democratic device, and using it in our current circumstances, when we are denying Parliament the ability to contradict the judges' interpretation of a document that Parliament cannot change? Is not that a fundamental difference?
  Simon Hughes: It is a difference, and we could have a perfectly proper debate about that. Unlike the United States, we do not have a written constitution. This country has signed up to a European convention, rather as the states in America signed up to the federal constitution.
  I intended to end on this point, and the right hon. Gentleman leads me to it. The process of our democracy and the defence of human rights is an evolving and

  625
  developing process. I welcome the debate about how Parliament—the legislature—the Executive and the courts interrelate. But for us this will continue to be unsatisfactory in its resolution until we have a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. When we have, the parallel with the United States will be much more obvious, and the citizen will understand more clearly the relationship between himself or herself and the state.
  The great benefit of being brought up in the United States or in France is that young people there understand their rights and obligations more clearly than they do in this country. We still have some way to go. The Human Rights Act was a good start, and independence of the judiciary is an important principle—but there is further work to be done, and further constitutional reform is still urgently needed.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the House that the 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches now applies.
  8.40 pm
  Jean Corston: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in a debate on the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. I agreed with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) when she surmised the reasons why the Conservatives chose this subject for debate this week—but I am pleased to say that the Court of Appeal shot their fox last Friday.
  Such time as I have, I intend to devote not to recent cases in the Court of Appeal, nor to the position of politicians with regard to determining sentences, but to a recently produced pamphlet containing what passes nowadays for thinking on human rights in the Conservative party, including an article by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, entitled "Liberty under the Law" and a foreword by Lord Cranborne.
  The pamphlet says that there is little parliamentary check on the expanding power of the state, which increasingly threatens individual freedom, so the role of protecting individuals from the excesses of state power falls to the judiciary. However, the European convention on human rights, which the Human Rights Act incorporates into British law, has at its heart the protection of individual freedom. As we all know, it was drafted in response to the experience of fascism in the 1930s and 1940s, and is based on the principle of the rule of law in a democratic society. The convention protects rights, including rights to liberty, to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and to privacy—an essential check against excessive intrusion into the personal sphere, which is, in essence, the right to be left alone.
  Mr. Grieve: As I hope I acknowledged in my speech, I recognise the work that is done by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which the hon. Lady chairs. She will recollect that I also mentioned the provisions affecting education, for vetting to prevent paedophiles and other
  626
  sex offenders from working in schools. There are draconian provisions, for no explicable reason, demanding that people provide bank account details, their mothers' maiden names and other information that appears to be an intrusion into privacy. Did the hon. Lady's Committee have the opportunity to consider that provision before it was enacted? If not, does not that, plus the fact that it was not debated on the Floor of the House, show how poor the ability of the House is—although it is not the fault of the hon. Lady's Committee—to provide adequate scrutiny of issues involving human rights when the Executive chooses to intrude?
  Jean Corston: I do not recall whether the Committee has given attention to that matter, although I would not want to say that I was sure. I am sure that the House can imagine the volume of legislation that the Committee has examined since its inception in January 2001, because it has examined every Bill, both public and private, that has been introduced into either House.
  I shall now proceed, but would you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I take interventions, that will not affect the 12 minutes for which I am permitted to speak?
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the time taken by interventions did not count against the 12 minutes, but the response did.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady is fully aware of the position.
  Jean Corston: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yes, I think that I could work that out for myself.
  The HRA does not just "arm the judges", as the right hon. Member for West Dorset put it, to defend freedoms; it places responsibilities on each arm of government—the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary—to protect human rights. It therefore requires everyone acting on behalf of the state to consider the rights and freedoms of the people whom their actions affect. Public authorities must ensure that their policies and practices are in accordance with convention rights. The Human Rights Joint Committee's inquiries—a Committee that I have the privilege of chairing—have shown that this process has had an impact on Government, although it is not as yet consistent across all areas of government, and more work remains to be done.
  Parliament has an equally significant role to play under the HRA. As was said, section 19 of the HRA requires a Secretary of State who introduces a Bill to Parliament to state whether it complies with the human rights protected under the Act. My Committee has taken a prime role in this pre-legislative scrutiny process—to the benefit, I hope, of both Houses. This requirement has given Parliament a new tool to scrutinise legislation for HRA compliance. Since its establishment, the Committee has undertaken this work as its first priority, and it is hoped that its 20-odd reports on Bills and draft Bills have helped Parliament to become better informed about the balance to be struck between conflicting rights, and between rights, duties and responsibilities, when it is making law.

  627
  On page 1 of the pamphlet to which I referred, Lord Cranborne states in the foreword that the
  "judges are not elected and have the right to overrule the decisions of our elected representatives."
  That is not so. The courts have no power to strike down legislation; all that they can do is to make a declaration of incompatibility.
  Mr. Garnier: Judges do have a power to strike down secondary legislation.
  Jean Corston: I accept that, but the foreword makes the sweeping statement that they are not allowed to overrule the decisions of our elected representatives. That is not the case. There has been one declaration of incompatibility that fulfils all the tests laid down by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, according to his freedom test. It concerns the mental health legislation that applied a reverse onus decision to anyone held under its provisions, so that, in order to be released, they had to show that they were not a danger to the public. The court said, probably rightly, that the burden should be on the state to prove that the person concerned was not fit to be released, rather than the other way around. That is the only time in nearly two years that Parliament has been asked to look at a declaration of incompatibility.
  The pamphlet suggests that the judicial protection of liberty under the HRA is uncertain, and may be inadequate. However, the rights incorporated by the HRA are not vague and uncertain generalities. They are underpinned by a comprehensive body of jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in its application of the ECHR to member states of the Council of Europe, including the UK. As they are required to do under section 2 of the HRA, UK courts have, since implementation of the Act, drawn on this rich vein of case law in developing their own jurisprudence on human rights.
  It is therefore a false antithesis to suggest that the HRA has created a paradigm shift in the balance between Parliament and the courts. The evidence does not support this view; nor does it suggest that we are on the brink of a revolution. Judges have always had a creative role to play in the making of the law—what else is the common law? One need only think of Lord Denning and his married women's equity. The idea that judges have always confined themselves to the narrow interpretation of black-letter law is a golden age myth that has absolutely no historical foundation, other than a wholly simplistic reading of British judicial philosophy.
  The HRA is an Act of Parliament like any other. Through it, Parliament has chosen to give the domestic courts more direct access to the jurisprudence of the ECHR, to which the UK has been less directly subject for more than 50 years. Of course, the pamphlet criticises the decision in A v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but we all know what happened last week in the Court of Appeal.
  The next criticism made is that the state's "positive obligations" to protect human rights potentially infringe individual freedom by regulating relationships between individuals. However, not every threat to human rights comes directly from the state. Human
  628
  rights guarantees would be deficient were they not to require the state in certain circumstances to protect rights, as well as to refrain from interference with them. The state's duty to protect rights under the ECHR includes the duty to take steps to protect those known to be at immediate risk from known criminal activity and a duty to protect children from abuse and neglect in the home.
  Under the HRA, the courts are obliged to have regard to the human rights of all those affected by their decisions. The balancing of competing rights is at the heart of the convention system for protection of human rights. Though rights to privacy may place limits on freedom of expression, those limits will be acceptable only when they are in pursuit of a legitimate aim and are necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. The positive obligation on the state to protect one right does not therefore authorise unfettered interference with another.
  The HRA is about respect. Page 13 of the pamphlet makes a rather unpleasant reference to homosexuality. It reminded me of what happened when the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) made a statement about his sexuality. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the chairman of the Conservative party—that is what she calls herself—said that the party was tolerant of such things. It is a matter not of tolerance but of respect. Until the Conservative party understands that, it will stay on the margins of politics.
  Post 11 September and Bali, human rights is the only game in town. Mahatma Gandhi once said that he intended to open the windows of his house to every religion in the world but that he did not intend it to be blown down by any of them. We cannot allow any one religion or religious philosophy, whatever it is, to assume that position. We have to have a common language for humankind, with a set of values that unites us all in an increasingly small world with huge population movement. That language can only be the language of human rights. It is to the Government's credit that they have submitted—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. and right hon. Friends are to be congratulated on the motion, because it enables us to discuss issues that are not generally discussed on the Floor of the House. They will doubtless therefore be sorry that I disagree with them on their two principal points and will not accompany them into the Lobby tonight.
  I wish to comment on the tariff powers and, if time permits, to say a brief word about the convention itself. On the ministerial power to set tariffs, I have two preliminary points. First, we need to be clear about what the tariff is and what part it plays in the judicial process. The tariff is but a part of a life sentence. It is set in order to punish the defendant for the offence. To that extent it is like any sentence imposed by the courts. At the expiration of a tariff period, the Minister, together with the parole board, has the right to refuse—or agree—to release the defendant on licence, and during the period of licence the defendant may be recalled for an

  629
  infringement. However, the important point is that the tariff is imposed by way of a penalty. It is, for the reasons that I shall discuss in a moment, a judicial process.
  My other preliminary point is that I have considerable personal experience of the matter. Between 1986 and 1989 I was the Minister responsible for determining tariffs. Indeed, with the exception of the then Lord Chief Justice, I do not suppose that anybody imposed more tariffs—I am advised that I imposed something like 600. That was partly because an awful lot of cases came up to me and partly because my predecessor left an enormous backlog, so I did rather a lot of tariffs.
  It might be helpful if I tell the House something about the process involved in setting a tariff. I admit that this was 12 or 14 years ago, but knowing the way in which officials operate, I do not suppose that it has changed very much in the intervening period and, anyway, the principle holds good. What happens is this: a file is presented to the Minister. On the front page is a document that describes the offence in three or four lines. There then appears the trial judge's recommendation as to minimum sentence tariff, which takes up two or three lines. There then appears the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice, which is usually rather longer, unless he simply says "I agree." There then appears the recommendation of the Department. Then there is a little box where the Minister marks his own determination. On the basis of that rather scanty information, a tariff is imposed by the Minister.
  The Minister is acting on pretty scanty material and is probably doing it fairly quickly. As I say, I imposed some 600 tariffs. This may be seen as a clear example of Ministers arrogating to the Executive a role that clearly should be performed by the judiciary. The process that I have described is not subject to appeal or to supervision. It is really the seizure by the Executive of powers properly belonging to the judges, and it is highly objectionable.
  It is said by some, often by my right hon. and hon. Friends, that because Ministers are accountable to Parliament, they are quintessentially the right people to do this sort of thing. To that I say "Rubbish" on at least three counts. First and most obvious, the tariff is a penalty, and I happen to believe that a penalty should be imposed by a judge, not least because the judge knows about the facts of the case while the Minister knows only what is on a bit of paper unless he happens to ask for more detail.
  Secondly, the idea that Ministers are accountable to Parliament on this matter is for the birds. I do not recall that either I or the then Home Secretary, now Lord Hurd of Westwell, were ever asked about what we were doing in this respect. That was rather an omission, as we were in the business of driving up the tariffs, as a subsequent report by the House of Lords made plain. Nobody asked me about the policy, although I would have been quite happy to tell them. However, the idea that I was accountable to this House is for the birds.
  Mr. Cash: Did my right hon. and learned Friend not think that perhaps he was accountable to himself and that he might have acted with a little more restraint?
  Mr. Hogg: On the contrary, I acted with great restraint. Not only that, but I dictated the guidelines to
  630
  the Department that would set out the principles that I would apply. However, that was to perform a role that a judge, not a Minister, should perform.
  I have one further point about accountability. A Minister standing at the Dispatch Box, heavily armoured with his brief and understanding the facts, is not accountable to the House. The House does not have the appropriate processes with which to make a Minister accountable, save in Select Committees. The idea that a Minister will be embarrassed or taxed or supervised is simply an illusion.
  There is a further point. Even if Parliament could hold a Minister to account, it should not do so in respect of individual sentences in individual cases. It is perfectly proper for Parliament to set out general policy, but wholly improper for Parliament to scrutinise individual sentences imposed on individual defendants, because, of course, Parliament is driven by the tabloid press. Too often, Members of Parliament respond to the lynch-mob mentality of the public. Members of Parliament will never know the exact facts of a particular case, or indeed the sentences imposed in relatively comparable cases.
  For all those reasons, I strongly believe that the function is not properly ministerial but judicial.
  Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I share his view. When he was dispensing that type of ministerial justice, did he hold his current view?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes.
  Simon Hughes: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman held that view, surely he is now at liberty to reveal, in general terms, whether the Government discussed changes to the law that would have allowed judges to replace him as the dispenser of so much rather summary justice.
  Mr. Hogg: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I do not remember. I was only an Under-Secretary at that stage. However, I have always held the views that I expressed today and I have always expressed them robustly. I never thought that the function was one for Ministers to perform, but I am not a squeamish fellow, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I never hesitated to perform the functions entrusted to me—even if I thought they were wrong, as I then did.
  I realise that time is running out so I turn briefly to the convention itself. I want to make some general points. It is true that the incorporation into domestic law of the convention has given the judges a legislative function. As a member of the legislature, I understand the objections to that. All in all, however, I am very much in favour of the incorporation of the convention into domestic law. It is wholly right to say that justice delayed is justice denied. If it be right to have recourse to the courts, better by far that people can raise convention-based issues at first instance in the UK courts than have to go to Strasbourg.
  Secondly, and rather differently—it is part of the margin of appreciation—it is to the interests of the United Kingdom that the body of jurisprudence that will emerge on the basis of the convention addressing

  631
  UK issues should actually reflect the views formed at first instance by British trial judges. That is to our interests.
  Finally, I believe that the House does not properly defend the interests of the citizen. As the House will remember, my father delivered lectures on and wrote a book about "the elective dictatorship". We have surrendered to the Executive the control that we ought to have over policy and over legislation. Party—I look at my hon. Friend the Whip—exercises far too much authority over Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend does not even know the name of our Whip.
  Mr. Hogg: I certainly do.
  We need many more independent Members of Parliament. If we had them, we should not need the convention. However, because we do not perform properly our functions—to defend the citizen—better the convention and judge-made protection than no protection at all.
  9.3 pm
  Rob Marris: I fear that I may not be as independent as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) would wish.
  I welcome the debate and am glad that it was initiated. It is good that we debate the role of Parliament and the judiciary in decision making, as the Opposition have urged us, and that we recall developments in the common law.
  I am a non-practising solicitor but unlike many Members who have declared that interest, I do not have a law degree. I took the cheaper route, so I did not have the chance to engage in jurisprudential debates and may have a hazier idea than I should about the origins of the common law.
  Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman now has the chance to find out.
  Rob Marris: As the hon. Gentleman says, I shall now be able to learn.
  Although the debate is welcome, it is somewhat artificial, as has been mentioned, particularly by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who rightly said that we were signatories to the European convention before its incorporation into United Kingdom law, and that it was therefore a question whether cases went to Strasbourg or were dealt with domestically. In that sense, there has been no change.
  There may have been a change—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) seems to decry this, but he will correct me if I am wrong—in that those who feel that their human rights have been trampled on take the matter to court in the United Kingdom because it is easier to do so. However, that does not seem to be a problem—access to justice is easier for people.
  Mr. Grieve: I did not suggest that that was a problem; I said that it had consequences—I hope that the
  632
  Minister will address them in her reply—and that it appeared that the Minister and the Home Secretary were parting company with the operation of the ECHR and its incorporative Act on some specific issues. I hope that a Government Member will address those points this evening because that is what the debate is all about.
  Rob Marris: What the Minister addressed in general terms was the balance that must be struck between, for example, the right of a state to protect itself, which we have done with the anti-terrorism legislation, and the human rights of individuals. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the issue has not been dealt with fully enough, I am sure that the Minister who is to reply will tackle it further.
  The debate highlights the need to discuss mandatory life sentences. They have been mentioned tonight and, no doubt, will be debated again. Some of the drive for the debate comes from that issue. I am uneasy about mandatory life sentences for murderers, because they have led us into problems. The abolition of the death penalty was an historic compromise, but we moved beyond that with the signing of the sixth protocol.
  We experienced the same difficulty with the abolition of the death penalty. One practical reason, in contradistinction to the forceful moral arguments, why the death penalty was abolished was that juries would not convict in many cases because the penalty—death—was so draconian. There is a similar situation now, understandably, with survivors of domestic violence. They can be charged with murder because their actions fulfil the letter of the law on murder, but juries will not convict because it would mean a mandatory life sentence for those women, and so difficulties arise. There is a bending of the law on provocation, diminished responsibility and so on, so we need to look again at mandatory life sentences.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield talks about the limits to be imposed by the House on judges' discretion. One of the things that made me proud to be a solicitor was that, when the iron curtain came down in 1989, the countries in eastern Europe advanced two key demands. One was for parliamentary democracy and the other was for the rule of law, because they did not have an independent judiciary, as we have had for centuries. That is important, but one has to debate the balance between the power of the judiciary and that of the House of Commons as sovereign body.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to rights disappearing down the plughole, but I do not recall him giving the House any example of what those rights were. He focused on mandatory life sentences and the Home Secretary's powers of review.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman gives a straightforward example. The original intention was that a murderer should serve a life sentence. That is how the public perceived the sentence, even though a person might be freed long before spending the whole of his life in prison. That principle has gone down the plughole. There can be no doubt about that, as the hon. Gentleman will probably agree, but the public and the House have not debated that issue.
  Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman replies eloquently, but I think that the record will show that he used the word "rights" in the plural. and he simply mentions one right now.

  633
  The first few lines of the Opposition motion state:
  "That this House notes with concern the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the sentencing power of the Home Secretary and in other respects".
  I must say that the official Opposition have been singularly quiet about what they mean by "in other respects". We have had references to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Rob Marris: If I may, I shall make some progress and give way in a moment.
  We have had reference to SIAC, section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, teacher vetting, the early release of prisoners and how much power a prison governor has. Does that encompass what the Opposition mean by the words "in other respects", or is there more to it than that?
  Mr. Cash: To accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation, a vast range of matters and a huge number of cases exist in which the discretion of the Secretary of State arises, including matters such as extradition and deportation. The list is endless.
  Rob Marris: The list may be endless, but the House would perhaps benefit from a more expurgated list. Members can take a balanced view of whether the Home Secretary has too much discretion. I hope that, later in the debate, official Opposition Members will fill out the picture, especially in relation to the fine words in the last two flowery lines of the motion. They sound good but do not mean much to me in the context of the debate. They refer to:
  "a lasting settlement that can bring the Human Rights Act 1998 into conformity with the democratic will of the people and the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long."
  I would like some flesh on those bones, and it is fair to ask the official Opposition to provide some.
  This is an Opposition debate—a chance for the Opposition to advance a clear view on an area of their choosing. I must say to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues that I do not think that he has done so. He has thrown together a hotch-potch of criticism and questions. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked the Minister whether it was right that one should always have a fixed view.
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Rob Marris: I shall make a little progress.
  Of course, one should not necessarily have a fixed view, but I would have hoped, given that the Opposition called for the debate, that their views would be more fixed. I give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amount of time left is diminishing, and several hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has had a fair share of the debate.
  Rob Marris: I urge the hon. Member for Beaconsfield or the right hon. Member for West Dorset to put more flesh on the bones, use more intellectual rigour, and put more definitive views to the House on an important topic of the Opposition's choosing.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): May I start by asking whether it is strictly necessary for declarations of interest to be made in a debate on this subject? There are several members of the Bar and solicitors in the Chamber, but we are all taxpayers, too, and we do not declare that we are taxpayers when we discuss the Budget. Although I am prepared to admit that we are members of the Bar, why should we need to declare that when discussing this legislation—[Interruption.] I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) did not declare his Bar membership, but he does not do all sorts of things, which is probably just as well.
  The remaining power of the Home Secretary in relation to those with life sentences relates only to adults. Following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the case of Thompson and Venables, the murderers of Jamie Bulger, it seems that the Government have accepted that the Home Secretary should have no say in the length of time spent in custody by a young offender following a conviction for murder, and that that matter should now be dealt with entirely by the sentencing judge or judges reviewing the sentence thereafter. On the face of things, it is therefore logical that the Home Secretary should behave as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham suggests, and leave the setting of minimum tariffs to the courts. That is, as one would expect from him, an entirely rational argument. He enjoyed making it and believes it can withstand all counterargument.
  I accept that the British constitution is not a tidy document. It is to be found in a mixture of Acts of Parliament, treaties, common law, unwritten conventions and good old-fashioned political deals. When the death penalty for murder was abolished in the 1960s, an unspoken deal to placate those who were against abolition appears to have been brokered by which the tariff-setting power was retained in the hands of the Home Secretary. Just as neither Parliament nor the courts interfered with the Home Secretary's exercise of the prerogative of mercy, so they have not interfered in his tariff-setting powers in life-sentence cases since then. Listening to my right hon. and learned Friend, it is clear that most of us did not know what the Home Secretary, through his junior Minister, was doing.
  The majority in this country would like the return of the death penalty. I am not part of that majority, and I am glad to say that their demands are held in check, or the ferocity of them diminished, by the powers of the Home Secretary to set the tariff in former capital cases. My right hon. and learned Friend's amendment would upset that and expose to danger the very necessary release valve that holds that aspect of public pressure in

  635
  equilibrium. The passage of the Human Rights Act has upset that, too, as his amendment and the current case before the judicial committee of the other place—the Anderson case—make clear.
  The British constitution is guided more by what is reasonable than by what is strictly rational. The problem with my right hon. and learned Friend's argument is that it is desperately rational but not always reasonable. The constitution works because whereas rationality is rigid, the concept of reasonableness is flexible enough to take account of changing circumstances, social mores and public opinion. It is noticeable that the Government amendment does not tackle either the Opposition motion or my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment head on, but tries to sidestep the issue. The Minister did not seem to know where she was. She came prepared with a speech that had no bearing on what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said and no one is the wiser or better informed for her contribution.
  The Minister and her Government are the very people who introduced the European convention into our law through the Human Rights Act. They can hardly be seen to be agreeing with arguments that criticise them, expressly or by implication, either for not going far enough or for not anticipating the consequences of their own legislation. They have no excuse for not anticipating some of the consequences of the Human Rights Act, however. They were made clear beyond doubt by my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor in the other place when it debated the Human Rights Bill, and by Sir Nicholas Lyell and myself as shadow Law Officers when the Bill was before this House in the last Parliament.
  One matter that we drew to the attention of the Government was the likelihood of a constitutional collision between the judiciary on the one hand and the legislature and the Executive on the other. When faced with an Act of Parliament or secondary legislation that makes little sense, judges will, properly, construe it in such a way as to make the most sense of it that they can. Sometimes it will happen that judges looking at some ill-considered or unconsidered legislation—there is plenty of that under this Government—will reach a conclusion that appears to be intended by the legislation but that is contrary to the European convention, and they will have to say so. That is inconvenient for the Government because they want to be seen, especially in criminal justice and asylum law, as tough and effective, and as the friend of the victim and the tireless enemy of the criminal and the illegal immigrant. Had such laws been suggested, let alone passed, by the last Conservative Government, they would have drawn howls of anguish from Labour Members as too draconian, but they are this Home Secretary's daily diet.
  The Government are, of course, the very Government who also want to be remembered for having, as they so charmingly but inaccurately put it, brought human rights home through the enactment of the Human Rights Act. That is why their amendment is framed as it is. It enables them to look in two directions at the same time and explains why Labour Members always look so uncomfortable during such debates.
  636
  If the House of Lords in its judicial capacity decides, as it may well do in the Anderson case, that the convention requires the Home Secretary to surrender his tariff-setting powers, I get the impression that the words in the Government amendment:
  "is fully in conformity with parliamentary sovereignty, which enables Parliament to reflect the democratic will of the people",
  are there to let us know that the Home Secretary will simply legislate to recover the power that the judges take from him. Having, as they put it, brought human rights home, and, in so saying, forgotten or shown their ignorance of the centuries of judicial work that protected and enhanced the rights of the citizen against the power of the state, the Government now want to ignore what the European convention requires.
  The Government did that last year, following the 11 September outrages, when the Home Secretary declared a state of emergency so that he could take this country outside the convention and pass emergency legislation that was plainly in breach of it. In one sense that was an advance because at least it showed that the Government had thought about the convention, rather than rubber-stamping the ministerial statement of compliance on the face of every Bill that they put before us.
  I know that the Human Rights Act was framed in a way that prevents judges from striking down primary legislation and that the Government can thus safely pass any such legislation. Having, by passing the Human Rights Act, placed themselves in a position of facing applications to the courts that challenge the Home Secretary's sentencing and other powers, and having, as I expect that they will, lost the Anderson case in the House of Lords, they will look inconsistent and somewhat unsure of the philosophy behind the Act.
  Although I candidly admit that I was one of the Conservatives who did not have a fit of the vapours when the Human Rights Bill was enacted, I am one of those who feel that the Government's relationship with the European convention is confused and confusing. They have, through their enthusiasm to look in both directions, caused foreseeable friction between Parliament and the judiciary, and that is not only unwise but unnecessary.
  I turn briefly to another aspect that concerns me: the judiciary's vulnerability to assaults in court—we are, after all, the party that protects the vulnerable. In a written question, I recently asked the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), how many assaults there had been on various ranks of judge and on court staff in the last five years. She kindly answered on 24 October, and fortunately the figures are fairly low. However, the answer was given the day before a High Court judge was battered in court. If there were one thing that she could do this evening that would enhance her reputation in my eyes, it would be to assure me that the Government will do all that they can to protect judges and those who work in the courts from vicious and foreseeable assaults by disappointed litigants.
  9.22 pm
  Vera Baird: My colleagues who have referred to this as an important debate have been over-generous. I suggest that it is a waste of Parliament's

  637
  time. Either we are being asked to debate, for no particular reason, a theoretical issue that might never arise, or, far more likely, Conservative Members have been caught out by bad timing in a cheap attempt to obtain political advantage.
  The Opposition intended, I suspect, to suggest that the ECHR and the Human Rights Act have limited the Government's ability adequately to protect UK citizens from dangerous criminals and potential terrorists. I think that there are two reasons for the debate. The first is that when its subject was decided the Government had appealed on the point that they had lost at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, namely that the detention provisions in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 are discriminatory and therefore breach article 14 of the convention. The Opposition clearly thought that the Government would lose at the Court of Appeal in their argument that the detention powers are not discriminatory. The judgment was made only a week ago—too late for the Opposition—and the Court of Appeal agreed with the Government. The Government's victory has totally undermined the Opposition's argument.
  The Conservatives have in their party difficult people who do not subscribe to the core values of the Human Rights Act. Those people would have wanted to say, "The right thing to do with these people is to deport them, regardless of whether they may be tortured or executed. That is not our problem. If we do not deport them, we will be a safe haven for terrorists." That is one view that the Conservatives hoped could be expressed. The other view that the Opposition intended to express through the debate was, "The Government cannot detain terrorists who are not citizens and they will not deport them, so terrorists will run wild in the UK." The intention was to generate a crime panic.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady will have noted that in my speech, I spent most of the time dealing with the tariff for mandatory life sentences. I recollect appearing with her on a television programme last week to deal with that very point. She was extremely supportive of the Home Secretary's position, but I do not recall her at that time telling the world at large that she considered that an irrelevant topic for discussion. I would have heard it if she had said so.
  Vera Baird: The louder the hon. Gentleman shouts, the more prominent his weak arguments become, and the clearer are the motives of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
  I shall deal with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. The Government are waiting for the judgment on the Anderson case involving a challenge to the ministerial setting of tariffs for life sentence prisoners. The claim that the administrative policy whereby the Home Secretary sets tariffs is incompatible with article 6 has given rise to much media and Opposition speculation that if the Government lose, dangerous offenders will be instantly unleashed on the public. That is not the case. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has never suggested it, but others on the Opposition Benches have. Such offenders can be released only if there is a further process by which they
  638
  are judged to be no longer a risk to the public. I am afraid that the fact that the House of Lords adjourned judgment and did not decide against the Government, as the Opposition intended and as foreseen by those speeches, has caused them a terrible embarrassment. Again, they intended to whip up a crime panic.
  There is no choice to be made between democracy and human rights; they go hand in hand. Respect for human rights is the hallmark of democracy and of Parliament, because it shows that society rightly values each and every human being. As the Lord Chief Justice put it,
  "Human rights come with true democracy."
  Court cases that test the balance between the individual's and the community's rights are not a reflection on a particular Government, but an inevitable feature of all modern government. There is a common pattern of individuals seeking to test the boundaries of new law. The more legislation is introduced, the more people seek to challenge it.
  The Government have put their case vigorously and are right to do so. They maintain that the powers given by Parliament to the Home Secretary to fix a tariff are right. So far, the Court of Appeal has agreed. The House of Lords may agree. If the House of Lords does not, as the Home Secretary has declared, he is entitled to legislate to enshrine the power. The Opposition are trying to speculate about what may happen after that, if the matter goes to Strasbourg—a situation that will probably not arise.
  Let me tell the House what I think has been happening in the course of legislation dealing with life sentences. Because both the courts and the Government are acting on the basis of the same core values, there has been a healthy process of refinement. In the case of Stafford, the Lord Chief Justice accepted what had been in doubt for some time: that there ought in certain circumstances to be, in effect, a whole-life tariff, which he called a no-minimum tariff—that is, a judge would say, "I can't set a minimum tariff for this because it is so serious a crime." That is a shift brought about by good arguments presented by the Government in court.
  The Home Secretary has in turn accepted that the second part of the discretion, after he has fixed the tariff, as to whether the person is released because they are no longer a threat, should be taken away from the Executive and entirely judicialised. In truth, the litigation has narrowed the ground as the principles have been debated, analysed and refined, all within the framework of the human rights system. The debate is premature because that healthy process is still continuing. It is continuing on Anderson, on the tariff, and in that case it is right to say that the Government's position has been upheld. On the anti-terrorism measure, it is probably better to describe the process as still continuing.
  When cases have gone to Strasbourg against the Government—I believe that the Government have always accommodated the decision—there is the factor of the margin of appreciation, which cannot be ignored. Fair trial rights are, it is right to say, where the margin of appreciation is at its narrowest. It is the discretion of the Home Secretary, which is simultaneously part and parcel of our political processes, which the Strasbourg court insists is the area in which the Government tend to know best and is the place where the margin of appreciation is at its widest

  639
  On Anderson, we have won in the Court of Appeal. There is no decision in the House of Lords, still less has the case got to Strasbourg. Any argument that these matters should be debated before that occurs, granted the healthy process of refinement that has been going on, is in bald terms not about subtle constitutional terms but an attempt to grab a cheap political advantage.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to what he describes as the mantra which is put on to the front of every Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights looks at every such declaration made by a Minister. A healthy process is set up whereby sometimes, if there are disagreements, we write to the Minister concerned. He comes back with his understanding and we write back. There have been some occasions when Ministers have been adaptable and changed tack. There have been times when we have been persuaded that we are wrong. But, there is no doubt that we represent Parliament when we become involved in these matters. There is no doubt that a healthy tripartite dialogue has been engendered between the courts, Parliament and the Executive by the Human Rights Act. They have all worked together.
  The Government are to be congratulated on introducing the ECHR. They are to be congratulated when they fight their corner when faced with clashes between their political will, democratically elected as they are, and the possible rights of a citizen. The citizen is to be congratulated too on fighting his corner. That is not a weakness in the incorporation process but a strength. It is not evidence that the Government have made a mistake. It is evidence that they are mature in their understanding of democracy. If the pamphlet that has been quoted by some of my hon. Friends is evidence of the views of some Opposition Members, it does not reflect a level of maturity that is likely to be attained by the Opposition. I look forward to the further spread of a human rights culture, ranging far and wide, over the years to come. I emphasise that human rights are an enhancement of democracy and not an enemy of it.
  9.33 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: There are only a few minutes left for Back-Bench Members to speak in the debate, but there is a point that should be made before we come to Front-Bench speeches. Almost everyone who has spoken in the debate has high regard for the European Court of Human Rights. As one of a small minority who voted against the Human Rights Act 1998, as it became, I make the point that if we consider the practical policies of government and those who have to do the business of government, we find that the courts do not help human rights but simply undermine the principles of democratic government. I think that the evidence is there. I regret that the Home Secretary, who has undoubtedly virtually exploded when the European court has been interfering with decision making, is not here to explain to us what happens.
  The convention was passed in 1951 and made into law in Britain in 1998. The argument advanced was that it cost a great deal of money to go to the European court and it would be far better to stay in the United Kingdom. I ask Ministers seriously to consider how the court has helped with the decision-making process and in trying to manage our affairs. If Ministers were put in
  640
  charge of the asylum seekers' problem, what the blazes would they do when Government policies designed to enable cases to be dealt with quickly are undermined by the massive extra appeal process that is available through the European convention?
  I am someone who I hope works, as all Members do, for good race relations, but I know that the numbers and the long decision-making process undermine the situation.
  For example, a constituent of mine from Turkey has been appealing in various ways for a total of nine years. Furthermore, when the European Court of Human Rights made its decision on the person whom the Home Secretary recently tried to send back to the place where they had originally applied for political asylum, how did it help the process?
  I ask those who admire the European Court of Human Rights, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who said that its members were much better than MPs, how on earth it is possible to manage a prison while the court is saying that the system that is used to try to control, restrain and discipline long-term prisoners has to be chucked out of the window. How is that possible if there is no power or right to say that a prisoner's amount of time inside is to be increased because he is badly behaved? If somebody were put in charge of running a prison and had that right taken away on the basis of human rights, how on earth would it help them?
  How does it help our democracy when, because of the convention, this Parliament is not even allowed to consider issues about which the public feel strongly and in respect of which the arguments are far from clear, such as capital and corporal punishment? Far from helping democracy, that has undermined the ability of Ministers to deal with practical problems and is making life infinitely more difficult for them. In addition, we should bear in mind that discussions are under way that will bring the powers of the convention into European law. Frankly, when that happens, even the motion, which implies that there may he a case for further consideration or discussion between the parties, would be completely irrelevant.
  The issue about which we should be most worried is the extent to which people are simply switching off from democracy. They do not bother to consider what happens in the House of Commons, because our Parliament has no power in relation to so many of the things about which they care passionately or does not consider them.
  If, by chance, I am right in what I am saying, the question is this: what can we do? The plain fact is that more and more powers have been going to the European courts—both the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. We can do nothing about what has happened in terms of the European Court of Justice or the European Union, but we can do something about the convention. I genuinely wonder whether the House should ask itself what damage we would do and what benefits would come to us if we were to cancel the 1998 Act and repeal the convention. Surely, our Parliament can look after people's entitlements, rights and obligations with far more care and consideration than by leaving the issues to European courts.

  641
  When all the institutions started, we heard people say that they would safeguard freedom, democracy and liberty. We have then seen the courts step in and take more and more powers by stretching the wording of the convention and, as in some recent decisions, by quoting other conventions such as the international covenant on civil and political rights and the convention on the rights of the child, which have not even been discussed or approved by the House of Commons.
  While the Government have heard many learned arguments about the merits of the European Court of Human Rights, I hope that they will ask themselves whether we could better safeguard our liberty and freedom if Parliament took back the powers. In such circumstances, if people did not like the decisions that were made, they could change them or seek to undermine the Government. Currently, the powers of Parliament are disappearing and our democracy is dying. All the powers seem to be going to courts, institutions and organisations over which the people have no control. I therefore hope that the Government, on the advice of the Home Secretary and others who see how these issues work and what the institutions are trying to do, will think seriously about getting rid of the Act that we foolishly passed and which I voted against in 1998, disengaging from the convention and looking after people's freedom and liberty as a democratic Parliament.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. William Cash: This has been an extremely interesting debate, even if the Government's position has proved rather confusing in some respects.
  I should like to begin by making a general proposition, before dealing with a number of the speeches that have been made. In particular. I want to refer to the four famous essays on liberty written by Isaiah Berlin and to "Two Concepts of Liberty", which was written in 1958 and which I had the pleasure of hearing in his lectures at Oxford university at that time.
  There is much to be learned from the wisdom of philosophers, but we as politicians have to reconcile politically the broad concepts mentioned in the motion and those that were enunciated by those such as Isaiah Berlin. I repeat, however, that we must also reconcile the pronouncements of judges—they are the essence of the debate—particularly in the age of judicial activism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) stressed and as has been said so often, Parliament's role is the key and at the bottom line. We must determine where the limits between the courts and Parliament should be drawn.
  I also wish to quote directly from the case of Regina v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms, and the judgment of Lord Hoffman. This may reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), but I do not think that I will be able to give all the assurances that he and I would like. None the less, Lord Hoffman clearly states:
  "Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this
  642
  power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words."
  That point runs right throughthe debate and through my interventions on the Minister. On matters of political judgment on issues such as public safety, paedophiles, serial killers, terrorists, deportation and extradition, the fact remains that the House retains the power to be able to take the necessary legislative measures to remedy all previous enactments, including the European convention on human rights as brought into effect by the Human Rights Act 1998. I shall be interested to hear whether the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is prepared to go down the route adumbrated by Lord Hoffman.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cash: No, as I have only a few minutes left.
  I also made a point of general principle in an intervention, and we must take it on board. This Parliament is having its powers eroded and, however much we are in favour of human rights, our rights are being eroded by the Government's proposals. The Government have already accepted, in principle, a European constitution, and I shall be interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary says about a legally binding fundamental charter of rights as put forward by the European convention currently sitting. The charter would be wrapped up in the enhanced powers of the European Court of Justice under many of the proposals that are being made for such a constitutional arrangement. If that issue is not addressed, the question whether we will, in future, be able to amend enactments such as the Human Rights Act 1998 will effectively be overtaken by the powers granted under such a European constitution.
  The Minister failed to answer my questions about democracy and choice and about the legally binding charter of fundamental rights.
  With respect, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) I will say only this: I appreciate that he will vote against the motion—
  Mr. Hogg: I only said I would not be with you.
  Mr. Cash: I am delighted to take that sedentary intervention, which is somewhat encouraging. Having regard to the 600 times that he appears to have admitted that he got it wrong, let me quote from "Murder in the Cathedral", when Thomas a Beckett says it is
  "the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason".
  It is even worse than voting against a three-line Whip, which is something of which I have considerable experience.

  643
  It is incumbent upon us to take account of the words of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who said that the European Court of Human Rights is about respect. I understand what she means; the problem is that the question of respect, which is a moral statement, is not sufficient to deal with the difficult questions to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, namely, the necessity of making certain that we, as politicians, strike the balance vis-à-vis the protestations of those who want us to go down the route of universal rights without regard to their practical implications for those whom we represent in Parliament.
  However much merit there may be in many of the principles included in the European convention on human rights, let us not assume that simply because it has been passed into our law, adjustments and calibration are not possible. When we face difficult practical questions, we in Parliament have to reserve the power to make our own decisions, and to do so after that enactment is put into force—not, as was suggested earlier, the power to do so only in respect of legislation that has been passed previously.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) spoke about the Conservatives' apparent denial of the so-called "other respects" mentioned in our motion. I have already referred to a range of them—in fact, I have here seven pages listing cases arising from matters of deportation, extradition and other issues. I can categorically assure him that we have all those matters very much in mind, because the debate deals as much with the question of principle as with the practical points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said that this debate and previous ones on the subject raise issues of constitutional collision. Of course, that is true. He echoed my intervention when he pointed out that the Government will have to legislate in a manner that is inconsistent with the assumption that they apparently made previously, that the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 would be adequate to deal with any problems that arose.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is his view and that of his party that we should continue to respect the European convention and always be obedient to the judgments of the court in Strasbourg; and whether he thinks that judges or Home Secretaries should set the tariff for prisoners?
  Mr. Cash: On his second point, the hon. Gentleman conceded in an intervention that there were issues of public safety that could vary the position. As for the more general point—the question whether human rights are ultimately important—of course they are important; we all accept that. It is just that on examination of every jot and tittle of the European convention on human rights, we may find a number of points with which we disagree and which we will have to deal with at a subsequent date—as the Government will have to admit in a few minutes.
  644
  I conclude by referring to some of the wisdom of our great philosopher Edmund Burke, who was dealing with questions of human rights in opposition to that arch-socialist Tom Paine at the end of the 18th century. He said:
  "In England … we have not been drawn and trussed in order that we may be filled like stuffed birds with chaff and rags and paltry blurred shreds of paper about the rights of man."
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): We have had an interesting debate this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) mentioned her hope that the work of the Joint Committee had contributed to the debate. I strongly believe that it has done and I pay tribute to the work of the Committee in scrutinising legislation.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) gave us an entertaining and astonishing account of the 600 tariffs that he raised and, even more astonishingly, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) intervened to suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should perhaps have exercised more restraint in his decisions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman set out his views on the mandatory sentence. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) clearly set out the reasons why it is ridiculous to pre-empt the decisions of the court in this area.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) set out his and his party's position on the Human Rights Act, while the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred to security for judges. That is a tangential point, but I can assure him that the Department takes the issues seriously and has introduced a series of measures to improve security.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) effectively challenged many of the arguments of Opposition Front Benchers, while the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) seemed to forget that the European convention on human rights has been in place for 50 years.
  I come now to some of the points made by Opposition Front Benchers, to the extent that it was possible to follow them. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was utterly baffling. He seemed to argue that the Human Rights Act did not conform to the democratic will of the people and threatened parliamentary democracy. He seemed to argue that because the Government defend cases under the Act, democracy is being undermined. He argued that it was inconsistent for the Government to support the Human Rights Act while ever defending challenges to the Government under the Act. He seemed to be arguing that the possibility that judges could rule an Executive decision or parliamentary statute incompatible with the Human Rights Act meant that parliamentary democracy was threatened. Clearly, that is not the position.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
  Mr. Cash: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
  Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentlemen. I would like to give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, followed by the hon. Member for Stone to hear their individual points. I noticed that the hon. Member for Stone completely disagreed with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and, by contradicting his hon. Friend, gave a clear account of the importance of parliamentary sovereignty under the Human Rights Act. However, the hon. Member for Stone did of course contradict himself later on; perhaps we should give him two opportunities to intervene so that we can hear all three possible views from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having briefly stopped her peroration. Will she answer a specific question that I asked her? We are not talking about challenging decisions or arguing a case. It is the Home Secretary's stated position that if court decisions go against him, he will legislate to ensure that those decisions are overruled. What is the Lord Chancellor's view of that, given that he is the great craftsman of the Human Rights Act? Is that the Government's position? How do they intend to implement it? These are simple questions, which I should like her to answer.
  Yvette Cooper: The Human Rights Act allows Parliament to respond. Parliament can legislate to respond, it can accept a judgment of the court and, because Parliament is sovereign, it can choose to ignore the decision of the court under the Human Rights Act and refer it to the European Court of Human Rights, as has been the case for the past 50 years.
  Mr. Cash: Will the Parliamentary Secretary get down to the nub of the issue? Is the British Parliament able to amend European Court of Human Rights enactments? Is this Parliament able to amend the Human Rights Act 1998, or not?
  Yvette Cooper: Interestingly, that probably gets to the heart of the disagreement between the two hon. Gentlemen. I suspect that the hon. Member for Stone is quite happy with the Human Rights Act. It is the European convention on human rights to which he is fundamentally opposed, because he freaks out whenever Europe is mentioned. I suggest that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has reconciled himself to aspects of the convention simply because it has been in place for 50 years, but cannot cope with the Human Rights Act because that was introduced by a Labour Government.
  Of course, Governments can strongly support the Human Rights Act and still take a strong view on whether an individual decision or statute is compliant with it. Of course cases may be found against the Government, and then it is for Parliament to decide how to respond.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Yvette Cooper: Of course I will give the hon. Gentleman a second opportunity to disagree with himself.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister really is talking a lot of nonsense. Will she please answer the simple question, are the Government prepared to amend the Human Rights Act in line with some of the statements made by the Home Secretary, to rectify the unfairness to the British people that it can create?
  Yvette Cooper: Rectify what? Conservative Members seem to be calling for a Human Rights Act that is drafted to be whatever Parliament says. They want it to be continually compatible with anything that any member of any Executive does, and with any parliamentary decision. it is not clear what kind of Act that would be. They must recognise that, logically, they are arguing for pulling out of the European convention on human rights..
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) cannot quite bring themselves to say that explicitly. In his recent pamphlet, the latter set out what he means by
  "the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long"
  as the motion says. He said that it was a matter of
  "a freedom attaching to those who were British Citizens",
  not foreign nationals. Not for him, then, any concept of a common humanity regardless of birth or beliefs, or any recognition that people in other countries have rights, too. The logical extension of what he and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield have argued is that we should pull out of the convention. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then they should get up and say that they are committed to staying in the convention.
  Luckily, the hon. Member for Stone is not so squeamish. Back in 1995, he wrote in The Independent:
  "We would lose nothing if we withdrew from the court and the convention; we would barely notice it."
  Now he seems suddenly to have decided that Europe is perhaps not such a bad thing after all. This is an amazing conversion to the European cause. We have been signed up to the convention for more than 50 years. British lawyers helped to draft it and it reflects many of the values set out in our common law. The former Conservative Lord Chancellor, David Maxwell Fyfe, was involved in the drafting and debate. Past Tory Governments have accepted it, accepting the court's judgments and the rule of law. Even Margaret Thatcher did not try to pull out of it.
  The really absurd thing about the position of the hon. Member for Stone is that he fails to recognise that the Human Rights Act brings the convention back home, allowing the rights to be decided by British judges in the British courts.
  At least the hon. Member for Stone is honest about it: he just hates Europe.
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided:Ayes 133,Noes 350.

  Division No. 331]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Amess, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bacon, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Boswell, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Lidington. David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burnside, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Burt, Alistair

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Butterfill, John

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Cameron, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Cash, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clappison, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Collins, Tim

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Curry, rh David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Paterson, Owen

  Pickles, Eric

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Dodds, Nigel

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Randall, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Redwood, rh John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Flight, Howard

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Selous, Andrew

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Simmonds, Mark

  Francois, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Spring, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Goodman, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Syms, Robert

  Greenway, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hague, rh William

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hammond, Philip

  Tredinnick, David

  648

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, rh Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wiggin, Bill

  Chris Grayling and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Desmond Swayne

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Baird, Vera

  Colman, Tony

  Baker, Norman

  Connarty, Michael

  Banks, Tony

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barrett, John

  Corston, Jean

  Battle, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Beard, Nigel

  Cousins, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Berry, Roger

  Cummings, John

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blunkett, rh David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  David, Wayne

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Breed, Colin

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Denham, rh John

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bryant, Chris

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doughty, Sue

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burstow, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Cairns, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Follett, Barbara

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, rh Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Chaytor, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  Chidgey, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Clapham, Michael

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Gardiner, Barry

  649

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lepper, David

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gilroy, Linda

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Grogan, John

  Love, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hancock, Mike

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  McCafferty, Chris

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harvey, Nick

  McDonnell, John

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  MacDougall, John

  McFall, John

  Healey, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  MacShane, Denis

  Heyes, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hodge, Margaret

  McWilliam, John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Holmes, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Illsley, Eric

  Moffatt, Laura

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mole, Chris

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Moran, Margaret

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Munn, Ms. Meg

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Hara, Edward

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Olner, Bill

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Organ, Diana

  Kidney, David

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Owen, Albert

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Perham, Linda

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lamb, Norman

  Plaskitt, James

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pollard, Kerry

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  650

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Prescott, rh John

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Stringer, Graham

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Purnell, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rammell Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Reed Andy (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

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

  Tipping, Paddy Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Trickett, Jon

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Ruane, Chris

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sanders, Adrian

  White, Brian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sawford, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Willis, Phil

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Winnick, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Wright Tony (Cannock)

  Southworth, Helen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Dan Norris and Joan Ryan

  Stevenson, George

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the Human Rights Act 1998 is fully in conformity with parliamentary sovereignty, which enables Parliament to reflect the democratic will of the people; and further notes that the Human Rights Act enshrines the concepts of liberty that have served this country so well for so long.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6),

  FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Modification of Enactments) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 18th July, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Local Access Forums (England) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1836) dated 15th July 2002, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) shall apply to the Social and Environmental Guidance to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th June, as if it were a draft instrument to which that Order applies, and that the draft Guidance be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 29th October, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motions in the name of Mr Robin Cook relating to Modernisation of the House of Commons, Parliamentary Questions, and Amendments to Standing Orders not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business and the Order of 28th June 2001 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Ordered,
  That, on Thursday 7th November, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Mrs Jacqui Lait be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mr Peter Atkinson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

  Consumers for Health Choice
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Paul Goodman: I would like to present a petition on behalf of 500 or so of my constituents about the European food supplements directive.
  The petition
  Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European food supplements directive and the proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicinal products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And your petitioners duly pray,
  To lie upon the Table.

  Sue Penney
  10.19 pm
  Shona MeIsaac: I am honoured to present the petition of Sue Penney and 2,384 others concerning the dangerous, inappropriate use of mobile phones by motorists while driving, a practice that has led to loss of life in this country.
  The petitioners therefore
  Request that the House of Commons pass legislation which will make it a criminal offence for a driver of any vehicle to use or operate a mobile phone while in control of that vehicle.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Consumers for Health Choice
  Mr. David Rendel: I present a petition similar to that presented by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). The petition is signed by more than 1,000 people resident in west Berkshire and the surrounding areas.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its Supporters.
  Declares that consumers in the U.K. have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicine Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  HIV/AIDS (Africa and Asia)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  10.20 pm
  Norman Lamb: I want to raise one of the biggest and most important development challenges facing the international community: how to tackle the appalling tragedy of HIV/AIDS. On its own, that disease will make it impossible to achieve the millennium target of reducing by two thirds the rate of infant and child mortality by 2015.
  HIV/AIDS has already ravaged Africa and continues to take a terrible toll across the whole continent as it is beset by famine—an issue to which I shall turn later. Asia is set to become the next continent to be devastated by the virus unless action is taken urgently.
  What is the current situation? Worldwide, an estimated 40 million people are HIV-positive, and 14,000 more individuals are added to that total every day. Of that 40 million, horrifyingly, 28.5 million live in sub-Saharan Africa. UNAIDS—the joint UN programme on HIV/AIDS—confirms that the figure includes 9 per cent. of all those aged between 15 and 49, and equates to 70 per cent. of the world's HIV-positive population, with more women being infected than men.
  Last year, of 3 million deaths from AIDS worldwide, 2.2 million were in sub-Saharan Africa. Average life expectancy in the region has decreased from 62 to 47 as a result of the epidemic, and 14 million children aged up to 14 have been orphaned worldwide due to the virus.
  In some sub-Saharan countries, the picture is even bleaker: in Zimbabwe, 33.7 per cent. of people aged 15 to 49 are HIV-positive and in Botswana, the figure is 38.8 per cent.
  When I visited South Africa in February, I met some very brave HIV-positive women who told of the awful stigma that they face as a result of the disease. They are unable to tell their friends about it because of the impact in the community. They also spoke of the appalling myth in much of southern Africa that if one has sex with a child it cleanses the body of the illness. Those are some of the dreadful human impacts of the disease.
  In Asia, things are worsening. The Chinese Government recently confirmed the UN's fears by stating that at least 1 million of its citizens will be HIV-positive by the end of the year. That is widely believed to be an underestimate, as we were told when we were in the area earlier this year.
  In the northern province of Henan, infection rates of up to 45 per cent., due to infected blood, have been found in some villages. With almost 4 million HIV sufferers, India has the second highest total number of cases of any country in the world, after South Africa. In Thailand, despite much progress in tackling the disease, the virus affects about 700,000 people. It was spread initially due to the sex trade in that country. The figure is higher than in any other east Asian country and represents the biggest cause of death.
  UNAIDS programme development director, Dr. Werasit Sittitrai, summed up the crisis starkly:
  "The HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Asia and Pacific region is at an early stage. This means we have time, but the time is running out. In the next few years, if we cannot contain the epidemic, the size
  654
  of infected and affected populations in this region will dwarf those of other regions combined. The social and economic development gains that countries have invested in will not be achieved."
  That depressing prediction is borne out by the contents of a report published by the US National Intelligence Council on 30 September, in which it is estimated that 10 million to 15 million people in China will be HIV-positive by 2010, with the total in India rising to between 20 million and 25 million. Although those totals might represent small percentages of the populations of those countries, the possible social and economic effects if the epidemic reaches such levels in the next decade certainly cannot be underestimated.
  It is estimated that India's gross domestic product could fall by 1 per cent. a year as a direct result of HIV/ AIDS. Many firms that operate in South Africa have been suffering from the effects. For example, Standard Chartered bank has calculated that some 10 per cent. of its whole African work force is off work at any one time because of AIDS-related illnesses. Another impact in affected areas is that inward investment, which is essential for economic development, is discouraged.
  I want to comment on the impact of HIV/AIDS on the famine that is afflicting much of sub-Saharan Africa. It is clear that HIV/AIDS is exacerbating the famine. Many non-governmental organisations working in the area confirm that, although the drought in recent months has been less serious than that back in 1991–92, the added effect of HIV/AIDS has substantially exacerbated its impact. The most productive age group has been the hardest hit, bringing with it damaging falls in productivity, not least in the all-important agricultural sector.
  In answer to a written parliamentary question that I tabled, the Secretary of State for International Development said that
  "in some countries, households and villages are losing from 10–50 per cent. of agricultural productivity due to the disease".
  She continued:
  "At a family level, food production has fallen by as much as 80 per cent. when the main producer is affected."—[Official Report, 22 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 196W.]
  According to Save the Children, the epidemic is one of the trigger factors that has helped to tip the balance in many areas between an already very difficult humanitarian situation and a large-scale crisis of hunger and destitution. The shockwaves will continue to be felt in the future due to the loss of so many experienced farm workers to the virus.
  Philip Mthobwa and Gemma Brugha, co-founders of the Likulezi project in Malawi, report that some of their 300 unpaid volunteer staff are now HIV-positive. They also confirm that, in Malawi, there is minimal income generation due to the vicious circle of illness, food shortages and the effect that those factors have had on an almost exclusively rural economy.
  The African epidemic is not confined to the poor, so professional, managerial people are also being affected.
  I want to deal now with the action being taken to address the epidemic. First, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria must be welcomed as a means of focusing further attention on the need to fight the epidemic. However, the fear remains not only that it has created an unnecessary additional tier of bureaucracy through which funding is channeled, but that it is also

  655
  seriously under-resourced. While supporting the principle of the fund, Christian Aid has described it as a case of "fighting HIV/AIDS with peanuts". Oxfam has said that it is
  "in danger of delivering little more than false hope".
  On examining the facts, that pessimism does not appear to be ill founded.
  The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called on the international community to increase overall spending on HIV/AIDS to $10 billion a year by 2005. However, total pledges to the global fund for the next five years amount to just $2.1 billion, which must of course go towards the fight against not just HIV/AIDS, but TB and malaria—pernicious diseases in themselves. That level of funding is wholly inadequate to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS.
  I welcome the commitment, confirmed by the Secretary of State in a written answer to me earlier this month, to increase the spending of the Department for International Development on HIV/AIDS programmes in Africa by £180 million in this financial year. The Government are also committing $200 million to the global fund.
  However, Oxfam has calculated that if the UK were to provide its full share of the estimated $10 billion annual requirement for combating HIV/AIDS, that would be a slightly more than threefold increase in our contribution to the fund. If we are serious about tackling the epidemic and about the continued value of the global fund, and if that is to amount to more than rhetoric, we should consider increasing our contribution to an appropriate level to meet the challenges that lie ahead, and we should persuade other industrialised countries to pay their fair share.
  However, the global fund suffers from other practical problems. Its director, Dr. Richard Feacham, has said publicly that the fund imposes a significant administrative burden on countries that must already deal with many different donors. Representatives of the Likulezi project in Malawi, which I mentioned earlier, said that some non-governmental organisations were adding HIV/AIDS elements to their projects simply to obtain resources from the global fund, but were then failing to meet the requirements of work to tackle the disease. Those kinds of difficulties should be addressed if the grand idea is ever to prove truly effective.
  Furthermore, there is the danger that the fund seems to circumvent existing health infrastructures by way of grandiose interventions: for instance, the supply of antiretroviral drugs without any means of administering them or without an infrastructure to ensure that they are administered properly. It is essential that the fund addresses the current inability of basic health and social infrastructures in those countries to cope with the epidemic. Funding must be injected into the provision of vastly improved primary health care services, including investment in human resources, if there is to be any chance of halting the tide of infection.
  On debt relief, I want to deal with the unsustainable debt repayments that are such a burden on many HIV/ AIDS-affected nations. Oxfam has reported that Zambia, where 1.2 million people are affected, spends 30 per cent. more on debt repayments than on health. That picture is repeated across much of sub-Saharan Africa. That cannot be allowed to continue, and I hope
  656
  that the Minister and the Secretary of State will be at the forefront of an international effort to reform the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Many countries need properly co-ordinated HIV/AIDS strategies if they are to meet the millennium development goals, but they are unable to implement them due to the burden of debt. Clearly, that is unacceptable.
  On anti-retroviral drugs, major progress must be made in making good-quality ARVs available in developing countries at cheaper prices. Family incomes are too low to allow the purchase of such drugs. In Uganda, for example, only 0.3 to 0.5 per cent. of the country's HIV sufferers are reported by Oxfam as having access to that life-saving treatment. Prices have fallen as a result of the availability of cheaply produced generic forms of ARVs, and competition between generic drugs can reduce the price further, but it is essential that the commitments made at Doha are honoured so that the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights rules do not prevent export of generic drugs from countries such as India. There are indications of some backsliding since the commitments were made in Doha.
  Education and awareness building constitute perhaps the most important of all the targets for individual countries to make a political commitment, from the top down, to tackling the disease, as they are vital in communicating a clear message about prevention. Many examples of good practice can be found in affected countries: notably, partnerships between national ministries of health and education, and the full engagement of local government. Several imaginative ideas are emerging. I recently attended the launch of BBC World Service Trust's partnership with India's National AIDS Control Organisation and national television network, which is aimed at increasing HIV awareness. Likewise, a version of the children's programme "Sesame Street" broadcast in South Africa now includes an HIV-positive character.
  Bearing in mind the low level of knowledge about the virus in many infected areas—South Africa is perhaps one of the worst examples because of the failure of the leadership under President Thabo Mbeki to tackle the problem—such projects can be of enormous value.
  There has been a steady fall in the overall infection rate in Uganda thanks largely to a national programme with support from many different groups and organisations. That has led to the provision of much more widespread sex education and greater awareness of the need to use condoms. That is not to say, however, that Uganda is an example of perfection. HIV/AIDS is still a national tragedy there and it cannot be fully addressed without also tackling the underlying factors of poverty and economic stagnation. However, Uganda has made an important start.
  HIV/AIDS is too great a humanitarian disaster for us to ignore. Working towards a solution is in all our interests. As things stand, the epidemic will not be contained and is bound to spread beyond current boundaries. Its economic and social effects will undoubtedly lead to increased instability in the affected areas and more failed governance. The shockwaves that that could cause across Africa and Asia, and the rest of the world, cannot be underestimated. As always, it is important that the fine rhetoric that we have heard from

  657
  so many quarters is matched by meaningful and effective action. Indeed, on the occasion of the opening ceremony of this year's international AIDS conference in Barcelona, Kofi Annan said:
  "I will join with you and do my utmost to ensure that our reply to this epidemic is urgent, comprehensive and determined."
  Those are forceful words, but very necessary.
  We cannot allow a situation to develop that would end with the effects of an unchecked AIDS epidemic weighing on the conscience of those who failed to act.
  10.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on obtaining an Adjournment debate on the very important subject of HIV/AIDS. I also congratulate him on the way in which he presented it by touching on the wide range of issues involved in dealing with HIV/AIDS in Africa and Asia. I want to consider in particular the effects that it is having on those regions. It is not only a humanitarian catastrophe but a huge disaster for the development of Africa, as he outlined. I shall set out my Department's approach to tackling the problem, dealing with the work that we are doing on prevention and treatment and, as he rightly pointed out, the important work that needs to be done to build up health systems.
  HIV/AIDS is one of the biggest threats to the achievement of the goals agreed by all United Nations member states in September 2000. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the goals cover a range of key issues including poverty, health and education, and they are at the heart of my Department's practice. At the United Nations General Assembly special session in June last year, the world community agreed that a much more intensive effort is needed to prevent HIV/AIDS and to improve the care and support for those infected by it. That poses a huge challenge for health systems in Africa and Asia which at present cannot cope. It also means that all parts of Government and civil society have to play their part. HIV/AIDS has long since ceased to be an issue for the health sector alone.
  The hon. Gentleman set out clearly the scale of the disaster in terms of the numbers and I will not go over that again. However, he did not touch on the appalling impact of the epidemic on children, especially in Africa where there are more AIDS orphans than there are children in the United Kingdom. That adds an extra dimension to what we will see in the years to come as a result of the epidemic. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not just a matter of human suffering; the epidemic also seriously undermines growth and social and political stability. In addition, it threatens security. The epidemic compromises all the work that has been done to reduce poverty and conflict and to improve education and health. As he said, it strips out the economically active people, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The problem is made worse by the current famine.
  Poverty and inequality are two key drivers of HIV/AIDS. Dealing with gender inequality is crucial in any strategy to prevent the transmission of the disease. In many countries women and girls are more likely than
  658
  men and boys to be infected and to bear the burden of family support and care of those affected. Physiology increases women's vulnerability to infection, but that is made worse also by the lack of power that girls and women in many societies have over their bodies. That is reinforced by social and economic inequality.
  Higher rates of AIDS-related deaths will lead to large-scale loss of skills and institutional knowledge in the public sector. Education, health services and police forces are of particular concern because death rates may be so high in those sectors that lost workers will not be replaced simply by increasing training or recruitment programmes. The disease is therefore having an increased effect on the very services needed to tackle some of the other problems that it causes. We are also concerned about the impact of HIV and AIDS on Government revenue and expenditure, and about reduced access by the poor to markets. We are concerned for the human rights of those excluded because of the stigma of HIV and AIDS, and we are focusing attention on those whose security has been undermined by HIV and AIDS, especially orphans.
  My Department believes strongly that HIV/AIDS is not simply a health issue, and that care for the victims of AIDS must include support for communities that have been ravaged by the disease. That includes not only help in caring for the sick and dying but support for the livelihoods and food security of communities that have lost a large part of their working population. It is, of course, one of the particular characteristics of AIDS that it strikes down those who carry the greatest responsibility for feeding and maintaining their communities.
  My Department is working with other agencies not only to prevent new infections but to ease the impact of AIDS on rural livelihoods and rural development as a whole. We are using a twin-track approach of continuing to fund research so that we can better understand the precise impacts of AIDS on rural livelihoods, while recognising the urgency of funding interventions now in the face of a disaster that is having an appalling effect on so many people. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Secretary of State's concern about that. The extra nutritional needs of HIV/AIDS patients are also having some bearing on the way in which we are dealing with the famine.
  It is important to recognise that progress is being made, and we do not simply have to accept the doomsday scenarios that are so often put forward. We are starting to see evidence in Africa and Asia that the tide of HIV can be turned back. Examples include Uganda, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and Cambodia, where strong leadership at all levels and effective community-based prevention programmes have been key to controlling the epidemic. Uganda has reduced the rate of infection from over 20 per cent. in the early 1990s to about 5 per cent. now. In Cambodia, the prevalence of the disease has been reduced from 2.8 per cent. in 2000 to 2.6 per cent. today—a smaller decrease, but it goes against the trend that we assume to be typical of all countries. For some time, Thailand, where condom use has increased significantly, and Senegal have also been models of good practice in HIV/AIDS prevention. Progress can be made, but there is an urgent need for other countries to learn from these successes.

  659
  Despite those encouraging pockets of success, it is clear that the global response to the epidemic has so far been lacking, as the hon. Gentleman said. A much more intensive effort, which goes beyond the health sector, is needed. African and Asian countries need to learn lessons from each other on how best to tackle the epidemic. My Department will continue to do all that it can to help to facilitate that, and I will outline some of the ways in which we are working to do that.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned debt repayment. I think that he would accept that this country and this Government have led the world in developing a programme of debt repayment. However, he is right to express concerns about the continuing problems of unsustainable debts.
  However, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that we cannot see that as the cause of the problems in the provision of the health services needed to counter AIDS.
  In response to the epidemic, DFID has committed considerable resources at the international and bilateral levels. We invested more than £200 million in HIV/AIDS programmes last year. We currently support programmes in more than 40 countries, including major new investments to support the implementation of effective national strategies to combat the illness in countries across Africa and Asia. Our overall programme in Africa is set to increase from £640 million to £1 billion by 2006. HIV/AIDS will remain one of our highest priorities for the region. In Asia our focus will continue to be on preventing transmission of HIV from vulnerable groups to the general population. We have committed US$200 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. Considerable extra funding is also going to institutions such as the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Population Fund and civil society organisations in a coherent effort to combat the disease and support people who are already living with it.
  Our strategic response is to tackle HIV/AIDS through both prevention and care interventions, but as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the strengthening of health systems is a critical issue in the delivery of prevention and care interventions. The ability to deliver community-oriented care and other HIV/AIDS and TB care and support services and anti-retroviral therapy are dependent on properly functioning health systems. Since 1997, my Department has committed more than £1 billion to health systems strengthening, and will continue to support that strongly.
  DFID is driving work to promote international commitment on a package of measures that will facilitate widespread, sustainable, predictable differential pricing of essential medicines in order that such medicines are available to the world's poor at affordable prices and become part of a broader international agenda. We are also supporting work on establishing feasible approaches to increase access to highly active anti-retroviral therapy, and help Governments make informed decisions about their use that is specific to local needs and circumstances. In addition, we have committed an additional £40 million for research into HIV vaccines and microbicides. All these initiatives will benefit the poor in Africa and Asia.
  660
  While we move forward on developing new technologies, it is worth reminding ourselves that many of the strategies available now can be successful against HIV/AIDS. The key to reducing vulnerability to the epidemic is to create an environment that enables women and men to avoid risky behaviour and to have access to and use appropriate services. This requires strong and sustained political commitment to help those who are most vulnerable to be actively involved in designing strategies to meet their needs. The hon. Gentleman stressed the need for that, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Government and civil society need to open up the public discussion about HIV/AIDS, sex, and gender relations and promote openness and respect for the human rights of all people. Explicit commitment to tackling stigma and discrimination is essential. I recently saw some of DFID's work on that in China, and I was struck by the way in which stigma had been dealt with. People were living openly with AIDS in the community. Tackling the HIV/AIDS epidemic with all its consequences sometimes appears to be daunting. It is important to emphasise that success against the disease can be achieved, but only if we all work together. In my Department we are committed to doing everything we can, in partnership with others, to help poor people across the world who are infected and affected by the disease, and to prevent it becoming a catastrophe not just to people, but to their societies and the future of their communities. Our Department is committed to achieving that goal.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

  CORRECTION
  Official Report, 23 October 2002: at top of col. 375 replace Division with the following:
  "Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 65.

  Division No. 329]

  [10:05 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Burnham, Andy

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Alexander, Douglas

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bailey, Adrian

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chaytor, David

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Chidgey, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coaker, Vernon

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brennan, Kevin

  Colman, Tony

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Connarty, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Burnett, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  661

  Cotter, Brian

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  MacDougall, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McFall, John

  Doughty, Sue

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  MacShane, Denis

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Fabricant, Michael

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Flint, Caroline

  Follett, Barbara

  Michael rh Alun

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Miliband, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Moore, Michael

  Moran, Margaret

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mountford, Kali

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Mudie, George

  Gilroy, Linda

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hain, rh Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Picking, Anne

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Healey, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Heath, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Prescott, rh John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Heppell, John

  Purnell, James

  Hermon, Lady

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Rammell, Bill

  Holmes, Paul

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Rendel, David

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Rooney, Terry

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Ruane, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Kidney, David

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Soley, Clive

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  662

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Watts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, Claire

  Mr. Joe Benton and Tony Cunningham

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Lidington, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Barnes, Harry

  McDonnell, John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bercow, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Berry, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  McWilliam, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Burnside, David

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Cash, William

  Martlew, Eric

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Moran, Margaret

  Chope, Christopher

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Picking, Anne

  Dodds. Nigel

  Pickthall, Colin

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Fox Dr. Liam

  Selous, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Gerrard Neil,

  Skinner, Dennis

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gibson Dr Ian

  Spring, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Syms, Robert

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Hanson, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Heald, Oliver

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Young, rh Sir George

  Illsley, Eric

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. Andrew Miller and Stephen Hesford

  Lansley, Andrew

  Question put and agreed to.