Commons Sitting of 17 March 2003

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

    New Deal 50-Plus
    Jon Trickett: If he will make a statement on the impact of new deal 50-plus on getting older people back into work. [102943]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): New deal 50-plus has been a success, and nearly 92,000 people have moved into work while claiming employment credit. Evaluation has shown that it is also helping people by giving them the increased motivation and confidence they need to find jobs. New deal 50-plus is also making a good contribution to our wider campaign to tackle age discrimination and improve the prospects of older people.
    Jon Trickett: I congratulate the Government on their work in this difficult area, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the acute problems in former coalfield areas such as my constituency, where one household in four still has no one in work? That is a frightening statistic. Many are older people, former miners who were thrown on the scrap heap by the Tories when the pits were closed. Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention in any further rolling out of the new deal to blackspots such as the one I represent?
    Mr. Smith: Yes indeed. New deal 50-plus and the Government's other programmes, including the excellent work done by the coalfields taskforce in partnership with local communities, is making headway in tackling pressing social concerns. The gap between the employment rate among those over 50 and the average rate has been narrowing as fast in the more deprived regions as in the less deprived, if not faster. There is more to be done, but we are determined to build on the progress that has been made.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: When will the Government do something to help people such as my constituent Jill Lambard-Brown, who has been sacked from her job as a swimming teacher by Eastbourne
    610
    borough council simply because she is approaching the age of 65—although she is as fit as a fiddle, popular with families and children and very keen to carry on?
    Mr. Smith: I have a great deal of sympathy for people like the hon. Gentleman's constituent. That is why we are committed to legislating to outlaw age discrimination, and why the Department of Trade and Industry is consulting on the ending of mandatory retirement ages. An important aim of our Green Paper is to encourage people who want to continue working for longer. We should make the most of the talents of all in our community, regardless of their age, and that includes the hon. Gentleman's constituent.

    Pension Credit
    Helen Jones: What assessment he has made of the impact of the pension credit on the incomes of the poorest pensioners. [102945]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for pension credit, and, on average, stand to gain around £400 a year. In total, as a result of the Government's tax and benefit changes, the poorest third of pensioner households will be on average £1,500 a year better off than in 1997, with pensioner households as a whole better off by an average of £1,150.
    Helen Jones: As my right hon. Friend will know, many constituents like mine whose incomes are just above the income support level will benefit greatly from pension credit. Sadly, however, many are still unaware that they can claim it and of how much it would be worth. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that all pensioners who are entitled to the credit know of their right to claim, and are helped to do so? Many are put off by the need to fill in forms and so forth.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is exactly why we are introducing pension credit—to help those who previously just lost out because of modest occupational pension or savings income. We will make claiming simple and straightforward. Only a telephone call will be necessary: all the information is provided for the claimants, and they will not have to complete complicated forms. The forms will be sent to them to be signed. Moreover, those already receiving the minimum income guarantee will automatically be passported on to pension credit.
    As for my hon. Friend's important point about take-up, since we launched our take-up campaign in May 2000, over 150,000 more people have received the minimum income guarantee, and have benefited by an average of £20 a week. We need to build on that.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that about 1.6 million pensioner families will be floated on to benefit entitlement by pension credit, and therefore lose their incentive to save. About a month ago, however, the

    611
    Minister of State said that there was no inherent disincentive. Is the institute right, or the Minister of State?
    Mr. Smith: That is a very easy question. The Minister of State is right. I heard what he said. He pointed out that, with the introduction of the pension credit, we reward saving where previously it was penalised. In opposing the pension credit, Conservative Members should open their eyes to the fact that they are committing to going back to 100 per cent. rates of withdrawal, which penalise saving and thrift and hit those on modest incomes hard.
    James Purnell: When parents take time off work to look after their children, they get home responsibilities protection and, therefore, contributions towards their pension. When foster carers do the same, they do not get HRP, so they lose those contributions towards their pension. Foster carers do extremely important work. Often, they are struggling on low incomes. Can my right hon. Friend do anything to put that right and give them the right to the basic state pension and therefore to full pension credit entitlement?
    Mr. Smith: There is widespread support in the House for what my hon. Friend says. I pay tribute to the energy and persistence with which he has campaigned on that issue. I can announce that we shall extend home responsibilities protection to foster carers, so that those years of caring count towards their pension entitlement. They do an invaluable job for this country. It is time that that contribution was recognised in the way they build up their pensions. I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the good news that we shall go ahead with that.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Is it not wrong that so many of the poorest pensioners, particularly women, will miss out on pension credit through low take-up? Can the Secretary of State confirm that his projection is that only two thirds of those entitled will receive it in the first year, and that the target that he has agreed with the Treasury for 2006 means that 1 million pensioner households will still not receive pension credit? Is that the best he can do for our poorest pensioners, and how does he justify a benefit that was set up on the basis that millions of pensioners would not receive it for many years?
    Mr. Smith: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should seek to berate us when we are trying to maximise take-up. The approach of the Conservative party is to take pension credit away from those people altogether. On the projections for future years, it of course depends on the numbers who will be eligible at that time but I am confident that it will be more than the 67 per cent.; that figure is purely a planning assumption. We will do everything that we can to ensure that everyone entitled to the pension credit receives it. I hope that Conservative Members will join us in campaigning for that, and not get on their high horse about abolishing it.
    Andy Burnham: In my constituency at least, pension credit has universal backing. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Pensions for
    612
    developing an excellent policy. Many people in Leigh have small works pensions. Many of those are former miners or their widows. They may have just received, or be about to receive, a lump sum compensation from the coal health compensation scheme. It would be unfair if those payments in respect of ill health affected eligibility for pension credit or the level at which it is paid. Will the Secretary of State assure me that such payments will be disregarded when calculating pension credit?
    Mr. Smith: I can indeed confirm that such payments, which are important for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, will be disregarded in the calculation of pension credit.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Child Support Agency. [102947]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Andrew Smith): The Child Support Agency has steadily increased its effectiveness since the mid-1990s. In 1995–96, the amount of money going to parents with care was only £300 million. By 2001–02, it was around £770 million. The new CSA system for new cases has got off to a smooth start.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Were the new system applied to all cases simultaneously, how many parents with care would gain, and what proportion would that be?
    Mr. Smith: Around 60 per cent.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the biggest categories of complaints from people trying to get payments due to them under the CSA involves men who are self-employed, who can give the system the run-around and who avoid declaring the money and income that they have. Is my right hon. Friend sure that steps are being taken to ensure that the mother gets what she is entitled to in those cases?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. That is a very important purpose of the reform and the introduction of the new system. Because the new system is much simpler, it will enable us to spend far fewer resources on assessing and perpetually reassessing cases. It will thereby enable us to put a lot more effort into ensuring compliance, and making sure that people pay the assessments that they are supposed to be paying. As I have told the House before, particular effort will be made in relation to the self-employed, whose compliance rates are significantly below the average.
    Mr. Steve Webb:The Government's intention was that, in cases where CSA assessment under the new system is very different from that under the old system, change can be phased in over a period of up to five years. A month ago, I drew the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that some people are circumventing that principle by opting out of the CSA and turning up three months later as brand new cases,

    613
    thereby getting the entire five-year increase in one go. Has he done anything about that problem since I raised it, and given that, as my experience shows, such cases do exist, what will he do to prevent the Government's and Parliament's intention from being thwarted?
    Mr. Smith:As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, rules have been put in place—in particular, the 13-week provision. We must have a practical way of operating that minimises the incentive for people to try to work the new system to get on to it, but which enables its operation without the addition of yet further bureaucracy and complexity—the very problems that brought the old system into such disrepute and made it so difficult to get the standards of effectiveness that are now being achieved. People on the new assessment are assessed on the much more simple, straightforward basis that we have set out: 15 per cent. for one child, 20 per cent. for two children, and 25 per cent. for additional children. That is accepted by hon. Members and by the country, on the basis of consultation, as a fair method of payment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will join us in supporting the principle that money that is due to children ought to be paid, and that they will support the new system, which will ensure that more children benefit.
    Mr. Julian Brazier:The Government originally promised the new system by October 2001, and then by April 2002, but we now have this half-baked arrangement whereby new and recycled cases are handled under the new system, while existing ones continue under the old one. When will existing cases move to the new system? Is the five-year transition that the Secretary of State has talked about actually going to happen, and how will it work? There are both winners and losers out there who face great uncertainty as a result of continuing delay.
    Mr. Smith: It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to accuse us of implementing a half-baked system, given that we have had to work so very hard to put right the utter shambles of a system, for which everyone knows the Conservatives were responsible. On reflection, he will surely accept that it is very sensible indeed to ensure that the system works with new cases before switching over existing ones. I will announce the date for doing that when we know that it can sensibly be planned for, and not before. On the five-year transition, yes, it will operate.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Mr. Gary Streeter: What percentage of the population are in receipt of means-tested benefits. [102948]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): About 17 per cent. of individuals in Great Britain over the age of 16 are in receipt of one or more income-related benefits. This Government are committed to targeting help at those who need it most, while putting in place a range of initiatives to help people back into work, such as new
    614
    deals, improvements in child care, the national minimum wage and our new tax credits. All are about making work possible, but also about making work pay.
    Mr. Streeter: Once the changes in April and October come into play, will not some 40 per cent. of the population—about 20 million Britons, according to House of Commons Library figures—be subject to means-tested benefits? Does that not horrify the Minister? Rather than luring more and more people into the sticky and complicated web of welfare dependency, would it not be better to reduce the burden of tax on hard-working families and set them free to make their own choices?
    Malcolm Wicks: The reality is that we are seeking successfully to get people out of benefit dependency and into work. The number of people receiving income-based jobseeker's allowance, for example, fell from 1.2 million to 600,000 between 1997 and 2002. It is wholly appropriate, however, that we support children and work, so that when people make the often difficult transition into work, we can guarantee that it pays. That is the purpose of the tax credit system.
    Mr. David Willetts: Has the Minister seen today's powerful report from the Association of British Insurers, which says that eventually 80 per cent. of pensioners could be on means-tested benefits and that
    "today's state pension system won't work tomorrow"?
    The association joins a long list of organisations—the National Association of Pension Funds, Help the Aged and many others—that have warned about the spread of means-testing under this Government. Instead of reforming benefits and making them simpler, all Ministers do is to introduce yet more means-testing. Why will not the Government join the growing consensus that benefits for pensioners need to be made simpler, instead of introducing ever more means-testing and complexity?
    Malcolm Wicks: We have published our proposals in our Green Paper on pensions. Our strategy—to reduce means-tested dependency for those who are out of work by providing them with work—is the right one. However, it is wholly appropriate that we have a strategy, for both pensioners and those of working age, to support savings and to support those who are in work, but often on low wages, through the tax credit regime. It is an appropriate and consistent strategy to attack poverty in this country.
    Mr. Willetts: It is not a strategy at all. The Minister spoke of means-testing dependency for the unemployed, but it is the same for pensioners. Why will not the Minister listen to what so many outside groups are saying? Why are the Government so confident that they have got it right when everybody else is warning about the implications of their system? More means-testing means weaker incentives to work and save and a system that is so complicated that fewer and fewer people get

    615
    the benefits to which they are entitled. Why will the Minister not listen to those powerful warnings from everyone else?
    Malcolm Wicks: We listen to many groups. In opposition, we listened to the oldest and poorest, whom the last Tory Government did so little to support. Our targeted strategy has brought huge gains to some of the poorest and most deserving among our elders. The Opposition need to explain why they would take away pension credit from many hundreds of thousands of people who need and deserve it.

    Contaminated Blood Products (Compensation)
    Annabelle Ewing: When he will reach a conclusion as to the impact on the payment of social security benefit of the Scottish Executive's proposals to compensate people who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood products. [102949]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Discussions about those proposals and their impact on the payment of social security benefits are still ongoing. No conclusions have yet been reached and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
    Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Minister for his answer, which I find deeply disappointing. He will be aware that the Scottish Parliament and Executive have made clear their wish to compensate hepatitis C sufferers. As there is already a precedent for exempting similar payments from the operation of the clawback system, why will not the Minister today confirm that Westminster will not frustrate the will of the Scottish Parliament to pay compensation to hepatitis C sufferers?
    Malcolm Wicks: Although suffering from hepatitis C is a serious matter, the hon. Lady's question raises a number of complex issues, not least to do with the legal competence of the Scottish Executive. That point has been acknowledged by the Scottish Minister for Health and Community Care. We need to consider advice carefully and I am not yet in a position to make a decision.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: How many Child Support Agency cases of arrears of maintenance payment were taken to court in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [102950]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The total number of cases taken to court in the past five years has ranged from approximately 2,800 per annum to more than 4,600 per annum. I will send my hon. Friend the precise figures.
    Mr.O'Brien: My question concerns the procedure that the Secretary of State has set out on deduction of earnings orders. We are advised that. before a case goes to court, the Child Support Agency, following the directions of the Secretary of State, should ask the
    616
    absent parent if a deduction of earnings order would be applicable. How many cases have been taken to court without the deduction of earnings order having been applied in the first instance? if that is happening, what will the Minister do to ensure that the regulations that have been set out by Parliament, through the Secretary of State, will be adhered to, ensuring that attachment of earnings orders are applied before cases go to court?
    Malcolm Wicks: Whenever possible, it is sensible to use methods such as deduction of earnings orders before resorting to going to court. Going to court is the last resort. We have used more than 100,000 deduction of earnings orders. I know that my hon. Friend has a constituency case in mind. Obviously, I will not comment on that case now. When someone changes employer, it can be difficult to use a deduction of earnings order. In such cases, on behalf of the parent with care, we have to go to court, but we do that only as the last resort. Outside the Chamber, I will be happy to discuss particular cases with my hon. Friend.
    Andrew Selous: Hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about a minority of parents who persistently and deliberately refuse to pay child support that they are able to pay. In extreme cases, the CSA has the power to remove driving licences, but it has done so in only two cases. Will the Minister seek to ensure that that happens more frequently?
    Malcolm Wicks: The purpose of the new powers is to deter. Nine people have gone to prison as a result. Others, when threatened with the loss of their driving licence, have paid up. That is the whole purpose of the policy. It is one of the weapons in our armoury to ensure that absent parents recognise their responsibilities towards their children.
    David Taylor: Is it not the case that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned a moment ago, there are serious flaws in the CSA's recovery process in relation to self-employed people? Would closer co-operation and co-ordination between the Department for Work and Pensions, the CSA, the Inland Revenue and others not lead to more certainty in the contacting of non-resident parents who are clever at avoiding paying what they should be paying?
    Malcolm Wicks: I have considerable sympathy with that point. We all have cases in our constituencies where fathers—it is normally fathers—have not paid up. Many of those people are self-employed. We are doing what my hon. Friend suggests: we now have close working relations with the Inland Revenue. It is, after all, up to the Revenue to determine the income of a self-employed person. However, in cases where there are grounds for thinking that the lifestyle of the man—or, sometimes, the woman—is inconsistent with their reported earnings, we can pursue the matter using the new powers. We have to ensure that all parents, whatever their employment status, acknowledge their responsibilities to their children.

    Lone Parents (Workless Households)
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: If he will make a statement on the number of lone parent workless households. [102951]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): In autumn 2002, there were 707,000 workless lone parent households in the UK. Since 1997, the lone parent employment rate has increased by almost one fifth. For the first time, it is over 50 per cent. Recent independent evaluation by the National Centre for Social Research has shown that the new deal for lone parents more than doubles lone parents' chances of finding a job.
    Mr. Mitchell: Why does the Minister not come clean with the House and admit that, over the past year, there has been an increase of 55,000 in the number of children in workless households? Is that not a savage indictment of the Government's failure to tackle poverty in the way that they promised—quite apart from being a breach of the solemn undertakings that were given by his party at the general election?
    Mr. Brown: No, it is not. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters and I know that he serves on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. However, he has a pretty grudging way of looking at the issues. By far and away the best way in which to help the poorest households is to ensure that a member of such households gets into work that pays and that the jobs are available. That is the direction in which we are moving and, frankly, the results speak for themselves.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that 250,000 fewer children are in workless households than in 1997? Indeed, will he confirm that up to 1 million children stand to benefit from the changes to child maintenance premium to the tune of up to £10 per week as a result of the Government's recent initiative?
    Mr. Brown: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. One would pay more attention to the representations of the Opposition if they could set out their alternative policies clearly. Do they want to go back to 3 million unemployed, and the 15 per cent. interest rates and 10 per cent. inflation rates that they visited on the country? People very quickly forget what happened.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Chris Ruane: What further steps he will take to help people into work in communities with high levels of long-term unemployment. [102952]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): In areas with high levels of long-term unemployment, we have introduced initiatives such as action teams for jobs and employment zones. The north-west Wales action team and employment zone, which works in my hon. Friend's constituency, has helped more than 1,100 people into work. In addition, we are building on the new deal by providing transitional jobs, through the StepUp pilots, to act as a stepping-stone for long-term unemployed people moving from benefits into work. Further action
    618
    in areas with the highest concentrations of worklessness was announced in the pre-Budget report. The Government's active labour market policies have played an important part in reducing long-term unemployment by more than three quarters and youth unemployment by 88 per cent. since 1997 in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Chris Ruane: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The unemployment rate in my constituency is 3.1 per cent., so unemployment has virtually disappeared. However, 44 per cent. of the unemployment is concentrated in only two wards. More than 2,500 jobs are being created six miles away on the St. Asaph business park, and excellent initiatives such as the working links car loans scheme are having an impact on transport. What additional transport initiatives can the Government take to connect the jobless with the jobs?
    Mr. Brown: There are two great advantages of the action team approach. First, it is proactive and can go out and help unemployed people, rather than requiring those people to seek help. The second great advantage is flexibility, which includes underpinning transport schemes such as the one that my hon. Friend mentioned, with which he is familiar from his constituency, and more generally. I understand that the car leasing scheme is to be expanded and that, in his constituency, it will be extended to a scooter leasing scheme in April.
    David Cairns: When can my right hon. Friend announce the areas chosen to pilot the Government's new pathways into work programmes? If one of those areas turns out to be in Scotland, will he assure me that he will liaise closely with the Minister for Health and Community Care in the Scottish Executive so that if unemployed people required a rehabilitation course, for example, they would be able to access one as easily in my constituency as in his?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes his representations very well, as ever. We shall make the announcement as soon as we can. I had the opportunity to visit Scotland recently and saw at first hand the good rehabilitation work that is being undertaken locally.

    Pension Payments (Hospital Patients)
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will pay full pensions to people who are in hospital for longer than six weeks; and if he will make a statement.[102953]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): We have already announced that we are increasing the period to 13 weeks from this October. We estimate that at any point in time some 26,000 people will benefit from the change, of whom some 18,000 will be people receiving state pension and 2,000 will be people receiving pension credit. By contrast, when the Conservative Government reviewed the rules, they introduced a standard six-week period for all benefits,

    619
    including some that had previously had an eight-week rule, which meant that many people suffered detriment under that Government.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but does he recognise that the problem is bigger when people have to stay in hospital much longer because of bed blocking? Is it not also a problem that other benefits, such as the disability living allowance and the carer's allowance, make it increasingly difficult for people to leave hospital? I welcome the change of the six-week rule to 13 weeks, but will the Minister review other benefits and ensure that people are not kept in hospital when they should not be there?
    Mr. McCartney: Some 95 per cent. of hospital admissions for older people last less than six weeks, thank goodness, while the figure for the general population is 97 per cent. The Government are investing hugely in carers and people in the community through intermediate care, as well as funding the biggest ever investment in primary and acute care in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman's party opposes such investment and wants to make a 20 per cent. cut., so I will take no lessons from him on downrating or on investment in public services.
    Claire Ward: I welcome the extension by my right hon. Friend of the number of weeks during which pensioners are still entitled to payment while in hospital. However, the payment of council tax is an important issue, particularly for pensioners in my area, who face higher payments as a result of the decision by Liberal Democrats in borough and district councils significantly to increase council tax. In addition, Conservative-controlled Hertfordshire county council is significantly increasing council tax, despite the fact that the Government have given it an above-inflation funding increase. What assistance can my right hon. Friend provide for all pensioners, as it is clear that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats care about them?
    Mr. McCartney: When I announced those changes in the State Pension Credit Bill, I made it clear that they not only applied to those who receive the basic state pension but extended to people who receive housing benefit and invalidity benefit.
    As my hon. Friend says, Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the country are penalising pensioners and others by making draconian increases in council tax despite the record amount of money that they are receiving from the Government to improve and modernise services.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Is not one of the problems when Ministers make concessions—as all parties are pleased that they have in this case—that it tends to leave unfinished business? Will the Minister consider seriously those benefits that have not been improved as a result of his alleged generosity? I think particularly of attendance allowance and associated carers' benefits. The rules are still very tight, with a limit of four weeks, I think. Does the Minister appreciate that, when an elderly person is taken into hospital, the last thing that they or their family are thinking about is
    620
    whether their benefits may be clawed back? Will he reconsider whether that nasty shock may be avoided, and administrative feasibility improved?
    Mr. McCartney: The change was not a concession. One of the first things I did when I was appointed Minister for Pensions was to make it clear to the organisations representing older people that I wanted to make changes in this area. I made a promise, and I kept that promise. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are separate. He asks about the rules on benefits that are related to people's disability and intended to contribute to their everyday living costs when they are in the community. Those costs are transferred when they have long-term illness as a result of their disability and are in hospital.
    I am aware of the need to review these matters, but I make it clear that the change that has been made benefits 97 per cent. of individuals who go into hospital. Other changes, such as the increases to benefits that we made in the uprating statement, assist the different beneficiaries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

    Disabled People (Pension Payments)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What plans he has to assist disabled people with access to pension payments. [102954]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): For convenience and safety, many disabled people and pensioners already have their money paid straight into a bank or building society account, and others will want to have their money paid into an account that they can use at the Post Office. I was disappointed therefore to note that the Post Office's new PIN pad is not as user friendly as it should be. We are working closely with the Post Office and customer organisations to ensure that the new arrangements fully meet the needs of all our customers, particularly those of disabled people and pensioners.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Which disabled groups did she consult prior to the introduction of the smart card?
    Maria Eagle: The Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Post Office consulted the usual disability organisations, including the Royal National Institute of the Blind. Today, I am laying before Parliament the Visually Impaired (Blind and Partially Sighted) Regulations 2003, which automatically include more blind and partially sighted people in the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 without them having to prove that they fit the definition. That should make it clear that under the DDA there are legal obligations on service providers such as the Post Office to make their services accessible to disabled people, including those with a visual impairment, and not to ignore them. All customers with a disability will still be able to access their payments at a post office, if that is what they want.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the Minister explain what happens in circumstances where a disabled pensioner becomes ill and has not previously nominated somebody to operate their Post Office card account, and thus cannot attend in person to enter their number? Will pensioners in those circumstances be able to gain access to their pension? What is the arrangement? At present, it is not clear whether the exemption scheme will cover that situation. It is not clear how people will get their pensions in such circumstances.
    Maria Eagle: The Post Office has admitted that it needs to examine more closely the way in which the PIN pad works. It is examining how to make it more user friendly, and other ways of accessing the Post Office card account without a PIN pad. The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described are no different from those that currently apply when a pensioner cannot get to the post office: they are able to nominate someone else to get their money for them.

    Children's Centres
    Ms Ann Coffey: What assessment he has made of the future impact of the new children's centres on supporting parents in work. [102955]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Local authorities are just beginning their strategic planning for children's centres, so it is too early for such an assessment to have been made. However, we are expecting them to make a significant impact. Every children's centre must provide day care suitable for working parents, five days a week, 10 hours a day, for a minimum of 48 weeks a year. They will also act as service hubs for providers of child care services for children of all ages, linking to Jobcentre Plus offices, and offer support to parents who wish to consider training options.
    Ms Coffey: I welcome the funding for the new children's centres, which for the first time will enable child care, early-years education and support for parents to be provided in the same place. Such children's centres will be especially welcome in Brinnington in my constituency, which has the highest number of parents on income support and the lowest number of childminders. There are jobs available, but child care continues to be an issue. Can my hon. Friend say when decisions are likely to be made about where the children's centres will be? When she makes the decisions, will she bear Brinnington in mind?
    Maria Eagle: As usual, my hon. Friend has been early in the queue of hon. Members to see my noble Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who is responsible for those matters, to make representations to us. We expect local authority proposals to be with us by October, and we shall make decisions shortly thereafter. My hon. Friend's council, Stockport, has already had an indicative allocation of more than £1 million to make the children's centres work in her constituency. I am sure that both the council and my noble Friend will
    622
    consider the Brinnington ward when the decisions come to be made, especially in view of what my hon. Friend has said today.

    Child Care
    Ms Dari Taylor:What role Jobcentre Plus has in ensuring that advice and information on child care is available to parents looking for work. [102956]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Child care partnership managers are being introduced to all Jobcentre Plus districts from April 2003 to ensure that parents are provided with the advice and information that they need on child care. In Stockton, South, that means that parents moving into work will be able to take advantage of nearly 700 new child care places created in the past three years, providing care for more than 1,100 children in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Ms Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that thoughtful and valuable response, especially his reference to my constituency. Will he comment further about affordability and quality, which are two of the most crucial features that persuade parents that they can leave their children to seek work further away from home? Has any research been conducted to assess the impact of child care provision in terms of the numbers of people getting back to work?
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, and I acknowledge that she is a long-standing campaigner on those issues. This is an important labour market issue—child care must be affordable, which is why the child tax credit, which is available both to employed and self-employed people, pays up to 70 per cent. of eligible child care costs.
    Hywel Williams: What steps are the Government taking to make child care more accessible in rural areas, where there are particular problems with the provision and accessibility of child care, and where there is certainly not equity of provision?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter. There are obviously difficulties with child care provision in rural areas, but he will know that the Government are proposing a substantial expansion in the number of places. We aim to increase help so that it covers 2 million children by 2006. The hon. Gentleman is of course right that that expansion should encompass rural areas as well.

    Pensions/Benefits (Uprating)
    Mr. David Heath: What account is taken of the average level of council tax for the purposes of calculating pensions and benefit uprating. [102957]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The retail prices index, by which most non income-related benefits are uprated, takes account of rises in council tax. Other income-related benefits are uprated by the Rossi index, which

    623
    excludes housing costs and local taxes. That is because those costs are met through separate benefits—for example, housing benefit for rent and council tax benefit.
    Mr. Heath: Is the Minister aware that the average council tax increase for councils of all political persuasions across the country is likely to be about 14 per cent. this year, which is very hard indeed for people living on fixed incomes such as state pensions? The Office for National Statistics announced today that it is changing the basis on which inflation is calculated for pensions purposes—not to give a greater weighting to council tax, but to include takeaway latte coffee, kebabs and hair gel, none of which, I suspect, figure highly in a pensioner's average weekly budget. When will we get a price index that deals with the real expenditure of real pensioners?
    Malcolm Wicks: It is not for my Department but for the ONS to alter or possibly kebab the index according to its own criteria. Council tax is set by individual councils of all political colours, not by central Government. Council funding has gone up by 25 per cent. in real terms in the past six years, whereas in the four years before 1997 it was cut by 7 per cent. Also, as a result of the interaction between pension credit and the applicable amounts for housing benefit and council tax benefit, we estimate that about 700,000 pensioner households who will not get pension credit itself in future will gain from the changes, which is welcome news.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: While I understand the problems that would arise if pensions and benefits had to be adjusted simply on the basis of council tax, does the Minister nevertheless agree that it is unfair to have a national level of pensions and benefits in particularly high-cost areas? London weighting, however ham-fisted it is, is now evident in virtually every job in our capital city, so should not that principle be looked at and perhaps extended to pensions?
    Malcolm Wicks: I do not know whether that is an announcement of a new policy, but the index is not a matter for us. It is based on precedent, and historians in the Opposition will remember Hugh Rossi, the ministerial author of the index. On the point made by the hon. Gentleman, council tax benefit goes to 4.6 million recipients, is worth on average £11 a week, and is a particularly important benefit at this time.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Chris Grayling: What percentage of pensioners are dependent on means-tested support. [102958]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney):About 30 per cent. of pensioner families are in receipt of income-related benefits. Our priority has always been to focus help on those who need it most, which is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee. Almost 2 million people are benefiting from the guarantee, and the take-up campaign has put an extra £20 a week on average in the pockets of 149,000 people who would not
    624
    have received it otherwise. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, around 1,500 people are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. We are now going a step further and introducing pension credit, which will reward—not penalise—saving. As a consequence of that change, the poorest pensioners will receive an average extra income of £400 a year.
    Chris Grayling: Does the Minister not realise the disservice that the Government are doing to pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere? Through their new credits they are creating a complicated mechanism for pensioners to get some money back from the Government, but extra taxation, particularly the council tax, is taking much more out of pensioners' pockets. Will the Government adjust means-tested benefits to make them simpler to access and to make them reflect the huge extra cost of living that pensioners are absorbing this year because of the tax rises?
    Mr. McCartney: The Government have swept away the Tories' means-tested, mean-minded approach to pensioners' income. Consequently, come October this year, a pensioner in the hon. Gentleman's constituency can make one phone call, complete an application with a civil servant trained to act as their advocate, sign a commitment that the information given is correct, and receive pension credit. In addition, we have changed the rules with regard to council tax and housing benefit, so unlike the situation under the Conservatives, who gave benefit with one hand and took it away with the other, pensioners will qualify for housing benefit and council tax benefit as well.
    Mr. George Mudie: Will my right hon. Friend pay no attention to Opposition Members' hypocrisy in respect of targeted benefits? Can he confirm that as a result of the targeted benefits and the minimum income guarantee, the poorest pensioners have received weekly increases of up to £30 a week? Can he also confirm that the poorest pensioners are on average 30 per cent. per year better off?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is correct. Opposition Members, both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, must explain in the next few months why the Conservatives have a secret plan to privatise the basic state pension, and why the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has a Mickey Mouse Budget under which the youngest pensioners, who he says are the poorest, will lose about £30 a week in benefit to pay for his mad-cap idea of simply increasing pensions for people over the age of 75.

    Benefits Sanctions (Antisocial Behaviour)
    Bob Spink: What plans he has to link benefits to the behaviour of recipients. [102960]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The Government have previously recognised the case for a role for housing benefit sanctions in tackling bad neighbour nuisance. Many of us have constituents who have suffered from the so-called neighbour from hell. However, sanctions need to be workable and capable of being applied

    625
    decisively—[Laughter.] Our constituents who suffer from antisocial behaviour do not find it a laughing matter. Sanctions need to be workable and capable of being applied decisively in response to antisocial acts in the local community. They must act as a deterrent, not simply as a punishment after the event, and they must not be so cumbersome to administer that the costs outweigh the benefits. We intend to consult on a proposal to sanction housing benefit. If a workable measure can be developed, we will legislate to implement it.
    Bob Spink: Having accepted in principle the linking of housing benefit to behaviour, why have the Government rejected the Prime Minister's idea of linking child benefit to behaviour? What is wrong with the Prime Minister?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Malcolm Wicks: What is wrong with the Prime Minister? Nothing at all. I should like to be quoted on that. There is a serious issue about the measures we can employ to tackle antisocial behaviour of different kinds. That is the purpose of the recent White Paper and that will be the purpose of legislation. If housing benefit sanctions can be made to be a workable instrument of policy, we will do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has made other proposals to ensure that truancy, which is big problem and a contributory factor in our shopping centres, can be tackled.
    Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the original setting up of the Child Support Agency is a bad precedent for the judicial function being taken over by an administrative body? Does he not worry that decisions about who is telling the truth in behaviour disputes and whether the alleged antisocial behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable are matters not for administrators, but for courts, to decide?
    Malcolm Wicks: The reality is that the Child Support Agency, with the agreement of the whole House, is delivering maintenance more effectively than the old court-based system, which simply did not work. However, I have said that we will take great care to ensure that the Government's concern to tackle antisocial behaviour, which I think is shared on the Conservative Benches but not the Liberal Democrat ones, is workable. That is why we shall consult very carefully to ensure that aspirations to tackle the yob neighbour can be translated into something that is workable, legal and effective.
    Mr. John Berco: The Minister has chosen to interpret the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) in terms of antisocial behaviour as it is conventionally understood. However, can he tell the House in what number or proportion of cases jobseeker's allowance has been withdrawn from those recipients of it who have thrice refused decent job offers?
    Malcolm Wicks: The sanctions regime in Jobcentre Plus and new deals has been very effective. There are different sanctions regimes and I shall send the hon.
    626
    Gentleman the data, but I have met unemployed people who admitted that the sanctions regime made them seek employment. Instead of playing party games on this one, what the British public—not least those living in fear of the yob neighbour—want to know is whether this Parliament can bring forward workable solutions. We are determined to do that, and I think that most of the House is. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would prefer to play the party political game.

    Unemployment (North-West Leicestershire)
    David Taylor: What the change in the level of unemployment in the North-West Leicestershire constituency has been since May 1997. [102962]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Since 1997, in my hon. Friend's constituency, claimant unemployment has been more than halved and long-term unemployment cut by more than 80 per cent. Those figures are clear evidence of the strength of our labour market policies, which have helped to deliver record levels of employment across the country and unemployment at its lowest levels since the 1970s.
    David Taylor: The reductions in unemployment in the former mining constituency of North-West Leicestershire are most welcome, but recent downturns in areas such as textiles, engineering and food manufacturing are a source of concern. Will the Minister receive a delegation including local Members of Parliament and workers at the United Biscuits factory in Ashby, where a planned phased run-down in 2004 could lead to the loss of 900 jobs? Economic success must not be holed below the waterline in that way.
    Mr. Brown: I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says and I congratulate him on getting in twice at Work and Pensions Question Time. I represent a constituency with similar problems to those to which he alludes. I shall receive his delegation, and whatever Jobcentre Plus can do to help in the difficult circumstances that he describes, we will do.

    Carers' Benefits
    Mr. David Cameron: What recent representations he has received on the level of benefits paid to carers; and if he will make a statement. [102963]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): There have been no recent representations from national organisations, but there have been 16 written representations about the level of invalid care allowance, which is to be renamed the carer's allowance in April, from MPs writing on behalf of their constituents in the past six months, although to my knowledge, they do not include the hon. Gentleman. We have already made substantial changes to carers'

    627
    benefit and we are in the final stages of implementing the carer's package, which improves financial support for carers by an estimated £500 million over three years.
    Mr. Cameron: May I thank the Minister for that response? I should also declare an interest£I forgot when I tabled the question that I am a recipient of carers' benefit.
    Does the Minister agree that as important as the level of benefit is the very poor take-up that we still have in this country and the desperate need for respite care? Is she aware that almost all the carers who come to my surgery are investigating or making points about respite care and its availability? Given that the Government are now providing more money to local authorities in terms of carers' grants, which I welcome, is it not now time for some mandatory requirements for respite care for those who are looking after elderly relatives or disabled children?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right that respite care can be an important part of keeping carers going and I shall certainly pass on his remarks and suggestions to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has responsibility for that.
    In respect of numbers, it is estimated that at the outturn of this year some 421,000 people are in receipt of ICA, which is an increase over the past year resulting from our extension of eligibility for ICA to those who are over 65 years old.

    Final Salary Pension Schemes
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on the number of final salary pension schemes that have closed since May 2002. [102964]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Green Paper acknowledges that the trend towards
    628
    defined contribution schemes has accelerated over the past few years, but the trend should not be overstated. One hundred and nineteen defined benefit schemes have reported their closure to new members to the pensions schemes registry since May 2002, which is just over 1 per cent. of the total number of defined benefit schemes where members are still building up pension rights.
    A number of companies—for example, Unilever, Centrica and John Lewis—have recently declared their desire to retain their existing pension arrangements, increasing their own, and in some instances their employees', contributions. That demonstrates partnership in action, an approach that the Government advocate.
    Mr. Leigh: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the fact is that nobody denies that final salary schemes are in crisis. It might have been hoped that many people could find comfort in personal pension schemes, but the collapse in share prices over the past three years means that those are also in crisis. In the light of that difficulty facing pensioners, will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in the Treasury to the effect that it is high time that the changes to advance corporation tax—representing a tax on shares that has cost our pensioners £30 billion, or £5 billion a year—should be suspended so that we can at least for the time being, end this crisis, which is afflicting our pensioners so seriously?
    Mr. McCartney: The crisis of confidence over private pensions started with the last Government and the misselling of £13.5 billion of pensions, and it took this Government to clear up the mess. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, along with his colleagues on the Front Bench, should play a more active and positive role in replying to the response to the challenges put forward in the Green Paper. He might then get somewhere when he talks in such terms about the problems of second tier pensions. This Government are trying to sort out the problems caused by the last Government.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are strong rumours outside the House that after this afternoon's emergency Cabinet meeting the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary will seek to make a statement. Have you received any notice of that? If you do receive such notice, do you intend to interrupt the business or, because it is timetabled business, to take the statement at the end of the business?
Mr. John Burnett rose—
Mr. Speaker: On the same point of order, Mr. Burnett?
Mr. Burnett: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There may well be a statement later today. As to its timing, the first business today is a guillotine motion providing for the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill to be taken through all its stages today. If the House agrees to that motion, I think it would be wrong for me to decide to interrupt the subsequent proceedings on the Bill on my own authority. The effect of that would be to truncate those proceedings still further and to contradict the order that the House had just made. But it is of course possible for the House itself to conclude proceedings on the Bill earlier than the scheduled time of 10 pm if Members decide that that would be desirable.
Mr. Burnett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With his usual courtesy, the Attorney-General has informed me of his written opinion on the legality of the actions that the Government may soon be taking, or authorising, in Iraq. Given the seriousness of the matter, an oral statement followed by questions would have been more appropriate. Will you prevail upon the Solicitor-General to attend any subsequent debate on
630
this matter to ensure that the Government's views on the legality of any action taken in Iraq may be challenged and debated?
Mr. Speaker: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am sure that the Solicitor-General will have noted his comments.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On several occasions, the House has been promised a debate on the war before the shooting starts. Given that it appears as though the Americans are not depending on the element of surprise, the caveat about the safety of the troops does not apply. Given that the Leader of the House may not be in a position to redeem his commitment, is there a role for you in ensuring that the House debates the matter before any action starts?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me; it is for the Leader of the House to make a business statement.
Mr. John Taylor: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), Mr. Speaker. I want to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Solicitor-General, which you hoped that she would hear. It is of the greatest importance that the Law Officers should advise not only the Government but Parliament. Law Officers should be present to state the proper ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that that is the purpose of making the Law Officers' advice available.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the first point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the event of your breaking in on our proceedings, will the time for the statement and for questioning a Minister be added to that which the debate should have had? As you know, it has already been cruelly guillotined.
Mr. Speaker: Let me put the hon. Gentleman's mind at ease. I shall not break into the Northern Ireland business if the House decides to carry the first item of business.

Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.36 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill—
Timetable
1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Ten o'clock.
Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put, and

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
6.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.
7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
8.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
—9.(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
10.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
12. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
14. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
15. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
16.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock, Three o'clock or Four o'clock (as the case may be), but

(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.

(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
17. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
18. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his absence. He will join us as soon as possible.
The Bill is the result of intensive negotiations that culminated at Hillsborough on 3 and 4 March. Our aim during them was to find a way in which to rebuild the confidence and trust necessary to restore stable and inclusive devolved institutions in Northern Ireland.
As will be explained on Second Reading, at the end of the negotiations, our judgment is that a shared understanding has been reached of the way in which the process can move forward. There is a genuine chance that we might shortly be in a position to complete the transition to a peaceful and democratic society in Northern Ireland. All parties now need time to reflect on our discussions on the way forward. The prize is the opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to cast their votes at an Assembly election on the basis of a set of working institutions. Without the Bill, the current Northern Ireland Assembly would be dissolved this Friday, the election campaign would start and there would be no political advance before the Assembly election on 1 May.
The Bill would postpone the dissolution of the current Assembly to 28 April and the date of the election to 29 May, thus allowing for a short delay to give the parties the opportunity to reflect.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I am a little bemused. The Minister refers to the Bill and is describing its substantive purpose, yet we are considering the timetable motion. Will she argue for the timetable motion? In the light of Mr. Speaker's comments, I wonder whether she agrees that it is unnecessary and undesirable to timetable the measure and that it would be much better to let matters take their course. If the Prime Minister had an urgent statement to make this afternoon, Mr. Speaker would be able to then interrupt proceedings to allow that.
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman should have contained himself for a moment longer; I had intended to make a brief statement in moving the timetable motion. As I conclude my remarks that set the scene, he will realise that the motion is straightforward and that I have made the case for it.
As I have said, in postponing the dissolution date of the current Assembly to 28 April and the date of the election to 29 May, the Bill allows for a short delay. I know that the hon. Gentleman has said that that forms part of the substantive debate on the Bill, but, because the current dissolution date for the Assembly is this Friday, the Bill must receive royal assent by Thursday in order for the dissolution of the Assembly to be postponed and the way left open for the restoration of the devolved institutions prior to the Assembly election. I believe that that makes the case for the timetable motion that we are considering today, and that we can
634
deal with all the substantive issues in the Bill in the period laid down in the motion. Regrettable though timetable motions are—I know that the hon. Gentleman's party always argues cogently, and from a very principled point of view, against their use—
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Jane Kennedy: I am just about to bring my remarks to an end, but I will give way one last time.
Mr. Davies: Would the hon. Lady be good enough to respond to my proposition to make the matter a little more explicit? I am perfectly prepared to make a deal with her, under which she would not proceed with her timetable motion, and we would agree to proceed in a timely fashion—knowing that we have to get the Bill on to the statute book by the end of the week, for the reasons that she has mentioned—which would allow the statement to take place at 7 o'clock without the difficulty, which Mr. Speaker has explained, of his interrupting a Bill that is under timetable. I put that proposition to the hon. Lady. If she would like now to withdraw her timetable motion, I am sure that matters could proceed in a way that would meet the interests of the Bill and the wider interests of the House at this moment of international crisis.
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman makes a cogent point. Had I been dealing only with him and his party, it might have been possible for me to agree to his suggestion. Sadly, that is not the case. Given that there is an amendment to the Bill that we might consider at a later stage, and given the imperative upon us, if we are to achieve our objective of giving all the parties more time to consider the issues that arose from the discussions at Hillsborough, I believe that the compressed timetable for the Bill's passage through the House is unavoidable, unpalatable though that is to the hon. Gentleman and his party. I therefore intend to proceed with the timetable motion as it stands.
3.42 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I am very sorry that the hon. Lady did not accept the proposal that I just made to her, particularly because she could have avoided the trap into which she is now falling. You would never say anything that had the slightest shadow of partisanship Mr. Speaker, but earlier, in explaining quite objectively the constraints placed on you once a Bill is subject to a timetable motion, you set out the nature of the trap into which the Government are falling. I gather that they wish to make a statement at 7 o'clock. In normal circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you would want to give the Prime Minister of the day the opportunity to make an urgent statement to the House, which is waiting anxiously to hear it, at the earliest opportunity. The only reason why that cannot take place, why common sense cannot prevail, and why the way in which the House has conducted the business of the nation satisfactorily for generations, if not centuries, cannot proceed, is that the Government have got themselves embroiled in this attachment to the idea of the automatic timetabling of Bills. They are suffering this afternoon because of that attachment. The Prime Minister will be sitting in No. 10, not knowing whether

635
he is supposed to come to the House at 7 o'clock or at some later time because of this system, which the Government have gratuitously, unnecessarily and very regrettably taken it upon themselves to introduce.
We shall oppose this timetable motion; we always oppose them—[Interruption.] Let me say to Labour Members that this is not a perfunctory piece of opposition on our part. It is a deeply felt matter of principle that the legislature should be allowed to take the time that it needs to debate proposals introduced by the Executive in its own way and in its own time. We should not be forced into this Procrustean bed of a timetable motion.
Above all, we in Parliament should not have to endure the humiliation of the Executive branch using their massive majority—there happens to be an enormous and overwhelming Labour majority of 200—to get such timetable motions through the House and to dictate to the legislature, as they have been for these past several years and will continue to do for another couple of years while this Government remain in power, how long it is allowed to debate their proposals. If there was a greater affront to the balance of powers on which any free constitution depends, I cannot think what it might be. This is a monumental scandal, and no Government in the history of this country, whatever their majority, ever dreamt of doing any such thing.
We are about to debate Irish business, and we know that timetable motions were introduced to the House in the 1880s in response to the filibustering of Irish Members, which brought all business to a halt. There was, indeed, a consensus in the House between the Conservative and Liberal parties on introducing the possibility of using timetable motions, but such motions were envisaged as exceptional measures to be introduced only exceptionally and only, in principle, according to a consensus between the majority parties in the House. They were to be justified on each and every occasion.
From the 1880s to the 1990s, that was how timetable motions were used—only exceptionally, only when proceedings on a Bill had begun in the House and only when there was a prima facie case that there was a delay in the transaction of Government business either in the Chamber or in Committee. On each and every occasion, the Government had to come before the House to argue for the necessity of a timetable motion or a guillotine.
This Government came to power in 1997 with a massive majority, feeling that they could do what the hell they liked with the legislature, as with everything else in the country. They pushed through this system and decided that they would then dictate systematically to Parliament, in advance, how long it would be allowed to spend on business and on debating Bills introduced by the Executive branch. That is an affront to every principle on which Parliament—any Parliament by any name—is based.
It is for us to decide how long we wish to take to discuss the Government's proposals. It is for us to decide, if necessary, what questions we wish to ask the Government and what explanations we require before we take decisions on their legislative proposals. I have to say that it must be in the interests of good legislation that that should be the case.
636
What happens now, quite scandalously and quite regularly, as all of us in the House know and as the public are becoming increasingly aware, is that we get bad legislation, rafts of which—tens of clauses, sometimes—have never been subject to debate either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. That is entirely because of the Procrustean and artificial system that the Government have introduced.
We in the House have important matters on our minds, such as the prospect of hostilities in the Gulf and one aspect of the Northern Ireland peace process, which we shall debate later. These are great historical events, and few of us here will be in this place when weightier matters are debated, but there is no doubt that when people have forgotten debates on what accounts for 90 per cent. of the business of the House—even important matters such as tax rates, health, education and welfare, which are temporarily very important indeed—it will be remembered against this Government in decades and generations to come that they, in the whole history of Parliament, were the first and only ones artificially to curtail our opportunity to discuss Government legislation. They are the first and only Government to make such an attack on the liberties of Parliament.
Mr. John Bercow: My only anxiety is that my hon. Friend, in characteristic fashion, if I may say so, is understating his case somewhat. Does he not agree that the Government, in rigidly sticking to their timetable motion, are guilty of not only an intolerance of dissent, but a failure of imagination?
Mr. Davies:I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That failure of imagination clearly extends to a lack of sensitivity—until I intervened to make the point rather cruelly and blatantly—about the embarrassment that would be caused to the Prime Minister himself if the timetable motion were pursued.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and especially reassured to learn that I was understating my case. It is always right to proceed by subtlety, so I am glad that I have that reputation among my colleagues and hope that I shall retain it. Equally, however, I hope that I did not leave the Government in any doubt whatever as to the seriousness of the points that I was trying to make and, indeed, that my language was not so mild as to nourish any illusion on that score.
Once again, important business is subject to a scandalous artificial timetable imposed by the Government. Again, there has been a breach in the equilibrium and balance in the powers of the constitution between the Executive and the legislature, which is the price our country continues to pay for the terrible error of having elected a Labour Government.
Once again, we face the prospect that serious and important legislation will leave this House without having been properly considered, and that we shall not have been able to discharge our responsibility to those who sent us here. Again, that is the result of explicit deliberate decisions taken by the Government, who are so intoxicated by the vast majority that they happen, temporarily, to enjoy that they feel that they can even get away with violating some of the essential principles of our constitution.
To add farce to those serious considerations, the Government are proceeding so blindly on the course that they have adopted, against the background of their

637
massive complacency, that they do not even realise that it is their own Prime Minister whom they will embarrass and inconvenience. Further words of mine about the great mistake—the grievous error—that the Government are making by introducing this motion would be superfluous. I have generously given them every opportunity to withdraw before we have to vote on the motion. They have declined to do so and have obstinately continued on their set course.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I should hate to suggest that further words from the hon. Gentleman would be superfluous, but if his offer was genuine, why has he chosen to spend the past 10 minutes taking up time unnecessarily when he could have tested his proposition by finding out whether other hon. Members would co-operate so that we could move on to the main business, which is what he said he wants to do?
Mr. Davies: The offer was genuinely made and, it seemed to me, equally genuinely rejected. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that when an offer is rejected its benefits have to be forgone by the rejecting party, he does not know the first thing about negotiation. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been living; I thought that our fellow citizens sent men and women of this world to the Chamber to bring experience and wisdom to bear on our proceedings, so I am slightly surprised by his apparent naivety. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's defence would be that he was desperately trying to stem my flow so as to save his Front-Bench colleagues from further embarrassment. The Government Whip grins, so I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) has scored a few brownie points where they count.
We shall oppose the timetable motion, irrespective of our views on the substance of the Bill. Whether this motion is passed or rejected, we shall continue to reject timetable motions on the same firm principles as long as the Government remain in power, which I trust will be for only two more years. Then Parliament will be able to return to conducting its business properly.
3.54 pm
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) may well be right—a Liberal Democrat Government may well be elected in two years—but that is not the issue.
The Conservatives, understandably, seem to get annoyed about everything. What annoys me is the assumption that Conservative Front Benchers have authority to negotiate on behalf of all the Opposition parties. The Liberal Democrats take a different view. I recognise that when I am Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I shall have to decide whether, by not imposing a guillotine, I will bring about a terrible compromise, and Conservative Members will try to generate mischief and delay the proceedings inordinately—as often happens, I might add, in Standing Committees considering related matters.
Perhaps the most serious arrogance is the hon. Gentleman's assumption, in seeking to negotiate for others in the Chamber, that it is acceptable simply to sweep away the Bill—to postpone it from 7 pm, or whatever time a statement is made, until 8 pm, rather
638
than completing an important debate before proceeding to other matters. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a similar case in his point of order. I am pleased with your judgment, Mr. Speaker: we should focus on this issue and resolve it before, if necessary, moving on. It is a shame that the hon: Member for Grantham and Stamford appears to confuse the importance of Northern Ireland business with the importance of other matters.
It seems to me that if there are those who have a right to complain about the guillotine, they are the Unionists sitting behind me and—when they arrive—the SDLP Members sitting opposite. The people whose opinion on the guillotine I really respect are the representatives of Northern Ireland parties. They may not persuade me to oppose the guillotine on this occasion. Given that there is one amendment and there are only two clauses, one of which consists of the name of the Bill, we shall probably have enough time to complete our discussion while allowing reasonable time for Northern Ireland speakers, who are not in the habit of procrastinating or pointlessly stringing out debates and will not, I am sure, be guilty of any such behaviour today.
I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on one thing: enormous majorities to tend to create bad and arrogant Governments. I hope that the current Government will bear that in mind as they look back on the dark days of Thatcherism, when a majority of 144 brought the country to its knees.
3.57 pm
David Burnside: My understanding is that we have three hours in which to debate the guillotine motion before the statement that is expected to be made at 7 pm. If two statements are made, at 7 pm and 8 pm, the substance of the Bill will be squeezed into the time between 9 pm and 10 pm. Let me explain my opposition to the motion, and to the fact that we are even debating it.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I understood you, Mr. Speaker, to say that we should proceed with the debate, that if we finished early there would be an opportunity for a statement, but that we would not interrupt business between the debate on the guillotine and the Second Reading debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. That is exactly my position—we should dispense with this business first. The House may decide in favour of the timetable, in which case we shall dispense with this business and any statements will follow. Nothing will interrupt the business if the House so decides.
David Burnside: I thank Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for his wise words!
I will oppose the timetable motion because we should not even be discussing the subject in the House today. A democratic election was set in legislation for 1 May. May I explain what the Government perhaps do not wish to explain openly and honestly to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland—why we are here today debating Northern Ireland business to postpone the

639
Assembly election from 1 May to 29 May? It sums up the Government's total mismanagement of a political process that they call the peace process.
We are having a one-month delay, and perhaps even more—who knows?—because the Government have accepted a 100 per cent. veto from the representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA on the operation of any form of democratic local government in Northern Ireland. Following the signing of the Belfast agreement, an Assembly was established in 1998. It has come on and off—
Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) in order in discussing what is essentially the substance of the Bill when we are discussing the timetable motion?
Mr. Speaker: Sometimes hon. Members get a little elbow room from the Speaker. The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) should take that point on board. He has made passing reference to the Bill, but it is the timetable motion that we are debating at the moment.
David Burnside: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The timetable motion means that we are limiting the time to discuss why the Government have postponed the Assembly election. I hope that I am within order in trying to outline why that guillotine motion has been put before the House: it is because of the clear mismanagement of the peace process. It is worth while stating why that process has stalled again.
The Minister referred—I assume that she was in order—to the recent discussions at Hillsborough. I assume that she was referring also to the discussions at Weston Park. Those are relevant to the motion, because of the substance of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Irish Republic and four, sometimes five, of the political parties in Northern Ireland, with one or two parties being excluded from that process, especially the Democratic Unionist party. An effort is being made to cobble together an agreement with Sinn Fein-IRA to try to restore the institutions in time for the election.
The House deserves to have considerable time to debate why that has happened. It is not because my party did not adhere to its obligations under the agreement. It is not because the other democratic parties in Northern Ireland did not try to adhere to the institutions as set up and as they operated in the Assembly and the Executive. There is no Executive or operational Assembly in Northern Ireland at the present time because one party, Sinn Fein-IRA, will not adhere to totally democratic methods.
640
Today is St. Patrick's day, when all Irishmen, I hope, can celebrate our patron saint. It is one year ago to this day that Sinn Fein-IRA broke into Castlereagh police station under the authority of Mr. Storey—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He must stick to the timetable motion.
David Burnside: I will conclude.
I have stated my opposition to the timetable motion. I believe that we need more time. I will try, if I can catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to speak in the main debate later in the day. We do not need this legislation. It should not be put before the House. It is another example of mismanagement of the peace process, a political process, by the Government.
4.4 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: We are short of time. Everything we say prolongs the debate and leaves us less time to deal with something that needs to be dealt with and the people of Northern Ireland need to hear about.
The Minister says that the Bill and the need for it comes from what happened at Hillsborough. The majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland were not represented during the final voting at Hillsborough: add them up, and see how many were represented. A large section of the people were cut out—we knew nothing about it—yet the police were able to visit some Unionists to tell us that we were about to be attacked, and that we should be careful because the IRA had information on us as a result of its having broken into Stormont. That organisation—the very organisation accused of doing that—knew what was happening at Hillsborough, but I, a public representative, did not.
So this is all news to us; we do not know what is happening, and no one will tell us. I asked the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to let us see what they were talking about, but they said, "You will not see it; you will not even have a peep at it." I know people—people who are no friends of the well-being of law-abiding citizens—who not only saw it, but who were, for a time, put out of free access here, there and yonder, because of what they knew.
All that I am saying is that we need to get down to discussing the matter at hand, and that we should leave this subject. I do not believe that there should be a timetable, and, as I said in my initial statement, this is an awful guillotine that goes far too far. We should have time, but we will not get it, so what should we do? We should take the time—as you said, Mr. Speaker, which satisfies me—to get into this debate as hard as we can.
If the House divides as a result of a particular Member's speaking for such a long time during this debate, I, of course, will vote against this timetable, because I oppose it. However, I believe that we need to get on with the main subject before the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.7 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As I said during the debate on the timetable motion, the need for this Bill arises from the intensive negotiations on the political future of Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach conducted at Hillsborough a fortnight ago.
  This is a short Bill with a simple purpose. It provides for a 28-day postponement of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections that are currently scheduled for 1 May. Postponing an election is a serious step, and it is certainly not one that we would contemplate lightly. However, I believe that it is very much the right thing to do in the circumstances that now face us, because what emerged from the Hillsborough discussions was a potential basis for political advance in Northern Ireland. Nothing is guaranteed and more work is needed, but we may now have an opportunity to end direct rule, pass powers back to the Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland and implement all the remaining aspects of the Belfast agreement of 1998.
  If that opportunity is taken, the people of Northern Ireland could vote for an Assembly that had already resumed its powers at the time of the election, or that was ready to take them up afterwards. That is clearly a great deal better than an election to an Assembly that is in a state of suspension, without powers, unable to meet, and with no clear route out of that state.
  Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify the precise circumstances in which a suspension could be lifted before the elections on 29 May?
  Jane Kennedy: Suspension of the Assembly would have to be lifted with the agreement of the parties. That is the only basis on which we can move forward, and I will come to that point later in my speech if the hon. Lady will be patient for a moment while I outline some of the big issues that we are discussing today.
  Realistically, we could not hope to tie down the political agreement necessary to move beyond that state if the election date remained 1 May—which, on the present timetable, would mean the dissolution of the Assembly, and the start to all-out campaigning, at the end of this week. If the election date were moved to 29 May, we should have a much better chance of such agreement. That is the reason for the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was obliged to suspend devolved government on 15 October last year, in the aftermath of concern about continuing paramilitary activity. It was clear that there had been a catastrophic breakdown of trust, that the lack of trust existed on both sides of the community, and that that catastrophic breakdown of trust made the effective functioning of devolved government impossible.
  642
  As the Prime Minister made clear in a speech in Belfast on 17 October, Northern Ireland had reached a fork in the road. It was, my right hon. Friend said, time for republicans to complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means—to make it real, total and permanent. Without that, it was clear that the system would no longer work, but if such real change occurred, the way would be open to the implementation of the rest of the agreement in its entirety. What was needed, the Prime Minister made clear, was action sufficient to restore trust on all sides.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Minister talks about trust having broken down on both sides. What did Unionists do to breach trust?
  Jane Kennedy: There was a sense that there was a lack of commitment to power sharing and to working together to make government work. As I have said, there was a catastrophic breakdown of trust in the veracity of those associated with paramilitary organisations. It is that trust that we have sought to restore, through the talks and negotiations that have taken place in recent weeks.
  Since that breakdown of trust and the Prime Minister's speech in Belfast, both the British and Irish Governments have worked in the closest partnership, along with the parties, to promote a fundamental step forward. There has been a series of round tables, convened by the British and Irish Governments and open to all parties in the Assembly. There have been other meetings of the six parties who favour the agreement. There were meetings with the Prime Minister and Taoiseach at Hillsborough in February. Most promisingly, though, there have been intensifying contacts among the parties themselves. Engagement by the parties with the Government, and with the Irish Government, is often important, but engagement between the parties themselves is crucial.
  The Prime Minister and Taoiseach arrived at Hillsborough on the morning of Monday 3 March, intending to leave that evening. In fact, both stayed through the whole of Tuesday, and into the early hours of Wednesday. The House knows the pressures on the Prime Minister's time, especially in the present international situation: his choosing to remain with the parties is eloquent testimony to the fact that the negotiations, though often difficult—as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have reason to know—held out real promise from the start.
  There was a great deal of engagement between the parties, and, although areas of real difficulty remained, there was by the end, as the Prime Minister said, a shared understanding of how the process could now be moved forward to a lasting and durable settlement based on full implementation of the agreement.
  The key issues under discussion—and there are many—are widely known and have been widely commented on. At their core is, on the one hand, an end to paramilitarism, and, on the other, the stability of the institutions. It was the clear judgment of both Governments that a settlement was within reach. Such a settlement would open the way to reviving the full operation of devolved government in Northern Ireland and the important north-south and east-west

  643
  institutions on a foundation of stability and willingness by all parties to operate them wholeheartedly. It would necessarily be founded on an end to paramilitarism, as the Prime Minister made clear. That would include—in the context of the changed environment brought about by the definitive transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and in the context of all parties endorsing the policing arrangements and structures—the coming of security arrangements that would be regarded as normal in other parts of these islands.
  We cannot rush the steps to the conclusion of such a settlement. There is a need on all sides to rebuild the trust and confidence that is necessary to underpin the successful operation of the institutions, which will take time. The Governments cannot dictate the pace of the process. The parties need an opportunity to reflect on the key issues with their colleagues around the country. They also need time to engage with each other further. The Government concluded that we needed to give space for that to happen before the two Governments come back with definitive proposals about the most promising basis on which implementation of the Belfast agreement can be set back on track. We intend to do that in early April. I hope that, by that stage, we will see a response from the paramilitaries that enables us all to go forward.
  I have to emphasise again what the Prime Minister made clear in October, because it is critical: the system will no longer work in the shadow of paramilitarism. We can go forward only on the basis of the agreement. That must include a commitment to exclusively peaceful means on the part of the parties that are involved in government and the organisations that are linked to them. We now need to see acts that are unmistakably acts of completion of the transition to exclusively peaceful means. We also need, of course, to see a renewal of the commitment to operating all the agreement institutions wholeheartedly. On all sides, what is said and done must inspire trust and confidence in all parts of the community.
  By early April, when we will introduce our final proposals, the Assembly would, on the present schedule, have been dissolved for two weeks. If we held elections according to the schedule, therefore, those elections would be to an Assembly in suspension, with no clear way established to its resuming powers again. However, in the light of the discussions at Hillsborough, we now have good grounds to hope that, if we postpone for a few weeks, the elections may be to an Assembly that either has resumed powers or has good prospects of doing so once the votes are counted. That would be a far more satisfactory state of affairs for the vcters, for Northern Ireland and for us all. Hence, we decided, after careful consideration, that a brief postponement of the Assembly elections would be right.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister has outlined two possibilities. In the first, an agreement would be forthcoming before the election. In the second—which she did not quite explain to the House—
  644
  an agreement might be reached after the election. What circumstances suggest to the Minister that, if people had not agreed before the election, they might agree after it?
  Jane Kennedy: As I said, that would have to be in the context of acts of completion. Without those, the idea that we can begin to restore trust is nonsense. The acts of completion underpin all our hopes for the way forward in Northern Ireland.
  Lembit Öpik: In pursuit of the same point, does the Minister accept that what sounds like a strong statement—in this case, acts of completion—can become a flexible statement in the interests of expedience? It is that problem that causes concern and perhaps scepticism in certain groups.
  Jane Kennedy: I do not accept that. I am not aware of specific statements that could be taken as watering down the absolute commitment that the Prime Minister himself spelt out in Belfast in October. The commitment is unequivocal and that remains our position. Without that, we would be unable to restore the trust not so much of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, but of the parties that need to be part of the power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland. That is why the acts of completion are one of the issues that are central to our discussions.
  Short delays to elections are unusual and are undesirable in principle, but they are not unprecedented. The House will recall that although local elections were due on 3 May 2001 in England and Wales and on 16 May in Northern Ireland, they were postponed to 7 June because of concerns about the impact of foot and mouth disease and its accompanying restrictions on the electoral process. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which established devolved government on the basis set out in the agreement, provides for elections to be delayed, or indeed brought forward, by up to two months by order subject to the negative resolution procedure. We decided, however, that it would not be right to use that provision in the circumstances of the postponement that we are considering.
  As I said, any delay to an election is regrettable. We would not propose it if there were any other way to achieve our objective. I hope that the House will agree that the potential prize well merits the postponement in this case because a month could make a very great difference. The Bill postpones the election date by four weeks, or 28 days, to 29 May. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party have tabled an amendment that I regard as a wrecking amendment. I am not sure whether it is a typographical error, but the date in the amendment must be wrong. Surely it should refer to 1998, not 1999.
  Andrew Mackinlay: The amendment is not clear in the documents that I have. Bearing in mind that it is a manuscript amendment, I would be grateful if the Minister could help us by saying what it is about.
  Jane Kennedy: I am not sure that I should discuss the amendment at this stage. I am sure, however, that a copy of it can be made available. Indeed, there is one on the Table.
  Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, M r. Speaker. I do not want to embarrass myself, although that has never stopped me before, but a copy of the amendment is not available outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that copies of the amendment are in the Vote Office, and they may well be available on the Table.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I am very much obliged to you for your help, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Peter Robinson rose—
  Jane Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I move on, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
  Mr. Robinson: Copies of the amendment are available because I picked one up several hours ago from the Vote Office. My copy refers to 1998. I am not sure why there is a date of 1999 in the Minister's copy.
  Jane Kennedy: I have an earlier copy. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the date is correct in the amendment that is now available to the House, although I shall not dwell on it.
  As a consequence of choosing 28 April as the dissolution date, the election timetable is shortened from 25 to 20 days, but that will not affect other key election timetable events, such as deadlines for absent votes. The election will be safeguarded by the most stringent precautions ever taken against electoral fraud.
  The Bill includes technical provisions to take account of the impact on expenditure limits of moving the elections.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister will be well aware that photographs are supposed to be made available so that people can get an identity card to vote. Is she aware that there is a complete jam-up of the works, which means that in some areas people cannot get those photographs or they cannot get an appointment to have photographs taken? The elections will be on us shortly, so will the Minister set her mind to finding out how to keep the process moving?
  Jane Kennedy: I am not aware of the complete jam-up to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I understand that on 14 March the number of applications for electoral identity cards stood at 55,225, and that on 11 March the number of cards issued was 16,935. The processing of applications is well under way. Every elector may now use a range of photographic identification; people are not restricted to using the electoral identity card to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am confident that those who need a card will be able to get one in ample time for the elections.
  We are asking the House today to go the extra mile, as it has done before, to give the agreement a chance to succeed and come to full fruition. We believe that that is a real prospect; otherwise we would not have introduced the Bill. Northern Ireland, and therefore each of us in
  646
  these islands, has come a very long way since the agreement was concluded in 1998. I hope that the House will agree to offer this vital chance of advancing further.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: As it is St. Patrick's day, I start by offering my warm congratulations to all those in the House from Northern Ireland and with Irish connections generally. It occurs to me that we may all like to send our warmest wishes to the men of the Irish Guards and the Royal Irish Regiment, who are currently deployed in the Gulf and for whom this must be an anxious time.
  The Opposition have supported the Northern Ireland peace process and the Belfast agreement from the very first. Indeed, the peace process as we know it began with the ceasefire that followed the historic Downing Street declaration negotiated by the then Conservative Government. It is therefore reluctantly, and with a heavy heart, that over the past 18 months, we have felt the need, in the interests of the peace process and of the people of Northern Ireland, to take issue with the Government on the tactics that they were adopting in the process. In our view, those tactics were imperilling the implementation of the Belfast agreement and the achievement of peace and normalisation in Northern Ireland.
  Those tactics were based on three illusions on the part of the Government, no doubt honestly, if naively, held., but no less potentially damaging and disastrous for that. The first of those was that the issues at stake and the parties involved in the peace process could be dealt with effectively one by one and separately. In other words, the Government, although well meaning, failed to appreciate that everything in Northern Ireland is interlinked. Everything is therefore contingent; side deals will never work; and no party will make a move unless it knows what the others will do in return.
  The second illusion was the belief that terrorists and former terrorists can be appeased, or even disarmed, by unilateral concessions. In other words, the Government appear to fail to appreciate that we are dealing here with hard men, negotiators as tough as they come, who will never give anything for nothing and will take unilateral concessions as a sign of weakness and simply ask for more. In short, there was a failure to recognise that concessions must always be reciprocal and there must always be sanctions for non-performance in any successful peace process or agreement.
  The third illusion was the belief that no damage would be done to Unionist parties or to the SDLP, the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, by endless conciliation and appeasement of republicans; that they could be, to a large degree, taken for granted. That was both unfair and impolitic. It could only lead, as I fear it has, to increasing disillusionment and cynicism about the peace agreement over the past few years in Northern Ireland, and to the hardening of positions in both the Unionist and nationalist camps. So the Government saddled themselves and are responsible for quite a large measure of the difficulty with which they now have to contend.
  The Government's misconceived approach—it was fundamentally misconceived in relation to the three illusions that I have set out—led to their committing,

  647
  and it could only have done so, four cardinal errors. I have described these four errors before as the Government four cardinal errors, and I shall again repeat what they were to remind the House.
  First, there was the colossal error of releasing all the prisoners without any decommissioning taking place, even though the Belfast agreement required both processes to be completed within two years. Secondly, there was the failure to respond at all to successive breaches of the ceasefire and the agreement by Sinn Fein-IRA—Florida, Colombia, Castlereagh and the continuing beatings, shootings and intimidation. As I said at the time, failure to respond to such egregious breaches could only lead to more, and so, sadly, it proved with Stormontgate.
  The third cardinal error was the incredible decision, despite all that, to offer new unilateral concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA that were not required by the agreement. The two worst such examples were the promise at Weston Park of an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists to be delivered by the end of 2001, and the special status for Sinn Fein members in this place.
  The fourth cardinal error was the decision to turn down the offer that I made in the House last July to pass rapid legislation to give the Secretary of State power to suspend from the power-sharing Executive any parties in breach of their obligations or in concert with those in breach of their obligations under the ceasefire or the agreement.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman describe the mechanics of how he felt that such a suspension would have played out in Northern Ireland and why he feels that it would have been effective?
  Mr. Davies: I am not pretending that I predicted Stormontgate. Of course I did not. However, I predicted and said at the time—it is on the record—that if we did not respond to breaches, there would be more. I said during the debate that took place in July that we had better prepare for what the Government do, because the Government, as sure as hell, had better do something next time, otherwise there will be more and more. The Government need to suspend from the power-sharing Executive parties that are in breach of their obligations or in concert with organisations that are so in breach.
  At the time, there were only two possibilities available to the Government, and unfortunately that remained the position. One was to introduce a motion in the Assembly, which under the rules of the Assembly would have had to achieve a majority in both camps, Nationalist and Unionist. In practice, that meant that the entire onus for excluding Sinn Fein would have lain on the SDLP. That would have been a ridiculous situation and an abdication of a fundamental responsibility on behalf of the Government to do something about these breaches.
  The other alternative was to suspend everybody, both innocent and guilty, and to bring down the structure of devolution—the Executive, the Assembly, the whole lot. That is what the Government ended up having to do. That is because they did not accept my proposal, which was to provide in legislation in this place—it could have
  648
  passed through the House quite rapidly—for the Secretary of State to have powers to exclude the particular party which was in breach or in concert with those in breach. That is simple. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not follow the argument at the time. It seems clear in retrospect that we should have done that. Instead, we have brought down the whole structure, and that is precisely why we confront the difficult situation that we do. That is precisely why, in addition, we have had the crisis over the past six months and the issue of how we shall restore the institutions of devolution, which were suspended because, unfortunately, there was no alternative.
  However, let me be fair to the Government. Since the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) took over as Secretary of State, there has been, in all honesty, a striking change in the Government's approach, which is extremely welcome. All the other elements in the equation, such as the issues, the parties, the personalities—in Northern Ireland, the Government of the Irish Republic, and the Government themselves, including the Prime Minister, Mr. Jonathan Powell and everybody else—remain the same and nothing else has changed. The only new element is the arrival of the right hon. Member for Torfaen, so it is fair to give him substantial credit for that change in approach.
  Kevin Brennan: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Davies: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am endeavouring to be fair. Perhaps our own critiques were not without effect. Perhaps even more eloquent is the fact that the predictions that we made on the basis of our analysis proved true all too often and, sadly, what we said would happen came about. However, there was undoubtedly a change of tone. The Prime Minister's speech in October, to which the Minister of State has already referred, was certainly the most realistic and robust that he has made so far in the peace process. At the time, I said that we welcomed the speech but that we would judge the Prime Minister by his deeds, not merely by his words. Importantly, over the past six months, there has been a welcome absence of unilateral concessions by the Government.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's speech, which could be described as slightly understated, but urge him to reflect on the timing of the events that he is narrating to the House. My recollection is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Prime Minister made his speech on 17 October.
  Mr. Davies: The tone of the speech, as I have already said, was welcome. The substance—the negotiations—I shall come on to later; they are a more recent phenomenon, but are also extremely welcome. We keep our eyes and ears open and have noticed that the words and concepts that we have espoused for so long and which the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), used to reject passionately or even to rubbish when I used them over and over again in the past year and a half at the Dispatch Box—words such as linkage, timetable,

  649
  sanctions, multilaterality—are now on the Government's lips, including those of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and the Minister of State, which I welcome.
  Last Wednesday, in Northern Ireland questions, the Secretary of State generously and revealingly agreed with me that it was a thoroughly good thing that we in the Conservative party had successfully resisted the promise of amnesty for on-the-run terrorists at Weston Park. As a result, that important card remains in the Government's hands, and enables us to achieve the judicial treatment of the problem of on-the-run terrorists, which both the Secretary of State and I, both Government and Opposition, agree we should seek. There is therefore a new realism and robustness, and there is a new approach that could be characterised as a multilateral, comprehensive package—exactly what the Opposition have been calling for for the past year and a half, recognising the linkages and insisting on the need for discipline, balance and sanctions on the Government's part. I hope and trust that that will bear fruit—indeed, there is some evidence that it is beginning to do so, as we always expected it would. Has the divergence—the rupture, even—between us over tactics now come to an end? Can we now speak of bipartisanship of approach and tactics as well as objectives? I profoundly hope so—the next few weeks will tell definitively.
  It is clear that the Government's new course has produced a more hopeful situation. I have already had two private and detailed briefings from the Secretary of State about the meetings at Hillsborough and I am grateful for that. I must not betray in my remarks to the House the confidentiality of those briefings, but I can say that the new approach has been based on the principles of multilaterality, comprehensiveness and balance, and I know that the agenda now includes the essential mechanisms of explicit timetables and sanctions for non-performance.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had had two detailed briefings from the Secretary of State on the outcome of the discussions at Hillsborough. Does he agree, therefore, that it is all the more despicable that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, and members of the party that I represent in the House have received no such briefings, consultations or any information whatever from government, officially or otherwise? Is that not a despicable way to treat hon. Members, particularly when they represent a substantial—indeed, a majority—view of Unionism in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Davies: I have the greatest respect for the electoral mandate of any democratic party and I recognise that what the hon. Gentleman says is true—his party represents a large number of people in Northern Ireland. It has chosen, for reasons that we know, not to take part in the Belfast talks or in talks subsequent to the Belfast agreement, but I agree that the party cannot be left out of account. It would be inconsistent with the briefings that I have had if I engaged in publicly second-guessing the Government's tactics at Hillsborough, but I take note of the hon.
  650
  Gentleman's comments, and I hope that the two Ministers on the Front Bench will have done so too. The complaints are not new, but that is no reason for not taking notice of them. I am glad the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to make the point again this afternoon.
  Without breaching the confidentiality of the briefings that I have had, I must tell the House—I have the agreement of the Secretary of State that I should say this—that what he told me about the results of those discussions so far has convinced me that it is right that we should not prevent the process being given a little more time before the Assembly elections. We therefore decided not to oppose the Bill today. I say that we shall not oppose it, rather than that we shall support it. I hope the Government will understand that.
  Although I have had briefings on those meetings, I have not been present at them, so I am not in a position to make a judgment on behalf of the Opposition as to the extent of the progress achieved or the genuineness of that apparent progress. However, I have sufficient confidence in the Secretary of State to believe totally in his sincerity when he says that he believes that the progress is sufficient and sufficiently genuine to warrant a little more time. On that basis we should decide not to stand in the way of a little more time being given.
  I emphasise, and I have emphasised this privately to the Government, that we say that with considerable reluctance and after much thought. One should not put forward proposals to extend deadlines, let alone extend deadlines for democratic elections, unselectively. One should do so only very rarely and specifically, and on the basis of extremely good arguments. There are two big issues that we should not overlook. One is that we are dealing with rules for a constitutional process. Constitutional rules must be taken seriously if they are to be worthy of that term. That is particularly true of the rules of new constitutions, like the constitution for devolved government in Northern Ireland, which are very young and have not yet acquired a substantial legitimacy or credibility of their own.
  Secondly—this is a point of negotiating tactics on which in the past there have been considerable differences between us and the Government—the deferral of any deadline in any negotiation process must always be problematic. Extending one deadline inevitably reduces the credibility of all deadlines in that process. The object of deadlines is to concentrate minds and exclude opportunities for delay. If it is felt that deadlines are flexible in practice, they are worse than useless, as they will not be deadlines at all, but merely instruments enabling one party to make a fool of another. We must look very critically at this matter, and it is only after having considered it very soberly and critically that we have come to the decision that we should not stand in the way of the Bill this afternoon.
  Having said that, I want to make three points as plainly and forcefully as I can. First, we will support no further postponement of the elections. I hope that the Government will make it very clear to all their interlocutors in the peace process that elections in a democracy cannot be postponed beyond the constitutionally prescribed dates except by consensus and that there will certainly be no such consensus for

  651
  any further delays. The evil day cannot be further postponed and minds must be concentrated. We cannot continue as we have for the past five years. This extension of the deadline must really and genuinely be the last.
  David Burnside: The hon. Gentleman has recognised time and again in the House that every deadline in Northern Ireland is not a deadline, but is repeatedly reset. If and when the election takes place on 29 May this year, what sort of deadline would he propose for excluding those who are in breach of the agreement and are still involved in paramilitary terrorist activities? Surely, no deadline for a newly elected Assembly should entail continual uncertainty. Surely, a deadline must be set for going ahead with an all-inclusive Executive or to exclude Sinn Fein from it.
  Mr. Davies: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, given his business background, that one of the rules of negotiation is that one does not declare hypothetical tactics in advance or say what one might or might not do in situations that have not arisen. That would be foolish.
  I was trying to make a strong distinction—perhaps it would help for me to repeat what I was saying—between a constitutional deadline based in constitutional or foundational law and a deadline in negotiation. Deadlines in negotiations must be treated seriously or they will lose all credibility. However, a fortiori, if a deadline is enshrined in constitutional rules, one must be very careful indeed about extending it; otherwise, one will devalue the whole constitution of which that deadline is a part. That is particularly true in respect of deadlines for elections, as democratic elections are, of course, at the very centre of the democratic and constitutional process—or of any process worthy of such a name.
  We are prepared to accept the extension of the deadline, but just this once. I think I have made it unambiguous and clear—I have certainly sought to do so—that this should be the last time. There should be no illusion about that on anybody's part.
  Secondly, we are prepared to accept this procedural step—for that is what it is—in advance of a genuine, comprehensive and definitive settlement on the basis of the Government's assurance that it will help significantly to bring about such a comprehensive settlement in Northern Ireland, but we will not accept any substantive concessions in advance. We will not accept the making of any such concessions except as part and parcel of that comprehensive and definitive settlement. We will not therefore agree, to provide for any such concessions now in primary legislation to irrevocably complete the primary legislative process in advance in respect of any matter that needs to be dealt with because of the Northern Ireland peace process and simply leave it to the Government to decide on implementing the provisions of that change in our law under statutory instruments if and when they feel that they have achieved enough in the process to warrant their doing so. Parliament should not, and in such critical cases—they are critical constitutionally, for judicial propriety and for peace—it absolutely must not,
  652
  sign blank cheques in that fashion. Only when the whole package is available for inspection can Parliament make a judgment on it, and only then can it decide whether a particular measure is still justified in principle or should be modified or amended. Statutory instruments notoriously cannot be amended in this House, and we therefore absolutely reject that method of proceeding. In other words, if the Government wish to legislate as part and parcel of their delivering their side of a bargain in a Northern Ireland settlement, I am afraid that we must wait to see what that bargain consists of, and primary legislation should only be introduced at that stage. I hope that the Government will take account of these observations very seriously when they plan ahead and take decisions—for example, on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which is scheduled to be debated on Report next week.
  Let there be no doubt about what we mean when we say "comprehensive settlement". It must be a settlement in which there are no loose ends— no necessary actions that are left over indefinitely or are to be dependent for their fulfilment on good will in the future—and no side deals or secret agreements. It must be definitive and transparent. It must, of course, include the completion of decommissioning, to a strict timetable, of IRA and loyalist paramilitary weapons to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain and of the public in Northern Ireland. The latter means inevitably that the completion of decommissioning must be undertaken in a much more open fashion than were the two acts of IRA decommissioning that we have already had. A settlement must involve the disbandment of all paramilitary organisations connected to any party that wishes to take part in the political process and does not wish to go down the route of permanent professional criminality. There can be no third choice. Concessions by the British Government must be made pari passu with, or after, the verified completion of those two processes of decommissioning and disbandment. There must be no payment in advance whatsoever.
  Last, but certainly not least, there must be clear and enforceable sanctions for non-performance or for subsequent backsliding at any and every stage. That is our concept of a successful peace process. If it is the Government's agenda, too, as I hope, they will have our full support; if not, I fear that they will not.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has resigned. That is something that we understand and, indeed, that many of us support, but it creates an issue in terms of the flow of information to Members in the House as to what statements are being made, and by whom, and what debates are being held, and when. In particular, will the commitments given last Thursday by the former Leader of the House still stand in relation to the timing of any debate on the international situation? The usual channels are not a matter for you, but the flow of information to Members and the fact that every Member must be of equal standing most certainly is. Can you give some reassurance on that in this highly unusual situation?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I inform the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order for the

  653
  Chair. It is a matter for the Government. My responsibility now is to comply with the allocation of time motion that is before the House.
  4.53 pm
  Jim Knight: At a time when we are all understandably preoccupied with events in Iraq, it is nevertheless appropriate that we should not be so distracted that we fail to continue to seek to get our own house in order in respect of Northern Ireland. I support the Bill as an important measure to allow time for parties to reflect on the recent negotiations and, I hope, to get the Assembly up and running again in time for the elections.
  I make no bones about the fact that I am no expert on this subject. I visited Belfast for the very first time last month with a number of colleagues. We met representatives of all the parties at Stormont, toured the interface areas and met cross-community workers, the Chief Constable, the head of the mediation service and members of the suspended civic forum.
  The visit was truly fascinating. It was clear that Belfast suffers the problems of any major city in this country or in Europe relating to housing, employment, educational standards, drugs, crime—organised and otherwise—and transport. We also saw plenty that was good and positive. The relative peace was clearly welcomed despite understandable nervousness about its fragility. However, as a first-time visitor to Belfast, I was struck by one point above all others: it is a scandal that Northern Ireland is not a bigger issue in the wider, mainstream political debate in our country.
  Andrew Mackinlay: One of the reasons why it does not form part of our mainstream debate is that there is no Labour party in Northern Ireland. Some of us, who are on a three-line Whip, are waiting with bated breath for our political cousins from the Social Democratic and Labour party to turn up. I have been a Member of Parliament for 11 and a half years. I am sick and tired of being brought here by my Whips to support measures—I emphasise that I support the Bill—only to find that there is no Labour voice from Northern Ireland. I hope that Mr. Mark Durkan takes note. At the moment, no representative of our political cousins is present. I—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close.
  Jim Knight: I think I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I broadly support his comments. There is a strong argument for the Labour party's allowing membership for residents of Northern Ireland, but also against its organising there.
  David Winnick: It is a complex issue.
  Jim Knight: My hon. Friend is right.
  It was truly shocking to find that we live in a country where some communities are so divided and informed by violence, and where people have so little hope. I have been brought up with the troubles—they are approximately as old as me—but last month, I saw the reality of the TV pictures with which I grew up. I saw the walls on the peace lines, the abandoned housing, the
  654
  murals of hatred, the marked-out territory, and schools on opposite sides of the road that could be on opposite sides of the world for all the contact that they have with each other. I am sure that that is all too familiar to all hon. Members in the Chamber, and perhaps the normal facts of life for some. However, they were shocking to me, and form part of the reason why I wanted to speak in the debate.
  The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. They deserve peace and security as much as anyone else in the world, yet they have been isolated in a discrete pocket in the mainstream political debate of this country. That has been allowed to happen because the subject is all too depressing and difficult and if we put it to one side, we do not have to worry about it too much. I therefore pay great tribute to the Prime Minister for his work in trying to sustain progress throughout his premiership, even in recent difficult international times.
  What are the substantive issues in the Bill? We are told that the British and Irish Governments have reached agreement on a series of proposals to restore devolved Government on a secure footing that are capable of commanding the support of the pro-agreement parties. We are told that it is possible that we have reached the basis for the final breakthrough, resolving all the outstanding issues and delivering stable and inclusive government in a peaceful society. We are told that we need to give the parties time to reflect on that possible breakthrough so that they can make the necessary decisions to restore the devolved institutions of the Belfast agreement and thereby hold meaningful elections to a live Assembly. I believe that we should trust that information.
  However, postponement should not be undertaken lightly. When we met all the parties at Stormont, we discussed postponement and, although we largely considered indefinite postponement, there was clearly considerable opposition to the idea. Many believed that it was being considered simply because the polls suggested that the result would not be to the Government's liking.
  I also appreciate that the immediate run-up to an election is not the best time to secure the necessary compromises to make progress on the more substantive issues such as achieving a complete cessation of paramilitary activity, agreement on future sanctions, the final acts of completion, full cross-party representation on the Policing Board and so on. The Belfast Telegraph published a contradictory poll that showed both that 64 per cent. of Unionists are against the Belfast agreement and that 60 per cent. of Unionists want it to work. The position is therefore difficult to predict.
  The Bill is the right way forward because the position is so difficult. To make a definite, clear postponement of just four weeks is not to run away from the ballot box. It is a sensible compromise to provide some breathing space. I know that, for some, compromise is an unwelcome "C" word, but I believe that the majority will welcome it if it produces results.
  I would say the same about the publication of the proposals agreed by the British and Irish Governments. I understand the wish of anti-agreement parties to know what is in those proposals, but I also think it right to allow those who are committed to progress to consider them in the round, without having them picked apart in

  655
  public, bit by bit, by their opponents in the run-up to important elections. We need to see the bigger picture. Everyone will find things that they like and things that they do not. Nothing can therefore be viewed in isolation. We can all predict what the main issues will be, and all that is now being proposed is that the key players have the chance to have a good look before they leap forward to what I hope will be a lasting peace.
  Before I sit down to make way for more experienced voices—I said that I was no expert on these matters, and I do not intend to take up very much time, although there are some who might wish that I could—I would like to raise one further issue. I would like to hear further reassurance from the Minister that the election identity card scheme will be fully implemented in time for the elections, and that the Northern Ireland Office will ensure that there are no administrative logjams. It is vital that the electorate should have complete confidence in the outcome of elections, wherever they are held. I speak as one who failed to gain his seat in the 1997 general election by just 77 votes, and I was delighted to double my predecessor's majority to 153 in 2001. I know all about close results and recounts, and I am happy to say that I have every confidence in the validity of those results.
  Lady Hermon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the Government's stated intention to withdraw all non-photographic identification before the Assembly elections, but that there has been insufficient advertising and publicity given to the fact that people must have photographic identification? I hope that he will have a word in the Minister's ear, either later this evening or on some other occasion, about increasing the advertising for these electoral identity cards.
  Jim Knight: I certainly support what the hon. Lady says. That is why I have raised the matter. I want to put on record my concern that the scheme should be implemented properly, because it is an important safeguard given the delicacy of the situation in Northern Ireland. It is particularly important that the electorate should have the same confidence that I had when I lost by 77 votes. It is clear that this has not been the case in Northern Ireland, and I am keen that that certainty should be in place by 29 May.
  In conclusion, I would simply say, "Give peace a chance." That is quite a controversial statement to make in these times, but, in the context of Northern Ireland, it is our only hope. The Bill is a reasonable and measured response, at a delicate time, and it deserves the support of the whole House.
  5.3 pm
  Lembit Öpik: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) on what could be called his maiden speech on Northern Ireland. He was doing very well—bearing in mind the fact that there is a vacancy in the Cabinet—until his potentially ambiguous comment about giving peace a chance.
  The Liberal Democrats are disappointed that it has been necessary to introduce the Bill to postpone the elections, because we are reluctant to see any

  656
  interference with the democratic process. When the Assembly was suspended last October, we stressed that it was really important to convene round-table, all-party talks immediately, so that progress could be made quickly to restore the institutions and proceed with the original election date of 1 May 2003. My colleagues in another place sought and were given reassurances from the Government that, despite the suspension, the elections would indeed take place on that date.
  I understand that circumstances have now changed and, in fairness to the Government, they have been fairly good at consulting and informing the Liberal Democrats on the need for the change to 29 May. But we need to be convinced of the reasons for that change. As the hon. Member for South Dorset pointed out—quite reasonably, I think—the Prime Minister has spent some time in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. Given the international situation, I pay tribute to his personal dedication to the peace process. Although I have taken issue with one or two of his decisions, there is no doubt that he, aided by the powerful presence of former US President Bill Clinton, did a great deal to drive the process on. The Prime Minister can regard that as an achievement of which he should be justly proud.
  The Prime Minister has said that it is necessary to postpone elections to allow time for more talks on restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland. In that context, a series of questions are raised by the decision, which should inform the House on whether the delay is appropriate. First, how often is the Secretary of State meeting the political parties, and will there be any further round table discussions before the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach return to Belfast in April?
  During that time, the political parties in Northern Ireland will no doubt debate the merits of the package put before them by the two Governments, but I understand that, as yet, a final text—a final deal—has not been agreed in every detail, although the parties have seen copies of a document produced by the Governments. On 5 March, BBC News reported
  "A 28-page document … included five annexes dealing with security normalisation, policing and justice, human rights and equality, on-the-run paramilitaries and mechanisms to verify and monitor any deal."
  That is an extensive statement, but if the document has not yet been finalised, how can the parties gather support for it? I have raised separately a concern that it seemed, at least to one party in Northern Ireland, that there was differential access to the materials—in other words, some parties saw more than others of what has been put forward. If the elections are to be postponed to 29 May, it seems not just respectful but vital that all parties are treated equally in terms of access to the proposals.
  One reason for the degree of scepticism is what happened at Weston Park, where many of us felt unilateral agreements were made, regarding on-the-runs, for example. That has caused a scepticism or a concern—a distrust—as to everyone being involved at present because they were not involved in the past. That point was made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), and it is one with which I very much agree. If someone is shown to have behaved not completely openly with all sides, those who feel excluded will be much more difficult to convince in future. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that all

  657
  parties will have equal access to the information and that the scourge of unilateral deals, as correctly highlighted and criticised by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, is not part of the current negotiations.
  Even if the package is 99 per cent. completed and agreed, the final 1 per cent. may contain something that is seen as vital to one party, but completely abhorrent to another. My time with the Northern Ireland portfolio has taught me many things, one of which is that if we are truly to move forward together, it is vital that all those in the process are clear about what is being proposed and that they can support it. Otherwise, we are looking at another short-term fix rather than one that can provide long-term stability.
  That goes to the heart of the problem with which we are dealing in Northern Ireland. There is a lack of trust among the political parties and it cannot be resolved by another quick fix. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to behave in a way that reassures all parties, and indeed the public, that a quick fix is not being sought to bring in one side or another and, potentially, distance a third.
  The discussions at Hillsborough were about the response of the two Governments to actions that have yet to be delivered by paramilitaries—the so-called acts of completion. That is the context in which we must assess the package presented to the parties. For the Liberal Democrats, it is important that the Secretary of State reassure the House today that the Government will take forward the elements of the package only in that context.
  The Minister of State gave the impression in her introductory comments that acts of completion are solid objects and very clearly defined in the sense that there is no flexibility in them. Once again, however, the Government have created a rod for their own back because the definition of "acts of completion" is rather vague. For example, they have already assured us that acts of completion are necessary to ensure the changes to the district policing partnerships, as circulated with the draft of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill; yet an accompanying letter sent on 25 November from Lord Williams of Mostyn to Lord Glentoran, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Shutt stated:
  "We are not yet persuaded that the time is right to introduce changes in these areas. In particular the removal of the disqualification of ex-prisoners could, in our view, happen only in the context of acts of completion, as envisaged by the Prime Minister."
  Does that commitment still stand? If it does not, it is hard to see what will be achieved by delaying the elections. It is obvious to me and to others that various parties representing Northern Ireland in the House would have difficult issues to address with their memberships, let alone with their principles, in accepting something that shifted away from the unequivocal statement in that letter of 25 November.
  That is also the context for any discussion of on-the-runs. When the two Governments announced their package of proposals after the Weston Park talks in the summer of 2001, the Liberal Democrats firmly rejected the notion of a general amnesty for those who are on the run from justice. The early release of paramilitary prisoners was an extremely bitter pill for many people in
  658
  Northern Ireland to swallow, but it was tolerated because it formed part of the Good Friday agreement. That cannot be emphasised too much.
  The Good Friday agreement was negotiated by the political parties and accepted by the people through a referendum. However bitter the pill, the political parties were willing to swallow it because of the transparency of the process that led to the agreement. To propose an amnesty for those who are on the run—in effect, to ignore their offences entirely—is not an extension of the early release scheme and would go well beyond the Good Friday agreement. At the time, the Lib Dems indicated to the Government that if we were to support any legislation on that matter it was essential that those who intended to avail themselves of the measure should face some form of judicial process and that their release should be on licence.
  The judicial commission proposed by the two Governments appears to be addressing our concerns, but will an admission of guilt be needed from a person who appears before the commission before their release on licence?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: During the talks, it was stated that people would not have to attend any courthouse or legal proceedings, and nor would they have to make any statement as to their guilt or otherwise.
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the concern that the process could be carried out in absentia. The issue could be resolved by a casual letter sent to the commission. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to what extent the details of the process will be set out in any measures that would necessarily have to be debated carefully by the House.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I very much agree with the drift of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that the House cannot possibly be asked to take irrevocable legislative decisions so that no further amendment is possible—for example on the changes proposed in the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which are concessions that the Government have agreed to make to republicans as par; of a settlement—when we have no idea about the nature of that judicial, or quasi-judicial, procedure for dealing with on-the-runs and the whole matter has been left vague?
  Lembit Öpik: It is possible to modify any legislation if the Government have the will to do so. However, it is difficult to consider each part of what is being agreed when we cannot see the big picture. It is much more difficult for politicians on the ground in Northern Ireland to sell a package when some of it has to be taken on trust. Again, I point out that the issue has been entirely created by the Government because of occasions in the past when one side or the other felt betrayed by unilateral agreements. That was bound to come home to roost. Had the Government shown more of a spirit of bilateralism in their negotiations in the past, perhaps politicians in the Chamber now would find it easier to sell packages on the basis of trust. Because the Government seem to have played fast and loose, particularly at Weston Park, Ministers must now be much more explicit about the details. It would not be reasonable for them to expect those details to be taken on trust again.

  659
  As for on-the-runs, it is vital for justice to be seen to be done and for victims' concerns to be properly addressed. I think of those victims in particular when I consider what legislation we should have. But the issue of on-the-runs cannot be dealt with in isolation; we must also bear in mind those who have been exiled from their homes in Northern Ireland by paramilitaries—quite probably by paramilitaries who, despite the prospect of an amnesty, perhaps through licence, have nevertheless excluded people from their home state.
  It would be highly distasteful for those suspected of crimes by the proper authorities to be allowed to return home when those exiled by paramilitaries are not afforded the same right. The paramilitaries must lift their threats from those who have been exiled, and allow them to return. My fourth question to the Minister is this: what plans are there to address explicitly the question of exiles? It is hard to imagine, certainly in the context of on-the-runs, how the Government could do other than ensure that it is handled transparently and equitably.
  The issue of sanctions seemed to cause the most difficulties during the recent talks. Under the Good Friday agreement, the only sanction to be imposed on individuals or parties not upholding their responsibilities is removal of their membership of the Executive by cross-community vote. Paragraph 25 of the agreement states
  "Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office under these provisions."
  Since the signing of the agreement and the election of the Assembly, it has not always seemed to be the case that all involved in the peace process are truly and exclusively committed to peaceful means. The number of so-called punishment beatings and attacks in Northern Ireland over the past five years is unacceptable, and testimony to the ongoing underlying problem.
  I wholeheartedly agree with the two Governments that there must be a strong procedure to ensure that parties comply with the necessary democratic standards. The establishment of a commission to examine paramilitary activity was mooted by the Government last July. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) said in a statement to the House that he could see a case to
  "shine a light on the levels of paramilitary violence in the community, both loyalist and republican".—[Official Report, 24 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 984.]
  That brings me to my fifth question. In the absence of any action that is clear, emphatic and proactive, other than words of concern in the Chamber, what can we expect from the discussions that will come to light between now and 29 May to assure us that real pressure is being put on the paramilitaries to turn off the tap of beatings which, as they have shown in the past, they can administer and desist from as political expedience requires?
  One of the four cardinal sins of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford was to criticise the Government for not introducing a power to suspend individuals rather than the Assembly as a whole. I take
  660
  a different view. According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, in what he calls Stormontgate it would not have been feasible to suspend individuals there and then without violating the principle of their being innocent until proved guilty—suspending people who were still awaiting trial by law on the assumption that they would indeed be found guilty. I do not think that a change in the law would necessarily have helped to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wanted.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I see the hon. Gentleman's argument but I do not think he has quite understood the point. As far as I know, there was never a suggestion of indicting members of the Executive in connection with Stormontgate. Equally, one does not need to have a conviction of individuals to know that an offence has been committed. The fact that an offence had been committed was clear and on that basis the party that was the beneficiary of the intelligence ring could legitimately have been suspended without any prejudice to the trial of individuals who may have been subsequently indicted.
  Lembit Öpik: The difficulty is that that leads to quite a big divergence from how we would handle things, for example, in the House. If one were trying to normalise things, that would be counter-productive. To take the hon. Gentleman's example, if wrong-doing were committed in the House by, let us say, a member of the hon. Gentleman's party but it was not clear who it was, one would have to find some way of creating a sanction that punished a wider group. I seek the Minister's perspective, if he wants to give it, but I am highlighting that these rather blunt instruments of law are not as effective as handling the issues on a case-by-case basis. As the record shows, I felt that the only option that the Government had at the time was to suspend the Assembly as a whole.
  I ask the Secretary of State to give the House some indication of how he proposes to deal with the question of community relations. In the run-up to the election on 29 May, there is every danger that the Northern Ireland community will feel more split than it has for some time. One of my ongoing criticisms is the assumption, often in the very words we hear from Ministers, that there are two communities in Northern Ireland. That is unhelpful because it sectarianises the debate. I have said many times that 14 per cent. of people regard themselves as unaligned with Protestant or Catholic groupings. Sometimes, I feel that Ministers still slip into the assumption that legislation can validly be framed in a way that looks at those two main blocs rather than perhaps giving more weight to those people who do not regard themselves as traditionally Unionist or nationalist.
  My final question is—
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, which is reflected in his sister party in Northern Ireland's approach. It is a regular interlocutor of mine on these issues. I would not wish him to leave the impression in the House that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are careless with their vocabulary in relation to the community of Northern Ireland and the

  661
  failure to recognise its diversity. It is at the heart of our policy that we recognise that Northern Ireland is a diverse society. That has to include those people who do not see themselves as being in one or other of the two traditional camps. If the hon. Gentleman carefully examines the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my fellow Ministers, he will see that we are very careful not to do the very thing of which he accuses us.
  Lembit Öpik: I am pleased that the Minister intervened. Rather than raking over examples from the past—I can think of a few from recent Standing Committees on statutory instruments, where I raised that point—let us accept that all of us now recognise the importance of acknowledging those who do not traditionally align themselves with, if you like, the two larger community groups, which often are seen to dominate, certainly in the media.
  I am grateful that the Minister has given that assurance. I was not suggesting that Ministers were being cavalier in their language but the hon. Gentleman would expect me to make that point, not least on behalf of the Alliance party in Northern Ireland.
  Let me conclude by—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the attentive support of Labour Members. I hope that this one final assurance can be given by the Minister. The Liberal Democrats are inclined to support the Bill but only on this condition, and it is my final question. [Interruption.]Okay, I will make it my final statement, and silence will indicate assent, in order to be philosophically consistent with what I said before. The statement is: there is absolutely no prospect of a further delay. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said that and I echo his sentiment. It is reasonable to expect the Minister to give the explicit commitment that 29 May is now the given date. Although we are not pleased about the change, we understand it, but if that date were to change after such an assurance were given, Ministers and the Government would begin to lose the confidence of the Liberal Democrats, and perhaps of the House in general. I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to give that assurance.
  5.25 pm
  Kevin Brennan: I am tempted to begin by saying that this is my final question, but I shall resist that temptation. May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House a very happy St. David's day? It is good to hear—[Interruption.] I apologise, I meant St. Patrick's day. That has rather spoilt my point, which is that it is nice to know that all hon. Members can be so happy on the feast day of St. Patrick, that famous Catholic Welshman who went to the emerald isle to do his bit.
  This is the third time that I have attempted to speak in a Northern Ireland debate, but the first time that I have been successful in catching the eye of the Chair. I am sure that my success has nothing to do with the fact that you, too, Madam Deputy Speaker, were born in Wales, but, for that reason, you will know the saying, "Three tries for a Welshman—Tri chynnig i Gymro."
  662
  My comment is no reflection on next Saturday's match between Wales and Ireland, although I am tempted, as someone who is half-Irish—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted into saying anything more to do with Wales or rugby.
  Kevin Brennan: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to say that—despite the fact that I am a Welshman—I wish the all-Ireland team well for next Saturday, given that they are on their way to their first grand slam since 1948.
  In supporting the Government today, I follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) in paying tribute to the work of the Prime Minister. I also pay tribute to the work of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I was pleased to hear Opposition Front Benchers do likewise. The Prime Minister's personal commitment, and his great experience, wisdom and diplomacy, along with that of the Secretary of State, have been very important.
  No one ever said that delivering peace in Northern Ireland was going to be easy. It is perhaps easy to forget how long the process of building a lasting peace has been going on. It is worth reminding the House that 15 December will be the 10th anniversary of the historic Downing street declaration, which was brokered by the former Prime Minister, John Major, and the former Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds. There have been 10 long and arduous years of dogged negotiation and effort, followed by hope, then setback, then breakthrough, then disappointment. However, we are all still here today, discussing peace and trying to find a way through the current difficulties, and that is what we must focus on in this debate.
  There is an old Welsh saying that the difference between devolution and evolution is that devolution takes longer. In the context of Northern Ireland, the peace process perhaps takes longer than evolution. Despite the recent difficulties, the parties and both Governments remain focused not just on delivering peace, but on securing workable and successful institutions through the Bill. That is testament to how far we have come, but we must not lose sight of one very important fact. Who would have thought that we could have gotten this far at the beginning of this process, 10 years ago, under John Major's Government? It is right to pay tribute to the efforts made by the previous Conservative Government, as well as to the progress made under the current Government and Prime Minister.
  It is also easy to forget the distance that everyone has had to travel along this route. I pay tribute to the distance travelled by the parties in Northern Ireland—nationalists, republicans, Unionists and loyalists— towards compromise and peace, but also to the political parties in Britain in coming to terms with the peace process. When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) famously described the Good Friday agreement as "Sunningdale for slow learners", he put into context the time that it takes to secure a lasting peace.
  That also puts into the correct historical context the monumental progress that has been achieved in recent years. From a British perspective, progress has been

  663
  made since the Prime Minister took hold of the process and drove it forward with his characteristic determination and vision. That has been the hallmark of his approach, and that of the Government, to British-Irish affairs since coming to office in 1997.
  While we will listen to any concerns that people in Northern Ireland have about the Government's decision to delay the elections, it is worth thinking about the delay in the context of the Good Friday agreement itself, to see what the Bill actually proposes. As the House knows, the Northern Ireland Assembly was set up under strand 1 of the agreement, which related to democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. Under paragraph 36 of the agreement, it was envisaged that after a period there would be
  "a review of these arrangements … including the details of electoral arrangements and of the Assembly's procedures, with a view to agreeing any adjustments necessary in the interests of efficiency and fairness."
  That makes the Government duty bound to review the electoral arrangements for the Assembly, and gives them the power and moral authority to make any adjustments necessary. I am pleased that the Government have chosen to introduce legislation on the issue.
  Paragraph 5, entitled "Review procedures following implementation", puts a further onus on the two Governments to put the wheels back on the wagon, if they should fall off along the way. It states:
  "If difficulties arise which require remedial action across the range of institutions, or otherwise require amendment of the British-Irish Agreement or relevant legislation, the process of review will fall to the two Governments in consultation with the parties in the Assembly. Each Government will be responsible for action in its own jurisdiction."
  The Government are acting responsibly and within their jurisdiction in introducing the Bill.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman quoted that section of the agreement, because it does not limit the consultation to the parties in the Assembly who are in the Executive, but to the parties in the Assembly. That should include all the parties in the Assembly, whether they support the agreement or not.
  Kevin Brennan: I know that the hon. Gentleman's party has been consulted on many occasions, but has made it clear that it does not support the agreement. Therefore, in a sense, that is a moot point if the Government are trying to pursue progress on the agreement. I understand that if the hon. Gentleman's were the largest party after the election, it would drop the agreement, so I am not sure in what sense it could be party to any progress on the agreement.
  If the process fails, the shape of any settlement that could be achieved in Northern Ireland will be no different in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. We had Sunningdale in 1974 and we now have the Good Friday agreement, but no one has made a convincing case that any settlement achieved in future would be substantially different. Clearly, the danger is that a return to violence could happen. I was with my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset, for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and the
  664
  hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), on a trip to Belfast, and only a week later a dissident republican bomb was left close to some of the places that we visited. We are all aware of the danger of a return to violence, but that does not mean that we should not pursue peace.
  We saw efforts at reconciliation being made by communities in Belfast. It was remarkable to meet some people who were active participants in the conflict but who have since made genuine efforts to build peace. There have been many genuine and sincere acts of contrition. We need now to continue the process and to have acts of completion, which will give a sense of certainty that the war is over.
  I am sure that some Northern Ireland Members sometimes feel that those of us from the mainland who take an interest are naive and have facile ideas. It can be easy to make false comparisons, but if one comes from Cardiff, as I do, one cannot help being struck by the similarities between Cardiff and Belfast. They are Victorian cities with similar types of housing. In many ways, they have similar histories. There is only one jarring difference—the sectarian conflict that has held Belfast back from achieving the renaissance that it could achieve. Cardiff has been able to achieve such a renaissance in recent years.
  Lady Hermon: I do not represent a Belfast constituency, although North Down is fairly close so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to clarify one point. The Bill before us this evening seeks simply to change the date of the election—a date that was set by section 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Bill is not part of a formal review as set out in the agreement. I would not wish hon. Members to be misled into thinking that it was.
  Kevin Brennan: I accept that, although I felt that, on Second Reading, there was leeway to range widely around a topic. I have waited many hours on two previous occasions, so I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for having ranged widely. I will conclude shortly.
  I represent a city in mainland Britain of similar size to Belfast. In Belfast and Cardiff, the similarities of the problems, which we discussed with people living on estates, are striking, leaving aside the conflict. I am sure that, in years to come, Belfast will be shortlisted for European capital of culture, as Cardiff has been, and as Belfast tried to be on this occasion. People will benefit if we can sustain the peace. If the time that is granted by the passage of this Bill helps in that, it will have been worth while. There have been 30 years of strife and we do not want another 30 before returning to square one. I hope that we are giving time for peace to develop, at least in Northern Ireland.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I had to pinch myself during the early part of this debate as I watched the Minister, in almost angelic fashion, presenting the Bill as if it had some moral authority. In reality, it is probably one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation that the House will see. It will not simply put off an election for four weeks, because it is now four years since that election should have taken place. I will go into that in a moment.

  665
  There is an imperative on the Government to obey the law and respect the rights of people to democratic expression through the ballot box. Those are two principles that any Government should guard. However, on every occasion that this agreement faltered, the Government were prepared to change and abuse the law, and avoid giving the electorate any say. The law has been redesigned on a number of occasions and democracy has been consistently manipulated. The process has been a farce and the Government's sole objective has been to cobble it together and evade the will of the Northern Ireland electorate.
  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 set out several different ways through which elections could take place. Section 31 makes provision for an ordinary general election, and section 32 details two processes that could bring about an extraordinary election. The Minister was wrong to tell the House that the Government could have relied on the provisions in section 31 that allow flexibility of up to two months. They could not have done that because after we took legal action against the Government, the Secretary of State was forced by the Court of Appeal to introduce an order in the House that would allow an extraordinary election, which he determined should be on 1 May 2003. Therefore, section 31 had already been superseded and could not be applied because the Secretary of State had called on section 32 to get out of the dilemma that he faced because of the ruling. Section 32 provides for an extraordinary election when a stalemate has occurred in the Assembly. That can arise for several reasons, including if the six-week requirement has not been met for the election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
  The Government have exerted themselves improperly to bypass section 32 on many occasions. The first such occasion was when the then Deputy First Minister, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), resigned following a disagreement with the then First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that he could not work with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and believed that he had gone back on agreements. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made a personal statement to the Assembly in which he announced his resignation. As a result, he was put out of his ministerial office, his ministerial car was taken off him, his ministerial staff were removed, his ministerial salary was taken away, his fax machine was pulled out of his home and his little mobile was taken off him. All the emoluments of office were removed from him.
  The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, came to the Dispatch Box and, with tears flowing down her cheeks, announced the resignation of the Deputy First Minister and said what a great contribution he had made. The whole world believed that the Deputy First Minister had resigned until everyone realised that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were joint offices that were tied together. There could not be one without the other, and neither could be elected without a majority of the votes of both sections of the community as represented in the Assembly. The issue of designation became central, and because the majority of Unionists in the Assembly were opposed to the process, the Government knew that the Deputy First Minister who had resigned would not be
  666
  re-elected. They also knew that the First Minister had consequently fallen and that he would not be elected either.
  What were the Government to do? The law made it clear that the stalemate could be resolved by applying provisions in section 32 of the 1998 Act that allowed for an extraordinary election that would let the people decide. However, the Government's problem was that they knew that the people would support those in the Unionist community who opposed the agreement, so they could not allow the people to have their say. The end result was that the cheating began. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland produced a new Standing Order for the Assembly that said that no resignation would be effective unless it had been accepted by a vote in the Assembly, and so the resignation became a non-resignation.
  Mr. John Taylor: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he is certainly giving a vivid account of events at which he was present and I was not. Does he agree that a resignation is a perfect act of itself and does not require another half, acceptance, to make it complete? What does he say to that?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we are not going to stray too far into resignations. We are talking about the postponement of elections.
  Mr. Robinson: The issue of resignation is central to the Bill, which is based on the principle of when an election can be called and the circumstances in which it can be delayed. The Leader of the House has shown us today that a resignation issued by the individual is effective, whether or not it is accepted by anybody else. That is what the world believes, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland changed the rules to ensure that a resignation that everyone knew had taken place would not be counted, so the person concerned could get back to the business of the Executive.
  That was only the first problem. The second occurred when we were approaching the 2001 elections to this House. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party knew that he would have problems with the electorate and thought that he had to toughen his act, so he made a statement indicating that unless Sinn Fein-IRA jumped through certain hoops, he would resign with effect from 1 July. That was a post-dated resignation. Of course, the IRA did not jump through the hoops that he had set for it, and the statement did not have the impact that the Ulster Unionist leader expected. That can be seen from the number of my colleagues on these Benches; the Ulster Unionist leader had predicted that he would get 10 members of his party returned, but that was not to be. The end result was that after the election, on 1 July, he had to resign.
  The Ulster Unionist leader wanted to get back into office, but he could not because the law requires that a majority of Unionists support the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That conundrum is similar to the one that faced the Government when the Deputy First Minister resigned, but this time things had changed. The Secretary of State no longer had the power to introduce Standing Orders in the Assembly, and devolution had occurred, so the Northern Ireland Act was in force.

  667
  How did the Government solve that conundrum? Not by using the processes in the Act, section 32 of which would have allowed an extraordinary election. Instead, we had the farce of the Alliance party, sister party to the Liberal Democrats, and half of the Women's Coalition redesignating themselves as Unionists. As the House will know, when Members take their seats in the Assembly they have to designate themselves Unionist, nationalist or other. For the purposes of that particular vote, the Alliance party and half of the Women's coalition redesignated themselves as Unionists just for the day, throwing out of the window the purpose of the Act, which was to ensure that any major decisions would be taken with the consent of both sections of the Northern Ireland community. Once again, cheating got the Government through the problem that they faced.
  We then had the introduction of the Northern Ireland Act 2000, which allowed for the suspension of the Assembly. That measure had the same purpose. If a First Minister and Deputy First Minister could not be elected within a given period—six weeks—the suspension process would begin, so for the third time, this House made laws to circumvent the legal requirement for an extraordinary election that would have allowed the people to give their verdict.
  Now, we have this Bill before the House. It comes about as a result of the Government attempting for political purposes to avoid an election on 1 May. The Government have no choice in the matter; the order made it clear that the election was to be on that date. That decision was taken by this House on the Government's advice. The Secretary of State chose that day because it was the last possible day on which an election could be held. That resulted from the case that ultimately went to the House of Lords and deeply divided the Law Lords, as it had the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. The reality is that the Secretary of State chose what he recognised to be the last possible date on which an election could be held.
  I question the authority and ability of the Government to revoke the Northern Ireland (Date of Next Assembly Poll) Order 2001. The order was a legal requirement that was placed upon the Government at the time—they could not have done without the order— but now they are attempting to remove that legal requirement simply by changing the rules once more.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman's recollection of the history of these developments is similar to mine. He omits from his analysis, however, the fact that at each turn when he was able to do so he challenged the steps that were taken and claimed that they were illegal, but on each occasion he was proved not to be right. He knows that the Bill cannot become law unless the House passes it, and he, of all Members, would protect the sovereignty of Parliament.
  Mr. Robinson: The Minister is wrong on two counts. First, he is wrong in saying that at each stage we issued a legal challenge. We took a legal challenge on only one occasion, on one specific issue. We did not mount a legal challenge on redesignation or on the Mallon
  668
  resignation. Similarly, we did not mount any challenge on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
  The House is sovereign in changing legislation for events to come, but it cannot change events that have already taken place. Historically, those events have already happened. How can the House change a decision—[Interruption.] I will give way if the Minister has the point.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right, I have the point. Perhaps I was not sufficiently precise in my language. As he and his party showed, there was an opportunity to mount a challenge if they believed that we were acting illegally, but they decided not to do so. The Government's position was upheld in the one case they challenged.
  We can enter more carefully into the detail at another stage, but the order that set the date of 1 May set a prospective date.
  Mr. Robinson: Only one case was taken to the House of Lords, and that related to the decision of the Secretary of State to permit the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to remain in office after the six-week period had passed. I have already said that that issue resulted in the closest division of the Law Lords and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
  Interestingly, the Minister refers to whether the Government were acting legally. I have not thus far claimed that the Government were acting illegally. My first reference was to the morality of the Government having set down in legislation a specific course that has to be taken in certain circumstances, but, when those circumstances arise, deciding to change the law rather than to abide by the law that they had written. That is the reality.
  Why is there delay? We have delay because the Government managed—at Hillsborough, according to them—to reach some level of agreement among the parties. We were not there and we were not invited to be there. I do not think that the shadow Secretary of State quite picked up the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). It was not simply a case of the Democratic Unionist party not having been consulted and having stayed away from the talks—it was the DUP not having been invited to the talks. When it made contact, asking to see the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister, it was refused the right to do so. We were deliberately refused access to any of the information contained in the documentation. Still, to this day, the Government have not let us have sight of that documentation, yet little parties that collectively do not have the same representation as my party and receive a lower percentage of the vote—the Progressive Unionist party, the Women's Coalition and the Alliance party—have had the right of access to the documentation.
  The DUP enjoys greater electoral support than the SDLP and Sinn Fein, but we are not allowed to see the documentation about which the Minister spoke so glowingly at the beginning of the debate. It is not good enough to say, "You were against the agreement." Does

  669
  being against Government policy mean that we cannot be consulted about new Government policy? That is an absurd position for the Government to adopt.
  Lembit Öpik: Is my perception correct that the absence of perceived consultation makes it much more difficult for members of the hon. Gentleman's party sometimes to be sympathetic to ideas to which otherwise they would be more amenable?
  Mr. Robinson: It has that effect, but it has another effect. It becomes clear that the Government are attempting to cobble something together behind the viewpoint of the majority of the Unionist community. The viewpoint that we express is the viewpoint of the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland. They may not all be members of my party, but they hold the same views as members of my party on these important issues.
  Apparently there is supposed to be a collective understanding about the way forward. I watched with interest the press conference that took place immediately after the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic came out of the talks. One person after another took a different position, indicating that they did not have a common understanding of the way forward. The Government seem to have seen a common understanding, but the participants seem not to have done so. However, it appears that at least there is a document setting out a number of concessions to the IRA, to buy it off in the hope that it might make a gesture and make a statement to the effect that its war is over.
  No doubt we shall know precisely the words of that statement when the and fheis meets at the end of this month. I understand that the Government expect that the IRA will then make a statement, closely followed by some act of completion. I think that the Government want the act of completion to be as public as possible. However, I can say with certainty that it will not be an act of completion. There will still be further acts required. The IRA will not hand in all its weapons, nor has it any intention of doing so. Indeed, it is bringing more guns and weaponry into the country, rather than decommissioning.
  An essential part of the deal is what has been described as the sanctions. In both the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act there is a sanction, but it is totally ineffective. It required nationalists and republicans to throw out Sinn Fein. We knew that that would never happen. We told the parties that supported the agreement that it would not happen, and it has not happened. Every attempt has been made in the Assembly to hold a vote on the issue, but the SDLP and Sinn Fein have always vetoed it.
  A more effective sanction was required, and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party has described it as a deal breaker. I assume that we must judge from that that all the other concessions were not deal breakers for the right hon. Gentleman. He was quite prepared to support them or to acquiesce in them, including on-the-run terrorists. However, the one deal breaker for him, and according to him, was the issue of sanctions.
  I have to go by what the newspapers say because the Minister has not taken us into his confidence and has not told us what the proposals are. According to the
  670
  Belfast Telegraph, a four-man panel will be set up, which will have a representative from the United States, from Her Majesty's Government, from the Dublin Government and a person from Northern Ireland. Those four wise men must reach some kind of consensus to determine whether there has been a breach of the ceasefire. The Belfast Telegraph did not tell the world, nor has the Secretary of State or any of his Ministers, whether that consensus has to be unanimous or whether one person can veto it. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will tell us his winding-up speech. However, the four-man or four-person panel will make a decision about whether there has been a breach of the ceasefire. If they deem that there has, they will inform the two Governments and an implementation body, which is a pro-agreement group in the Assembly. They will consider the matter, and if they deem that there has been a breach of the IRA ceasefire, they can require Sinn Fein to give its views, excuses or indeed a report.
  David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman interpret or define the way in which he sees—and I saw no more of it—the four-man international committee institutionalising the sanction procedure, with the United Kingdom Government and Parliament giving up their sovereign power? It would be dangerous to go down that international route, with a veto for appointees from the British Government, the Irish Government and the American Administration. We should be very wary of participating in such an internationalisation of the sanctions procedure rather than leaving it as the responsibility of the Government.
  Mr. Robinson: I agreed entirely with the hon. Gentleman until his last few words, with which I have some difficulty, as. I would not leave it with the Government of the United Kingdom. No Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will throw Sinn Fein out. People have had opportunities over the past five years to table a motion in the Assembly to have Sinn Fein excluded, but have failed to do so, in spite of Florida, in spite of Colombia, in spite of the killings, in spite of the shootings, in spite of the paramilitary beatings, in spite of Castlereagh, even in spite of Stormontgate and the spy ring. Never on any of those occasions did they table a motion in the Assembly, so I do not rely on the Secretary of State or Her Majesty's Government to impose any sanctions on Sinn Fein
  The hon. Gentleman's first two points, however, are sound. First, there has been a further internationalising of the situation. A great mistake was made by the previous Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who advocated the internationalising of the decommissioning issue, as a result of which people from outside the United Kingdom became involved in a number of different ways. The second and, in my view, more important, issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is the fact that we will end up having an internal Government matter within Northern Ireland vetoed by people who do not live in Northern Ireland and should have no jurisdiction there. Throughout the whole period of previous talks, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) resolutely opposed the Dublin Government having any say in internal Northern Ireland matters. On the four-man panel, a

  671
  representative of the Dublin Government will have a direct say in the sanctions issue and a direct ability to veto any sanction.
  However, those are only the first two stages of the process. In the next stage, if Sinn Fein makes its apologia and it is not accepted by the implementation body, the matter will proceed to the two Governments, who have to agree on the appropriate measures to be taken. Again, a veto will be given to Dublin in the process, after which the Secretary of State will make his decision. That is a recipe for disaster, procrastination and delay, and is a certain way of ensuring that no decisions will be made to impose sanctions on Sinn Fein. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party may consider that worthy in ensuring that a deal will not be broken, but I have a different view of its value.
  Mr. Dodds: In light of the process that my hon. Friend rightly described, which is the subject of speculation and leaks and has not been denied by the Government at all, is it not all the more incredible that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party should describe that process as a deal breaker, rather than things such as on-the-run terrorists, destruction of security along the border and elsewhere for innocent citizens, and other similar matters?
  Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend's point stands without me having to make any further comment. If that was the only deal breaker, the prospect now lacing everybody in Northern Ireland in the devolution of policing and justice powers fills Unionists with dread. On the back page of the UUP manifesto was a picture of a clock, showing what the leader of the UUP considered to be the progress made under the Belfast agreement and what the next steps would be. One of those steps was the devolution of policing powers. Again, that is one of the proposals to be introduced under the Hillsborough deal—perhaps not immediately, but no doubt after the election, powers over policing and justice matters will be devolved to Northern Ireland, but only in certain circumstances. My understanding of the 28-page document that I have got from parties that were there—not Sinn Fein, I must immediately tell the House—is that that will happen in only one set of circumstances, where there is a division of those responsibilities between Unionists and nationalists. Whether Unionists get the policing portfolio and nationalists the justice portfolio, or whether they hold them jointly, those proposals have been considered, and are included in the document that the Secretary of State will not let the world see.
  The bottom line is that if the Sinn Fein organisation becomes the largest nationalist party, not only will one of its members become Deputy First Minister if the UUP leader can command a majority in the Assembly, but the policing and justice post will be held jointly by a Sinn Fein representative. The obvious person to get it is Sinn Fein's policing and justice spokesman, Gerry Kelly who, of course, has a wide knowledge of justice and policing matters. He has a wide knowledge of justice matters because he was found guilty of being responsible for blowing up the Old Bailey, when 200 people were injured. His wide knowledge of policing issues comes
  672
  from the fact that he attempted to blow up Scotland Yard. This is the man who is being canvassed as the Minister with responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. When he was caught and put in prison, he escaped. A prison warder was killed when a screwdriver was gouged into his head during the escape bid by the Sinn Fein representative who will become the Minister with responsibility for policing and justice under the proposals being acquiesced in, if not agreed, by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. People in Northern Ireland are rightly not pleased about that prospect. However, it is part of the deal that was cobbled together.
  At Hillsborough, only one party canvassed for a delay in the elections, and did so publicly for a long time. An article headed, "Postpone Assembly poll urges Trimble advisor" says:
  "A Queen's University political lecturer who acts as a senior advisor to Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble has suggested a year's postponement of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections to avoid the collapse of the Executive and other institutions of the Belfast Agreement."
  The UUP leader refined his argument as he spoke to people from London and Dublin, suggesting that extra time was needed because time had been lost over the Assembly's life as a result of postponements and suspensions. The fact is, that was built into the legislation—the Assembly's first term was for five years, not four years, as every other term should be under the legislation. The UUP advanced the argument that there should be a delay in the poll, and that there should be a one-year postponement of the election. The morning of the first day, the UUP leader went in and argued for a one-year postponement of the elections. By the end of the day, he was falling back on an argument to put them off until October—he would have been satisfied with a delay over the summer. By the time that the meeting finished, and he left early, he was satisfied with a delay of four weeks. Some people say that if had stayed any longer we would be out campaigning now.
  The right hon. Gentleman was the one demanding the delay in the elections, and his was the only party demanding such a delay. All the other parties had openly said that they opposed a delay. On leaving the United Kingdom on his way to the United States, the right hon. Gentleman had the audacity to make a statement—again, the subject of a headline in the Belfast Telegraph—on Tuesday 11 March: "Trimble warns: don't postpone poll again". The man who had begged and pleaded, who had worn the knees out of his trousers pleading with the Secretary of State to postpone the elections, ends up warning the Secretary of State not to do so again—the very person who had been responsible for the delay.
  There is nothing unusual about the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to wash his hands of the decision that had been taken. I remember the occasion in the House when he stood up to berate the then Secretary of State about allowing facilities in the House to be made available to Sinn Fein-IRA. The Secretary of State put his hand into his inside pocket and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he wanted to reconsider what he was saying. Eventually the Secretary of State pulled out a piece of paper that turned out to be a letter from the leader of the Ulster Unionist party advocating that facilities in the House should be given to Sinn Fein-IRA

  673
  in circumstances that then pertained. He was changing his position to one that was more attractive to the electorate. The delay comes as a direct result of an on-the-run politician, afraid to face the electorate, attempting to avoid the decision of the electorate at the ballot box.
  It would appear from the debate that there was only one element to the Bill. There has been no discussion about its other element. Even the explanatory notes do not give away what the other element is. Leaving aside the issue of the postponement and delay of the election, there is a key provision in the Bill that allows the Government to delay the return of an Assembly after an election. As a consequence of delaying the first occasion when the Assembly meets, clause 1(2)(c) states:
  "in subsection (5), at the end there is added as shall any day on which section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 is in force'."
  The effect of that subsection is to ensure that the requirements laid down in section 16(1) of the 1998 Act, whereby a First Minister must be elected within a six-week period, will no longer apply. The six weeks will drift with the suspension. If the first meeting of the Assembly is not held within eight days, the six-week period is not triggered.
  In case the Minister tenses himself at this stage, I should tell him that I support the provision. It is a sensible provision. The Government will not admit it, but the reason for it is that they recognise that things will change after the election. Negotiations will be required after the election. This is the negotiations clause in the Bill. It is, perhaps, the real purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Browne rose—
  Mr. Robinson: Yes, confession is coming.
  Mr. Browne: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman for some considerable time and found something on which we agree, I hate to spoil it. The provision is a restatement of the state of the law as a consequence of section 1 of the 2000 Act. It is in the Bill only for the avoidance of doubt. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would have any doubt, as I know how carefully he studies such matters, but it is there in case anyone else had any doubt. It is not a new provision at all.
  Mr. Robinson: The House might be prepared to swallow that one, were it not for the fact that this is the second time that the Minister has indicated that there was no requirement for a provision in the Bill. On the first occasion, we were told that the revocation of the 2001 order was not required. Now we are told that the provision in clause 1(2)(c) is not required. If that is the case, we do not need the Bill at all.
  There is no requirement for a Bill because, if we simply revoke the 2001 order, we fall back on the provisions of section 31 of the 1998 Act. That allows the Government to have the flexibility provided by section 31, which gives them two months before or two months after for the calling of an election.
  Mr. Browne: I fear the hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The provision relates to section 1 of the 2000 Act, not any subsequent order. The point that I
  674
  was making about the previous order was that the Bill effectively repealed that order. That is why it is necessary to restate it.
  Mr. Robinson: The Minister confirms that in his view the Bill is unnecessary legislation. Both subsection (2)(c) and the one to which he previously referred are a belt-and-braces operation, restating what has already been stated elsewhere. However, no parliamentary draftsman would put into a Bill a provision that was already the law. The purpose of a Bill is to change the law, not to confirm the law as it stands. The Government are clearly making a provision. There is a legal requirement in the 1998 Act that is not interfered with by the 2000 Act—the suspension Act. The 2000 legislation deals with circumstances of an existing Assembly. It has no provision for the first day of a new Assembly. That is why the Bill was considered by the parliamentary draftsmen to be necessary.
  It is clear that the Government had the alternative simply to revoke the 2001 order, which would have removed the section 32 provisions, and the Secretary of State could have fallen back on the section 31 provisions. The only change is the new suggestion that the Government can stay the hand of the new Assembly for a period beyond the eight days, thereby obviating the requirement for the section 16(1) provision to come into play.
  Again, the Government are attempting to manipulate the democratic process for their own political benefit. The electorate were entitled to have their say on these matters. That was required four years ago, and the Government avoided it. It was required when redesignation took place, and again the Government avoided that consequence. They have avoided it several times with the suspension legislation. On this occasion, there should have been an election on 1 May. Once again, the Government put it off because it is not politically timely.
  There is no reason why the election could not proceed and agreements be reached with people who will have a mandate after an election. What is the purpose of delaying the election for a further four weeks in order to reach agreement with people who do not have a mandate and who, after an election, will be seen not to be representative? It is clearly an attempt once again by the Government to present new circumstances that might give a leg up to one particular political party.
  Several hon. Members have raised the issue of voter identification. I have serious concerns that hundreds of thousands of people will lose their vote as a result of voter identification. In a letter to me the Minister stated that 243,000 people had ticked the requisite box on the registration form to indicate that they required voter photo ID. He told me in a letter that only 45,000 people had returned such applications. Today he updated the figure to bring it up to 55,000. That still means that there are 200,000 people who stated that they required the ID and have not got it. Can anyone imagine what will happen at the polling stations if 200,000 people come along to vote and are told that they cannot do so because they do not have the requisite photo identification? There will be riots in the street. In one of the most middle-class areas of Northern Ireland, where legislation previously passed by the House meant that there were queues and people felt they would not be able

  675
  to vote, the police had to be brought in and there were all sorts of problems. That happened in one small area and involved a few dozen people. What will happen when the Minister's legislation is introduced and 100,000 or 200,000 people end up unable to vote? It is not good enough for him to say that people will realise after the event that they had other photo identification. The form that they ticked indicated very clearly that they did not have alternative photo identification and those people will lose their vote.
  I hope that I may have the Minister's attention for one final moment. Several references have been made to the question whether the Government will attempt once more to postpone the date of the election. Personally, I do not see how they could do so under the Bill—the Secretary of State has waived any ability to change the date—but what they can do is scrub elections all together. They could determine that they will not proceed because they do not like the potential outcome of the election. Will the Minister assure us from the Dispatch Box that he has set the course for an election come what may and whether or not parties act and perform as he expects as a result of Hillsborough? Can we have the undertaking that there will be an election on 29 May whatever the fallout from the Hillsborough discussions might be?
  6.21 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not speak for as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—I am sure that some will be happy about that—but I would like to mention the matter of people getting their identity cards. I understand that the Minister received a letter from my office that I had not signed. I would like to see that letter, because I understand that there were was no signature, but merely a "pp" against my name. Usually, when a letter goes out from the office, there will be a signature on it as well.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not want to make it a feature of every Northern Ireland debate in the House that a Minister produces a letter from his pocket. Nevertheless, I have a letter that states:
  "Please reply to 256 Ravenhill Road Belfast BT6 8GJ",
  which I assume is the address of the hon. Gentleman's office. The letter is on House of Commons notepaper, addressed to me and signed "I. Paisley". Although the letters "pp" appear underneath the signature next to "Ian Paisley MP MEP MLA", it is signed "I. Paisley". I do not know who has access to the hon. Gentleman's notepaper or who he authorises to use it, but I naively assumed that that letter came from him or was at least dictated on his behalf. I am sure that he accepts that.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like the Minister to give me a copy of that letter. I shall be very happy to look into the matter.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: At any rate, the letter would have been sent before anyone in the office was aware of the statistics provided by the Minister, which indicated that 200,000 people had not replied to the applications that were sent out.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: All I can say about that is something very simple: this House has given an opportunity to the people of Northern Ireland to vote using a certain route. They should be encouraged to take that route and there should be no hold-up. I have constituents who have been told that so many people want their photographs to be taken that they have to wait in a long queue. Asking people to wait in a queue to get an identity card so that they can vote will cause great difficulties. That is what I am worried about and I do not feel that we will deal with all the people who say that they need the identity card. I cannot see us catching up on that. As my hon. Friend said, there will be trouble at the polling station.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State has just entered the Chamber and I am sure that he will take note of what I say. I am not saying that the Government do not want these people to vote; I am saying that they have specified the way in which they must vote and we must see that that route is kept open and made available. That is the point that I wish to make at this time.
  On 27 November, I asked the Prime Minister the following question in the House:
  "The Prime Minister is aware that in the past two days my party has met the Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We put one question to both: what is an act of completion? Does it consist of IRA-Sinn Fein repudiating and ceasing violence and being disbanded, or does it simply mean that they make a statement that they will give up violence? Can the Prime Minister tell us what he believes it means?"
  This was the Prime Minister's reply:
  "I can. It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
  I can say a hearty amen to that, if we are to get what the Prime Minister described. I read after the meetings in Hillsborough comments saying that a statement would first be made and accepted in good faith, but no statement measures up to what the Prime Minister said in this House. I say to this House that the Prime Minister has to deliver on that statement, and that if he does not do so, he will have fallen down on his own definition. He came to Belfast and no politician was invited to the meeting. He made a statement and would not allow the press to question him. He returned to the House, I questioned him and that was his answer. I hold the Government and the Prime Minister to that statement.
  We want to see the disbanding of IRA-Sinn Fein and all terrorist organisations, whether they are Protestant, Roman Catholic or whatever they want to call themselves. I have suffered from them all. I have had bullets put through my bedroom window by those who call themselves loyalists. I have had a church bombed by those who would say that they are republican. I have suffered from both, and when I read what they say about me, I see that they think that I am Mr. Baddie No. 1. I congratulate myself, as that is what I want to be in the eyes of such people, for they are the scum of the earth, no matter what they profess to be. Deliverance is needed. I would like to hear the Minister stand up and say "Yes, we dot every t and stroke every t of the Prime Minister's statement and there will be no going back—

  677
  there must be a complete cessation of violence, the abandonment of paramilitarism and a goodbye to the gun in politics." Let us hear that.
  When there were acts of decommissioning, there was rollicking laughter on the Labour Benches when I said in the House that I did not accept the reality of what had taken place. I spoke to General de Chastelain, who was supposed to be in charge, and asked "Could you tell me, general, where this happened?" He said, "No, I couldn't tell you." I asked "Do you think it happened in Ireland?" He said "I don't know." I said "Who were these men?" He replied that the men who had met him were all disguised. He said, "They told me that they were the IRA and that they were going to deal with the weapons." I said, "How did they deal with the weapons?" He said, "I cannot tell you." I asked, "How many weapons did they deal with?" He answered, "I cannot tell you." I said, "Were you out in a boat?" He said, "We may have had a boat journey."
  Mr. Tom Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has been a great deal of speculation in the media this evening about a possible change to business in the House tomorrow, and I wonder whether you can confirm that. In doing so, can you let the House know if and when the text of any Government motion for debate tomorrow might be available to all hon. Members from the Vote Office?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I can say to the hon. Gentleman that his words will have been heard across the House. If a change in business for tomorrow is to be made, no doubt the Minister will inform the House as soon as it is practicable and Members will have a chance to ask questions at that time. I cannot add to that statement at the moment. have had no notice of the details, but the hon. Gentleman and the House as a whole can expect that events are marching upon us.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The general was unable to give any information. I notice that people who laughed at those of us who did not believe that it was proper decommissioning are now saying that previous acts of decommissioning were not really decommissioning. They are coming over to our point of view after laughing at us and mocking us. The bombings, the killings and the beatings went on, and now on-the-run terrorists—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has very strong and deep-rooted views on these matters, but he is straying wide of the Second Reading debate on a Bill that, whatever he may see as its implications, is quite narrow in its terms.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but other hon. Members dealt with matters relating to why we are here tonight. Why are we here? What is the House meeting for? What are we discussing? We are discussing the date of an election. Why has that election been called? Because the Assembly has had to be suspended. Why was it suspended? Because those who were in government were found to be guilty of a whole series of acts that could not suggest that they were concerned only with peace and stability in Northern Ireland. The root cause of the matter before us is that IRA-Sinn Fein
  678
  refused to accept what it told us it had accepted. I, for one, cannot believe a word of what any IRA man says, and neither do the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Certain aspects of the Bill alarm me. Will the Government honour the result of the election? That is a question that has to be put. We must remember that this House governs the election. It will not be organised by the Assembly, by any Minister of the Assembly or by any elected Member from Northern Ireland. The Government here are responsible for everything that happens in managing the election—for getting the bolts into the boxes and getting them cut. It is a free country. We do not like the views of many of the people standing for election—we wish that they were not there, but they are. We are democrats, so if the democratic vote goes the way in which I personally believe it will—I have talked to many Government officials, and to people even closer than Government officials, and they agree—there will then have to come an honouring of democracy. It is all right to say that you are a democrat when things are going your way, but I have been in politics for a long time, and I have sat in this House for a long time, and I have seen the swings that take place—some days you are up, some days you are down and some days you do not know if you are up or down.
  The day has come when the people of Northern Ireland are no longer going to be fooled by Government promises or allow Adams and his colleagues to deceive them. The day of the election is coming, and I am glad of that. I trust that the Government will make it clear that they will honour that election and that those who are elected will be consulted. The majority of Unionists have a right to be consulted, irrespective of whether the Government like their views, and I trust that that is what will happen. Then, perhaps, democracy will be seen to work as everybody puts their case.
  Matters in Northern Ireland are very serious, and tonight matters in this old world of ours are very serious. It is interesting that we meet on St. Patrick's night. Someone said that St. Patrick was a Catholic. Of course, I am a Catholic, too. I am not a Roman Catholic, as everybody knows—I do not need to tell the Secretary of State that. There is unity in the message that Patrick brought to Ireland. I could say amen to every one of the doctrines that he taught, one of which was that no Christian man should take the life of another. He was harder on the terrorists of his day than any other preacher ever was We need to return to that basic teaching of Patrick and to see that a man's life is a very important thing and that no one has the right to put out his hand to take that life, except under the constitution of the state where power is given to the magistrate to use the sword as an ordinance of God. It is important that we remember that tonight.
  My deputy has given a fair history of the saga of this agreement. Hon. Members should realise that the time has come for the election, but that the time has also come when the Government must honour what the Prime Minister said to us in this House and accept the verdict of the people. The sooner we are around the table, when every man will have the opportunity to put his case, the sooner we will get this settled. I will not sit

  679
  for my party at any table where there are gunmen and terrorists who continue to hold to that and to do their misdeeds. Those are not the people with whom I, as a democrat, have anything to do, but I will sit with those who are constitutionalists and believe that the way out is through the ballot box and democracy. I hope that at long last the Government will come out strongly on the side of democracy, and I look forward to that day.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, it may be helpful if I say, further to the point of order that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) raised, that I can tell the House that a motion has been tabled that affects tomorrow's business. A copy may be obtained from the Table Office. As hon. Members may have noticed from the Annunciator screens, statements are to be made at the conclusion of our business tonight.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the business continue till 10 o'clock or will statements be made before that point?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are operating under an allocation of time order and the business cannot therefore be interrupted. We must wait until the proceedings are completed before Ministers can make statements in the House.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The business relates to the date of the elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I share the view that there should be no need for the Bill. The elections should not be delayed; they should proceed on 1 May. I shall explain the reasons for that.
  The republican movement—the IRA—has been given a veto over holding the elections on 1 May. It is the greatest determinant of the election date. The Assembly is in suspension because of the IRA's actions. The Government have been clear that if the suspension is to be lifted, we need, as the Prime Minister said, acts of completion from the IRA. We were told that elections had to be delayed because the parties needed to consider Government proposals.
  I listened to the statements that were made after the Hillsborough talks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) clearly said that the elections would be delayed because the IRA had failed to come up to the mark. In other words, elections will not be held on 1 May because of the IRA's failure, just as we do not have a Government—neither Assembly nor Executive—in Northern Ireland because of the IRA's failure. The Government are giving the IRA a veto. In a democratic society, we should challenge that.
  It is worth revisiting the reasons, which some hon. Members have mentioned, for the current political vacuum. Hon. Members have already touched on that. A couple of weeks ago, the police commander in my constituency visited me. He delivered a document
  680
  entitled, "Police Message", which stated that the IRA had information about me personally that they had collected in recent months. Underneath the information, the police issued a warning:
  "This information is believed to have been gathered and held by the Provisional Irish Republican Army, which is currently on cease-fire. You are however advised to seek advice on and take steps to protect your personal security."
  Other hon. Members have been given similar police messages and warnings about the IRA's activities in collecting information about their personal details and political viewpoint.
  At the beginning of the debate, the Minister talked about a break-down of trust. I hope that she understands why hon. Members who receive such messages from the police do not trust the IRA and the republican movement. We do not trust a party that was in government when such activities were taking place; the information was collected about me when Sinn Fein was in government. While it was in government, its friends in the IRA were collecting information about Unionist politicians. It is difficult for those of us who are from the Unionist community and represent it to trust such an organisation.
  Trust has broken down and confidence is breaking down. An article by Mr. Alex Kane, a pro-agreement Unionist, on the Hillsborough process appeared in Saturday's Belfast News Letter. He prefaced his remarks by outlining events at Hillsborough. He wrote:
  "And that is why the Ulster Unionist Party should not have participated in last week's republican-promoting circus at Hillsborough."
  Those words are strong indeed from a pro-agreement Unionist. He continued:
  "It should not be part of a negotiation process if all it is doing is bargaining for, and making new concessions for, promises which it bargained for and made concessions for in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002 and again, last week."
  Lady Hermon: I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that Alex Kane writes in a personal capacity. He is not an elected member of the Ulster Unionist party and his views are therefore personal. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend said that.
  Mr. Donaldson: I simply described Mr. Kane as a pro-agreement Unionist. I did not even ascribe a party political affiliation to him. His views reflect a growing lack of confidence in the process, even among those who support the agreement. Of course, it is clear that his views are personal.
  Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Mr. Alex Kane works as a member of staff for a pro-agreement Ulster Unionist Member of the Legislative Assembly?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting further away from the terms of the Bill that we are meant to be discussing. As I said to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), although we are conducting a Second Reading debate, the terms of the Bill are narrow. I appeal to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) to tailor his remarks accordingly.
  Mr. Donaldson: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the decision to postpone the election gave rise to the Bill. I am referring to events at Hillsborough that resulted in the decision. It is important for hon. Members to understand the reasons for our debate. However, I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply confirm what the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said. Mr. Kane is also a paid-up member of the Ulster Unionist party. I believe that he is a member in the Malone branch in Belfast, South.
  A deal was discussed during the Hillsborough talks. Like other hon. Members who spoke earlier, I do not know its terms. The Irish Times mentioned sections of a document that was discussed at Hillsborough. It dealt with a wide range of issues, including so-called normalisation. I understand that that will involve significant troop withdrawals—perhaps between 5,000 and 7,000 troops over a period of time—the demolition of the Army watchtowers along the border in south Armagh; remaining troops being confined to barracks and becoming "invisible". That is proposed at a time when so-called dissident republican terrorists promise a bomb a week. One of those bombs was delivered to the High Court in Belfast last week.
  David Burnside: My hon. Friend should not confine his remarks to dissident republicans. Only last week in south Armagh, an illegal IRA gun was used to shoot a member of the IRA. The former chief of staff, Brian Keenan, gave the oration. Is that an organisation that is on ceasefire?
  Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Let me quote some of Mr. Brian Keenan's comments during the oration. I understand that he is the deputy chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. The Secretary of State should note the comments because they come close to, if they do not constitute, incitement to hatred under current Northern Ireland legislation. He said:
  "There is no place in this community, or any republican community for degenerates who abuse and contaminate the struggle young Keith died on behalf of."
  He refers to Keith Rodgers, the IRA volunteer who died last week. He continued:
  "It is not the time now for any thoughts of revenge, the republican movement will no doubt make their position very clear."
  Those comments are being interpreted by many people in Northern Ireland as a clear threat from Mr. Keenan that the IRA will take revenge. All this sets the political context in which we are considering the Bill tonight, in which the Government took the decision to postpone the date of the election, which has given rise to this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) is right: it is not only the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA but the Provisional IRA that have been involved in acts of terrorism, as we saw last week at Cullaville in south Armagh. It matters not that the objects of that violence were republicans, or that it was some kind of internal feud or dispute. It still constitutes terrorism and the use of violence to further a political agenda.
  I am disappointed that no SDLP Members are here for this debate. On a previous occasion, and with a fanfare of trumpets, the leader of the SDLP launched a
  682
  direct rule watch, in which the party would take the lead in monitoring direct rule. Where are its members today, when this matter is being considered in the House? It has three hon. Members who are entitled to take their seats here, yet none of them is here to scrutinise this important piece of legislation, which is being introduced under direct rule. The direct rule watch seems to have gone to sleep so far as the SDLP is concerned. The party was very active in putting forward demands under the Hillsborough process on issues such as criminal justice, yet it is not here to make a contribution tonight.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to the new international body that is to be created to oversee the implementation of the agreement and, specifically, to deal with the issue of sanctions. This is important because we are told that power will not be restored to the Assembly until there is some kind of political deal. Part of that deal supposedly involves the establishment of this international body. There was an interesting article in The Irish Times on Saturday 15 March, written by the former Irish Prime Minister, Garrett Fitzgerald, who said of this proposal:
  "And as Sinn Fein also seeks the abolition of the British government's unilateral power to suspend the Assembly, its abolition—and the substitution of an alternative method of guaranteeing the integrity of the process that would involve representatives of the Irish and US Governments—may have positive elements from their point of view.
  For Sinn Féin, the de facto transfer to an international body of British sovereignty over the working of the system of government of Northern Ireland must surely have some attractions."
  Well, it has no attraction for any Unionist who values the Union. I cannot believe that we would want to support a proposal that would see the transfer of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to some kind of international body on an issue as important as the exclusion from office of a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  In terms of the legislation before us, I believe that the Government are wrong to change the date of the election, but they have clearly made up their mind to do so. I would echo the remarks that have been made by others, however. There should be no further postponement of the date of the election: 29 May is now proposed as the day on which the people of Northern Ireland should go to the polls, and that date should be adhered to. No one should be afraid of the democratic process. If we believe in and cherish democracy, elections should be at the heart of that process, and it is time for people to give their verdict on that process.
  The way things are going—and if the Government cobble together this deal and manage to get enough people to sign up to it—I cannot believe that a majority of Unionists will accept the kind of deal that is on offer at present, in which policing and justice powers would be transferred and then exercised under some kind of joint arrangement. In the present circumstances, in which the IRA is continuing to engage in violence and has failed to decommission its illegal weapons, I do not believe that anyone would support someone from Sinn Fein-IRA becoming a Minister with responsibility for justice or policing. These are important issues. If the deal that has been outlined in some of the media is introduced, it wall be rejected by the Unionist community.
  Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and colleague for giving way again. I want to make two points. First, it was grossly unfair to criticise the absence of the SDLP Members here this evening. I am sure that he knows that they have domestic reasons that sometimes make it difficult for them to attend.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Apologist.
  Lady Hermon: I am so glad that hon. Members have all been blessed with St. Patrick's generosity of spirit in the Chamber this evening. The second point that I would like my hon. colleague to remember is that there is still a substantial number of pro-agreement Unionists in Northern Ireland, and I would not wish him to pre-empt their judgment or their decision on 29 May.
  Mr. Donaldson: I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend has made, but I do not agree with her on the SDLP. Wallace high school in my constituency is playing in the schools rugby cup final today. My daughter attends that school, and I had wished to be there today to see that cup final. I deemed it more important, however, to deal with the business that I was elected to deal with here, which is legislation from the British House of Commons. No one should apologise for the absence of a political party that ought to be here—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have heard quite enough on that subject. We should be dealing with the business before the House.
  Mr. Donaldson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I do not believe that a majority of Unionists would support the kind of deal that has been outlined. I concede to the hon. Lady that there could well be a minority of Unionists who might sign up to and support the deal, and the election will provide the verdict on that, when it comes.
  In conclusion, there has to be a bottom line here. This process has lurched from one crisis to another, and every time we reach a crisis, the Government reach into the goody bag to find more concessions to make to the republican movement. Instead of punishing those who have been responsible for the crisis, they reward them. That is precisely what is happening here, in terms of on-the-run terrorists, for example. Some kind of deal is also to be conceded to the IRA in reward for its targeting Unionist politicians, prison officers and police officers.
  The Prime Minister talked about acts of completion, and we need such acts. We need complete disarmament and complete disbandment. That has to be the bottom line. I urge the Secretary of State to stick to that instead of holding out carrots by offering concessions to the republican movement, which, of course, it will pocket while offering the minimum in return.
  Mr. John Taylor: How confident is the hon. Gentleman of the thorough degree of the acts of completion that he seeks, and over what timetable does he think that they are achievable?
  Mr. Donaldson: The agreement stated that they ought to have been achieved after two years, but that was in
  684
  2000. The acts of completion need to be achieved very quickly indeed. The article by Mr. Alex Kane to which I referred earlier suggested that there should be a six-month period in which the IRA would follow through on the commitments made, but that its political representatives should not be allowed back into government in Northern Ireland until such completion had occurred. That is the principle here, and it has consistently been my view that, because of the IRA's failure to commit to the requirements of the agreement for complete disarmament, its political representatives should be excluded from office until such completion has taken place.
  If the Assembly cannot be put back together and have power devolved back to it before the elections, may I make a suggestion to the Secretary of State? After the elections, he should reconvene the Assembly, put back in government those parties that are committed to exclusively peaceful means and exclude from office those parties that have failed to make that commitment. They should not be permitted to re-enter government until they have completely disarmed and completely disbanded. In my opinion, that is clear.
  While expressing grave concerns about the purpose of the legislation, I reiterate what other Members have said today: we look to the Secretary of State, in this debate, to make it absolutely clear that this is the final time that the election will be delayed and that it will happen on 29 May.
  7 pm
  David Burnside: It is terribly important that we look forward positively to the election. There should not have been a postponement until 29 May, but the election will now take place and I hope that the Government commit themselves to that date, supported by the Opposition and all the minority parties whose Members have spoken here tonight. However, it is no good looking forward unrealistically. The Assembly and the Executive have not worked. Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and there are inherent flaws in the institutions set up by the Belfast agreement, which a new Assembly will try to put together again.
  It was an admirable aim to have an all-inclusive Executive, but that meant no collective Cabinet responsibility and no departmental Committee structure that could hold Ministers to account. It meant, in reality, that there was no Opposition for the Northern Ireland Administration. All of us who are standing in the Assembly election look forward to campaigning for something that works and is right at Stormont, but the Secretary of State will have to be flexible in reaccommodating and regaining the consent of the pro-Union people in Northern Ireland.
  I voted for the Belfast agreement. I was one of the 55 per cent. of the pro-Union people, who, traditionally, are Protestants, who supported the agreement, but we have been seriously let down by the Government's mismanagement of the political process. Promise after promise by the Prime Minister has been broken. I shall not repeat them, as the House has heard them time and again. The House is about to authorise going to war, but Sinn Fein-IRA remain armed, terrorist and involved in criminal activities and we are expected, before 29 May

  685
  and with a couple of promises, to put them back in the Northern Ireland Executive with Martin McGuinness as Minister of Education and Gerry Kelly, perhaps, as Minister of justice after the election. No way, Secretary of State, will we allow that to happen.
  After the election, there must be a coming together of the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party to renegotiate, to get inside the negotiation and to re-establish administrative devolution that works at Stormont. The system has not worked; it has inherent flaws. I see no time in the foreseeable future at which I, as an Ulster Unionist, could support Sinn Fein representatives returning to an Executive governing Northern Ireland. They should not have been allowed to participate in the first place. They have been tried and they have failed. While their ceasefires have stopped the major bombing and the major violence that terrorised the Province for 30 years, their organisation remains a terrorist organisation. They must be marginalised from the process.
  After the election—it is important that it takes place—I would support the Ulster Unionist party, the DUP, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the other smaller parties that may or may not be elected to the Assembly trying to reach a consensus agreement to replace the inclusive imposed coalition with a voluntarily agreed coalition of democratic parties so that we could have the advantages of devolution and, I hope, a slimmed down Executive and Assembly. We want something realistic that can work in co-operation with local government in Northern Ireland, which is under review. A considerable transfer of powers is needed to the local government authorities that will replace the 26 district councils.
  It is good to have an election, and it is good to have an election that will give the people of Northern Ireland a chance to express their views on how they want Northern Ireland governed internally within the United Kingdom and locally. There is support for devolution, but not the devolution that has been tried and has lurched from crisis to crisis since 1998. Let us admit that, consider the system and try to improve it. After the election, we should get into negotiations. I hope that all parties will be involved, and it is totally unacceptable for the DUP not to be invited in. I would expect the Secretary of State to invite all the parties and to have a negotiation to try to reach consensus after the election.
  Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I must make it absolutely clear that my colleague's views, which are going on the record, are entirely his own. They do not reflect a decision of either the Ulster Unionist Council or the Ulster Unionist Executive.
  David Burnside: My views and what I am saying are consistent with the united resolution of the UUC, which was passed at the Ramada hotel. I intend to stick by it and to adhere to it to the letter, which means that I will not support at a future UUC meeting going into the type of settlement proposed and negotiated at Weston Park and Hillsborough. Therefore, I am happy to go to the electorate on 29 May, as I hope my party will go to the electorate, with a united policy statement that adheres to democracy in Northern Ireland and to "no guns, no
  686
  government", which was our party's policy at the last Assembly election. Unfortunately, our party withdrew from it.
  On that further note of Unionist unity, I want to convey this to the House: the Unionist people have had enough of this process and we must regain their consent. All the parties will take part in the democratic election and we must try to make it a real election that produces Executive government in Northern Ireland, but there needs to be a deadline that is not six or 12 months, Secretary of State. After the election on 29 May, he must tell the parties, "There is negotiation and openness. We want consent across the community and we want consent from the pro-Union and the nationalist communities." We all recognise in Unionism—both the UUP and the DUP, I believe—that we cannot have a local Administration unless it has cross-community support that reflects the Unionist tradition and majority as well as nationalist opinion.
  Lembit Öpik: If the hon. Gentleman were Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what process would he introduce to achieve that?
  David Burnside: After 29 May, I would put on a deadline of about four weeks and say that the parties must try to bring together an inclusive Executive under the current institutions. If that was not possible, the sectarian blocs of nationalists and Unionists should be replaced with a weighted majority of, say, 60 or 65 per cent. under an Assembly vote, which would allow the formation of a voluntary coalition. They would have executive Cabinet responsibility, with all that that entails, and there would be a stronger Committee system. We would negotiate a local Administration at Stormont that reflected the whole community and brought better accountable government to Northern Ireland. We need a deadline and politicians elected to the Assembly must not just sit there being paid but not doing the job. They must decide to put the system together, make it operate and make it effective. A short rather than a long deadline would help to concentrate the minds of all the political parties.
  It is not unfortunate, but fortunate, that the differences within Unionism have been expressed here, although I hope the House understands that the pro-Union people have a right to expect their consent to be given to an election and to the institutions of government. The whole system has gone in one direction: it has the consent of the nationalist and republican community, but not that of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland. The task after the election is to regain that consent, so that we can have better administrative devolution and accountable government at Stormont with the consent of the Unionist and the nationalist people.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Nigel Doddis: I join the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in sending our good wishes on this St. Patrick's night to the men of the Irish Guards and the Royal Irish Regiment. At this critical time, our thoughts are with them.
  It is important to take time to debate democracy in part of the United Kingdom. The Government's move to postpone elections, coming on top of the shabby

  687
  history of interference with the legal set-up for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections that was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), sends a worrying message to the people of Northern Ireland: the Government are prepared to interfere with the rights of the electorate—the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland—if it ends in a result that better suits their political objectives and those of their friends rather than one that truly reflects the wishes and feelings of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Although our minds are concentrated tonight on events that are taking place farther afield than Northern Ireland and although we await statements on world conflict of historic importance, we should remember that the debate on Iraq is about human rights and democracy; yet the House is currently discussing a measure that would stop a democratic election taking place on 1 May and would postpone it until 29 May, as a result of negotiations at Hillsborough Castle on 3 and 4 March 2004 that involved, among others, a party that is inextricably linked to terrorists and whose representatives at Hillsborough included people who sit on the army council of the Provisional IRA. It is ironic, to put it mildly, that we are about to discuss action against Iraq because of its possession of weapons of mass destruction and its links to worldwide terrorism, when we are dealing with legislation for part of the United Kingdom that arose from negotiations to which one of the parties was the Provisional IRA, which has worldwide links with terrorism.
  Many people in Northern Ireland deeply resent the Prime Minister's approach to the decommissioning of illegal terrorist weaponry, where he is prepared to go the second, nay the third, nay the fourth mile in negotiating with IRA-Sinn Fein and giving them concessions, while he takes a completely different approach to Iraq—one that involves military action. Many people in Northern Ireland say: would that the Prime Minister had adopted the same approach towards the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland that he is prepared to adopt towards the Iraqi regime and its possession of weapons of mass destruction. When one considers this Bill, which arose from the negotiations at Hillsborough Castle, it is hard to square the Government's approach to Iraq with their approach to the Provisional IRA and its cohorts in Northern Ireland.
  As other Members have pointed out, the Democratic Unionist party experienced a complete lack of consultation, dialogue or briefing about the negotiations, which is deplorable. It is a travesty of democracy, especially as there are five DUP Members.
  The other day, on television, I heard a member of the American Administration give an insight into dealings over the putative agreement that had been reached at Hillsborough. Today, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford indicated that he had received at least two briefings on the outcome of the Hillsborough talks, even though, like us, he was not present. Paragraph 4 of the explanatory notes states:
  "The Bill follows intensive negotiations at Hillsborough on 3 and 4 March 2003 between the UK and Irish Governments and Northern Ireland political parties."
  688
  My party, with other like-minded Unionists, represents the majority of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. The Government may not like that, but the facts are clear; from the results of the last Westminster election and the contributions from the Unionist side tonight. It is wholly unacceptable that the people whom we represent should be excluded from negotiations on the political way forward in Northern Ireland, and should even have been denied access to knowledge of what was discussed at Hillsborough.
  It is no good for the Government to say, "It is all about implementing the agreement and you're against the agreement". It is time that the Government faced the fact that, even if they have 100 per cent. nationalist support, they cannot implement a process based on the consent both of Unionists and nationalists if they no longer have Unionist consent. If the process does not have the consent, support and acquiescence of a majority of Unionists, the Government should recognise that and enter negotiations with those of us who represent the majority of Unionists. In their contributions tonight, Ulster Unionist Members, too, have reflected the concerns of the Unionist community.
  Back in 1985, Unionist people and their representatives were completely excluded from consultation on the negotiations that led up to the Anglo-Irish agreement. The same mistakes are being repeated. The explanatory notes state that the measure will allow a period of three or four weeks for the parties to reflect, yet the second-largest Northern Ireland party represented in the House has not even been given the proposals. The proposals included things that are not in the agreement, such as legislation relating to on-the-run terrorists, so it is no good saying that the measure is all about implementing the agreement. Some of the points discussed at Hillsborough go well beyond what is in the agreement.
  That the Government can believe that the measure offers a proper, stable and sensible way to proceed is beyond those of us who represent the majority of Unionist people. The Government and other Members are keen to point out that the process is inclusive and involves everyone. They say that that includes Sinn Fein-IRA, no matter about their past or even their present. It seems to us and to the people whom we represent that the process includes everybody but the majority of the Unionist people. That cannot be right.
  When the Under-Secretary responds to the debate, he should explain why the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland and the representatives in this place of a substantial section of the Unionist community are being kept in the dark about the proposals. Why do we have to rely on newspaper reports? Why do we have to rely on Mr. Hass, the American envoy? Why do we have to rely on the utterances of members of the IRA army council who are better informed about what is going on at Hillsborough and in the negotiations than the decent law-abiding people of Northern Ireland? For the Minister to think that the measure will build confidence and gain the support of Unionists when they have been excluded from any chance of input to the negotiations beggars belief. I challenge him to address that point.

  689
  I shall not detain the House by going into details about the overall package that was discussed at Hillsborough, as they have already been covered by other hon. Members. Those negotiations continue. Although the Prime Minister told us that there would be no further negotiations, there have been delegations to Downing street from one or two of the main parties since Hillsborough. Even within a few hours, or days, of the Prime Minister's statement at Hillsborough, the situation that he outlined was reversed.
  People in Northern Ireland are gravely concerned that the election has been put back to give further consideration to the scaling down of security along the border, in Belfast and in other urban areas of Northern Ireland merely in response to some gesture from the Provisional IRA, when, as we have heard recently, that organisation and other so-called dissidents are still active in Northern Ireland.
  It strikes many people in Northern Ireland as outrageous that anyone should suggest—after the leaving of a bomb at the Laganside courthouse, which Her Majesty had visited only the previous week—that we can simply tear down all our defences and leave ordinary decent people denuded of proper security, simply because Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness demand that as part of the price of their returning to government.
  As has been said many times in the House, we should not accept a process allowing those currently on the run to evade any form of justice. We should remember that those whom we are discussing have committed some of the most awful, heinous crimes. We should remember the case of Mrs. Hill, whose husband lay in a coma for more than a decade—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail, which is outside the scope of this Second Reading debate. We cannot recapitulate the whole history, recent or distant, of the troubles of Northern Ireland on this occasion.
  Mr. Dodds: The election has been postponed to give Northern Ireland parties which are party to the deal more time to reflect on a range of issues such as the running down of security, the evading of justice by those on the run, the introduction of legislation devolving criminal justice in Northern Ireland, and policing. I was in the process of citing a specific example, but in deference to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not go into specifics. I will say this, in general terms. There are people in Northern Ireland tonight who will view the Bill as having been designed simply to allow the IRA time to go away and try to do some sort of deal with its own people—to persuade people that it is worth pocketing all the concessions, and that in return for a gesture on decommissioning, some statement or stunt, it will return to government in Northern Ireland.
  We have heard no details of the definition of the acts of completion outlined by the Prime Minister in Belfast on 17 October. We have heard no definition from anyone in Government of a complete end to paramilitarism. Does it mean disbandment? It should mean disbandment if it is to mean anything, and that disbandment must be proved over a considerable period. I ask, as others have today, how anyone can
  690
  trust the word of the Provisional IRA. I am one of the Members who have been visited in recent weeks to be told that our details are being held by the Provisional IRA—and its army council includes Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Those elected politicians in the Assembly who people are so keen to return to government are organising the gathering of such intelligence, and the targeting of other elected Members as well as a host of ordinary citizens across Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford spoke of the Government's failures. He said that the middle ground represented by the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP had been failed by the Government's appeasement. It must be said that those parties, and their leadership, have been party to that appeasement. Many of the deals done with the Provisional IRA have been done with the support of not just the British Government but the pro-agreement parties, led by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). They cannot wash their hands of responsibility.
  Substantial concessions are being offered to the Provisional IRA, as is clear to the people of Northern Ireland. We regret the fact that the Bill is before the House tonight. The election should have proceeded on 1 May, and we are opposed to any further delay. I hope the Minister will confirm that there will indeed be no further delay. On Radio Ulster the other morning, in reply to a question from the interviewer, his colleague the Secretary of State, said that "hopefully" the election would take place on 29 May. I should be grateful if the Government would confirm that it will, come what may, and that there will be no further attempt to interfere with the rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
  I add my voice to those of Members throughout the House who have expressed concern about the possible effect of legislation on electoral fraud, namely the disfranchising of tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland. It is vital that, when the election goes ahead, everyone whom the register entitles to vote is able to do so. If they have no photographic ID at the time of the election, they should not be deprived of that right.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. John Taylor: Let me say, I hope not gracelessly, that if the Government are hoist on their own guillotine with the present business it is their fault. The lesson is that they should not guillotine everything: they are now reaping the results of their guillotine reflex.
  Those who are present now may wish to know that four hours ago my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) offered them the opportunity of proceeding without a guillotine, whereupon other matters could have intruded. Ministers declined, but I do not intend to extend their discomfiture. My party has said that it will not oppose the Bill; but if the Government attempt a second postponement, we certainly will.
  7.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I listened with interest to hon. Members of all parties. Let me say at the outset that the Government agree with all who have

  691
  spoken that the postponing of any election is a serious step, but what is proposed in this instance is a short, defined postponement. I will develop the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State shortly, but let me say to all who have sought clarification that the people of Northern Ireland will have a chance to deliver their verdict on 29 May if the Bill is passed.
  Although it may not be reflected in the number of speeches made to this effect, there is widespread agreement in the House on the desirability of the Bill. Although I cannot agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues, I respect their views; but those views are, to an extent, rooted in their antipathy to the Belfast agreement, which the great majority of Members support and which, I think, lies at the heart of the albeit qualified support that the official Opposition are prepared to give the Bill tonight.
  Let me now—early in my speech—deal with the issue that has largely dominated the contributions of members of the party of the hon. Member for North Antrim in the context of the talks that have taken place. I understand why it has. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—any of us, indeed—would be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman's party about the political way forward, but our proposals, which formed the basis of the discussions at Hillsborough castle and are at the heart of the decision to postpone the election for a comparatively short time, are essentially about the better and fuller implementation of the agreement. It must be said that it is unlikely that the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues have many suggestions to make in support of that objective.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Browne: May I finish responding to the point that the hon. Gentleman, among others, made?
  The discussions are about the full implementation of the agreement. Members of the Democratic Unionist party say that that is an inadequate response but the Government's response is that anti-agreement parties, though we respect their views, by their nature are not going to contribute constructively to that debate.
  The proposals will in due course be published when they become definitive, which the Governments expect to be at or about the beginning of April. The Hillsborough discussions involved a series of working drafts aimed at finding common ground between the parties, so that those proposals can be published at that time.
  Mr. Robinson: The Minister puts a far from convincing case if he is saying that, because my party does not agree with the Government's policy on this issue, we cannot have any valuable contribution to make and should not be heard. That seems an outrageous suggestion for any democrat to make. We may have a different policy but that does not mean that there are not genuine proposals that we can put and general views that we can submit to Government on all
  692
  these issues, particularly as some of them go beyond the Belfast agreement; they were not touched on in terms of the format of the agreement.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Had I said what he has just attributed to me, it would have been outrageous, but I did not. I said at the outset that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and indeed any of us would be happy to discuss the way forward for Northern Ireland with the hon. Gentleman or any member of his party. If he seeks to have those discussions and has contributions to make, those discussions can take place. He knows, because he has regular access to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, that when he and others request meetings, they are refused only if the diary of the respective Minister does not allow it. If he wants to come in to make the sort of contribution that he has just told the House he wants to make, we will be happy to have those discussions with him.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) raised a different point in relation to the same issue: whether all parties had the same opportunity in the context of the discussions at Hillsborough to make a contribution. We in Government listened to all the views expressed to us, whether they were on the details of the text or the substance.
  No one will be surprised to learn that we spent more time discussing some particular issues with some parties than we spent with others. That has nothing to do with democracy or being undemocratic. It is just a reflection of the realities of negotiation. Parties came to those discussions with interests that they wished to discuss with us in greater detail than other parties, but we shall take into account in producing our final proposals all the views expressed to us, whether on the text or otherwise. However, we do not propose to enter into detailed textual negotiation before publication. That would protract the process of reaching the point of definition, so that these matters can be published. In the views of both Governments, significant and sufficient discussion has taken place and the Governments hope to be in a position at or about the beginning of April to publish the definitive text.
  While I am on the detail of the matter, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and others who were encouraged by him to do so, have let their imaginations run away with them about who might or might not be the Minister for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. There is no such deal. The hon. Gentleman knows that it has been Her Majesty's Government's intention in the right circumstances to devolve responsibility for policing and justice. Indeed, the introduction to the implementation plan on criminal justice specifically said that a significant time ago.
  That principle commands wide support across Northern Ireland, but much is not agreed, including the timing of it and the ministerial structure that will have to take on those important responsibilities for Northern Ireland. A good deal of discussion is needed before we could arrive at answering many of the questions about ministerial appointments, even on the most optimistic timing.
  I dare say that the hon. Member for Belfast, East will not desist from making his colourful assertions, because it allows him to give descriptions of the background of

  693
  his nominee for the post in the context of what he anticipates is happening, but, if he will allow me to, I will try to put his mind at ease by saying that there is no deal such as that on which he based his contribution and which was supported by other hon. Members.
  Mr. Donaldson: Is the Minister aware of a report in The Irish Times that stated that the Government were considering a variety of models for the devolution of justice, including
  "a joint ministry with office holders drawn from the two political traditions"?
  If that is not the case, will he deny it, and will he show a willingness to share the proposals with those of us who have not seen them?
  Mr. Browne: I am aware of that report. But the fact that something was reported in The Irish Times does not mean that it is correct. What I have said is—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman and others will wait a moment, I may answer the question. What I have said is that it has long been the Government's intention in the right circumstances to devolve responsibility for policing and justice, so no one should represent that to the House as something that emerged from the Hillsborough discussions. It is not. Indeed, it is an aspiration of the hon. Gentleman's party that policing and justice be devolved to Ministers in Northern Ireland in the context of devolution. He knows that fine well and if he is trying to pretend otherwise—[Interruption.] Let me finish. The point is that it cannot be devolved to Northern Ireland unless it is devolved into some ministerial structure. He will accept that, so we agree that it is the hon. Gentleman's party's policy to see devolution in the right circumstances. We agree that there will need to be a ministerial structure into which it should be devolved. We must, therefore, agree that it is sensible for the Government to consider what that structure will be.
  At the moment, the Government have reached no decision as to what that structure will be and that structure cannot be agreed unless it is agreed with the parties that form the devolved Assembly. I cannot make it any clearer than that. People may take from that that we must be considering models and then seek to set them out in a newspaper article, but that will not he Government policy and it is not likely to be the way in which Government policy is fixed.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister's evasion in answering the question of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) seems to suggest that the report is right—that that is one of the options being considered. The Minister still has not told us that it is not one of the options. If it is one of the options being considered, everything that I said stands and I was perfectly entitled to make my comments.
  Mr. Browne: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have just made the Government's position clear. The Government's position on devolution of policing and justice has been clear for some considerable time. It would have been remiss of the Government in the time since they have made that position clear—urged to do so by, among others, the Ulster Unionist party—not to consider what structures could be put in place to receive devolution, but no decisions have been made and there is no policy.
  694
  I want to refer to my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset told us that it was his first contribution to a Northern Ireland debate. I feel for him. I know from my time on the Back Benches in the early years of the previous Parliament how daunting it can be to enter these debates. Often, the first contribution in response, although not this time, is a Northern Ireland Member telling the hon. Member that their contribution is worthless because they do not live in Northern Ireland. The irony is that it normally comes from a party that puts itself forward as a Unionist party and in every other context wishes to identify itself with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The fact that that did not happen tonight is a credit to both my hon. Friends, who spoke well. Their advocacy of the restoration of devolution was strong and augurs well for how much can be learned in a comparatively short time in visiting Northern Ireland. Frankly, in many aspects, Northern Ireland is not that much different from the rest of these islands. Members should not be daunted from entering these debates just because Northern Ireland politicians can sometimes be a little over-aggressive in responding to honest contributions.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) for his contribution, which was characteristically comprehensive, and multilateral and understated. I am also grateful for his qualified support for the Government. He will forgive me if I do not respond in detail to his analysis of the past months and years. Whether his prescriptions would have led to greater political progress than we have seen is perhaps for other Members to judge, but I am grateful to him for his praise for the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and for his support. It would be churlish of me to enter into a critique of his analysis at this stage. I am grateful for his current position in supporting Government policy in Northern Ireland, and I hope to keep him there.
  I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for his support, even if that, too, was conditional. I hope that my earlier answer about the election date has matured the conditionality of his contribution. He raised a number of interesting issues, as he usually does in such debates. He asked whether we can expect continued round table talks. What I can offer him is that we will continue to stay in touch with the parties in Northern Ireland, but whether those talks will be round table, bilateral, multilateral, quadrilateral or any other "lateral" I cannot say at this stage; it depends on whether people ask for them. If the talks involve the hon. Member for Belfast, East and his party, I suspect that they will be simply bilateral. However, talks will take place, and we will continue to stay in touch.
  More importantly, the parties in Northern Ireland need to talk to each other, because what matters is the future of politics in Northern Ireland, and of the parties. This agreement is not a series of bilateral agreements with the British Government, or of trilateral agreements with the British Government and the Irish Government; it is a multilateral agreement, and the parties need to understand that, and to talk to each other about it. It would sometimes be better if they spoke to each other before coming to either Government to talk about the issues that they wish to address.

  695
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked for an assurance that the letter written by the Leader of the House of Lords to some of his colleagues in the other place would be honoured, and I have no difficulty in giving him that. The proper place for discussing issues relating to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill is during the remaining stages of that Bill, which the House should consider shortly.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of justice and victims, in the context of on-the-runs. He will accept that the Government's stated position since Weston Park is a logical extension of the Good Friday agreement. It has never been the Government's intention to treat this as an amnesty. We have always intended to deal with this issue, but I can assure him that it can be dealt with only as one step in the context of acts of completion. I think that that is the assurance that he was looking for, and I hope that he accepts it.
  Lembit Öpik: I also seek the Minister's reassurance that the Government are still looking at some form of licensing scheme, or, to be more exact, that they are not intending to push through a blanket amnesty.
  Mr. Browne: The Government have made it clear that amnesty is not part of their thinking. There will have to be a system that respects the issues of justice, and the question of victims is also important in that regard.
  On victims, the hon. Gentleman also raised the question of exiles and punishment beatings. He can rest assured that exiles and punishment beatings fit in with the Government's definition of acts of completion. In his speech in Belfast on 17 October last year, and in a statement in the House in November, the Prime Minister made it clear that violence must be given up completely in a way that satisfies everyone, and which gives them confidence that the Provisional IRA has ceased its campaign, thereby enabling us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules. That means acts of completion, which manifestly must include some response to the issue of exiles, and an end to punishment beatings, among other forms of behaviour.
  Several hon. Members mentioned electoral fraud and the electoral identity card. The exact provenance of a letter—a copy of which I have in front of me—that purports to come from the Democratic Unionist party's leader, the hon. Member for North Antrim, and which approves the implementation of measures to remove all forms of electoral identity other than those involving photographic identification, may need to be resolved without delay to ensure that these measures are in place before the next election in Northern Ireland. I am confident that the letter will prove to have come from his office.
  I should point out that every party in Northern Ireland that is represented in this House agreed at the end of February, or thereabouts, to that legislation. As I undertook to do in this House, I wrote to all those parties asking for their comments on whether we should take that step, recognising its significance in terms of what was required from electors in Northern Ireland,
  696
  and recognising that if the process was mishandled, it could accidentally disfranchise a lot of innocent, good voters. All the parties in Northern Ireland that are represented in this House wrote back in a positive fashion, saying that we should go ahead, and it was on that basis alone that I decided to do so.
  With respect, issues are now being raised with me that ought to have been raised at that time. I am told that there is evidence to suggest that people are being turned away in their efforts to obtain these cards. I should point out that I have no such evidence, but if the parties do have it, they should bring it to my attention as quickly as possible.[Interruption.] I note that some assent is coming from a sedentary position, and I should be happy to receive that information.
  Some people tell me that the system is being gummed up, but that is not the case. As research continues, evidence is emerging to suggest that in excess of 900,000 people in Northern Ireland have photographic driving licences. Given that it is not possible to drive until one is over 17, by far the majority of those people will be voters, or at least entitled to be registered. We also know that, thanks to the policy of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, a significant number of people—in excess of 140,000—have other photographic identification.
  For example, in Northern Ireland there are 150,000 holders of passports issued by the Irish Government, and about 75 per cent. of adults across the UK have UK passports, all of which will be accepted. It does not take a genius to work out that although the number of people on the electoral register is increasing, the likelihood is that almost every one of the 1.1 million, or thereabouts, on the register has the appropriate type of electoral identification. Having said that, 50,000 applications for electoral ID cards are being processed, only 3,500 of which had to be rejected because of the way in which the forms had been completed. The issuing of those cards by post is increasing daily, and the chief electoral officer has given an undertaking that anybody who applies before 16 May will have an electoral ID card for the election on 29 May.
  On the absence of advertising, the Electoral Commission, which has accepted responsibility for advertising, is spending more than £500,000 in Northern Ireland on advertising the electoral identity card. I understand that advertisements have been placed during peak-time television programmes, including episodes of "Coronation Street", which are watched by more than 50 per cent. of the adult population of Northern Ireland. Daily advertisements are also placed in the press. The advertising campaign, which is being conducted through television, the press and billboards—I have seen the press and billboard advertisements—is extensive and very expensive. I do not understand why it has been suggested that the campaign is inadequate.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister is stringing out figures on the number of people with passports, driving licences, and smart passes for senior citizens. He then says that because of those numbers, and of the number of people who vote in Northern Ireland, there is clearly no problem. However, he must surely have considered the possibility that someone with a passport might also have a driving licence; in other words, we could be dealing with the same person, so both documents should not be added into the equation. The reality is that the

  697
  Minister, in a letter to me, indicated that some 243,000 people—one in five voters in Northern Ireland—had said that they needed a photo-identity pass, having been shown the alternatives, but only 55,000 have made an application. That suggests that some 190,000 people—almost one in five of the voting population—will be disfranchised—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks to a close?
  Mr. Browne: I propose to bring my remarks to a close shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, East may be assured that sufficient resources are available to ensure that everyone who needs an electoral identity card can have one.
  It has been suggested that in postponing the election our motive is to influence the result in one way or another. We have not proposed the delay with the aim of influencing the choice of Northern Ireland voters one way or another. No Government could or should prevent the people of Northern Ireland from expressing their democratic choice, and it would be a rash Government who tried to do so.
  What we do have a duty to do is to try to give the people of Northern Ireland something real to vote about. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want the Belfast agreement to work, and it is not in their interest for the process to fail. In the long run, stable and inclusive institutions can flourish only in a society from which the shadow of political violence has been removed. The Government believe that the Bill is a necessary part of bringing that about.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order this day.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill
    Clause 1

      DATES OF ELECTION, ETC
      7.52 pm
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move manuscript amendment No. 1, in line 2, to leave out from the beginning to the word "in" in line 13 and insert—
      "In Section 31 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".
      It will assist the House if I say that I do not intend to speak for more than a couple of minutes on the amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—although if I were encouraged, that might change.
      The amendment was covered to some extent on Second Reading. Having spoken for three quarters of an hour in that debate, I do not need to add many points. The effect of the amendment would be to have an election on 1 May, as provided in the original 1998 legislation and in the order put forward by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he was required by legal action to do so. There should be no further delay to the election. The people should have the opportunity to speak.
      698
      The reality is that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are attempting, once again, to cobble together an agreement that has clearly failed. It has gone from crisis to crisis. It has collapsed on four occasions, it has been attended by all sorts of violence and the misbehaviour of the Provisional IRA, and it is abundantly clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to obtain a stable political structure from the existing Belfast agreement. It was Einstein who once defined insanity as endlessly doing the same thing and hoping for a different result. That seems to be the Government's intention. They continue to repeat the same mistakes that they have made before and hope that things will turn out all right. They will not turn out all right, because a new agreement is needed. I hope that the election will allow us to reach a situation in which we can have negotiations for a new agreement that will enjoy the support of not only nationalists in Northern Ireland but the Unionist community as well.
      Mr. Alistair Carmichael: The House has already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) that we generally support the Bill, so it will come as little surprise that we are opposed to the amendment. We oppose it for two reasons. First, it does not add anything to the Bill. Secondly, as the Minister said earlier, it is a wrecking amendment, although it would not actually wreck the Bill. Clause 1(3) would still categorically state that the date of the election would be 29 May 2003. All the amendment would do is add further confusion and provide work for the courts when the inevitable challenge is brought by the Democratic Unionist party.
      Mr. Desmond Browne: As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has just said, the amendment is designed to wreck the Bill by removing the provisions that would revoke the order that sets the election day for 1 May and amend the legislation to set a new election date of 29 May. In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) did not: pretend that it was anything else. It might even qualify as a reasoned amendment on Second Reading.
      It will be obvious that the Government cannot accept the amendment. Postponement is not a step that the Government propose lightly, but we believe that there is a chance of a real breakthrough that will give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to vote for an Assembly ready to take up powers again. That chance should not be missed, and I submit to the House that it will be missed unless we have this window of opportunity. We cannot allow the Bill to be wrecked in this fashion.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I regret that the Government wish to resile from a date that was set by them in the legislation, and later confirmed by an order by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, simply for political purposes. People should not attempt to manipulate elections and the electoral process for party political reasons. The election date was set by the Government and should not be manipulated by them. I trust that hon. Members will consider the matter and join us in the Lobby on that issue.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 368.

      Division No. 115]

      [7: 56 pm

      AYES

      Burnside, David

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Mrs. Iris Robinson and

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Mr. Gregory Campbell

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coaker, Vernon

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coleman, Iain

      Allan, Richard

      Colman, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corston, Jean

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cotter, Brian

      Austin, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Baird, Vera

      Crausby, David

      Banks, Tony

      Cruddas, Jon

      Barrett, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bell, Stuart

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, Hilary

      David, Wayne

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Davidson, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Best, Harold

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dean, Mrs. Janet

      Blizzard, Bob

      Denham, rh John

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Borrow, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Breed, Colin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Brennan, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Doughty, Sue

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Browne, Desmond

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bryant, Chris

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burden, Richard

      Edwards, Huw

      Burnett, John

      Efford, Clive

      Burnham, Andy

      Ellman, Mrs, Louise

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Farrelly, Paul

      Cairns, David

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flint, Caroline

      Caplin, Ivor

      Follett, Barbara

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Foster, rh Derek

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Challen, Colin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Chaytor, David

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      700

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Gilroy, Linda

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Godsiff, Roger

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Goggins, Paul

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lammy, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Hain, rh Peter

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Lepper, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Leslie, Christopher

      Hanson, David

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Linton, Martin

      Harvey Nick

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Healey, John

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Heath, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hendrick, Mark

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Heppell, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hermon Lady

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hesford, Stephen

      McDonnell, John

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      McIsaac, Shona

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Heyes, David

      McKechin,Ann

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hodge, Margaret

      McNulty, Tony

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      McWalter, Tony

      Holmes, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mann,John (Bassetlaw)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Merron, Gillian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hutton, rh John

      Miliband, David

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Miller Andrew

      Illsley, Eric

      Moffatt, Laura

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Mole, Chris

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moore, Michael

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Moran, Margaret

      Jamieson, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Keetch, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Öpik, Lembit

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Organ, Diana

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Owen, Albert

      Kidney, David

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Perham, Linda

      701

      Picking, Anne

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Plaskitt, James

      Straw, rh Jack

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Prescott, rh John

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Purnell, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Rammell, Bill

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Trickett, Jon

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

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rooney, Terry

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Viggers, Peter

      Ruane, Chris

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Salter, Martin

      Watts, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      White, Brian

      Sawford, Phil

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Willis, Phil

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wills, Michael

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wilson, Brian

      Singh, Marsha

      Winnick, David

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &Lunesdale)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Southworth, Helen

      Spellar, rh John

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Squire, Rachel

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Wyatt, Derek

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      8.12 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: All I say on behalf of the electors whom I represent is roll on 29 May. Let us have the result of the election and let the House take proper democratic note of the same.
      8.13 pm
      Lembit Öpik: The Minister heard the earlier debate. It is vital that the Government define acts of completion. They must also ensure that there is parity of treatment in terms of information for Northern Ireland parties.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The House will now be suspended for 10 minutes. The Division bell will ring for three minutes before we commence the statements.
      8.14 pm
      Sitting suspended.
      On resuming—

Iraq
8.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement in respect of Iraq and the debate that will be held in the House tomorrow.
As the House will be aware, in the Azores yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, President Bush of the United States and Prime Minister Barroso of Portugal called on all members of the Security Council to adopt a resolution—which would have been its 18th on Iraq—to challenge Saddam to take a strategic decision to disarm his country of his weapons of mass destruction as required by Security Council resolution 1441. Such a resolution has never been needed legally, but we have long had a preference for it politically.
There has been intense diplomatic activity to secure that end over many months, culminating in the past 24 hours. Yesterday evening, our ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, consulted his fellow permanent representatives from other Security Council member states. Just this morning I spoke to my Spanish, American, Russian and Chinese counterparts.
Despite those final efforts, I regret to say that we have reluctantly concluded that a Security Council consensus on a new resolution would not be possible. On my instructions, Sir Jeremy Greenstock made a public announcement to that effect at the United Nations at about 3.15 pm UK time today.
What we know about the Iraqi regime's behaviour over many years is that there is the greatest chance of their finally responding to the United Nations obligations on them if they face a united Security Council. So, over the months since resolution 1441 was unanimously adopted by the Security Council in early November, the Prime Minister and I, and our ambassador to the United Nations, have strained every nerve in search of that consensus which could finally persuade Iraq, by peaceful means, to provide the full and immediate co-operation demanded by the Security Council.
Significantly, in all the discussions in the Security Council and outside, no one has clairned that Iraq is in full compliance with the obligations placed on it. Given that, it was my belief, up to about a week ago, that we were close to achieving the consensus that we sought on the further resolution. Sadly, one country then ensured that the Security Council could not act. President Chirac's unequivocal announcement last Monday that France would veto a second resolution containing that or any ultimatum "whatever the circumstances" inevitably created a sense of paralysis in our negotiations. I deeply regret that France has thereby put a Security Council consensus beyond reach.
I need to spell out that the alternative proposals submitted by France, Germany and Russia for more time and more inspections carry no ultimatum and no threat of force. They do not implement resolution 1441 but seek to rewrite it. To have adopted such proposals would have allowed Saddam to continue stringing out inspections indefinitely, and he would rightly have
704
drawn the lesson that the Security Council was simply not prepared to enforce the ultimatum that lies at the heart of resolution 1441: in the event of non-compliance, Iraq, as operational paragraph 13 spells out, should expect "serious consequences."
As a result of Saddam Hussein's persistent refusal to meet the UN's demands, and the inability of the Security Council to adopt a further resolution, the Cabinet has decided to ask the House to support the United Kingdom's participation in military operations, should they be necessary, with the objective of ensuring the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and thereby the maintenance of the authority of the United Nations.
From the outset of this crisis the Government have promised that, if possible, the House would have the opportunity to debate our involvement in military action prior to the start of hostilities and on a substantive motion. The House will have that opportunity tomorrow. Copies of the motion, proposed by the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues, have been placed in the Vote Office.
In addition to dealing with military action the motion states that in the event of military operations the House requires that
"on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post—conflict administration for Iraq".
In addition, the resolution goes on to endorse the middle east peace process as encapsulated in the imminent publication of the road map. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you will be specifying the time by which amendments to this motion must be received. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will make a short business statement immediately after the proceedings on this statement.
To inform the debate, I have circulated several documents to all right hon. and hon. Members today. These include a copy of the response from my noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General to a written question in the House of Lords in which he sets out the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq, as well as a detailed briefing paper summarising the legal background which I have sent to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have also made available a note summarising Iraq's record of non-compliance with resolution 1441. A new Command Paper comprising key recent United Nations documents, including the 173 pages of Dr Blix's paper on "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes", which was published on 7 March in the Security Council, is now available in the Vote Office.
The debate tomorrow will be the most important in the House for many years. Some say that Iraq can be disarmed without an ultimatum, without the threat or the use of force, but simply by more time and more inspections. That approach is defied by all our experience over 12 weary years. It cannot produce the disarmament of Iraq; it cannot rid the world of the danger of the Iraqi regime. It can only bring comfort to

705
tyrants and emasculate the authority of the United Nations. It is for these reasons that we shall tomorrow be asking the House to endorse and support the Government's resolution.
Mr. Michael Ancram: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me early sight of it? His statement is indeed a sombre one. Put bluntly, the talking is over, diplomacy is at an end and tonight we face the grim prospect of war. We are where we are tonight because Saddam Hussein has contemptuously failed to take the final opportunity that resolution 1441 offered him. Hopes that he might accept the inevitable this time and disarm have been dashed. Instead, he has chosen to take the international community to the wire.
There was a chance that a clear, unequivocal and united voice from the international community might yet have persuaded him to disarm or to go. France put paid to that. I hope that in Paris they will reflect tonight on what they have achieved.
There will be many different and deeply held feelings in the House tonight and during the debate tomorrow. It would be very strange if there were not. But while we may not agree with each other, I hope and believe that none of us will do other than totally respect the sincerity with which these views are held.
Saddam Hussein, in possession of weapons of mass destruction, is a threat to international peace and security. No one, not even France, denies that. It is not just a threat within the middle east but to the international community at large, including ourselves. That is why we believe that action to disarm him can no longer be delayed. We will, of course, debate all this tomorrow, and we will vote on it. I do not intend to preempt that debate or that vote tonight, but there are questions that I must ask.
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his Turkish counterpart to ensure that action in Iraq will not provoke unrest between northern Iraq and Turkey?
What preparations are in place to ensure a swift delivery of humanitarian aid and relief to the people of Iraq, who have suffered for so long under the heel of Saddam Hussein?
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with the motion proposed for tomorrow to ensure that a representative Administration can swiftly be set up in Iraq under United Nations auspices to ensure the speedy rehabilitation of that country?
Again, in accordance with the motion proposed for tomorrow, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to follow up President Bush's statements on Israel-Palestine and, in particular, to ensure that there is a genuine and sustained momentum towards the two-state solution? What talks has the Foreign Secretary had with other members of the Quartet, including Russia, to make real progress on that front? And what other steps will he take to reassure the Islamic community that military action in Iraq is not an attack on Islam but can bring long-term benefit and stability to the Muslim world?
Our thoughts tonight must be with our armed forces as they face the prospect of conflict. We ask much on their behalf, and our prayers must be with them and
706
their families. They must know that from these Benches they have our unqualified support. We will offer the Government our support in the decisions that must now be made. We will do so because they have reached the same conclusions as us on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and the legality of taking action. We believe that they are acting in the national interest, and as long as that is the case we will continue to support them. Her Majesty's Opposition will do what in our hearts we know for our country is right.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and shall deal briefly with his points. I picked up the first when he said that we should respect the sincerity with which a wide variety of views are held in the House, which is absolutely right. At the same time, we should accept that nobody—no single individual—has a monopoly of wisdom or morality on this issue. People have both strong views and different points of view. I speak for myself, but I think that I speak for the whole House too, when I say that for each of us the prospect of having to endorse and support military action, whatever the cause, is extremely difficult. Speaking for myself, I shall of course vote for the motion tomorrow, as I endorsed the idea of military action today in Cabinet. I believe that now it is only by the use of "all necessary means", to quote United Nations resolution 678, that it is possible to secure the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that had it been possible for the international community, through the Security Council, to speak with the same united voice as was assembled when we passed resolution 1441, we would not now be in this situation. However, I believe that we have striven as hard as we possibly could for that kind of unity, and I greatly regret that it was not possible to achieve it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of specific questions, including one about discussions with my Turkish counterpart. I personally have not had discussions with my Turkish counterpart because who he was was in a state of flux. The Foreign Minister in Turkey changed just a few days ago from Foreign Minister Yakis to Foreign Minister Gul. I intend to talk to him in the next couple of days, but our excellent ambassador in Ankara, Peter Westmacott, has been in very close touch with the Turkish authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about measures on swift humanitarian aid, which are indeed spelt out in the text of the resolution. We are not just talking about it—in the event of military action we would seek an immediate and strong United Nations mandate for that. The right hon. Gentleman asked if I had discussed the matter with Secretary-General Kofi Annan. I did indeed, at a face-to-face meeting with Kofi Annan in New York on 6 March.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about relations between Israel and Palestine. I obviously understand that in some quarters in the House there is scepticism about the position of the United States in respect of Israel-Palestine, but I would point out to the House that it is under this US Administration, for the first time ever, that the United States and through it, with a consensus, the United Nations, have supported the concept of a two-state solution, with a secure state of Israel and a viable and secure state of Palestine. That has been

707
encapsulated in resolution 1397. We have been seeking to ensure the implementation of that resolution. I have spoken twice in the past two weeks to Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority, and since the middle of January we have been actively involved with the Palestinian Authority in assisting with the process of its reform. Largely because of that, it has been possible for Chairman Arafat to nominate the excellent Abu Mazen as the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and hopefully for the Palestine Legislative Council to endorse the appointment and for it to be accepted, perhaps tomorrow or the next day. I hope that that will be followed by the full publication of the road map, and I hope that the House will be united in its determination. The message that we send, yes, to the Israelis and the Palestinians, and also to the members of the Quartet, including the United States, is that we are determined to see the full implementation of the road map as early as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman raised two further points. One was in respect of support for the armed forces. It goes without saying that our thoughts are with our armed forces. There cannot be a single Member of the House who does not have constituents with relatives in the armed forces in the Gulf or in the theatre. I have been talking to the parents of my constituents who are out there. I know the anxiety that this period will inevitably cause them. Of course, our hearts and prayers go out to them.
The right hon. Gentleman's very important last point was about the Muslim communities around the world. When I discussed the matter with some of my Muslim friends in my Blackburn constituency on Friday, a leading Muslim told me that he had asked some of his colleagues how many Muslims had been murdered by Saddam Hussein. The answer came back: well over a million. Then he had asked how many countries Saddam Hussein had invaded. The answer is two sovereign nations, both of them Muslim. The simple truth is that Saddam Hussein has murdered and terrorised more Muslims than any other tyrant in recent history. The world, and the Muslim world particularly, will be a great deal better when he is disarmed.
Mr. Michael Moore: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for the advance copy that I received. The whole House will be united in regret that we have reached the point where military action against Iraq is imminent. Our thoughts this evening are with our armed forces and their families.
A few hours ago, the Secretary—General of the United Nations said that if military action takes place without the backing of the Security Council, its legitimacy will be questioned and the authority for any action will be diminished. In the light of those comments, does the Foreign Secretary accept that the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's evil regime should continue under United Nations auspices? Does he also accept that at this moment, when the weapons inspectors have been
708
preparing timetables to complete their work, the right decision would be to allow them to continue their endeavours and not to go to war at this time?
Mr. Straw: Of course it would have been better if it had been possible to achieve a consensus in the United Nations for a second resolution, but there is no question about the legality of the action that we propose to take.[Interruption.] No. That goes back to resolutions 678 and 687. I put the resolutions before the House, so they are plain for everybody to see. I am extremely familiar with the negotiating history of resolution 1441. As I have told the House on many occasions, France and Russia informally proposed that there should be a lock in resolution 1441 requiring that before any military action or any enforcement of the system of disarmament proposed—by force—there had to be a second resolution. France and Russia dropped that proposition. They never even put it forward as a formal amendment. Instead, what was finally agreed in the resolution was a process by which it was declared in operational paragraph 1 that Iraq had been and remains in material breach; in operational paragraph 2, a final opportunity to Iraq to disarm; in operational paragraph 4, a statement of what constitutes a further material breach—namely, a false declaration and other failure to comply; then a process, if Iraq was in further material breach, which it has been for weeks, setting out further discussions in the Security Council, which have already taken place; and in operational paragraph 13, which states in words that everybody understands that if Iraq failed to comply, serious consequences would follow. It is in pursuit of the authority of the United Nations that we are moving the motion tomorrow in order to secure the disarmament that the United Nations has been seeking for the past 12 years.
So far as a further timetable for the inspectors is concerned, let me say that this issue arises under Security Council resolution 1284. One or two members of the Security Council are now clutching resolution 1284 as if it were their own. Resolution 1284 was finally agreed by the Security Council after very difficult negotiations in 1999. France sought to water down the inspection regime time and again. It was agreed in order to get any resolution through, for example, that presidential palaces would be exempted from the inspection. France then refused to back that resolution, and because it was not supported by any credible threat of force, Iraq refused to comply with it. What that tells us is that unless we have a tough resolution and back it with a credible threat of force and, as we are now getting to the point, the use of force, we will never ever get this tyrannical regime to comply with its United Nations obligations.
Mr. Clive Soley: Is it not a fact that, if the United Nations had acted in 1991 when the ceasefire was first breached and the following resolutions of that year were also breached, we would not be in our current position? Is not the awful lesson of the 12 years that have intervened, in which there have been so many deaths and genocidal activities in Iraq, that we cannot go on passing resolutions unless we are resolved to act?
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I say to the House that we need to think about where we

709
would be if we failed now to act. We know that this man has weapons of mass destruction. That sounds like a slightly abstract phrase, but what we are talking about is chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses, bacilli and anthrax—10,000 litres of anthrax—that he has. We know that he has it, Dr. Blix points that out and he has failed to account for that. If we allow these weapons to remain in the possession of Saddam Hussein and do nothing about it, we cannot complain when the regime becomes further empowered to act in a tyrannical way with his neighbours and also if such weaponry finds its way into the hands of other rogue states or terrorist groups and then inflicts destruction very much nearer home.
Tony Baldry: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that we as a nation will be judged not only on the effectiveness our military campaign, but on the efficiency of the humanitarian relief that we bring to Iraq. Will he give a clear undertaking to the House that Her Majesty's Government shall will the means to ensure that proper humanitarian relief is provided for the people of Iraq and also that we will provide the leadership that is necessary to supply humanitarian relief to a country where, tragically, two thirds of the people are already dependent on food aid? Whenever the Cabinet considers the military campaign, can it please also consider the humanitarian campaign?
Mr. Straw: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. I read out a key part of the motion that will be put before the House tomorrow, in which we shall seek a new Security Council resolution that deals with the whole question of humanitarian relief.
I also point out that one of the many terrible things that Saddam Hussein has done to his own people has been to impoverish a very rich nation. This was a nation that had the same living standards, if you please, as Portugal or Malaysia 25 years ago. It is now one of the poorest nations on earth, where 60 per cent. of the people have been plunged into poverty not because of sanctions, but because of a quite deliberate policy by the Saddam Hussein regime to divert money that should and could have gone to the wonderful people of Iraq to its military spending and luxury goods for the regime's friends.
Kali Mountford: The people of Iraq have now languished under the tyranny of Saddam for far too long. Is not this cynical use of the process of the United Nations bringing it into disrepute? Are we not now in a position where, after the cynical protection of oil interests in Iraq, the cynical attempt to hide the fact that France vetoed any effort to indict Saddam and shying away on sales of weapons to Iraq, there is no prospect of unity in the United Nations and thereby no prospect of saving the people of Iraq?
Mr. Straw: It is for each member state of the United Nations to explain its own policy, and I am happy to explain ours. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We passed resolution after resolution in respect of Iraq, which I have presented to the House first in this Command Paper, then in the supplementary Command Paper. I say to any hon. Member who is still unpersuaded about the need for action and the fact that
710
Iraq has failed to comply with its disarmament obligations that they should simply read that which is now available to every Member in the document in the Vote Office—the 173 pages of Dr. Blix's report published on 7 March. That sets out chapter by chapter—in 29 chapters on more than 100 separate disarmament obligations—how Saddam, after 12 years, plainly has no intention whatsoever of meeting his disarmament obligations.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that many of us believe that the United States, having looked for Osama bin Laden, has quickly focused on the tangible target of Saddam Hussein, and that the irony is that the person who will be most pleased in the next few days is Osama bin Laden because of the risk from terrorism? Is he aware that the way in which the United States has conducted its campaign over the past few months has led to the fracture of the United Nations, the fracture of NATO and the fracture of the European Union? How is that in the British national interest?
Mr. Straw: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I just say this to him: I do not believe that the fight against international terrorism and the need to deal with rogue states are alternatives. They are not alternatives at all. We have to deal with international terrorism; we have to deal, too, with the threat of rogue states. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but the simple truth is that if that was the reason why the United States had gone to the United Nations, no other member of the United Nations would have supported it. It was because the case against the Iraqi regime, spelled out in 17 successive resolutions of the United Nations, is overwhelming. It is the United Nations that has been saying over 12 years that Iraq represents a threat to international peace and security.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the fracture of the United Nations, it is a fact, so far as NATO is concerned, that NATO, at its Prague summit at the end of November, fully and unanimously endorsed resolution 1441. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that if he is thinking about the issue of assistance to Turkey, the decision to provide assistance to Turkey was supported by 16 of the 19 member nations of NATO and opposed by only three.
Jim Dowd: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for his efforts, application and dedication in seeing UN resolution 1441 brought to fruition and pursued? Does he accept that had everybody who voted unanimously for that resolution meant what they said at the time, we would not now be in this position? Can he tell me when he first realised that those who signed up for "serious consequences" for non-compliance actually meant "zero consequences" for non-compliance? Can he tell me that the Government, once the current storm has abated, will do all that they can to resurrect the worldwide credibility of the UN, which has been so seriously undermined by those who have been playing games with what the international community should have done many years ago?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We have done all that we can to secure

711
a peaceful resolution to the crisis. It is still possible, let me say, for it to be resolved peacefully by Saddam Hussein's agreeing to go into exile. Should that be the case, as I have said on a number of occasions, we would support a United Nations Security Council resolution to provide Saddam Hussein with immunity from prosecution so that he could go into exile and enjoy a retirement of the kind that he has denied to so many of his own people. I am willing to accept that terrible compromise to try to avoid a war. I hope and believe that the whole House would also do that.
My hon. Friend asks whether I concluded that some members of the Security Council were trying to rewrite 1441. I reached that conclusion a week ago, but I had suspected it for some time. I attended successive Security Council meetings in which Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei pointed out that Iraq had not complied with clear obligations to make full and complete disclosure by 7 December. Instead, it recycled the incomplete, mendacious and deceitful disclosures that it had made in the past. It failed in every other respect to comply fully with the resolution.
The issue raises a question about United Nations authority, which is at stake. It is incumbent on all Security Council members to mean what they say and to say what they mean. We have done that; I regret that others have failed to do so.
Mr. Alex Salmond: But is not the reality that the Government do not have a majority in favour of their position on the Security Council and that they have never had a majority for early recourse to war? Most countries perceive a clear alternative and doubtless believed the United States ambassador when he told them that 1441 was not a trigger for war. Instead of blaming the French, will the Government reflect on their responsibility for turning a 30-nation coalition that expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait into the four countries whose representatives met yesterday in the Azores? Two of them are not even committing troops to the engagement.
We are all worried and we all support our troops—[Interruption.] But are there worse circumstances under which to take a country to war than no consent at home and no consensus in the international community?
Mr. Straw: I have been in the House long enough to recall that the hon. Gentleman described our action in Kosovo, which was entirely right, as an unpardonable folly.
David Winnick: If the military action that everyone now expects takes place, will not British troops be fighting a murderous tyranny? Do not those troops deserve support from all hon. Members because they will be doing right? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large majority of people in Iraq will welcome liberation from tyranny? They have been imprisoned long enough, and it will be surprising if our troops are not treated as liberators when the time comes.
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend has been steadfast in his support for implementing 1441.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Four years ago, the Foreign Secretary was part of a Government who
712
committed British troops to an offensive operation with no United Nations authority. Four years later, those troops remain deployed. Does he believe that criticism of his strategy today, when operating under United Nations authority, with an exit strategy of an Iraq free of tyranny—and free of foreign troops in months if not years—is justifiable from those who were a party to the decision to launch the Kosovo operation?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises the legal base for the action in Kosovo. That was questioned because there was a threat of a veto from Russia and securing a resolution was therefore not possible. I well remember that the action, which I fully supported, was controversial. However, events have shown that it was justifiable. We are currently following through the recent injunctions of resolution 1441, which the United Nations passed unanimously only four months ago.
Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that rejecting the road of peace and a legal solution to the problem means that tomorrow or the day after, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, cruise missiles and a panoply of weapons of huge destruction will be unleashed on the people of Iraq? Many will die. Many soldiers on all sides will die. What, in the Foreign Secretary's view, will be the long-term consequences for other conflicts throughout the middle east?
Mr. Straw: What I say to my hon. Friend first is that, as I said earlier, no one in the House has a monopoly on wisdom or morality on this issue, and I hope that we all respect each other's positions. Decisions about military action are very difficult because—my hon. Friend is right—people will be killed if military action is taken. Innocent civilians will be killed. However much the military strive, as they do, to avoid civilian casualties, some will be killed.
My hon. Friend asked what would be the result of military action. Yes, people will be killed, but the result will be better than the result of not taking military action. I am quite clear about that. If we fail to take military action, many thousands more will perish at Saddam Hussein's hand, and the ongoing instability of the region—caused by Saddam Hussein's armaments and weapons of mass destruction—will continue. It is my belief that, just as we found in Afghanistan—an imperfect country, but far, far better than the Taliban regime before—that military action has helped to stabilise the regime and, above all, to liberate the benighted people of that country, so we shall find the same in respect of Iraq.
John Barrett: How will the Foreign Secretary proceed if the Government lose the vote tomorrow, or would that be dismissed as an "unreasonable" vote?
Mr. Straw: We are not intending to lose the vote tomorrow, although we are certainly not relying on the Liberals.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend realise, as one of those who opposed the march

713
on Baghdad, that we now face a very different situation from the one that we faced 12 years ago? Is he also aware that those who choose to oppose resolution 1441 now are doing so in the certain knowledge that there will be no military action or military sanctions until November or December of next year, and that to do that is to give away to Saddam Hussein an inordinately long period of negotiation and obfuscation, which has marked the way in which he has behaved in the international arena all these years? We must act now, and we must act quickly.
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. I must also point out to the House that the reason why there was not a march on Baghdad was that the United States Government and the chief of their military staff, the then General Powell, wished to follow United Nations resolutions and decided that they had no United Nations mandate to complete the action on to Baghdad. Many will say, "Would that they had been able to undertake that action to rid the world of Saddam," but I certainly supported the decision not to take action at that stage, because it would have been against the mandate of the UN.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the publication of the road map for Palestine having given real hope for the people of Palestine, the agreement that Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the people of Iraq and that the United Nations should lead a massive programme of reconstruction and humanitarian support, and the likelihood that we would have got a second UN resolution if it had not been for the French veto, there are now no valid reasons whatever for any Labour MP not to support our Government tomorrow?
Hon. Members: Want to bet?
Mr. Straw: Yes. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very difficult question, and I agree with him. Of course this is a difficult issue, but I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, who take a different view to spell out in detail what the alternative is.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Inspectors.
Mr. Straw: I hear an hon. Member saying "Inspectors", but all I say is that to continue with inspectors and to offer more time is not to disarm Saddam Hussein but to allow him to re-arm.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Foreign Secretary knows of the absolutely solid support that he has from the Conservative Benches at this difficult time for the actions that will be undertaken shortly by the men and women of our armed forces. May I ask him, none the less, whether he agrees that the real test of the operation will be whether moderation or fundamentalism ends up being strengthened in the region as a whole? Will he accept it from the many Members of the House with experience of that part of the world that the key test for moderate Arab and Islamic opinion will be whether we and the Americans deliver on the so-called road map, and do not merely talk about it afterwards?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. If we think of all the issues that have led
714
to an alienation of Arab and Islamic countries from the west, Iraq is not among them. Most of them are contemptuous of Saddam Hussein, whom they regard, quite correctly, as a terrible follower of Islam. The issue in question is justice for the Palestinians, as well as a viable state of Palestine, within the borders broadly laid down under resolution 242 in 1967, with its own capital, and not just an end to settlements but a removal of settlements and a solution to the refugee crisis. That is absolutely essential at all times, and that need is reinforced by the current crisis.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I welcome what the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government motion say about the fundamental importance of the road map to middle eastern peace, but will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance, especially taking into account the terrible slaughter of Palestinian children by Israeli forces during the past few days, that it will not be Ariel Sharon's Government who make the decisions about progress on the road map, but that that will be done by the Quartet and by our own Government, and that the Government will yield nothing on moving towards a just peace settlement with security for Israel and a decent national settlement for the Palestinian people?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I give my right hon. Friend that assurance, and I point out to him, in support of that, that when, I think in great error, the Prime Minister of Israel decided to ban representatives of the Palestinian Authority from travelling to the United Kingdom for a meeting to discuss Palestinian Authority reform, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was determined that that meeting should go ahead. Therefore, we indeed went ahead by using video screens. That was far less satisfactory than a face-to-face meeting, but it sent out a very clear message that we wished, whatever the obstacles, to assist the Palestinians in their reform process and, in doing so, to bring justice to the Palestinians. We shall continue in that endeavour.
Rev. Martin Smyth: We on the Ulster Unionist Benches supported the Government seeking a second resolution and we regret that it has not been achieved, but is it not unfair of people to undertake an anti-American vendetta and fail to recognise that perhaps Russia and France have their own interests as well? May I therefore press this question: we talk about humanitarian relief afterwards, but what percentage of the $30 million that has already been subscribed to the UN's $130 million humanitarian appeal fund has come from the dissenting nations in the UN? If they are not joining the effort to get rid of Saddam, are they joining the effort to look after the humanitarian interests of the people?
Mr. Straw: I am sorry that I do not have a detailed answer for the hon. Gentleman, but I shall write to him.
Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend knows that the Saddam regime practised ethnic cleansing of the Shi'a Marsh Arabs and of the Kurds. He will also be aware that, in the past week, 600 Kurdish families have been driven out of Kirkuk. Does he find it surprising that some people who were prepared to

715
support military action against ethnic cleansing in Kosovo without a UN resolution in 1999 are now prepared to oppose action in support of UN Security Council resolutions 1441, 678 and 687?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend points to an inconsistency and he is right. People are now passionate about this issue, but I remind the House that people became very passionate and, to a degree, divided over Kosovo; yet in many ways the decisions that we took then were more difficult, because there was no clear legal base, than the decisions that we ought to be taking now in respect of Iraq.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that, in the past, the Government successfully took military action in the Balkans without authorisation from the United Nations, has it not turned out to be a serious mistake by the Prime Minister to expend so much effort in persuading our American allies to go down the flawed route of an unnecessary second United Nations resolution?
Mr. Straw: No, I do not accept that. Yes, we played our part in persuading the United States Government to go down the UN route but, in the end, they are, of course, responsible for their own decisions. It is my belief that the standing of the United States in the world, as well as the authority of the United Nations, has been greatly reinforced by the decision that President Bush made, and announced on 12 September last year at the General Assembly, to support the UN, not only in respect of its actions on Iraq but in many other ways. If, as I believe it is, it turns out to be necessary for military action to occur in Iraq, international consent will be greatly broadened by the fact that we tried every diplomatic means possible to resolve the crisis peacefully and under the aegis of the United Nations. What we are now doing is seeking to enforce the authority of the United Nations when it said many years ago, and repeated just four months ago, that, if necessary, serious consequences would follow for Iraq for its failure to comply with UN obligations.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that many Members on both sides of the House and many people in the country believe that the much-demonised French are not isolated in the Security Council or in international chambers in their opposition to this war. In those circumstances, why have we not had the courage to go back to the Security Council in order to test, at the very least, the true weight of world opinion?
Mr. Straw: I thought that I had explained that to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not demonising anybody; I am simply laying out the facts of the matter and they are straightforward. My hon. and learned Friend is acquainted with the words of the law so I am sure that he will be almost as familiar as I am with the terms of 1441. As I have already explained to the House, that laid out a clear set of obligations on Iraq and a process for the United Nations. We were following that process because of Iraq's non-compliance. We were
716
close to achieving a consensus and were in exactly the same situation as we were shortly before we achieved consensus on 1441. Then, a week ago today, President Chirac came along and said in terms that, whatever the circumstances, France would veto a second resolution. That is what he said and it paralysed the negotiation process. The responsibility for there not being a second resolution, which was never needed legally although we would have preferred it politically, does not rest on the shoulders of the United Kingdom Government.
Gregory Barker: Although we now face the bleak prospect of war, the Foreign Secretary has gone out of his way in recent weeks and months to keep the House up to speed with all the developments in the diplomatic field. Likewise, we have received numerous statements about military preparations. However, we have been kept woefully ignorant about contingency planning for the humanitarian crisis that will surely follow military action. When can we expect the Secretary of State for International Development to stop grandstanding in the media and actually come to the House, face up to her responsibilities, make a statement and answer questions. If she will not come to the House, will the Foreign Secretary send her successor tomorrow?
Mr. Straw: I believe—I say this in all seriousness—that no one in the House has done more for the cause of international development than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That happens to be true. Her dedication and commitment to the cause is huge.
The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question. We were reluctant to come to the House and spell out the detailed arrangements with respect to humanitarian aid because we were hoping against hope that there could be a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the crisis which, yes, would keep Saddam Hussein in place—so the issue of humanitarian relief would not arise—but would at the same time disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. I accept that we have almost certainly passed that point, and of course in the days and weeks ahead statements will be made to the House about our plans for humanitarian relief and reconstruction; but those plans are already contained, in outline, in the motion that we will present to the House tomorrow.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when resolution 1441 was passed China, Russia and France issued a joint statement making it clear that their support for the resolution did not constitute an endorsement of military action? Far from the credibility of the UN being safeguarded, is it not the case that this war is not backed by a second resolution because there is currently no support in the Security Council for an attack on a sovereign state?
Mr. Straw: I think there is support for the enforcement of the will of the United Nations. This should not be parodied as an attack on a sovereign state. The only state that has gratuitously attacked other sovereign states without any justification or cause in the last 15 years is Iraq, which attacked first Iran and then Kuwait.

717
It is true that China, Russia and France each issued what is called an explanation of vote—as did we—saying that resolution 1441 did not provide for automaticity in respect of the use of force. We said the same. There was never provision of an automatic figure for the use of force. What resolution 1441 did anticipate was that if Iraq failed to comply with its obligations there would be a process, and serious consequences would follow. That is exactly the procedure, and the law, that we are following.
Lembit Öpik: The Foreign Secretary has the capacity to evade this question, but I hope he will answer it with candour. How will he and the Government respond if over time it can be shown that an attack on Iraq has prompted or caused sustained international terrorism in the United Kingdom and abroad rather than preventing it?
Mr. Straw: I am afraid I do not accept that the way to oppose terrorists is to appease tyrants.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Should the House not be encouraged by the fact that, tomorrow or the day after, it will have an opportunity to vote for a motion calling on Her Majesty's Government, on an urgent basis, to return to the UN Security Council to pass a resolution providing for Iraq's borders, for the release of its oil, for humanitarian aid, and for human rights for all Iraqis—Shi'ites, Kurds and those in Saddam City?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French President will shortly host a meeting of G8 nation states in Paris? Will that not provide an opportunity for members of the international community to join the Security Council in enhancing the international reconstruction to which he has referred?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend mentioned the G8 meeting. There are of course differences—well aired today by Members, including me—between international partners; but in all the discussions I have had in the past week with my fellow Foreign Ministers, including the French, Russian, Chinese and German Foreign Ministers, I have emphasised the need for us to ensure that the United Nations stays together as far as possible, and also that we use other international institutions, including the G8, as a means of providing funds for reconstruction.
We say in our motion that the Security Council resolution that we will seek will aim to secure a swift end to sanctions. I think the whole House is united on the need for a swift end to sanctions in appropriate circumstances. Again, I ask those who doubt the wisdom of military action what is their alternative. How do we end not only the tyranny of Saddam Hussein but his impoverishment of his own people over 12 weary and long years?
Simon Hughes: Even if Saddam Hussein will only be disarmed by force, can the Foreign Secretary explain why the interests of Britain and Europe, international security and the authority of the UN are better served by taking action this week, backed by only two permanent members of the UN, with no majority in the Security Council, when six or seven more weeks of giving peace a chance and the
718
inspectors a chance might produce all the permanent members, the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the UN, and have real authority? Why is that a less good option?
Mr. Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to give a rather poor imitation of the French, German and Chinese proposals.
Simon Hughes: Why is it less good?
Mr. Straw: Let me just explain. Those proposals were to make use of the provisions of resolution 1284, for which those countries did not vote in the first place and which have no teeth whatever. What France is proposing is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is proposing—that there should be 140 days and then a report, then another 140 days and then a report, and then another 140 days.
Simon Hughes: indicated dissent.
Mr. Straw: That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. It is a means not of dealing with the issue but of avoiding the issue, which is exactly where the Liberals are on every issue.
Hon. Members: More!
Mr. Speaker: Order.[Interruption.] Order.
Jane Griffiths: In the difficult days and weeks that lie ahead, will my right hon. Friend find the opportunity to continue his efforts to persuade his counterparts across the channel in France of the effect that their perfidious action in treating the United Nations with contempt could have, not necessarily for Iraq, but for conflict resolution in the wider world in future?
Mr. Straw: It is fair to say, listening to this debate and taking part in it, that on the whole hon. Members have been unimpressed by the position taken by the French Government.
Glenda Jackson: In the light of my right hon. Friend's previous replies, does he wish the House to believe that the requests, twice made, of the UN inspectors for more time, most recently not for weeks, not for years but for months, was not a genuine request on the part of those UN officials but a request made at the behest of France, Russia, China and Germany?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. She refers, I believe, to the last report of Dr. Blix, the short one, that he presented to the Security Council on 7 March and to which I referred when I spoke in the Security Council that afternoon, but the simple fact of the matter is that Dr. Blix—his report is published in the Command Paper before me—was referring to the possibility of the inspection process taking not weeks, not years but months in the context of Iraq's full compliance. As I pointed out to the Security Council that afternoon, no one—not the inspectors and no member of the Security Council—has

719
ever been able to say that Iraq is in full compliance with the Security Council resolutions that were required of it on 8 November.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that what really destroys the credibility of the United Nations is not France or any other country following the rules of the UN, but Governments preparing for months for war and planning for war while simultaneously saying that they are going down the UN route but will not accept the use of the veto? As for the use of the veto in the UN, the UK and US Governments between them are responsible for more than 40 per cent. of the occasions on which it has been exercised. The US alone has used it 75 times, mostly on the middle east.
Mr. Straw: Each member of the permanent five of the Security Council has made use of the veto to a varying extent. Let us be clear about this: the difference between 1284 and 1441 was not just the words on the paper, although that was a big difference; the only reason for the difference between Iraq's refusal to let in the inspectors at all after the passage of 1284, and our getting them back, at least, with the passage of 1441—with some compliance on process, but reluctant compliance on substance—is the fact that we backed our diplomacy with a credible threat of force. My hon. Friend must face up to the fact that that is spelled out in chapter VII of the United Nations charter, and that it is others who are undermining the UN's authority if they fail to back this credible threat of force in order to maintain the authority of the UN.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, and to the Prime Minister, for all their efforts to get a peaceful resolution to this situation, and for using the United Nations in doing so? However, ultimately we have to accept that we have failed. Regrettably, we are now almost isolated in Europe, which must be very bad for this country. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what military and political support we expect to get from our European colleagues when the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq takes place?
Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the warm tribute that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me, and in view of it I very much look forward to his support in the Lobby tomorrow evening. However, it is a parody to suggest that this issue has separated Europe from America, or the Anglo-Saxons from the Europeans. That is simply not the case; more European countries, across the 25 current or putative members of the European Union, support the position that we take than support the opposite point of view. That has been made very clear in a number of letters from the Vilnius 10 and from the Group of 8, and in a succession of resolutions passed by the European Council and by the NATO Council, which endorse the position that we have taken.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Would not those countries that believe in proper reconstruction
720
of Iraq as a peaceful nation do better to come to London, rather than go to Paris and follow in the footsteps of Mugabe?
Mr. Straw: The French have the chairmanship of the G8, and we look forward to constructive discussions with them about the reconstruction of Iraq.
Joan Ruddock: Sadly, I am unable to support my Government in this action, but I should tell my right hon. Friend that I believe that the whole House will appreciate what he has said about keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. For many of us, the test of that policy will be no cluster bombs, no depleted uranium weapons, and no targeting of water and food supplies.
Mr. Straw: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says, and I am sorry that she feels unable to support the Government in the Lobby tomorrow. I will have a separate discussion with her about what she feels are the alternatives, now that we have reached the end of the diplomatic road, I am afraid to say. If I felt that there were a further peaceful alternative apart from the exile of Saddam Hussein, I would take it, because, like everybody else in this House, I hate the idea of war. I no more want military action to be taken than does anybody else.
As for targeting, we have to acknowledge the fact that people will be killed if there is military action, and that some of them will be innocent people. That is the nature of warfare, but I can tell my hon. Friend that every effort is being taken, and will be taken, to ensure that, so far as is humanly possible, the targeting will be very careful, proportionate and designed, obviously, to attack military and legitimate targets, and not anybody else.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Notwithstanding the statement by the French President last week that he would veto a second resolution in any circumstances—if anything has been reckless in the past few months, that was—surely France and Russia will be critically important if we are to rebuild Iraq, especially if we are also to maintain its territorial integrity. When and how does the Foreign Secretary hope to start negotiations with France and Russia to ensure that that happens?
Mr. Straw: As I have already explained to the House, discussions with our French and Russian—and, indeed, Chinese and German—colleagues continue, and I have made it clear that while there is unquestionably a difficulty between us on this issue, we must not let that get in the way of co-operation on a wide range of other issues, including the humanitarian reconstruction of Iraq should that prove necessary.
Helen Jackson: Is it not the case that having decided to go down the collective route through the United Nations, which carried the unanimous approval of this House, and securing resolution 1441, it was incumbent on the Government to continue to go with the collective view of the UN? Does not the failure of the US and Britain to carry their point of view through the Security Council stand us in poor stead as a precedent for dealing with further difficulties that may arise this century?
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows from her involvement in one of our party's policy commissions on

721
foreign affairs, it was the Labour party's preference to seek a second resolution, but it was not a requirement. We have sought to follow the policy of the party as laid out in a clear mandate at party conference and on 27 January. It is a matter of regret that we were not able to achieve a consensus in the Security Council, but it was not for want of trying.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)—whose absence is regretted on both sides of the House—said:
"We must remember that the United Nations is not some third party to whom we have subcontracted our security responsibilities. It is no more and no less than the sum of its members."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 45.]
My regret is that some members of the Security Council, having said one thing in the resolution in November, decided to change the meaning of that resolution this year.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Tomorrow's Government motion refers to
"the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap".
What does "imminent" mean in that context? Does it mean tomorrow? Will we be informed of the contents of the road map so that we may have a properly informed debate tomorrow?
Mr. Straw: "Imminent" means that we are hoping to see the full publication of the roadmap once Abu Mazen has been endorsed and has accepted the post. There will then be an interlocutor for the Quartet to deal with. Informal copies of the road map are publicly available on the website and I shall ensure that one is placed in the Library of the House.
Tony Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for fulfilling his commitment to enable the House to vote again on this issue, although we all recognise that we are probably at the end of the road tonight. Does he understand why some of us who are not anti-American or pacifists, and who have supported every other military action that the Government have taken, have found it difficult in these circumstances to support this military action? We knew that Saddam Hussein could be disarmed only through a process that was like drawing teeth, and that we had to back that with the use of force, but is not this the first time in this country's history that we will wage war on a country that is actually getting rid of some of its weaponry under UN auspices?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have been in the House now through four different sets of military action and it is fair to point out that this is the first time—and I am glad that it has been supported on all sides—that the Government have followed a clear process of ensuring that every debate takes place on a substantive resolution. I know that there was some scepticism that we would not introduce a resolution until after military action had taken place, but I hope that the House is reassured that we are doing exactly what we said we would do and are ensuring that the House has both the power and the responsibility in respect of this matter before any action is taken, not after. I am glad that we have set that precedent for the future.
722
Let me pick up on my hon. Friend's analogy about drawing teeth. Drawing teeth is not just difficult but is possible only if the patient has his mouth open. In the case of Saddam Hussein, if I may continue the analogy, we have a patient who most of the time has his mouth closed and who from time to time bites the dentist. In those circumstances, achieving compliance from this so-called patient to draw the teeth becomes impossible.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I acknowledge the efforts of my right hon. Friend and the enormous efforts of the Prime Minister to try to secure the additional UN resolution that so many of us wanted. Is not the choice before us now stark? People can, however unintentionally, give further succour to this dangerous, evil tyrant, or they can support our armed forces and show the will and determination that are needed finally to disarm this butcher.
Mr. Straw: Like my hon. Friend, I do not impugn the motives of anybody in this House, but we all have to think very carefully about the consequences of what we are doing. If we were to weaken our resolve at this stage, it would be Saddam Hussein who would be emboldened and millions and millions of Iraqis who would be plunged into further desperation and despair as they saw the one hope of liberation disappear.
John McDonnell: I hope that we will have time tomorrow to debate the rights and wrongs of this war, but may I make this one appeal? I return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) about civilian casualties. Today, reports are coming through from Baghdad of parents who are desperately trying to find room on buses to Jordan for their children. Would it be possible—through the United Nations and perhaps through an independent country such as Jordan—to make an offer to evacuate the children of Baghdad before the bombing starts?
Mr. Straw: I doubt very much whether that would prove possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am about to explain why. The reason why I think that it would not be possible is that I do not think, for a start, that there would be any compliance by Saddam Hussein. I recall, during the last Gulf war, that, far from trying to ensure that children in Baghdad were placed in safe places, he ensured that they were used as human shields.
Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend has given a clear indication tonight that he does not think that the process of inspection could ever produce the effective decommissioning of weapons of mass destruction—which is the object of this whole enterprise—even though that process did achieve significant results in 1998. As the inspectors themselves have never claimed that the process would prove futile, does my right hon. Friend have no confidence in the weapons inspectors whatsoever?
Mr. Straw: I have every confidence—and I have expressed that confidence—in the weapons inspectors. With respect, my hon. Friend misunderstands what I have been saying. Weapons inspection systems can work, and weapons inspectors can work, where there is

723
compliance by the country concerned. When South Africa came into compliance, I understand that it took nine inspectors just three months to verify South Africa's disarmament of its nuclear installations. Twelve years after Iraq was ordered within 45 days fully and completely to comply with its disarmament obligations and to begin the disarmament process with the inspectors, the weapons inspectors have still laid out 29 separate chapters, in 173 pages, of incomplete disarmament obligations. As long as this regime is in place, and as long as it is refusing to co-operate, the inspection process becomes well-nigh impossible.

Business of the House
9.40 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the business for tomorrow.
There will now be a debate on Iraq on a Government motion. The business for the remainder of the week will remain unchanged and there will be the usual statement on Thursday.
May I say how sorry I am that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is not making this statement? I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the outstanding contribution that he made as Leader of the House.
Mr. Eric Forth: May I echo the Minister's words about the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)?
I very much welcome the statement. It is right that we debate the matter tomorrow. Will the Minister confirm, however, that the debate will start at 12.30 pm and continue until 10 o'clock, when the votes will be held?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I can confirm that.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I add our words to those of the Minister and the shadow Leader of the House in support of the work carried out by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in his role as Leader of the House?
I remind the Minister that the Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must let the hon. Gentleman speak.
Mr. Stunell: The Foreign Secretary told the House just a few moments ago that there was a tendency for nations that have voted on 1441 to change their interpretation of it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a business statement. The time for the hon. Gentleman to raise that issue has passed. Perhaps he will catch my eye tomorrow.
Mr. Simon Thomas: May I associate Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party with the Minister's comments on the former Leader of the House?
Tomorrow's vote will be desperately important and many of us will want to oppose the Government. Although they are not legally bound to pay attention to the vote, will the Minister give an undertaking—an assurance—that the Government will be honour bound to pay attention to it? If so, every Member's vote will count, and it will therefore be a real vote on whether we should go to war or not. Will he also give an undertaking that if the vote goes against the Government, they will not go to war?
Mr. Bradshaw: The Government have bent over backwards to honour their commitments to the House and I am confident that they will do so again tomorrow by giving the House an unprecedented opportunity to express its will.
Chris Grayling: Will the Minister tell the House whether the Prime Minister will lead the debate tomorrow and how much time he will spend in the Chamber?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, the Prime Minister will lead the debate tomorrow. I do not know how much time he will spend in the Chamber, but I suspect that it will be a lot.
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement that may help the House.
The Secretary of State invited me in the course of his statement to specify a time by which amendments to the Government's motion on Iraq must be submitted. Members who want their amendment to appear on the Order Paper tomorrow morning must, of course, table it before the House rises tonight, but I will consider for selection any amendment that is submitted in good order before 10 am tomorrow.

Personal Statement
9.44 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the Back Benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here. None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr. Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview. On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner—not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral

727
support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands. I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.
Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20
728
years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the Prime Minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the Government.[Applause.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have motions to put before the House.

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

  IMMIGRATION
  That the draft Asylum (Designated States) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 43.

  Division No. 116]

  [9: 56 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coaker, Vernon

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Alexander, Douglas

  Connarty, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corston, Jean

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Crausby, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cruddas, Jon

  Austin, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Baird, Vera

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Banks, Tony

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Beard, Nigel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  David, Wayne

  Benn, Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Best, Harold

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Betts, Clive

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blackman, Liz

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Denham, rh John

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doran, Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bryant, Chris

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Cairns, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Casale, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Caton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Chaytor, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, rh George

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  730

  Gilroy, Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Grogan, John

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hanson, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McKechin, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNulty, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWilliam, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Heyes, David

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hodge, Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, rh John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Perham, Linda

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Picking, Anne

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kidney, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Purchase, Ken

  Purnell, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lammy, David

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

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

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  731

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salter, Martin

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Ward, Claire

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wills, Michael

  Spellar, rh John

  Wilson, Brian

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Stevenson, George

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Straw, rh Jack

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Barrett, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Breed, Colin

  McDonnell, John

  Burnett, John

  Moore, Michael

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Öpik, Lembit

  Chidgey, David

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Cotter, Brian

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Doughty, Sue

  Salmond, Alex

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Sanders, Adrian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Thurso, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Weir, Michael

  Heath, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Hermon, Lady

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Holmes, Paul

  Willis, Phil

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Wishart, Pete

  Keetch, Paul

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Lamb, Norman

  Bob Russell

  Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6 )(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 113) on the Special Grant in aid of the revenues of the London Borough of Hackney for 2002–03, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  That the draft Apple and Pear Research Council (Dissolution) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
  That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

  REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS
  That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

  POLICE
  That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Codes B to E) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Iraq
  10.7 pm
  Annabelle Ewing: I am pleased to present what could not be a more timely petition on behalf of my constituents in the Strathearn Coalition for Justice Not War, who have collected 444 signatures from people across Strathearn in a short time. At this eleventh hour, my constituents are making a direct appeal to this House to exert its influence over Tony Blair and the UK Government to step back from the brink of war.
  To lie upon the Table.

Press Complaints Commission
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
10.8 pm
Ian Lucas: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I approach the debate with some trepidation, because there is often a great difficulty in raising issues that relate to confidentiality and children. It is very important to try to respect the anonymity of children in any description of their difficulties, so I shall refer to actual cases, but not to any names, although I trust that all the facts that I lay before the House will be entirely correct.
By common consent, children are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society and are deserving of special protection. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 affords the protection of anonymity to children who are suspected of committing criminal offences and, indeed, to those who are convicted of committing criminal offences. For the most part, that legislation is uncontroversial. It is well recognised and accepted that adverse publicity can prejudice children's futures and that the press could affect those children's futures if names were to be reported. Generally speaking, the press respect the law and do not publish the names of suspected young offenders. However, some recent cases have highlighted a very serious discrepancy in the way that some children are affected by adverse publicity. When children are victims of a crime, they may be protected by the law. The court can make an order that such children should not be identified. The position is much less satisfactory, however, in two particular circumstances.
The first of those circumstances is where an offence may have been committed, but no charge has been preferred. The court has no power to issue orders in such circumstances. Equally, if an offence is committed abroad the legal protections do not apply. In both cases, the law does not protect the child involved. It is fair to say, however, that an intended measure of protection is offered by the Press Complaints Commission code, which includes a section that specifically relates to children. It recognises, as does the law, that children deserve special protection. In the light of recent cases, however, I am not certain that the code offers sufficient protection.
It is worth pausing to consider how profound can be the effect of media attention on an individual in the modern world. In a previous role, when I was a solicitor, I represented an individual who was the victim of a crime that attracted worldwide media attention. The press are absolutely relentless in such circumstances. Many members of the press believe that they have a right to question such a victim, to highlight and invade their personal life and to tell the world about it. Some reporters do not seem to understand that the long-term effect that such attention can have on a person is very potent. When the story no longer has "legs", the press move on, but the victim still has to deal with its aftermath.
The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is investigating the subject, and I look forward to seeing its report. I have attended one of its evidence sessions because of my particular interest. I hope that some of
734
the press reports that I have read, which suggest that the Government will reject its concerns out of hand, are inaccurate.
I want specifically to concentrate on how press reporting can affect children. In two recent cases, young girls under 16 appear to have been the victims of crime. I will not identify them, although at all stages the newspapers and broadcasting media have done so. One girl disappeared in this country and the other disappeared abroad. Both appeared to be having relationships with older men. The Press Complaints Commission code says at paragraph 7.1:
"The press must not, even where the law does not prohibit it, identify children under the age of 16 who are involved in cases concerning sexual offences, whether as victims or witnesses."
In one of the cases to which I refer, a national newspaper seemed to have no doubt as to the nature of the adult's relationship with the child. It interviewed other women who had had a sexual relationship with the man concerned and published their findings. One, who was identified as having been "bedded" by the same man, said:
"He's obviously a pervert."
I believed that a series of articles about the child were in breach of the Press Complaints Commission code, especially when I read in its preamble that it should be
"honoured not only in the letter but in the full spirit."
I therefore wrote to the PCC.
I was surprised by the letter that I received in return, which stated:
"we could not investigate anything without the co-operation of the child's parents."
The code does not specify that. I was also told that I should have complained about the story within one month of publicaton. The code does not state that. either. When I read the letter, as a former solicitor, I took the view that it was a good defence response to an allegation by the prosecution. I had not understood that that was the PCC 's role. Its objections were further undermined by additional reporting of the same story within two weeks of my complaint.
The further reporting provided the additional detail that the child had been put on a school "runaway watch". The child's comments about her treatment at school were quoted and the school was identified. Even the timing of her private tuition lessons was published.
In the second case, the child's school was identified after she had been traced. Her home address was also identified. The central irony is that if either girl had, committed a criminal offence rather than been the victim of such an offence, it would have been illegal to print all that information.
I decided to take a different tack and write to two of the editors. They took the view that as the children's names were in the public domain, their obligation was simply to inform their readers of the facts. They had no comprehension of or sympathy for the interests of the child. Those interests were irrelevant to them.
I should therefore like the Minister to consider the discrepancy in the law and examine two possible courses. In the first instance, I have been dissatisfied with the response from the PCC. I acknowledge that legislation on such matters is sensitive, difficult and a step that no Government wish to take. Freedom of the

735
press is intensely valuable. However, it is limited by law in the case of individuals, including children, who commit criminal offences.
I believe that the press should accept that it is in the general public interest not to broadcast or publish the names of children who are victims of crime. I hope that that argument is uncontroversial. The press work within such limits regularly when they report from the courts, and I believe that they appreciate that children need special protection. I ask the Minister to join me in making representations to the PCC and to consider carefully the way in which it report; cases that involve children, especially when such cases are salacious, have a sexual element or have a profound effect on the individuals.
Those young people have the rest of their lives to experience what the press has told the general public about them. When the press moves on to the next story, it does not appreciate the way in which the publication of the private affairs of young children can remain fresh in their community, town and life for all their days. If we are to be honest and straightforward about deciding that we have an obligation to the 'youngest and most vulnerable people in our society, we have an obligation to act and to try to persuade the press to be more responsible in the way in which it reports these matters.
I sincerely hope that the Press Complaints Commission will see the validity and strength of these arguments, but if it does not, and if it takes the view that the victims of crime deserve less protection than those who commit crimes—even though they may be juveniles—the Government should look closely at amending current legislation to ensure that the protection given to those who commit criminal offences is extended to the victims of offences, whether the offences are committed in this country or abroad.
10.20 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells):I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for raising this important and topical subject. He spoke eloquently about two particular cases. It is not for me to offer judgment in individual cases. I have great sympathy for members of the public who find themselves suddenly thrust into the public eye. That can be a harrowing experience, particularly as that exposure often comes at a time when they are particularly sensitive or vulnerable, but I know that my hon. Friend agrees that we need to have a sense of perspective when considering these issues.
Every week, some 162 million newspapers are sold in this country. This is a hugely successful industry that reflects, and has an impact on, every aspect of our lives. We cannot, and do not, expect to like or agree with everything that is printed. Governments, in particular, would occasionally like the media to agree with them, and to appear to understand them. I have reason to know that that is not often the case. But, although this is sometimes a cause for frustration, I am, on the whole, glad of it. We have a vibrant and irreverent press that is undoubtedly free, and we know that this country would be a far poorer place without it.
736
That certainly does not make our press perfect, but, considering the vast number of publications, copies distributed, and articles that they contain, the number of complaints and concerns is actually very small. All can be considered against the newspaper industry's own code of practice, which is overseen by the Press Complaints Commission. The code is voluntary, but practically every publication in the country signs up to it, although a few small, independent newspapers do not. It contains 16 clauses covering, among other things, accuracy, privacy, harassment, intrusion into grief or shock, and children. Some of those clauses contain exclusions that apply if publication can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. The public interest is not an easily defined commodity, and lawyers, journalists and politicians debate it every day. It can include the detection or exposure of a crime, the protection of public health and safety, and the prevention of the public from being misled. It is not defined as whatever the public are interested in, or whatever they might find amusing, titillating, or frankly outrageous.
Last year, 2,630 people complained to the PCC about items in newspapers and magazines. About one third of all complaints were outside the remit of the PCC, covering legal issues or issues of taste and decency, or were from people not directly concerned. The commission is not in the game of offering legal advice; nor is it a censorship body in any shape or form. As a rule, the commission considers complaints only from people who are directly involved, although, in exceptional circumstances, it will act of its own volition, often provoked by letters from members of the public.
Of the properly constituted complaints, most were about inaccuracy, while about a quarter were about some aspect of privacy. After investigation, no breach was found in 26 per cent. of cases, and in most other cases, the PCC helped the complainant and the newspaper to reach a satisfactory agreement, such as the publication of a letter setting the record straight, or of an apology. In only 36 cases was a full adjudication needed; 17 cases were upheld and 19 rejected.
In addition, newspapers are bound by the general law that binds us all, but the code goes further than the law in many respects. For instance, the use of listening devices is not illegal, but the code bans it for journalists hoping to obtain information. As the code is voluntary rather than statutory, it has built-in flexibility to respond to new challenges where necessary, and there have been changes since it was established in 1991. They include prohibitions on some uses to which telephoto lenses are put. We have to accept, however, that no matter how well intentioned and how well thought through the code is, it does not cover every eventuality.
Any code or law is always open to some interpretation, so there is often still a debate to be had. One area that still attracts debate is the handling of cases involving children. All areas of the code cover children, so they have the same protection as adults from misleading or inaccurate reporting, intrusions into their privacy and so on, but sections of the code are specifically devoted to the coverage of stories involving children.
There are additional restrictions on what a newspaper may print about a child, and the tenets are these: young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion; journalists must not

737
interview or photograph a child on subjects involving the welfare of the child, or of any other child, without the consent of a parent or guardian; pupils must not be approached or photographed while at school unless the school authorities have given permission; there must be no payment to children or parents for stories involving the welfare of the child unless it is demonstrably in the child's interest; and where material about a child is published, there must be justification for publication other than the fame or notoriety of his or her parents.
Ian Lucas:One area that I am concerned about is that it appears in certain cases that parents perhaps do not act in the best interests of the child. That could be the cause of grave anxiety. I was concerned to learn that the PCC would not countenance a complaint, even from a Member of Parliament, when the parents did not agree to it. Could that be looked at?
Dr. Howells: I intend to come to that in a few moments, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, because it is an important point that needs careful deliberation.
In cases concerning sexual offences, the PCC rules are even tougher. Even where the law does not prohibit it, the press must not identify children involved in a sexual offence, whether as victims or as witnesses. My hon. Friend has raised that issue, inside and outside the Chamber. An adult may be identified, but the word "incest" must not be used if that could lead to identification of a witness or a victim, and care must be taken to ensure that the relationship between an accused and a child could not be inferred from anything in the report.
That all sounds very clear and straightforward, but there are always "what ifs". My hon. Friend has just raised one. What if the child is the victim of a sexual offence, but does not consider himself or herself to be one? What if a child and his or her family willingly talk about the story? What if a child goes missing and the family eagerly recruit the press to maximise public awareness, but it then turns out that he or she has been the victim of a sexual offence?
We have seen examples of all those recently, and my hon. Friend has spoken to us this evening about two such cases. One shows several of those elements. It seems that the girl at the centre of the case and her parents chose to speak out, which is the point that he just raised. They have the right to do so. At that point,
738
there was no suggestion that she was the victim of any offence. The details were widely published, and it is possible that they may have helped the police to find the girl and reunite het with her family. I do not know; my hon. Friend will know more about that. At that stage, there were again comments to media organisations, and again, the family had the right to make such comments.
Although so many details are already in the public domain—they cannot, of course, be retracted—there is still protection under the terms of the code. If the girl in that case, and her parents or guardians, now wish to remain silent, even though they have spoken to the press before, they have the right to do so, and they will have the protection of the code. Furthermore, if they believe that there was a breach of the code, they should contact the PCC immediately. As my hon. Friend has had experience of dealing with the PCC, I am certain that he will assist the family in their endeavours.
Those facts, without speaking particularly about that case, highlight certain moral issues. Decisions about whether a child should speak to the press are, in effect, made by parents or guardians on their behalf. Sometimes there are doubts about whether allowing a child to speak to the press really could be said to be in that child's best interests. We may believe that in certain cases it is not, but that is a matter of opinion, and as long as parents behave within the law, it is a matter for their judgment. We may not agree with their decision but, in principle, I believe that we must support their right to make decisions for their children.
Sadly, there are times when parents make very wrong, or even—as my hon. Friend has pointed out—harmful decisions for their children, and that is when social services might become involved. However, unless that is the case, parents have the right to speak to the press about their child as they see fit. We have no right to complain about their comments, and must keep our disapproval to ourselves.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have listened to what he said and that we are extremely sensitive to the important issue that he raised. I thank him once again for giving the House the opportunity to hear his analysis of a difficult but important subject.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.