Sitting of 25 January 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Fuel Bills (Pensioners)
    Mr. James Wray: What steps are being taken to assist Scottish pensioners with their winter fuel bills; and if a helpline has been set up for them. [104927]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): This winter about £70 million has been paid in winter fuel payments to more than 900,000 Scottish pensioners. As in previous years, a national helpline has been set up to deal with inquiries about the winter fuel payments scheme.
    Mr. Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that Scottish pensioners will be grateful not only for the £100 payment, but for the reduction in VAT—which was imposed by the previous Tory Government—from 17.5 to 5 per cent? Does he also agree that fuel payments are not only necessary, but that 169,000 pensioners in Scotland are entitled to income support? I know that his Department has set up a hotline, but will he speak to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and tell him to set up a hotline to help the 63,000 pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Step by step, the Government are delivering on their manifesto commitments to pensioners. That is a matter of right and also of respect to the senior members of our community. Step by step, we shall continue to do that until all our commitments are met.
    My hon. Friend makes an important point about helplines. Many pensioners do not claim their full entitlement and we must do more to ensure that they do. I have recently discussed the matter with my right hon.
    130
    Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and we shall certainly be out there making sure that every pensioner who is eligible for the minimum income guarantee will know of its availability and will be helped to claim what is theirs—not as a privilege from the Government, but as a 100 per cent. right for senior members of the community.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister is absolutely right and so is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray): the winter fuel payment is good because everyone receives it. The Minister was also right to say that Ministers need to do much more work to get take-up properly promoted. The Government have said for some time that pilot schemes—one is in the west coast of Scotland—are trying to find out why men over 65 and women over 60 do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled. What will be done about that, and when will we start to see some results?
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on these matters and he knows the problem of uptake. There is a complex pattern of reasons for that. Sometimes, older people simply do not want to claim everything that is due to them. I would strongly discourage that attitude. People who have given their life's work and commitment to this society are entitled to every penny that the law allows them to take.
    Perhaps I can use this medium to encourage people who think that they might be entitled to benefits that they do not receive to find out about them. They can go to their local Member of Parliament, a citizens advice bureau or Help the Aged to obtain the information that they require. There is no cost in getting that advice. If people, particularly at this time of year, do not receive everything to which they are entitled, we want to know about it and we want to assist. I have spoken recently to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security—there is an intention to promote uptake and we shall continue to do that.
    Mr. Calum Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems facing pensioners in the highlands and islands, in particular, is the high fuel prices that they have to pay for domestic heating? Will he therefore undertake to talk to the Office of Fair Trading to make sure that its current inquiry into petrol prices also considers the important problem of high fuel prices for domestic heating?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. I am aware that, in some places, the cost of domestic heating oil has doubled. I do not think that that is justifiable in terms of the market in oil, and I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's comments to the Office of Fair Trading. We are doing many things to attack the general problem of exceptionally high fuel prices in the remoter areas of the country.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome what has been done to help pensioners. However, has the Minister been assured that staff in pensions offices and in post offices are aware of the situation? What steps have been taken to deal with men of over-60, who are on pensions but who are not pensioners in the state sense, so that they can receive their entitlement? How far have we

    131
    gone down the road to rectifying that problem and protecting those who were in respite care on about 20 September and who have been disqualified from the winter fuel allowance at a time when they need it?
    Mr. Wilson: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I am sure that he knows of the legal action that was raised. As a result of that, 190,000 pensioners in Scotland will be eligible for backdated payments and 150,000 will be eligible for future payments. As he will recognise, the Government have quickly accepted that judgment.
    On all fronts, we are doing our best to make sure that pensioners get what they are entitled to. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments about men over the age of 60 to the attention of colleagues at the Department of Social Security.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What steps the Government are taking to publicise the working families tax credit in Scotland. [104928]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): We have launched a major press and media campaign to inform those who will benefit from the working families tax credit of their right to assistance. As a result, the helpline has received more than 45,000 inquiries in Scotland alone.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and on behalf of 2,089 families in my constituency I want to express gratitude for the introduction of the working families tax credit—which will make those families, on average, £1,250 better-off this year than last. Will my right hon. Friend give the House a commitment that the Government will continue to do all they can to publicise the working families tax credit, so as to ensure maximum take-up?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that. We are proud of the fact that this Labour Government are the first ever to have committed themselves to the abolition of poverty. The working families tax credit plays a major part in that effort, as do the minimum wage and our assistance to pensioners. It is significant that, every time the great issue of tackling poverty is raised in the House, there is a complete lack of response from Opposition Members. Today, not one Conservative or Scottish National party Member has attempted to participate in discussion of poverty or the working families tax credit.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best thing—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am calling question 3.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Davidson: How many people in Scotland have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [104929]
    132
    I apologise for not having asked the question at the proper time, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Thank you. I like the House to make progress, but not quite that speedily.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I agree with both what my hon. Friend tried to say and what he is about to say. We anticipate that as many as 145,000 employees in Scotland might benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage.
    Mr. Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend recall all those siren voices that told us that, if the national minimum wage were introduced, economic disaster would result and jobs would be lost in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom? Is he aware that since the general election, unemployment in my constituency has been cut by 30 per cent.? That is something of which the Government should be proud. Does he agree that, if a national minimum wage of £3.60 is good, a national minimum wage of even more in the current year would be even better?
    Dr. Reid: On the first part of his second statement, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The scare stories put around about the detrimental effects of introducing a national minimum wage have been proved false. For example, far from falling, staff levels in small firms have risen by 11 per cent. in the past year. As my hon. Friend will be aware, unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest level for almost a quarter of a century, and many jobs have been created. It is important to set the minimum wage at a level that assists hundreds of thousands of people, but is not so high that it affects employment. We have succeeded in doing that.
    Again, I note that, as we work through those difficult issues, hon. Members representing the Scottish National party and the Conservative party show no interest in measures designed to help people in Scotland out of poverty.

    Student Finance
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor regarding the implications for the block grant of the Scottish independent inquiry into student finance. [104930]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that not entirely informative reply. Tonight is Burns night and, like Scots around the world, the Secretary of State and his Ministers will be praising Robert Burns for his poetic eloquence and adherence to the cause of equality. However, as usual, the Government say one thing and do another. Their shabby deal with the Liberal Democrats to share power in the Scottish Executive has meant that they have taken steps on tuition fees in Scotland that shatter

    133
    completely any idea of equality of opportunity in education throughout the United Kingdom. I appreciate that the Secretary of State—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is losing the ear of the House; she is almost losing my ear, too. I must have a question from her. She has made enough statements.
    Mrs. Laing: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    I wonder whether the Secretary of State, in his discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has asked him whether he can justify the fact that my constituents will have to pay fees if they attend Scottish universities whereas the Chancellor's constituents in Dunfermline, East will not? Where is the equality in that?
    Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Lady for her informative question. I was not aware that Burns had spoken of any deal apart from the one that went away with the excise man in his literature. However, I bow to her greater knowledge on this subject.
    The hon. Lady is commenting on press speculation. I understand that there may be an announcement this afternoon. After that, I think that it will be legitimate to comment on its text. It is rather difficult to comment on the detail before that has been announced. I would say—[Interruption.] As it happens, there will also be an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Both that announcement and that of the First Minister in Scotland will be made today. These announcements are designed to promote access by less well-off and disadvantaged students to further and higher education. That is of interest to those on the Government Benches and, I hope, to those who occupy some of the Opposition Benches—but obviously not the Conservative Benches.
    The Scottish Executive must find its own way to implement the objective. That is its right, and along with that goes the responsibility both to explain its decision and to say from where the finance to fund the changes will come. Tough decisions will have to be made by the Scottish Executive and by the House.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bard, on this Burns day, may have given the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) a simpler answer? He wrote:
    "O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as others see us."
    Dr. Reid: Yes.
    Sir Robert Smith: I am reluctant to get drawn into any more analogies with Burns. I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that spending decisions by the Scottish Parliament are a matter for that Parliament. Therefore, does he welcome the fact that any decision by the Scottish Executive to abolish tuition fees will be a decision of the
    134
    Executive to recognise the wishes of the Scottish electorate as implemented through the Scottish Parliament?
    Dr. Reid: It is in the nature of devolution that the power and the right to make these decisions goes to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. It is therefore inherent that they must say and explain where the money is coming from and to remove that money from some other area of spending within the block grant. That will mean tough decisions for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament.
    The prerogative of demanding power without responsibility lies historically, I think, with organisations such as the Scottish National party, which does not want to take responsibility for making tough decisions and which will approach these matters with only a critical mind. As I have said, there are tough decisions to be made, and the First Minister will make them. When that is done, and when the Government make announcements, the objective will be to see whether we can promote access by the less better off—those from a less well-off family background—to further and higher education.
    It is long overdue that we promoted that through the Government and the Scottish Executive. The previous Conservative Government and Conservative Members were never remotely interested in such access, and they are not remotely interested in it now.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unacceptable to expect constituents in Exeter—indeed, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—to pay for a system for which they have not voted and from which they cannot benefit? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that the costs of the new student finance arrangements for Scotland will be met by Scottish taxpayers, through the council tax if necessary?
    Dr. Reid: There will be no extra costs above the block grant. My hon. Friend may not understand that, so I shall explain it. Money that is allocated to any new scheme for student fees, or any other aspect of education, will have to be taken from some other item in the block grant which has already been agreed. No additional expense will arise from any of the decisions. The First Minister in the Scottish Executive will have to make tough decisions about the source of the money. That is the nature of Government and of making prudent choices. It applies in the House, and it will apply in the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: As the Government and the Executive have ducked and wriggled to try to keep their coalition together and to fulfil European law, they have created anomalies for English students in Scotland and now for Scottish students in England. Does not the Secretary of State fear that such decisions, together with the separate but related issue of research selectivity—which operates differently in Scotland—may threaten the integrity and unity of the British higher education system?
    Dr. Reid: If Conservative Members can attack Europe and the idea of joining others in the same question, they will do so. The majority of people in this country want the Union that is the United Kingdom to be modernised. They are at ease with the fact that some decisions may be

    135
    passed to the Scottish Parliament, with the proviso that power is accompanied by the responsibility for finding the money from its existing budgets, even if that means hard choices. The Government, like the majority of people, are at ease with that. It will enrich the United Kingdom.
    The unity of the country was undermined by the divisions, fractions and splits caused by 20 years of a Tory Government who did not give a damn about what happened in large areas of the north of England, Wales and Scotland, where our industries were decimated and so many of our people thrown into poverty.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State and I agree that one of the consequences of devolution is that we have to accept that the Scottish Parliament and Executive may decide to do things differently from this place and the Government. However, in those circumstances, would not it be iniquitous if, after the Scottish Executive decided to defer payments for Scottish students tuition fees, the Government blocked their ability to do that for students who attend universities south of the border? That is completely contrary to the spirit of devolution, a fetter on the Scottish Parliament's discretion and, if it happens, a complete disgrace.
    Dr. Reid: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman was calling for or how much he was prepared to spend. I can assure him that some people behind me will be tabulating the public expenditure cost to which he has committed the Conservative party. [Interruption.] We should not make decisions and promises unless we are prepared to pay for effecting them. The Government will not do that. I note that the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that his party is committed to abolishing fees in English universities.
    On the hon. Gentleman's general question, it is the Scottish Parliament's right to meet the objectives that the Scottish Executive has set out. They are the same as the Government's objectives—to promote, by the mechanisms that they determine, access to higher and further education for people from less well-off backgrounds.
    Along with that right goes the responsibility to find the money from other areas and budgets. That is a perfectly equitable solution. I have already said that accompanying the First Minister's statement will be an announcement by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment later today, which will be aimed at exactly the same objectives.
    Mr. Grieve: The Secretary of State has completely contradicted himself. Earlier he said that this matter is for the Scottish Executive to determine out of the block grant. We are talking therefore about an exclusively Scottish matter. It appears that the Scottish Executive's desire to extend those concessions to Scottish students—paying for it out of the block grant—at English universities has been stopped by the Government. What is the justification?
    Dr. Reid: It is nothing of the kind. The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. In reality, the proposals being discussed by the Scottish Executive, the details of which will be announced in the near future, must of course be subject to the laws of Europe as well as of this country. If that is a novelty to the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that he starts
    136
    reading briefs again. It is an elementary fact that we have to abide by our treaties and treaty obligations. The decisions on this have been made by the Scottish Executive and will be announced later today. I am making the point that along with the power to make those decisions goes the responsibility to explain them and to find the money to finance them.
    Mrs. Laing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I cannot take points of order until later.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Devolution
    Mr. John Bercow: What advice she has given to the Government about devolution issues since her appointment. [104951]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): There is a long-standing convention, followed by successive Governments, that neither the substance of Law Officers' advice nor the fact that they have been consulted is disclosed outside Government. I see no reason for departing from that convention.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the Advocate-General for that reply, which was spectacularly uninformative even by the standards of the Government. Has the hon. and learned Lady advised the Government on the impact of European Union law on the Cubie report—specifically in so far as it relates to Scottish students studying at English universities? If the answer is that she has proffered advice to her right hon. and hon. Friends, can she explain to the House the basis in law for the UK Government's assertion that the leaked proposals of the Scottish Executive for the reform of tuition fees cannot apply to Scottish students studying at English universities?
    The Advocate-General: I regret that I obviously did not make my last answer plain. The words "tim'rous beastie" leap to mind. All this Scots stuff! The existence and substance of Law Officer advice is not, by long-standing parliamentary convention adopted by all parts of the House, disclosed outside Government. The Advocate-General is here not as an adviser to Opposition Members but to the UK Government. I see no reason to depart from that long-standing convention.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I will try to be helpful to my hon. and learned Friend. Is it not the case that what characterises the

    137
    devolution settlement is the partnership between the two Parliaments? Can she confirm that she is in regular contact with her colleagues in the Scottish Executive?
    The Advocate-General: I am, of course, in regular contact with my Law Officers from the Scottish Executive. I regret to say that, as is normal, I cannot advise hon. Members of the substance.
    Mr. Bercow: Then what is the point of questions?
    The Advocate-General: If I may, with your permission, Madam Speaker, take that sedentary intervention, the point of my being here is to answer questions that are properly phrased. If I get any properly phrased questions, I shall be delighted to answer them.
    Mr. Grieve: I have never thought of the hon. and learned Lady as a "wee … tim'rous beastie", but may I make a simple inquiry? She will be aware of this afternoon's exchanges on European law, which is presumably within her remit in respect of advising the Government. Can we take it, therefore, that we shall hear from them shortly as to what European law issues would prevent the Scottish Executive, if they so wished, from funding Scottish students under the Scottish funding system at English universities?
    The Advocate-General: Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that under the Scotland Act 1998 I have certain statutory duties to consider Bills introduced by the Scottish Parliament and to advise on whether they are within its legislative competence. There is no Bill of any kind on that subject for me to consider. When there is I shall consider it, as I consider any other Bills that are introduced.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Community Legal Service
    Mr. John Healey: How many contracts for the new Community Legal Service have been awarded in Rotherham to (a) solicitors' firms and (b) voluntary advice agencies. [104958]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Sixteen contracts, which started on 1 January 2000, to do civil advice and assistance and representation in family and immigration cases have been let to solicitors working in the Rotherham area. A further 11 have been let to solicitors in the Dearne valley area. A contract has been let to Mexborough citizens advice bureau for a full-time debt case worker and support costs.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but is he aware that there is a lack of contracted provision in some legal categories? Can he explain what steps he taking to close that gap and confirm whether there is scope for fresh bids from other firms for that work?
    Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to that matter. There is a deficit in the Rotherham area of firms that are available to do social welfare law and there remains scope for additional contracts to be let to solicitors' firms there, although naturally—in accordance with the contracting scheme that the Government are operating—any firm would have to show competence to get a contract by passing the preliminary audit of the Legal Aid Board's franchise requirements.

    Courts Access (Sussex)
    Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of access to courts within Sussex. [104959]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Government policy is that the administration of magistrates courts is best conducted locally. Decisions concerning the location and number of magistrates courts in its area are for the relevant courts committee to determine. With regard to Crown and county courts, the Court Service is required to monitor and review the viability of its court network. There are no current changes planned in respect of accessibility to the Crown or county court network in Sussex.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that in terms of justice courts have to be local and accessible? In the light of the proposed merger of magistrates court functions in east and west sussex, can she guarantee that she will be unwilling to agree to any closure of magistrates courts there as a consequence of bringing the administration together?
    Jane Kennedy: It is for the new merged magistrates courts committee to decide how best to deploy its resources, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall always support changes that lead to the provision of a better and more efficient service for court users.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has the Minister given a full and honest answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker)? She said that decisions in respect of magistrates courts should be taken locally, but is she not incorrect? That decision has been influenced by the amount of money available and that money is advanced by the Government through the Lord Chancellor's Department. The problems of Sussex are reflected in many other parts of the country—not least Cheshire, and Macclesfield in particular.
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman knows that magistrates courts committees have to manage their budgets within the resources available to them. Those committees are made up of local magistrates drawn from local magistrates benches. Most of the magistrates courts that have closed so far have been ones that the committees

    139
    no longer felt able to justify, either because substandard facilities would have to be replaced or because they were satellite courts—local council chambers that were severely lacking in necessary facilities, for example.
    Madam Speaker: The Minister has now widened the question somewhat. Mr. Burnett, I will allow you to put a question in that case.
    Mr. John Burnett: I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker.
    I would remind the Minister and the House of what the Minister just said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), to the effect that justice should be done and seen to be done locally. Will she please explain that to the magistrates courts committee of Devon and Cornwall, which is now discussing a proposal to close 13 magistrates courts in those counties?
    Jane Kennedy: I am aware of the proposals announced last week. I am also aware of the local response to them. All such decisions when considered by magistrates courts committees locally will be subject to the right of appeal. Those appeals, if they are lodged in the cases of the courts to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will come to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. At that point it will be appropriate for me to comment on the detail.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In Sussex, just as in Cheshire, I suspect, there is no geographical representation on the magistrates courts committees that are apparently charged with these decisions. That means that those of us who feel very strongly that local justice is best available locally are in some difficulty when we are told that a non-elected committee is taking major decisions that affect the location of courts. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.
    Jane Kennedy: We do listen very carefully in the Department to the case that is presented when appeals come forward. All the points that are made by local representation, by the paying authority and by hon. Members, are listened to very carefully, and consideration is given in the greatest detail to the case that is made.

    McKenzie Friends
    Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received regarding changes to the status of McKenzie Friends. [104960]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Since my previous reply on 14 December to the hon. Member, my fellow Parliamentary Secretary has had a useful and constructive meeting with representatives from Families Need Fathers. I and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor have received no further representations.
    Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. But I should like to ask him again whether he understands that many litigants in person with no legal representation in family court cases find the legal
    140
    proceedings very worrying; they are very disturbed by them and the proceedings can often be traumatic. For that reason they need a friend or assistant in court with them—that is, they need a McKenzie friend. Given the abolition of the right to a McKenzie friend in chambers or in court, can the Minister give me more detail as to what specific steps his Department will take to reinstate that important right?
    Mr. Lock: The Government have no plans at present to place the role of McKenzie friends on a statutory footing, though we recognise the important role they play in some cases. The judges have developed common law rules so that litigants in person are permitted a McKenzie friend in proceedings in open court, and in most proceedings in chambers, unless the court is satisfied that fairness and justice, or the confidential nature of the information that will be disclosed in the court case—which is why the proceedings may be in Chambers in the first place—do not make it appropriate for a party to be assisted by a McKenzie friend.
    The nature of private proceedings may in some cases make it undesirable for a McKenzie friend to be present. The Government are content to leave the development of policy in this area to the courts.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Would more McKenzie friends mean fewer lawyers and fewer QCs? That would save us an absolute fortune. Has my hon. Friend seen the article in The Times today, headed
    "It's time for barristers to fight back",
    in which Richard Benson QC says that earnings of £500,000 a year are a derisory amount?
    Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that article to the attention of the House. I must say that the Government consider that sums paid from taxpayers' funds to barristers may—and we are considering this at the moment—be related to the sums that we pay other very important public service workers, such as teachers, doctors, nurses and social workers. I do not think there are many nurses—despite the generosity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the recent announcement of nurses' pay awards—who are collecting half a million pounds a year.

    Crime Victims
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What plans she has to ensure that information is made available to victims in a timely and sensitive way about forthcoming appeals on sentence by criminals convicted of serious crimes. [104961]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Arrangements have been in place at the Court of Appeal criminal division for some time to inform the victims or their families of appeals in cases involving death and serious sexual offences. Preparations are in hand to extend notification to all cases.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I think my hon. Friend will know of the case of my constituent Mrs. Joan Kiely, who last October learned from a journalist that the sentence of the perpetrator of a vicious attack on her had been shortened from 10 to eight years. My hon. Friend said that arrangements were in hand to extend notification. Can she say when she expects that to happen; and will she work with the Attorney-General's Department and the Home Office to ensure that it happens as quickly as possible?
    Jane Kennedy: I agree that it was not acceptable for Mrs. Kiely to find out what had happened from a local journalist. Preparations are in hand to extend notification to all victims or families, regardless of the nature of the offence, when the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal against conviction or a sentence. There would also be provision for the Crown Prosecution Service to notify the criminal appeal office of cases in which the victims needed to be kept informed. The record would be noted accordingly, and notification would be sent at all stages.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister will recognise that members of all parties have consistently backed the important work of the victim support organisation. I hope she will be able to confirm that the Government plan to continue that backing; but what about the interests of the victims of those who, although acknowledged to have committed serious crimes, have cheated the courts by no longer being around?
    Conservative Members find it outrageous that, as has now been revealed, as soon as the Government came to power the Lord Chancellor tried to intervene to stop the inquiry into the affairs of the late Robert Maxwell. Does the Minister accept that the pensioners who were victims of that great criminal do not want to allow the inquiry to be stopped by her noble Friend? She may wish that Robert Maxwell and his crimes had never happened, but Conservative Members will ensure that everyone knows that members of her Government were far too close to the late Robert Maxwell.
    Jane Kennedy: I am not aware of the claims that the hon. Gentleman has made—[Interruption.] I shall look for the report that he mentioned.
    When notifying victims of matters affecting the case in which they have been involved, the court needs not just proper technological support, but the agreement of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service on the way in which the information is provided and notification is given. I have not seen the specifics in the newspaper report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but perhaps I will read it and we can discuss it later.

    Community Legal Service
    Ms Sally Keeble: What provision will be made within the community legal service to ensure that people with learning difficulties and mental health problems attain proper access to legal services. [104962]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The quality assurance standard developed for community legal service providers requires proper access for all clients, including people with learning difficulties and mental health problems. All providers will also have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
    Ms Keeble: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on a number of occasions, the Northampton branch of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship have raised the problems that people experience in gaining access to legal services if they have recurring mental health problems? Does his answer—which I welcome—mean that such people will have easy access to services, and will also be able to obtain the detailed help that they may need because their problems have made their cases more complicated?
    Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend has been diligent in raising issues affecting an important section of the community in her constituency—people with mental health problems—who need legal advice. There are now two firms of solicitors in the Northampton area with mental health contracts—quality-assured lawyers, who can provide services for such people.
    It is important for every firm involved in the community legal service—whether it is dealing with employment, debt or mental health law—to recognise the special requirements of people with learning difficulties, respond to them and comply fully with its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act.

    Magistrates
    Angela Smith: What assessment she has made of the occupations of magistrates. [104963]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): As part of achieving social balance on Benches, each local advisory committee is required to ensure that no more than 15 per cent. of the Bench is drawn from a particular occupational group. Returns are made to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor every year in respect of each Bench.
    Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but an individual's occupation and position within that occupation have a direct impact on the individual's ability to have time off work and therefore to serve as a magistrate. Will my right hon. Friend—I am promoting her early—look carefully at the matter and give advice to employers to encourage their employees to take up the role of magistrate, giving them time off work to do so?
    Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Working magistrates are drawn from a wide range of occupations. If that is to continue, it will be important for employers to allow staff time off work to sit as magistrates. It is important, too, that work colleagues understand that time spent away from the workplace is not a skive, but a valuable service to the community. I pay tribute to the many employers who play their part in the criminal justice system by allowing staff to take time to sit as magistrates.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment she has made of the value for money obtained by expenditure on millennium compliance. [104973]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The expenditure finally incurred was slightly less than originally expected. It was met from existing agreed spending plans, not by extra subvention. It successfully addressed the substantial problems incurred during the programme, which, if ignored, would have led to material disruption to public services. All that suggests that it was good value for money.
    Mr. Robathan: Madam Speaker, after your advice yesterday: what bug?
    Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am afraid that he shows his ignorance by that question. There are hundreds of examples of problems. The Benefits Agency has made it plain that it would not have been able to continue to pay benefits. Organisations such as Sainsbury and Tesco have made it plain that their operations would have collapsed if they had not undertaken the work that was required.
    Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British industry as well as Government have gained two considerable benefits from the exercise? First, a whole breed of managers running British industry now realises how critical information technology in their companies is to their future. Secondly, we have probably had one of the biggest upgrades in IT, which will be beneficial to our world trade.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, I have just had a conversation with an expert on management issues who has attempted to assess the impact of the work and has made exactly those points about the value to British business of cleaning up much of their IT, of investing in IT and, most of all, of recognising the need for management of IT, which is not always done.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Modernisation
    Mr. Paul Clark: If she will make a statement on (a) the changes made in the House as a result of the work of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and (b) their impact on (i) hon. Members and (ii) staff of the House and of hon. Members. [104974]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Forty-seven of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation have already been implemented. They include more Bills scrutinised in draft and experiments with earlier sittings on Thursday and with sittings in Westminster Hall. Together they have provided more time for debates, better structured debates and better use of time for Members and staff.
    Mr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are pleased to see progress, but bearing in mind the fact that the remit of the Modernisation Committee is to look at efficient and effective use of time in the House of Commons, does she agree that the recent antics by the Conservative party call for greater timetabling of legislation? Would that not be a matter for the Modernisation Committee to consider?
    Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend may know, it is one of the issues that, on an all-party basis, the Modernisation Committee considered at the outset of the Parliament. It recommended that we should make greater use of programming, so that we can be confident that the most important issues in legislation that comes before the House are adequately covered and that time is not wasted on things that are not important. However, I fear that the understanding and agreement across the House in the earliest days of this Parliament seem to be waning. My hon. Friend is right to identify that, if we continue to have exceptional problems, that will cause further difficulties which the Government and the House will have to consider.
    Sir George Young: The Modernisation Committee's first report mentioned use of Joint Committees with the Upper House as a useful way of making progress on pre-legislative scrutiny. In order to deal with reports that the Government are planning to drag their feet on stage 2 of House of Lords reform, will the right hon. Lady tell the House when she proposes to establish the promised Joint Committee to take forward the Wakeham report?
    Mrs. Beckett: As the right hon. Gentleman is already well aware, the Government have not made a decision on the timetable for that Joint Committee. He will also know that, of the half dozen draft Bills that have been considered in Committees of the House or of both Houses, two—the draft Local Government Bill and Financial Services and Markets Bill—were considered in Joint Committees.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that democracy is indeed a messy and expensive business; that the timetabling of all Bills would lead irrevocably to Back Benchers of all parties having fewer and fewer rights in this place; and that the fact that Front Benchers may agree on a particular measure is not—if she will forgive my saying so, with the greatest respect—any guarantee that it is in the interests either of the House of Commons or of the electorate?
    Mrs. Beckett: I completely understand the basic point that my hon. Friend is making. First, however, I should

    145
    remind her that the Modernisation Committee is not composed only of Front Benchers—only two Front Benchers serve on it—but contains mostly Back Benchers, from both sides of the House.
    Secondly, I accept that timetabling all Bills would have implications. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, but this is one issue on which we do not agree. In opposition, I took the view that major legislation should be timetabled. As an Opposition Front Bencher, I always pursued that policy in seeking to ensure that we dealt with the issues that really should be dealt with, because I have never thought that the public understand why some hon. Members waste time on what hours or days we should sit. I take the same attitude in government as I took in opposition.

    Palace of Westminster (Access)
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What action she proposes to take to deal with the difficulties experienced by hon. Members in obtaining access to the Palace of Westminster during demonstrations immediately outside the precinct of the House. [104975]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The House approves the Sessional Order at the start of each Session, as it is a matter of constitutional importance that access be maintained. The Order is communicated to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis by the Serjeant at Arms. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) or any other hon. Member experiences difficulties, he or she should inform the Serjeant at Arms, so that the matter can be taken up with the Commissioner.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Some years ago, I took part in a demonstration of textile workers and clothing workers marching from Hyde park. The nearest we were allowed to the House of Commons was the Tate gallery, because it was stated that it would be inappropriate that hon. Members should risk being intimidated or hustled as they sought to gain easy and ready access to the precincts of the House of Commons.
    Will the Leader of the House and the Government, with the other authorities, give consideration to preventing the demonstrations that now occur in very close proximity to the House—whether the demonstration is in favour of extraditing Senator Pinochet, of releasing Senator Pinochet, of establishing an English Parliament or of whatever it may be—so that hon. Members who need to gain ready access to this place do not have to struggle at certain times in the day to do so, and so that other people legitimately seeking access may gain it without being intimidated?
    Mr. Tipping: I am fascinated by the notion of a demonstration, even a textile demonstration, being led by the hon. Gentleman. It is no wonder it was stopped at the Tate gallery, as he has a reputation for intimidating people. More seriously, however, demonstrations seem to have been allowed to come closer to the House, and that
    146
    may raise issues. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Serjeant at Arms is in contact with police on the matter, and we shall have to consider possible solutions.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the on-going demonstration to extradite Senator Pinochet—who is no more a senator than I am—is being held across the road and that it could in no way be an obstruction to hon. Members seeking to enter the House? Will you, Madam Speaker, also tell the shop steward on the Tory Benches that, last night, I took the opportunity of going along and congratulating the demonstrators who want Pinochet tried and brought to justice? I told them that they were doing a wonderful job.
    Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend will know that the demonstrators play some wonderful music and chant some wonderful chants, which have extended my own repertoire quite a lot. However, he is right that the demonstration is on the other side of the road. As far as I and the Serjeant at Arms are aware, no problems have been caused by either side involved in it.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Millennium Bug
    Dr. David Clark: What assessment she has made of the effect of the millennium bug internationally over the millennium date change. [104976]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): First, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend, when he was in government, to tackling the millennium bug. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been following closely the international year 2000 scene for the past two years. A special unit was set up over the date-change period to monitor events as they happened. There were no reports of any significant disruptions to infrastructure systems around the world. The minor problems that did crop up were dealt with quickly and posed no real threat to essential services.
    Dr. Clark: Will my hon. Friend continue to reiterate the point that the millennium bug did not cause international chaos for the simple reason that careful planning, precise preparation and pre-emptive remedial action had been put in hand to make sure that that did not happen? Were not the Government in the vanguard in that respect? Will he give the House some examples of breakdowns overseas—perhaps in the United States—that were rectified in time but which otherwise would have caused considerable difficulties?
    Mr. Tipping: My right hon. Friend is right. There were problems both here and overseas, and the United States had difficulties with its satellite systems. However, he makes the more important point that things do not go well without careful preparation and planning. I am delighted that the Government and the private sector in this country

    147
    were in the vanguard in that matter, as my right hon. Friend says, and that we were able to share our knowledge and information with others.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Modernisation
    Mr. Phil Sawford: What assessment she has made of the impact of her Department's proposals for changing practice and procedure in the House; and if she will make a statement. [104978]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I believe that proposals for change in the House have been well received and are generally positive, but they are being kept under review through the Modernisation Committee.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I especially welcome the Modernisation Committee's decision to publish more Bills in draft form, which allows more interested parties and concerned groups to contribute to debate, both in the House and outside it. It also allows more pressure groups and constituents to put forward their views on the Government's legislative proposals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that publishing draft Bills has led to better informed debate, in Parliament and across the country?
    Mrs. Beckett: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend and all hon. Members will know from their Standing Committee experience over the years that outside organisations—which often have useful information, or a different point of view or slant on legislation—frequently only realise the effect that proposals might have on them when the closing stages of legislative debate are under way. Sometimes that realisation only comes when a Bill has already passed on to the statute book. That cannot be good for good governance or for the balance of good legislation. Anything that improves the situation can only be welcome.

    Secondary Legislation
    Mr. Norman Baker: If she will bring forward proposals to reform the system of parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. [104979]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the scrutiny of delegated legislation, and I shall study its report with interest.
    Mr. Baker: May I suggest that it would be sensible to look at the way in which statutory instruments are dealt with? At present, the Committees that scrutinise statutory instruments are required either to reject them in total, or to approve them. Sometimes that means that innocuous changes that are agreed on all sides to be important and valid cannot be made. In those instances, the requirement that the Committee either accept or reject a proposal renders it a sledgehammer used to crack a nut, and causes measures that are faulty to be passed. If the Committees were allowed to amend such instruments, would not that help the Government and the legislative process in this House?
    Mr. Tipping: As I said, the Procedure Committee is considering the matter. The Wakeham report also contains some interesting proposals. Statutory instruments that go before a Committee reflect the Government's considered view. Given that, it is a question of whether the Committee supports or rejects them in total.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that the method of decision making used by the Deregulation Committee, where Government proposals may be changed, should be used as the norm for allowing a debate if the Euro-Committees make a different decision from the one originally put before them?
    Mr. Tipping: The Deregulation Committee has certainly been useful and I believe that in time its role will be expanded. My hon. Friend will know that the Deregulation Committee already looks at statutory instruments, and that the Government take note of its concerns.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In an answer to my question earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State for Scotland helpfully told the House that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment intended to make an important announcement this afternoon on student fees. Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment may, by written answer, announce to the House an intended change of policy, if the right hon. Gentleman does not come to the House, and to the Chamber, how can my hon. Friends and I, on behalf of our constituents, ask him questions about that important change of policy?
Madam Speaker: I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that, when there is a change of policy or any policy is initiated, it is for the Secretary of State concerned either to come to the House to announce it at the Dispatch Box or to do so by means of a written answer. That is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State.
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday 17 January I tabled, under Standing Order No. 17, 11 named-day questions for answer by the Department of Trade and Industry. On Tuesday 18 January I tabled a further eight questions that should have been answered yesterday. Given that all 19 questions have been responded to by the Secretary of State saying that he will reply as soon as possible, and given that all the questions relate to TransTec, Hollis Industries and related matters—and this is now a matter of great public concern—could I ask your advice as to how I may extract substantive information, some of which must already be in the records of the Department of Trade and Industry, to get some answers to my questions?
Madam Speaker: That is a very difficult point of order from the hon. Lady. There are Ministers present who will no doubt have noted her point of order, and I hope that they will see that the terms of the Standing Order are fulfilled.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice and protection concerning the Disqualifications Bill, which will be considered by the House in Committee and on Report later this afternoon. When the Bill received its Second Reading yesterday, many hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern and asked questions about that Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) kindly agreed to consider those concerns and queries.
My point of order relates to the fact that the Disqualifications Bill is not emergency legislation; it is not urgent. Yet Second Reading took place on Monday and we are now being asked to consider the Bill, in Committee and on Report, on Tuesday. Additional amendments have appeared on the amendment paper only today, which we have therefore had very little time to consider. My hon. Friends and I believe that that is an
150
abuse of the House. We seek your protection and guidance as to what we can do to have more time to deliberate on the Bill rather than rushing it from Second Reading on Monday straight to Committee and Report on Tuesday.
Madam Speaker: I do not determine the urgency of any legislation in the House, and have no responsibility for the daily agenda. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is for the business managers and the usual channels to deal with these matters. I would have thought that that might have been done over the preceding weeks.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As a result of the concerns expressed yesterday on the Disqualifications Bill, I sought advice behind the Chair as to whether there would be any opportunity to enable Members to challenge yesterday's motion on the timing of the Committee of the whole House.
We did not oppose the idea that the Bill should come to a Committee of the whole House—and nor, indeed, did other Members who were unhappy about the timing—so there was no objection to that fact when the Government moved the motion. There was opposition over when the Committee of the whole House should meet, but the Clerks advised me—perfectly properly—that there is no way of challenging the Government's choice of date for Committees on public business, as there is for those on private business.
I seek your guidance, or your consideration, Madam Speaker, as to whether there might be ways in which colleagues on both sides of the House, at any stage, could challenge the Government's inconsiderate decision as to when a Committee of the whole House might sit. Today's Committee might sit late tonight, or through the night, and many people will not have had a chance to consider yesterday's proceedings.
Madam Speaker: I should like to have had notice of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I can tell him, briefly, that I know of no way of challenging the Government when they decide that business will be done the following day.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Further to that point of order but not directly related to it, Madam Speaker. The Government are using their overall majority of 170 to override not only the interests of Back Benchers, but your traditional responsibility to Members of the House. I refer to the proposal, made last week, that a motion would be put to the House to circumvent the use of the Oath to admit Members to the House and, thereafter, to its facilities. I endorse the points of order made by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and ask for your advice as to whether, when there is consistent abuse by Government of the protocols of the House, there are any means whereby Back Benchers' interests can be protected.
Madam Speaker: I see no abuse of the House. The British electorate gave one particular party a large

151
majority; that is the democratic process. If I thought that there was abuse in any way, I would want to be the first to ensure that it ceased.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to cover the same ground again. However, earlier, you gave a ruling in respect of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) in which you referred to decisions of Governments to make a statement, or to respond to a matter of importance to the House through a written answer. Bearing in mind the fact that the package on student fees in Scotland was decided by the coalition Government in Edinburgh yesterday—indeed, I took part in a "Newsnight" Scotland broadcast in which the details of the package were discussed quite freely—would it not have been appropriate and a courtesy to the House, either for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box today to make a statement, or at least for there to have been a written answer in today's Hansard?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some time ago.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have dealt with all those points of order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that reference has already been made to this matter, but about two weeks ago I asked a question about the fact that the Committee considering the Disqualifications Bill was to be held immediately after Second Reading. It has repeatedly been said, both yesterday and today, that there were no objections at the time. In future, will the House, which is proud of its record in protecting minorities, bear in mind, through its business managers, that there are more parties than the two main parties?
Madam Speaker: I always try to remember all the minority parties in the House, because they too must have a voice in all our proceedings.
Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a completely separate point of order.
Madam Speaker: I thought it might be.
Mr. Bercow: I apologise, Madam Speaker, because earlier I expressed myself infelicitously, as a result of
152
which you thought that I was trying, in a sense, to piggyback on my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton); I assure you that I was not.
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on a point of order, of which, by virtue of the circumstances, I could not have given you advance notice. You will recall that I asked the Advocate-General for Scotland whether she had offered the Government advice on the impact of European Union law on the Cubie report and she declined to answer that question, saying that it was not custom and practice to do so.
However, given that a cursory reading of the newspapers over the past few days makes it clear beyond doubt that the Government and their officials have been briefing off the record to the effect that EU law would be breached if the Scottish Executive's proposals applied to Scottish students studying at English universities, is it not reasonable for an hon. Member to ask the hon. and learned Lady a question about the advice that was offered, in the confident expectation that she might actually provide an answer?
Madam Speaker: I am familiar with the exchange that took place at that time, but the hon. Gentleman will of course appreciate that I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give in the House.
Mr. Tim Boswell: On an entirely separate point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that, in the past week or two, there have been many exchanges in the House in connection with the provision of additional intensive care beds. That has been referred to variously by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, who last week at Question Time adumbrated a list—which included, I believe, eight particular instances—from which he then broke off.
Is it not somewhat surprising, therefore, that when I asked the Secretary of State for Health, by tabling a question which was answered by written answer late last night, to list the 100—or whatever number—intensive care beds that were created during the calendar year 1999, he told me that the statistics were not collected in that form? That puzzles me. I seek your guidance as to whether, when Back Benchers ask for such information, they are told that it does not exist while Ministers of the Crown can simultaneously purport to give that information, perhaps drawing on sources that are not made available to Back Benchers who request them.
Madam Speaker: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he pursues his questions by means of the Order Paper, perhaps by tabling further parliamentary questions—or he might write himself an early-day motion, making good publicity of the point that he has just made.

Parental Authority
3.42 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow parents to use reasonable force or chastisement when exercising authority over their children.
The world has changed a great deal since you and I were young, Madam Speaker. Much of that change has been for the good and much has been for the bad. Rising violent crime, as illustrated in a report last week, and graffiti and loutish behaviour on our streets are certainly among the bad. There has been an astonishing change in attitudes to bringing up children. In 1993—only seven years ago—a judge had before him a mother of two on appeal against a conviction for assault. She had spanked her nine-year-old with a slipper after catching the child stealing. The judge quashed the conviction and said,
"If a parent cannot slipper a child, the world is going potty".
That was, of course, in the last century. We heard last week of Government proposals that could possibly send parents to prison for trying to discipline their children in that way. Many might think that common sense is being stood on its head, and that the world is indeed going potty.
The Government consultation document was entitled "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents". If anyone does not believe that political correctness runs wild in this Government, they should read the document. It is one of the most trite and condescending documents that they will ever see. Here is one short passage:
"Being a parent can be hard work as well as tremendously rewarding".
I am sure that we are all grateful for that perceptive insight into the joys of parenthood. The document gives various options for change, including a ban on the use of a slipper or a cane. It is likely that that may be enshrined in law, which means that, should a parent use a slipper against a child, that child will presumably be removed from the parent's custody and the parent will certainly be taken to court, with all that that entails, and may even be sent to prison.
I am quite sure that most parents would rather never strike their children, and preferably not with a slipper or a cane, but I would suggest that it must be for the parent to decide, in the circumstances, how best to direct and teach a child.
Let me give an illustration. Suppose that a 12-year-old boy beats up another child, smaller and younger than himself. The parents of the two children confer, and the father agrees to punish the boy. Because he is nearly a teenager, the father uses a slipper on his backside. The police and social workers are alerted, and the child is taken into care. The father, if not sent to prison, is put under a restraining court order. Is that really sensible? Is that really what the British public believe should happen?
In a recent case, a father in Suffolk tried to restrain his 15-year-old daughter from going out with a 25-year-old man. I understand that he was concerned that she had been spending most of the night out with him—a legitimate concern to him and to the law. However, when the daughter complained to the police, the father was arrested and she was put in care for the night—where, incidentally, she had her nose pierced in an act of childish rebellion. As far as I am aware, neither the police nor the social
154
workers involved were interested in talking to the 25-year-old man, which suggests a strange sense of priorities.
The nannying new Labour Government now wishes to interfere even more in the relationship between a parent and a child. The Government believe that the state knows best, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. In Leicestershire, the case of Frank Beck remains notorious—a man given responsibility for running a children's home who raped, sexually abused and physically abused his charges, male and female, and some of his staff.
If that had been a unique case, perhaps one might trust the state to look after children in care. However, last year there were more than 200 allegations of sexual abuse of children in care against 138 individuals, and over 50 charges have arisen as a result so far.
Care workers are struggling with great difficulties in children's homes. I recall visiting one a few years ago in Leicestershire, and being told that staff had no power to prevent children from smoking. They could not, of course, restrain a child if he or she wished to go out in the evening. The house stank of cigarettes, 13-year-olds were becoming chain smokers and 14-year-old girls were encouraged to be on the pill.
I do not blame those social workers—indeed I blame the Children Act 1989 as much as anything—but who can doubt that a loving mother or father would not look after their children rather better than that? Sadly, it is true that a large proportion of children who are put into care go on to become homeless, and many go on to be criminals. My point is that the state is not necessarily the best body to determine how to bring up children. A parent almost certainly has more interest, cares more and loves a child more than the most dedicated social worker or police officer ever could. Surely we should support and trust parents in the challenging task of bringing up children, and we should support families as far as possible.
"The break up of family bonds is intimately linked to the breakdown of law and order. It is in the family that we first learn to negotiate the boundaries of acceptable conduct and to recognise that we owe responsibilities to others as well as ourselves."
That is the profound wisdom of no less an august personage than the Prime Minister, who has admitted having to smack his children in the past.
If we believe in supporting families and parents, we should make their task easier, not more difficult. Not all parents are successful. Some are hopeless, some can be brutal and some can be downright evil, but generally parents are the best people to bring up their children.
An argument that is frequently used against corporal punishment is that violence begets violence. Leaving aside the report of a massive increase in violent crime last week—neatly published at the same time as the Government's consultation document—I suggest to those who search for the source of the violence and aggression in society that they switch on the television at any time of the day or night, go to a film in the west end, attend a professional football match or question the decision to allow Mike Tyson into the country. It is not parents reasonably chastising their children who have caused the massive rise in violent crime in our lifetimes.
There are already laws in place to cover physical harm to a child. The vast majority of parents would not wish to cause any harm to their children, and the existing law can

155
deal with the very small minority who might. However, this nannying new Labour Government wish to interfere and disrupt the relationship of parent and child yet further. I can already imagine the court cases and the nonsense that will be spouted in court in future.
Of course, the Government will say that the proposal is nothing to do with them and that they are being forced to obey a directive from the European Court of Human Rights. Whether that court, which was set up with the good intention of preventing a repeat of the horrors of the second world war, should have any jurisdiction over such matters is a moot point. However, for the Government to slope their shoulders and blame others ignores the fact that they have given the European Court of Human Rights authority over our courts through the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, the Government's proposals on page 14 of their consultation document show that they are determined to go beyond the court's ruling. They set out
"ways in which the use of the defence of reasonable chastisement might be further limited."
Yes, they say, "further limited."
The Prime Minister is not someone whom I normally pray in aid. I am happier with this quote:
"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him".
That has been passed down to us from the Book of Proverbs as, "spare the rod and spoil the child". Many parents bring up their children admirably without ever having to smack them and I congratulate those who do. For the others who feel that they may have to resort to smacking, the Bill gives some support.
I know that my sentiments in introducing the Bill will not find favour with the politically correct or with new Labour. Many in the House would like to explain why they know better how to bring up a child than a child's parents do. I hope that my contribution may have twisted a few politically correct tails and will goad somebody into explaining why the nanny state knows best. Indeed, Madam Speaker, I can see that somebody is trying to catch your eye.
3.51 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I was truly sorry to hear that diatribe against the efforts of thousands of hard-working and caring residential social workers and foster carers. If the hon. Gentleman has to make his points by denigrating the efforts of people in the care system, that is extremely unfortunate. Let me also point out to him that, in proposing the use of implements to chastise children, he flies in the face of public opinion as expressed in the Government's consultation paper "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents".
The best that can be said about this ten-minute Bill is that it is premature given last week's publication of the consultation document on the physical punishment of children. We have heard a great deal in the past week about the alleged common sense of physical punishment. Perhaps we should listen to today's children rather than harking back to our own childhoods or placing too much reliance on opinion surveys of adults.
156
Research published last year by Carolyne Willow and Tina Hyder on behalf of the National Children's Bureau and Save the Children records the views of 76 children aged between five and eight. When they were asked about smacking, they said:
"it's what parents do when they hit you … only they call it a smack";
"it feels like someone has banged you with a hammer, it makes you feel sore, angry and you cry";
"you feel as though you want to run away";
"it hurts and it's painful inside, it's like breaking your bones";
and
"it hurts a lot and it make you unhappy".
It is a shame that Conservative Members do not seem prepared to hear the words of children carefully elicited by skilled people. I shall repeat what the children said:
"it's what parents do when they hit you … only they call it a smack".
That challenges us all. I bet that is the most radical statement that has been quoted in the House so far this century.
Such statements should make the House and the Government think about the absolute nonsense of trying to define when and in which circumstances it is reasonable to hurt children, and about the absurd inconsistency of those who, rightly, rail against child abuse, bullying, domestic violence and violence crime—a subject mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—but who think it appropriate to demonstrate to children that some issues can be resolved by hitting them. There is a striking peculiarity about giving children—whom we generally regard as being vulnerable and requiring special consideration and protection—less protection under the law on assault than is given to adults.
Twenty-five days into the 21st century, it is truly pathetic that we are debating a measure called the Parental Authority Bill. The hon. Gentleman should have turned up in full Victorian fancy dress for his attempt to introduce legislation that is based on a 1960 judgment, that reinforces an Act of Parliament that is 67 years old, and that undermines the central concept of parental responsibility, which was introduced by the Conservative party with cross-party support in the Children Act 1989.
To many—certainly to me and perhaps to the hon. Gentleman—parenting is the best job that we shall ever have; it is also one of the hardest. However, it does not go on in isolation from the rest of the world, and it does no one—child or parent—any favours to pretend that it should. My children are now grown up, but I know that I—especially when I was a young parent—would have benefited from the sort of assistance set out in "Supporting Families", from the excellent booklets now supplied to all new parents by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and from the sort of leadership that thousands of foster carers and residential workers routinely receive—the instruction that, even in extremely difficult circumstances, physical punishment is wholly unacceptable.
There are far more productive and satisfactory ways of managing children's behaviour. There are so many occasions on which it is important that the House should

157
reflect public opinion that it is easy to forget that it is sometimes important to lead. Physical punishment is a counsel of despair—something that is done when we cannot think of anything else to do or when we want to relieve our frustration, not when we want to help a child to learn or develop. It is a blind alley: if the child will not back down from the confrontation, the parent either has to back off or has to hit harder and harder, because he or she has put him or herself in the position of having to win.
There are hundreds of other methods that work. Those are founded on good relationships, listening to children, communicating effectively with them, being consistent and clear about what is wanted from them, explaining why and setting clear limits for behaviour. Sanctions should be used sparingly, but, when they are used, they must be made meaningful, taking the form of time out or the withholding of a treat—a form that relates to the child, its needs and interests. Disagreements are a great opportunity to develop problem-solving or negotiating skills. Modelling good behaviour works if parents are consistent. The list of alternatives to physical punishment goes on. Finally, it always helps to be able to laugh, put disagreements behind one and look forward to another day.
There are few experts—not on the Government Benches, nor on the Opposition Benches—and no paragons. However, "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents" has missed a great opportunity to offer parents real leadership in addition to effective support. We are only at the beginning of the consultation process and, presumably, there will be a free vote at some point, so there is still time for the Government to think again. The Parental Authority Bill is completely and hopelessly misguided. The House must remember the words of the seven-year-old quoted by Save the Children:
"it's what parents do when they hit you … only they call it a smack".
The hon. Member for Blaby wants to use implements to make the impact even worse. The Bill is unworthy of him and of the House. I hope that a Division will consign the Bill to the past, where it belongs.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 118.

Division No. 37]

[4 pm

AYES

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fox, Dr Liam

Beggs, Roy

Gale, Roger

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Gray, James

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Grieve, Dominic

Bercow, John

Hawkins, Nick

Blunt, Crispin

Hunter, Andrew

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Luff, Peter

Brady, Graham

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Brazier, Julian

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Chope, Christopher

McLoughlin, Patrick

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Duncan, Alan

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Fabricant, Michael

Oaten, Mark

Flight, Howard

Ottaway, Richard

Forsythe, Clifford

Randall, John

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Redwood, Rt Hon John

158

Robathan, Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Willis, Phil

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Stunell, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Syms, Robert

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thompson, William

Mr. Desmond Swayne and

Trend, Michael

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn.

NOES

Alexander, Douglas

Kidney, David

Allan, Richard

Kirkwood, Archy

Ashton, Joe

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Barnes, Harry

Lepper, David

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Levitt, Tom

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

McDonnell, John

Berry, Roger

McFall, John

Best, Harold

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Brake, Tom

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Burstow, Paul

Mactaggart, Fiona

Butler, Mrs Christine

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Mudie, George

Casale, Roger

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Chaytor, David

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Cohen, Harry

Pickthall, Colin

Connarty, Michael

Pound, Stephen

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Corbett, Robin

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Corston, Jean

Prosser, Gwyn

Crausby, David

Purchase, Ken

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Quinn, Lawrie

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Rendel, David

Dalyell, Tarn

Rooney, Terry

Darvill, Keith

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Roy, Frank

Davidson, Ian

Ryan, Ms Joan

Dawson, Hilton

Sanders, Adrian

Dismore, Andrew

Sarwar, Mohammad

Dobbin, Jim

Savidge, Malcolm

Donohoe, Brian H

Sawford, Phil

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Sedgemore, Brian

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Shaw, Jonathan

Sheerman, Barry

Fearn, Ronnie

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Foster, Don (Bath)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Skinner, Dennis

Gapes, Mike

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Soley, Clive

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Gunnell, John

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Hepburn, Stephen

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Hinchliffe, David

Todd, Mark

Home Robertson, John

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Hope, Phil

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Watts, David

Humble, Mrs Joan

White, Brian

Hurst, Alan

Winnick, David

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Wise, Audrey

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Wood, Mike

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Wray, James

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Tellers for the Noes:

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Keetch, Paul

Mr. Tony McWalter.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Electronic Communications Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  4.11 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice, as will the House, that new clause 1 has not been selected. In no way do I challenge your ruling, Madam Speaker, or ask for an explanation because, by convention, no such explanation is provided. Given that the new clause would have covered an important part of the Bill having a significant bearing on interlocking legislation between here and the European Union, I seek your confirmation that the new clause as tabled would have fallen within the long title of the Bill.
  Madam Speaker: I do not usually give explanations, but it was totally beyond the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that no precedent is set in this instance, in that the proposed new clause was not considered because there is a draft European Union directive in circulation that conflicts with it?
  Madam Speaker: Order. There will be no explanation of my selection of amendments. Either the hon. Member intends to move the motion or not. Is he moving the motion?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I will be happy to move the motion, Madam Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend will be here shortly. [Laughter.] I support the motion with him.

  Electronic Communications Bill
    New Clause 3

      COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
      'When the country of origin differs from the country of destination for a service or product contracted through the medium of an electronic communication, the vendor shall fully disclose prior to binding confirmation of such contract the liability of the purchaser of such service or product for any duties, taxes or other levies arising in the country of destination; and the purchaser shall otherwise be entitled under English law to retain or reclaim from the vendor or his United Kingdom agents the amount of any such duties, taxes or other levies lawfully demanded by the tax authorities in such country of destination.'.—[Mr. St. Aubyn.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This important new clause would have the effect of ensuring that taxation across borders is properly addressed by the Bill. More and more people are buying products on the internet from other countries. Where the value of a purchase is above a small threshold of about 28 ecus or £18, duty falls to be paid on it. When people buy products on the internet from a vendor in another country, their liability for duty may be made clear in the small type on the web page. Their payment by credit card, without accounting for duty, is received in the country of origin of the goods, which are then shipped.
      160
      When the goods are delivered to the purchaser in this country, a claim is made by the person making the delivery or agents of the vendor to collect the duty. At that point, duty will have been paid by the importing agent of the company in the country of origin. There is no loss of revenue to the Exchequer but there is an immense problem for those making the delivery in collecting the money from the customer in the UK.
      4.15 pm
      The result, according to industry sources and recent reports in the industry's specialist press, is that millions of pounds of duty is not being collected by those acting on behalf of vendors overseas. Vendors' agents are having to bear that cost and are doing so in the hope that the matter can be properly resolved. The Government have been approached on that issue, I understand, and asked whether they would consider raising the threshold below which no duty is levied. There is—in my view quite rightly—resistance to raising the threshold of about £18 because a much bigger loophole could be created and a great deal of revenue and customs duty that should be collected might be forgone. The onus is therefore on them—if they will not raise the threshold and expect that money to be collected—to ensure that people who purchase goods in this country have a proper mechanism for raising and paying that money.
      Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: When I have explained the new clause fully. It says that a customer could not be made to pay duty unless he was made properly and clearly aware when purchasing the product that he may be liable to do so. Companies wishing to import goods to this country would find that no one would handle such an import unless he had a counter-indemnity from the supplier saying that he would recover the duty from that supplier. The onus to make it clear to customers in this country that they may be liable for duty would therefore be put back on the supplier. That seems to be the only practicable way by which the respective obligations of the supplier and the purchaser could be enforced through legislation in this country.
      If the Minister has an alternative means of tackling the mischief, the House will be keen to hear it this afternoon. If she has no alternative, will she please acknowledge that there is a real problem here? If the growth of e-commerce from one country to another is predicated on the fact that purchasers do not realise that there is a hidden charge for duty, that growth will be affected. E-commerce will get a poor reputation because customers who feel, as a matter of principle, that they should pay duties when that is asked of them and not try to evade them—as is happening in some cases—will think that they have been stung.
      Someone might purchase a pack of CDs at an advertised price equivalent to £30, which is a lot less than he would pay in the shops here, only to discover, when the goods come to his door, that he is liable for another £15 of duty. Clearly he would feel that the price was not quite as advertised and that he had been led up the garden path.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and the House as I have

      161
      to go up to Committee in a moment. Specifically on CDs, how would he make the new clause work in the context of music that is delivered electronically? That method of delivery is becoming increasingly prevalent and, following mergers such as those announced in the past few days, it will become even more prevalent.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. There are instances in which the collection of duty will be very difficult in any event. Indeed, one can imagine someone purchasing an expensive CD piece by piece to come within the £18 threshold; no single purchase would cross that threshold, which has been around for many years. I am grateful to him for showing, in another way, how the existing legislative framework is totally inadequate. The real mischief here—the real danger—is that customers will get the intelligence that buying on the net is full of risks, one of which is that they may be stung for unexpected duty. The other risk is that those who are currently building up, in the interests of a competitive market, the business of delivering these goods from one country to another will be deterred from doing so if they find that they have a mounting problem of bad debt when they pay duty to Customs and Excise and cannot recover it from the customers at that point. There are those providing the service now who are contemplating how to protect their position. They will work out ways in which they can recover the duty.
      In the end, if the problem grows to become just a little more severe than it is already—and we are all predicting a massive growth in the scale of this business—it will be the Exchequer that finds it is losing out. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government to accept the clause, accept that the principles behind it should be taken forward in another place and put, perhaps with better wording, into the body of the Bill. Alternatively, the Minister should assure the House that she understands the problems that are being raised this afternoon and come up with her own remedy in good time for another place to consider it.
      Dr. Ladyman: If my recollection is accurate, on Second Reading the hon. Gentleman argued that the Bill was far too complicated and needed to be much simpler, just based on what is now clause 7. Can he enlighten us as to why he wants to put this horrendously complex and unworkable piece of legislation into this Bill, which is clearly the wrong Bill for it?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: It has become evident to me that the growth of business-to-customer e-commerce will be jeopardised if a fundamental principle—that of showing that the taxation due on a purchase is clearly stated when someone makes the purchase—is not enforced at this stage; the entire business of e-commerce will rapidly be discredited. If we are passing a Bill making electronic signatures legal, we are presumably expecting that the quantity of this business will grow substantially. We do not want to see that business grow on a false premise that tax liabilities are not properly spelled out when such deals are confirmed.
      Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way again. The point of commitment, if someone is buying something from abroad, will be at the point when they place their order. I can understand how the
      162
      hon. Gentleman could impose this restriction on British businesses selling abroad, but how could he impose it on foreign businesses that we are buying from?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I did not explain the issue clearly enough. It is, I admit, by a backdoor route and by a transfer of responsibility; nevertheless, if the clause became law the onus on the vendor's agents would rapidly be transferred back on to the vendor himself or herself in the country of origin of the goods, because no one would be prepared to take goods into this country on behalf of a foreign supplier and find that they could not then collect the duty from the purchaser in this country. They would tell the vendor, "I must have a counter-indemnity for this." Otherwise, they would be very foolish. At that point the vendor would find, even though not subject to UK law, that it is very much in their interests to make sure that they properly display the liability to Customs and other levies in this country for goods purchased here. Otherwise, they will find that they, via their UK agents, become liable for the loss of revenue incurred from the failure to make clear to customers in this country a warning of what their liability will be.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intention, which is to promote electronic commerce. But I am concerned that he is just talking about goods exchanged through electronic communications. Is he proposing a different regime for when, for example, I contract to buy a book from Amazon.com than if I write off to a bookseller in New York and ask it to send me books? Is he suggesting that electronic communications should be treated differently from the other trade, which is already going on and growing as a natural feature of the globalisation of trade?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: So far as I am aware, there are no duties and levies on books, because we do not believe—at least, in our party and, I believe, in the Labour party; perhaps the Liberals are different these days—in a tax on learning. The awareness of internet trade means, of course, that the growth of conventional trade is brought along behind it, with the wind in its sails.
      People who opt for conventional methods of purchase from other parts of the world—because of the less convenient means of purchase—will presumably do so because they are aware of the existence of the new clause. If it brings about an awareness of liability to tax, which is what we want it to do, it will have done its job.
      Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Is not the purpose of the new clause to avoid stealth taxes, and is it not that fact that has raised the hackles of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: As always, my hon. Friend has introduced an entirely new dimension to the debate. I think that, in this instance, the customs duty that the authorities seek to collect from the purchaser in this country could be described as another stealth tax.
      If the Bill is enacted without the protection of new clause 3 or a similar provision with the same good intention, many people in this country may conclude that

      163
      the problem with buying through the internet is that the buyer is caught by a stealth tax. In this case the stealth tax is a customs duty, but time and again we see that international vendors do not make clear on the web page the liability of the customers in this country whom they are asking to buy from them.
      Given the technology that is available nowadays, it would be very simple to display a warning sign conveying to customers whose purchases amount to more than £18, or 28 ecu, that they will be liable for a tax. In fact, it would not be all that difficult for vendors to include a calculation of the tax: it would be good customer service, although the new clause does not require it. The law should not be too specific, and I know that we are all keen for the Bill to be technology-neutral, but citizens of this country have a fundamental right to be aware of the taxes for which they are liable.
      Passing a burden or liability on to the vendor's agents deals with the need for the vendor to display the message. In other instances in which business is done outside this country—there are instances in income and capital gains tax legislation—United Kingdom agents of overseas operators are made liable for taxation. I think the Minister, as a former Treasury Minister, will confirm that UK agents collecting rent for overseas property owners whose property is in this country may be made liable for the tax on that rent if it is not otherwise collected.
      Under this and earlier Governments, we have already endorsed the clear principle that agents of overseas operators may be made liable, in the full expectation that they will then require a counter-indemnity from their overseas counter party. We have enabled our legislation to extend further than United Kingdom citizens when the actions of overseas agents and operators affect those citizens. I am sure that Labour Members who speak today will confirm that they too are concerned about the mischief that the new clause seeks to correct. They may feel that it contains imperfections, and I would be the first to admit, as a Back Bencher without the departmental resources that the Minister has to hand, that it could be improved; but I ask them, as I have asked the Minister, to recognise the existence of that mischief and the need to deal with it before we spur the growth of this market—which the Bill will do—on the false premise that people can be sold goods without being shown the tax for which they are liable.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Duncan: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) for moving the new clause because it highlights an area of growing complication. The hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) have compared physical delivery of a product with what can now happen over the internet: supply of goods—perhaps sound or data—that have a commercial value, but are not wrapped or posted and so do not go through or over a border that is policed normally. Furthermore, the growth of the internet will lead to many more cross-border purchases between an individual and a company, as distinct from an individual buying from a local company that itself will enter a cross-border transaction.
      164
      The new clause is essentially an attempt to introduce some consumer protection into e-commerce. Domestically, we either have an all-inclusive price—a price plus VAT—or a price saying that VAT has to be added. In commercial practice throughout the world—for example, well-established habits in shipping—something is sold either free on board, or with carriage, insurance and freight all to be paid for. Now we see the rise of a different category of trade that will not have the same clarity as conventional patterns of trade. Cross-border pricing habits and the contractual terms that govern them will not have the openness and clarity of traditional patterns.
      Therefore, the new clause is an attempt to introduce some clarity into e-commerce for the protection of the consumer. It calls for the consumer to be given the whole picture, wherever possible, before he is asked to enter a contract.
      Given the issues that I have explained, I ask the Minister to explain what her policy is in those difficult areas. I have broad sympathy with her as she tries to unravel the problem and to get to grips with it. None the less, the new clause highlights the problem and presents to the Minister a call for a clear explanation, so that I, the House and consumers will know where they stand in law.
      The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I was surprised to hear the explanation by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) of the new clause. I had thought that Conservative Members were against imposing new burdens on business, but the new clause would impose appalling burdens on British business, without securing any significant gains for British consumers.
      The new clause deals with who should be responsible for knowing what taxes are due in cross border e-commerce trade. The problem is that, in addition to imposing burdens on British companies that want to use electronic commerce to export their products and services, the new clause would severely damage the chances of achieving our objective of making the UK the best place in the world for commerce.
      As has been pointed out, the new clause discriminates against electronic commerce because it requires a vendor to disclose the purchaser's liability for tax before a contract is finalised and, if that is not done, the vendor or his agent to become liable for any undisclosed taxes. Even if that principle were sound—it goes too far—surely it should apply to all business, not only to business that is contracted through the medium of an electronic communication.
      The Bill seeks to get rid of barriers in existing law that discriminate against new technologies. We are not trying to impose new barriers that will inhibit the growth of electronic commerce.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Why is it such a huge burden on a vendor who uses the electronic medium to ensure that, when someone buys something, a message splashes up on the screen saying, "Do you realise that you are liable for customs duty on this purchase? Please click on the box yes or no before you proceed." With electronic commerce, that is a light burden for any vendor. It is precisely why

      165
      it is appropriate for the new clause to apply to electronic commerce. It would be harder to ensure that that sequence of questions was asked in a more conventional format.
      Ms Hewitt: I find that point wholly unconvincing. If the hon. Gentleman's principle were sound, someone selling by mail order or by telephone to a consumer in another country would be equally able to say, in large letters, "You need to be aware as a consumer that you may be liable for taxes in your own country."
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Is the Minister suggesting that it is a bad idea to ask businesses to expose to customers their liability to tax?
      Ms Hewitt: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am coming to precisely that point.
      The issue we are considering is whether we should require vendors to disclose to a purchaser in a foreign country their liability to tax in their own country. The balance that we have to strike is between giving adequate information to consumers and imposing the burden on a vendor of having to warn customers in detail of the tax liabilities that they may face in their own countries under local rules.
      The European Union's distance selling directive will require that, prior to the conclusion of any distance contract, the consumer has to be provided with, among other things, the price of the goods or services, including all taxes and, where appropriate, delivery costs. Once that directive is in force, it will apply the underlying objective, which I think that the hon. Gentleman seeks to enforce, to all consumer contracts within the European Union. It will apply, in other words, to all contracts involving distance-selling means, not simply those that are concluded by means of electronic communication, as the hon. Gentleman is proposing. I think that that is absolutely right and that it goes far enough.
      The problem with new clause 3 is that it goes well beyond the scope of the distance selling directive, which is confined to the member states of the European Union, and imposes on United Kingdom vendors the requirement to explain to foreign customers outside the European Union the tax liabilities of those customers in their own country. Customers, particularly business customers from non-European Union countries, will normally be aware of their tax liabilities.
      In the European Union context, we are balancing the imposition of burdens on United Kingdom vendors selling to consumers in other European Union member states against the protection that we can rightly gain for British consumers when buying from vendors elsewhere in the European Union. New clause 3 would impose burdens on British businesses that are seeking to sell to consumers outside the European Union without in practice obtaining any new benefits for British consumers themselves.
      We want businesses to trade online. We want to get a million small and medium businesses trading online by no later than 2002 because of the enormous competitive advantage that they could gain. However, we do not want to require any British business that is trading online to be an expert on the value added tax, sales tax and duty laws in any non-European Union country that they might sell to, and then to make them liable if they get it wrong. Such
      166
      a requirement would be a quite extraordinary burden on our businesses and would hardly encourage the development of electronic commerce.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: As the Minister well knows, I am not proposing that. However, will she explain why the requirement would be a burden only on United Kingdom vendors, and why the provisions of the new clause would not apply, for example, to a United States supplier to a United Kingdom consumer? A US supplier, because of the liability transferred from its UK agent, would have to disclose the UK purchaser's tax liability, which would be a benefit for the UK purchaser.
      Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the effect of his own amendment. The provisions of new clause 3 would bite on British business. When this Parliament makes laws, those laws apply to those who are within our jurisdiction. We cannot pass a law that would require vendors in, for example, the United States—where the price in shops is exclusive of sales tax, and it is only when paying at the till that one discovers the amount of sales tax—who wish to sell to British consumers to start to price inclusively, as we tend to do in the UK. It would be impractical to try to impose that liability by means of the device of the vendor's agent. Many vendors in other countries simply would not bother to sell to British consumers.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about the need for transparency and clarity in pricing on websites. We are trying to encourage that by supporting codes of practice that can be agreed both in the European context and beyond. That approach is better than trying to legislate in a complex manner that would not achieve the desired ends.
      Mr. Allan: The Minister argues that one cannot expect every website in the world to be programmed with the duty rates for every country from Argentina to Uzbekistan, but are the codes of practice that she mentioned similar to those that exist already? They require websites to make it clear that consumers are liable to taxes in their own countries. How far has the Minister got towards establishing agreement at a global level that such warnings should be available?
      Ms Hewitt: That is precisely what we are aiming to achieve, through the distance-selling directive in the European Union and, more generally, through the working party of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other international forums.
      The hon. Member for Guildford referred to British consumers' liability for VAT and import duty on physical goods imported from outside the European Union. Such goods are liable to taxation on importation, according to their nature and value.
      Exceptions exist, however: for example, music downloaded on line may be bought from America but delivered digitally through the medium of the internet. In those circumstances, it would be regarded as having been taxed in the United States.
      The difficulty for British and other European businesses is that the same process does not operate the other way around. When a United Kingdom business sells online music to an American customer, it has to account for VAT

      167
      at 17.5 per cent. The European Commission is especially keen to change the law to provide a level playing field for European businesses. We expect the Commission to bring forward detailed legislative proposals by April, and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will respond to those proposals when they are published.
      However, if the new clause is pressed to a Division, I shall ask Labour Members to oppose it. It would discriminate against electronic commerce and therefore inhibit it, and it would impose unnecessary and undesirable red tape on British business.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I find the Minister's reply cheap and disappointing. She tried to score some political points that were irrelevant to such a technical debate. The new clause does not require vendors to calculate purchasers' tax liability. The new clause simply states that the liability of the vendor shall be displayed
      "for any duties … arising in the country of destination."
      It does not state that the amount has to be specified. If the warning were not displayed, the new clause would provide that the amount could not be claimed from the purchaser. That knocks the first of the Minister's arguments on the head.
      The Minister referred to an EU draft directive. I was sorry to see her behave as more of a little European than an internationalist on the matter. We are talking about an international business, involving people in the United States and in other non-EU countries. The idea that EU countries can create a fortress in which e-commerce can be conducted and which will keep the Yanks out is totally naive—especially in the context of e-commerce.
      I am very disappointed that the Minister chooses to wait for an EU directive. She should display more imagination and leadership in the matter. That is what we require from the Government, if this country is ever to become a centre for e-commerce.
      Mr. Brian Cotter: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider the European dimension to be important? Does he agree that the single currency would make intra-Community internet trading more vibrant?
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Time is short: we must not play with the hon. Gentleman's obsessions, or indulge him further.
      I am most concerned that the Minister dismisses the idea that we can do anything about a US-UK internet relationship. Much internet business comes from the US and it is vital that purchasers in this country have confidence in the processes according to which such sales are conducted. I totally reject the Minister's argument that the clause has no bearing on that matter, as that is precisely the matter that the new clause addresses.
      If US suppliers had to be told by their UK agents that they were liable for a tax that could not be collected from UK purchasers unless the purchasers' general liability for any such tax were clearly displayed, those UK agents would say, with one voice, that the suppliers should make that display clear on their screens. They would add that the suppliers should also furnish some form of indemnity—the system would not work without that.
      In the current environment, UK business will suffer from the Government's inaction. It is in the long-term interests of UK agents to compete for the business of US
      168
      suppliers. Because of the competitive pressures and those long-term interests, they will have to bear a continuing loss of revenue. They will have to pay out duties to the Exchequer, which they will not be able to recover from UK customers because it will not have been displayed as a liability in the first place.
      US companies will pocket the money, but UK consumers will feel that they only just got away without being stung. The real sufferer will be UK business, as the Government have failed to pick up the challenge that the new clause represents. I am sorry that that argument has failed to penetrate the Minister's mind. That gives me little hope for the success of her e-commerce initiatives.
      In the circumstances, it would be wrong to press the new clause to a vote, but I assure the Minister that this vitally important matter will be raised again in another place ere long. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—

      "(1A) In order to grant an approval the Secretary of State must be satisfied that that person—

      (a) will comply, in providing the services in respect of which he is approved, with such technical and other requirements as may be prescribed;

      (b) is a person in relation to whom such other requirements as may be prescribed are, and will continue to be, satisfied;

      (c) is, and will continue to be, able and willing to comply with any requirements that the Secretary of State is proposing to impose by means of conditions of the approval; and

      (d) is otherwise a fit and proper person to be approved in respect of those services.

      (1B) Regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1A) may frame a requirement for the purposes of that subsection by reference to the opinion of a person specified in the regulations, or of a person chosen in a manner determined in accordance with the regulations.".

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 2, line 8, after "arrangements", insert "for approval".
      No. 7, in page 2, leave out lines 12 and 13.
      No. 8, in page 2, leave out lines 27 to 42.
      No. 9, in page 2, line 44, after "conditions", insert—
      "referenced above in subsection (2)(b)".
      No. 10, in page 3, line 12, leave out "(3)" and insert "(1A)".
      Mr. Duncan: In effect, the amendments would rewrite clause 2. They would not change the clause's meaning, but would merely put it into better legislative language. It may help the House if I explain, very briefly, the origin of the amendments.
      All hon. Members will agree that deliberations on the Bill in Committee were constructive. No member of the Committee indulged in silly party politics, but everyone wanted to improve the Bill wherever possible. That followed Conservative Members' success in forcing

      169
      publication of the draft Bill over the summer, and in arguing for and securing the removal of part III of that draft Bill.
      However, Conservative Members in the Committee argued their corner. The House will be grateful to the Minister for her rational approach to the debate. She said that she would examine some of the points that we made and consider some possible amendments for discussion on Report. To that end, I wrote to the Minister on 5 January, making four points which are the kernel of the amendments before the House today. She courteously wrote back to me on 17 January, essentially accepting three out of the four proposals, most of which have now been included in the Government amendments, which we shall come to later.
      Amendment No. 5, however, contains a proposal that the Minister did not accept, although I think it fair to say that she sympathised with what we said in Committee. We believe that the structure of the clause is very difficult to understand. The wording is such that readers of the legislation and interpreters of the language have to dart from one part of the clause to another to get the whole picture. In Committee, we moved an amendment to delete clause 2(5), which we felt to be broad-brush and meaningless. It was an example of nonsensical language—a nightmare for plaintiffs and defendants, although lawyers will make money if ever this part of the Bill is referred to in a legal case.
      In response to our amendment, the Minister said, quite reasonably, that she would look further at the wording of the subsections to see whether they could be simplified without reducing the necessary powers of the authority. Following our conversations, she advised me that parliamentary draftsmen had not come up with a solution, but maintained that our amendment did not quite achieve what we thought it would. However, I think that it does.
      The amendment would rewrite the clause. Instead of its current hotch-potch structure, we have explained the hurdles that those who wish to be registered as cryptography providers have to overcome so that they can be properly understood. We have introduced a sort of "gating" procedure, whereby anyone who wishes so to be registered can achieve one objective, then another, in succession, to the point where, clearly understood by everyone involved and by anyone interpreting the law, the end game can be reached.
      The order of our proposals follow a logical process. They establish what is to be proved; the required status of the applicants; the procedures to determine that status; the nature of the arrangements, including the power to impose conditions; the details of the conditions that can be imposed; the restriction on conditions that can be imposed, and the power to enforce one type of condition. They follow a logical progression so that the law, clearly understood, can be followed by anyone so applying.
      I hope that, even if the Minister cannot accept the amendment, she will admit that the clause is a bit of a mess. When the parliamentary draftsmen have a little more time on their hands, perhaps they can study it again so that, between us, we can make simple and clear law that will benefit everyone.
      Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has said, we had a valuable and constructive series of discussions in Committee. I think that the Bill, which had already been significantly improved through consultation, was further improved as a result. I undertook to consider whether we could simplify the clause while preserving the necessary powers of the approvals authority.
      I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling constructive amendments, designed to simplify the clause. They would reorder the clause and add some cross-references without changing its effect. However, whether one arrangement is clearer than another is a subjective judgment, and I doubt that parliamentary counsel would agree with the aspersions cast by the hon. Gentleman on the original drafting. I would like to consider further the way in which the amendments have been drafted, and to discuss further with parliamentary counsel whether a rearrangement of the clause, along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman, or in some other way, would help to clarify it. If we reach that conclusion, we shall table the necessary amendments in another place. I hope that, in the light of that undertaking, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Duncan: It is always unsettling when sweet reason breaks out across the Floor of the House. However, on this unique occasion, that seems to have happened. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 6

      PROVISION OF CRYPTOGRAPHY SUPPORT SERVICES
      Mr. Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      "(2) References in this Part to the provision of cryptography support services exclude the supply of computer hardware or software, or the right to use them, except where that supply is an integral part of cryptography support services supplied by the same provider.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
      Mr. Duncan: It would appear that the outbreak of sweet reason has hit the House once again, so the previous occasion was not unique. The amendment, once again, originated from this side of the House, and the Minister listened to the point that we were making. Our concern is that clause 6(2) is almost incomprehensible. I will not read it to the House, but anyone trying to interpret the contents of the Bill in future would have a great deal of difficulty. Amendment No. 11 would tidy up the clause and make it comprehensible.
      In Committee, the Minister undertook to
      "consult ever-helpful parliamentary draftsmen further to discover whether the drafting of the clause could be simplified".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 December 1999; c. 54–5.]

      171
      I recognise that the group contains two Government amendments that address exactly the same point, but in a slightly different way. In addition, the Government have the benefit of the advice of parliamentary draftsmen and the Minister's experts—advice which Opposition Members so often lack.
      When the moment comes, I may wish to withdraw my amendment, once I hear from the Minister exactly what the effect of the Government amendments will be. I expect them to be almost identical in effect to mine.
      Mr. Allan: I, too, welcome the amendments, particularly Nos. 13 and 14. They deal with one of the areas in which we shared the concern of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in Committee. Not only was the clause confusing, but its logic was reversed. As we explored the clause in Committee, we discovered that the Government intended to ensure that the Bill referred to cryptography service providers and that hardware and software regulation should not be introduced unless that was a core part of the cryptography service.
      By including references to supply of hardware and software, the effect of the clause appeared to be reversed. Amendment No. 13 makes that exclusive rather than inclusive, which I think quite sensible. I shall not get into logical uses of "or" and "and", because we spent plenty of time on that in Committee.
      This is a deregulatory success. Amendment No. 13 adds two words; amendment No. 14 adds nine, but removes 21. By my inclusive or exclusive mathematics, I calculate that we have taken 10 words out of the Bill, which is a success in itself. However, I invite the Minister to consider whether she can go further and take out another six words. I refer to the phrase at the end of clause 6(2):
      "not consisting in such a supply."
      Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 will get the clause broadly right; they make a lot of sense. But I query whether that phrase, hanging on at the end of the sentence, is really necessary. I invite the Minister to ensure that the Bill eventually has as few words as possible so that lawyers can make as little money as possible arguing about the significance of those that it does contain.
      Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said in moving his amendment, we had another very useful debate in Committee on subsection (2). As both he and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) have indicated, there was agreement across the Committee about the intention of the original clause. I said that I would reconsider the wording and have, as a result, come forward with amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
      Our amendments reinforce and clarify the purpose of the subsection, which is to explain that the supply of software and hardware is not included within the meaning of the cryptographic support service, unless the supply of the hardware or software is integral to the provision of the service. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton pointed out, the new wording proposed in the two Government amendments significantly and helpfully clarifies that extremely important subsection.
      172
      5 pm
      The hon. Member for Hallam asked why we cannot simply drop from the end of the subsection the words
      "not consisting in such a supply".
      I asked my officials the same question when I was considering the amendments. If we abandoned those words, the problem is that we would end up with a completely circular definition of cryptography support services.
      I offer the House the helpful example that was provided for me by my officials—it relates to chocolates. If I were to say that references to the provision of chocolates do not include references to the supply of coffee creams, except where that is integral to the provision of the chocolates not consisting in such a supply, coffee creams would not be included unless they were supplied as part of a wider range. That is what we are doing in the measure, but if those crucial words at the end of subsection (2) were omitted, the lawyers would go round in circles.
      The clause, as redrafted by the two Government amendments, achieves its purpose in the simplest and most elegant form and with the fewest possible words. In the light of that explanation, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will want to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Duncan: I have been thinking about lots of things, but as the Minister has mentioned chocolates, perhaps, one day, I shall deliver her a box of chocolates by dramatically swinging through a window—as in the famous advert.
      The Minister's support, in principle, for our proposals is right. We accept that the Government's amendments meet the requirements set out in our amendment, and we support the Government' s amendments. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 6, line 2, after "service" insert "do not".
      No. 14, in page 6, line 3, leave out from "hardware" to "of in line 4 and insert—
      "except where the supply is integral to the provision".—[Ms Hewitt.]

    Clause 7

      ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND RELATED CERTIFICATES
      Ms Hewitt: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 34, leave out "certified either" and insert—
      "made a statement confirming that".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Ms Hewitt: During the second sitting of the Standing Committee, on 14 December, I indicated to hon. Members that, with the help of parliamentary counsel, I would re-examine the drafting of subsection (3). I have done so and thus have pleasure in introducing amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

      173
      In Committee, the debate on this subsection focused on the certification process, under which, in public key cryptography, the public key of an individual is certified as belonging to him or her. The debate also touched on the language that was used in the subsection, especially the use of the word "certified". The amendments will help to clarify both those matters.
      Amendment No. 1 seeks to replace the words "certified either" with the phrase
      "made a statement confirming that".
      That phrase is slightly longer, but will make it clear that we are talking about what a person will want to establish, rather than about a specific technical process. By avoiding the use of the word "certified", we shall avoid the confusion, which we came across in Committee, between the IT industry's use of the words "certified" and "certificate", and the legal, or parliamentary draftsman's, use of the words.
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 address the other issue raised in Committee in amendment No. 51—whether evidence of the certification of a public key was admissible under clause 7. The wording in the new amendments will put the matter beyond doubt. Amendment No. 2 specifically includes the verification of the signature in those matters deemed to be admissible under subsection (3)(b). That verification is, of course, performed by the public key.
      Amendment No. 3 makes it clear that any one of those processes or procedures is admissible in its own right, as well as when it is combined with other facts. I hope that that explanation is entirely comprehensible to Opposition Members; I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Duncan: Once again, the Government amendments support the amendments that we tabled in Committee, about which I wrote to the Minister on 5 January. As she rightly points out, the main concern arises from the fact that, as we confront new technology and try to embody in law provisions that relate to it, we run out of accurate words to describe what the legislation is supposed to mean. As the reports of the Standing Committee show, our concern is that the word "certified" became ambiguous as it was used through the Bill, and hence legally unclear.
      We wanted an alternative phrase or verb to replace the word "certified" in the clause so that that ambiguity could be removed. At one point, I discussed with the Minister the use of the word "validated". However, I accept that the phrasing of the amendments covers what we meant by "validated", or the meaning that we wanted to be attributed to "certified". We support the amendment; it achieves what we asked the Minister for. I hope that it will receive the support of both sides of the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 6, line 36, leave out
      "the means of producing or communicating"
      and insert—
      "a means of producing, communicating or verifying".
      No. 3, in page 6, line 38, leave out "as" and insert—
      "is (either alone or in combination with other factors)".—[Ms Hewitt.]

    Clause 13

      PROHIBITION ON KEY ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
      Mr. Duncan: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 13, line 37, leave out—
      "deposit a key for electronic data with"
      and insert
      "render electronic data intelligible to the satisfaction of".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Duncan: The amendments are crucial because of the debate that surrounded the origin of the Bill and the concerns of all those in the industry as to what the measure might entail. Those Members familiar with all the issues will know that, as people began to wrestle with the ramifications of e-trade and the revolution that is going on, they were anxious that the Government might demand that the key to the de-encryption of material be deposited with a third party.
      The debate on key escrow raged for some time. Foremost among the original proponents of key escrow was my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). However, the debate has moved on—as has my hon. Friend, who has changed his mind because we have learned much more about the matter. All credit is due to him for that.
      It was thus crucial that key escrow should not be included in the Bill. There would be no power for the Government, or for some agency, to demand that the key—as between public and private—for the de-encryption of material could be deposited with a third party. However, we were concerned that key escrow might be introduced through the back door.
      We can accept that if someone is transmitting data—for example, a taxpayer who is filling in his tax return and sending it to the Inland Revenue—there must be some provision, and a reasonable expectation, that the data he is sending should be intelligible to the recipient. In the case of private information, some of that data might be encrypted—for good reasons. It would not be acceptable for the sender of that information to say, "I have encrypted the information, but don't worry it's all there. It's tough if all you get on your screen is hieroglyphics that you can't read—it's up to you to work out how to turn it into proper data, which can be read by anyone in the normal way." Therefore I quite understand that this part of the Bill places an obligation on the sender of information to send it in a form that can be properly deciphered and understood by the recipient; otherwise, staff at the Inland Revenue will find that everyone sends them hieroglyphics and says, "I am sure you could decipher it, if only you tried."
      However, the wording of clause 13(2)(b) looked a bit dodgy to us. It looked as though a power might suddenly be introduced, on the sly, enabling the Government to demand the deposit of a key. I accept that, if the information is intelligible to the recipient, they effectively have the key already. I also accept that, if they require, and can reasonably require, that information to be intelligible, if the key cannot be given they should be given a power to render that information intelligible. Therefore, I seek from the Minister an assurance that this

      175
      is not key escrow through the back door—that the powers are very limited, and are confined to a reasonable process by which the receiver of information can establish the means of reading or deciphering the information that is being sent.
      We were worried that subsection (2)(b) was too broadly phrased, so the group of amendments before us contains one amendment that I have moved—I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says in response about the scope of these powers and obligations—and one tabled by the Minister, which achieves what we were asking for in subsection (2)(b).
      Everyone accepts that key escrow—the obligation to give to a third party the key to the deciphering of material—should not, and must not, be a power in the Bill. Therefore, I seek from the Minister an explanation of the meaning of the clause as it stands, and of Government amendment No. 4. We accept her amendment, but before deciding whether to withdraw ours, we are interested to hear what she has to say about the status of key escrow within the scope of the Bill.
      Ms Hewitt: It will help if, before I address Government amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 12, I briefly remind the House of the reasoning that gave rise to clause 13, and especially subsection (2). Clause 13 puts into effect the policy that the Prime Minister has stated, with which the hon. Gentleman agrees—that
      "no persons will directly or indirectly be required to store their encryption keys with a third party".
      Those are words that the Prime Minister used in Cambridge in September, when he launched the performance and innovation unit report on electronic commerce. We have honoured those words. As a consequence, we introduced a specific clause to the Bill. I believe that the clause has been welcomed both in the House and by business at large.
      The clause places a restriction on any conditions of an approval that might be made under part I, or regulations or orders made under any powers in any part of the Bill. No one can be required to deposit any encryption key—that protects the confidentiality of their information—with a third party. A key refers here to anything relating to electronic data which allows access to electronic data, such as a password, or allows the electronic data to be decrypted, such as a private key.
      The clause not only rules out a requirement for the physical deposit of a key, but prohibits a requirement for anything to be done that would have the effect of making a key available to another person. That would include the imposition of any key storage technology, which would allow someone else to recreate or gain access to one's key.
      Two special cases are outlined in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). They do not in any way limit the prohibition on key escrow, but they do make it clear that that prohibition does not preclude two common-sense requirements.
      5.15 pm
      Clause 13(2)(b) does not reintroduce key escrow. Instead, it addresses the need to be able to insist on some alternative to key escrow, so that important information
      176
      that has been encrypted remains accessible, even if the key is lost. It does so because orders made under clause 8 will enable information to be stored electronically, and we need to consider what requirements could be made for people to store information where they had opted not to store their encryption keys with another person.
      Mr. Duncan: Who does the Minister envisage might be able to take advantage of that power under the order? Will it only be public bodies, or agencies of Government, or might it also be private corporations?
      Ms Hewitt: We are dealing with situations that might arise, for instance, under orders made under clause 8, and in most cases those orders will, I think, concern other public bodies. However, let us take the situation where there is a statutory requirement to retain important records, such as records of rail safety or of nuclear power stations. If the order made under clause 8 would enable that information, where there is a statutory requirement to keep it, to be kept electronically, one must provide for the possibility that, in years to come, the key that would enable that information to be accessed and rendered intelligible would be lost. The computer that held the key might be destroyed, or the only individual who had the copy of the key might die.
      Under clause 13, we have prohibited the imposition, in a clause 8 order, of any requirement that the key to those data be stored with a third party. However, if the holder of the information does not choose to store the key with a third party, the clause 8 order can require him to take other steps—such as placing a second copy of the information in plain text in a bank vault. Some other security measure not involving mandatory key escrow would have to be taken, to protect future access to important data that had been encrypted. That is the point of clause 13(2)(b).
      Amendment No. 4 is a Government amendment that I tabled in order to meet the undertakings that I gave during the fourth sitting of the Committee, on 16 December. The amendment means that the arrangements permitted by clause 13(2)(b) relate to the information represented by the data rather than the data themselves. In other words, the requirement could be met by storing a paper copy of that information, or perhaps storing the information in a readable form on a disk, locked in a safe. In other words, there would be a range of alternatives to key escrow, from which the person holding the information could choose, in order to protect against the loss of a key or that key's becoming unusable.
      The amendment also confines the arrangements about accessibility to records that are provided for under a statute or subordinate legislation. That would include a paper record specified under other legislation, or electronic records covered by an order made under clause 8. It does not cover circumstances where there may be provisions about communicating data but no provision about keeping a record.
      I take the opportunity to clarify a related point, raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). He asked whether clause 8 could be used to impose electronic storage requirements where there was no current paper storage requirement. The answer is yes. That is reasonable because, as circumstances and processes change, it may well be sensible for people to be

      177
      required to store electronic records where, in the past, there was a general understanding, but not necessarily a specific requirement, that they should store paper records. The Bill will afford flexibility, as people become accustomed to the electronic way of doing business.
      I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that amendment No. 12—although well intentioned—is unnecessary because the existing text addresses a perfectly common-sense need in a satisfactory way. Clause 13(2)(a) would allow an order under clause 8 to require the deposit of a key with the intended recipient of an electronic communication. That is the crucial point. It is only the intended recipient who must have the key. In other words, we are not dealing with key escrow which, by definition, involves giving a key to a third party.
      As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has said, if information were supplied in an encrypted and unintelligible form so that the intended recipient—the Inland Revenue or some other Government Department, for example—did not understand it, the communication, for all practical purposes, would have been frustrated, even though technically the individual might argue that the statutory requirement to provide the information might have been fulfilled.
      The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may want to provide that owners of abattoirs could communicate with the Ministry electronically. Because of the sensitivity of the information to be disclosed and the importance of the identity of the sender, the Ministry might insist that such communications were effected using a particular type of technology—perhaps the abattoir owner would use a smart card, or some hardware token. That might have the effect, or purpose, of transferring the encryption key on the smart card for those messages to the Ministry, so that the information could be read. Clearly, it would be odd if the Bill were not to allow such technology to be specified.
      I assure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that this is not key escrow. There is nothing sinister behind this measure. It is for the protection of the citizen that technologies sometimes may be specified in a clause 8 order that are sufficiently secure to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the information being communicated. The technology might involve encryption mechanisms where encryption keys—sometimes referred to as session keys—are shared between the counter-parties.
      Amendment No. 12 would have a similar effect. Since the intended recipient would need to be satisfied about how he was to render the data intelligible, the clause 8 order would have to address that need. It still would be possible to require that a person used a particular technology or went through a particular process; therefore the requirement might well be met in the most obvious way by the deposit of an encryption key with the intended recipient.
      I know that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton wants to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is as simple as possible. However, in this case, the existing drafting is clearer than his amendment. On the basis of that
      178
      explanation and my assurances on mandatory key escrow, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances, and I agree that the key words in the Bill are "intended recipient". On the basis of her assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 13, line 42, leave out "of making the data" and insert—
      "that the information contained in a record kept in pursuance of any provision made by or under any enactment or subordinate legislation becomes".—[Ms Hewitt.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      5.23 pm
      Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill will help make the UK the best place in the world for e-commerce, and puts in place the right legal framework. It is fitting that this modernising Bill should be one of the first new laws of the 21st century. Just as this country led the world in the first industrial revolution, we are determined that we will be winners in the new knowledge-driven economy.
      The Bill will lay sound foundations for Britain to become a dynamic, knowledge-based economy. Bill Gates described the Bill as "the model for Europe". We plan, through the Bill, to be one of the first countries to implement the EU electronic signature directive, so that British firms can benefit from the emerging online single market. A few days ago, Intel announced a %150 million investment to establish a major server farm in the Thames valley to meet the growing need for internet access across Europe. That and many other such inward investments are confirming the UK's position as Europe's e-commerce hub.
      The Bill is the result of an extensive process of consultation with business and the IT industry.
      Mr. Duncan: And us.
      Ms Hewitt: There was some help on points of detail from the Opposition—particularly in Committee.
      The Government have made extensive changes to the policy inherited from the last Administration. This process of widespread consultation has resulted in a genuine partnership in this area between Government and industry. I hope to see many of the Bill's objectives being achieved by self-regulation, so that we will not need to commence part I.
      Part I is designed to build confidence in those offering cryptography services. Those services allow people to verify who has sent an electronic communication, or to keep commercial information or credit card details secret. The widespread availability of high-quality services to the public and to business will be crucial in building people's trust in doing business online, and allaying many people's fears of the new medium.

      179
      I am working with the Alliance for Electronic Business, which has drawn up a self-regulatory approval scheme—known as the T scheme—that is designed to ensure minimum standards of quality and service. Our strong preference is for self-regulation, with the statutory powers in part I held in reserve in case self-regulation fails to deliver. I am confident that, if the Alliance for Electronic Business delivers what it is currently planning to deliver, we will not need to commence part 1. That is why these powers are subject to a sunset clause and will lapse if not used within five years.
      The Bill will allow people to place greater reliance on electronic signatures by making such signatures, and the processes through which they are created and certified, admissible as evidence in court. Clause 7 will enable the vast majority of contracts, where there is no specific statutory requirement as to their form, to be carried out electronically.
      There are many other cases—estimated to be as many as 40,000—often involving dealings with Government, where there are specific legal barriers to doing things electronically. Clause 8 will give the Government the power to sweep away the obstacles in existing laws that insist on the use of paper, postage and formalities such as sealing wherever it makes sense to do so, and to give people the electronic option. The paper option will remain for those who want it, but increasingly, people and businesses will want to take advantage of the speed and flexibility that electronic communication offers. We have set targets for delivering Government services online, and I have deposited a memorandum in the Library, giving more detail on how we intend to use this power.
      Finally, the Bill will improve the procedures for modifying telecommunications licences, which are increasingly outdated in a highly competitive marketplace.
      The Bill will modernise our legislative framework, so that the law can adapt flexibly to the extraordinary new opportunities that are opening up with electronic commerce. It is an enabling Bill which ensures that the law does not get in the way of new technology and new business. It is a Bill that has the overwhelming support of business, and does not divide us in the House, to which I commend it.
      5.29 pm
      Mr. Duncan: We have always supported the principle of the Bill—in particular, the introduction of a proper framework of law for electronic signatures. Those of us who understand business are ready champions of the development of e-commerce. The Minister will admit that we have helped things on their way.
      There are issues and uncertainties which will need to be addressed, and this is not the end of the matter. As we look to EU directives, there will be many complicated areas to be studied and legislated upon, and cases to complement the Bill before us today. As the House knows, we do not want part I ever to be invoked. We would rather not have seen it in the Bill, because we want a regime of voluntary control to be introduced.
      180
      I am aware that the Government want this to be the first Bill to receive Royal Assent in the new millennium. Thanks to us and the Minister, it will be. We forced its publication in draft form in the summer and, following the summer recess, we forced the removal of half its pages to make it smaller and better. We have been constructive throughout and are pleased to share in its improvement and in its progress. No single party can claim credit for the Bill. We are pleased to support it.
      5.31 pm
      Mr. Cotter: We, too, welcome the Bill and the prospect of its early implementation. Unlike the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I do not promise the Minister a box of chocolates, but perhaps a box of All Sorts with a few comments and plaudits here and there.
      Many people, including Liberal Democrats, have welcomed the concept of a light-touch Bill and we congratulate the Government on introducing one. However, along with others, I reiterate a concern that was expressed in Committee. When the Home Office makes its input into electronic communications, I hope that the Minister will, as she and the Department of Trade and Industry have promised, use a light touch rather than the heavy hand of bureaucracy.
      As with other Bills, the question of impact assessment has arisen, and the Minister will know that I am concerned about that. The matter was touched on in Committee when indicative costings were provided for the possible arrangements under part I. I do not want to argue strongly about the accuracy of the costs—after all, they were called indicative costs. For example, a figure of £30,000 or £50,000 was given for a medium-sized company. However, as I said in another debate, there is a feeling of dissatisfaction about impact assessments in this and other Bills. I am sure that we shall be interested to hear from the Alliance for Electronic Business, which will soon provide some costs. I should like to know when that will be.
      An important point was raised about part II. Departments need to examine outdated definitions, such as the words "writing or signature". On Second Reading and in Committee, it emerged that, as the Bill stands, it is up to individual Departments to update their own legislation as they see fit. That may lead to inconsistencies and confusion, so perhaps the Government should be more proactive. The Department of Trade and Industry should issue time targets and templates to ensure that Departments do what is required.
      I know that the Minister will consider it her duty to prod colleagues and generally to promote what the Bill stands for with all Departments. However, I appreciate that she is aware of the many problems that may be faced in order making under the Bill.
      Social exclusion is another important issue. The Government have stated that they are concerned to ensure that there is the widest possible access to the technologies. I applaud it when the Minister refers to IT for All, information and communication technologies learning centres, and other schemes. However, Liberal Democrats, like everyone else, are considering a changing scenario, with digital and other means being developed.

      181
      I, like others, have heard about the Government initiative for the provision of low-cost computers for low-income families. How is that scheme going? Although the Minister may not be able to answer this afternoon—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, on Third Reading, he is limited to discussing the contents of the Bill. Even though he may think that other issues are connected with the Bill, he cannot raise them. He must talk about what is in the Bill.
      Mr. Cotter: I stand corrected—thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      In conclusion, the Bill is important to ensure that we as a country address the issues of e-commerce. The Minister is aware of the points that I have made and other issues might be raised on another occasion. I hope that we can advance together to make the climate suitable for business—and small business, in particular—to conduct its affairs.
      5.35 pm
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I too wish the Bill well and congratulate the Minister on her handling of it. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) ably assisted the Bill to reach this stage when he encouraged the removal of the inappropriate clauses that were originally in it.
      I express the wish that, in another place, some of the issues that have been debated and the two new clauses that could not be considered today will be taken up. If the Bill is to succeed, it must deal with the tax implications of cross-border trade. In its wider remit, it will not succeed unless that is done even if the undertakings that the Minister has given are taken on board by her colleagues in the Treasury and are dealt with in the next Finance Bill. Nor will it succeed in its objective of broadening e-commerce if the law of contract and the state in which the law applies have not been clarified.
      We have supported the Minister so much on the Bill because we congratulate her on her fights with the Lord Chancellor's Department and with the finance team on the issue of which country's law should apply to contracts. We are concerned by the passage of the Brussels convention and we urge her to stop any suggestion that it should apply to e-commerce. We are also worried by the idea that the country of destination should be invoked in the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Therefore, with her colleagues in other Departments, we hope that she will consider the implications of trying to change the way in which the law is applied. We believe that, almost without exception, the country of origin should be the basis on which cross-border trade is regulated. If we adopt that stance, we should do so as the United Kingdom legislature and not by following the lead from Brussels and Europe.
      We did not become the financial centre of Europe by following the lead from Brussels. We did that by following our own lead—deciding what we thought was best for the financial services industry. It is only by following our own sense of what is best for the e-commerce industry that we shall create the centre for e-commerce in Europe to which we all aspire.
      182
      Before the Bill reaches the Lords, the Minister should consider adopting unilaterally the principle behind new clause 2. A report to the Select Committee by the Minister every year would do much to enhance her role and her negotiating power with other Departments. She would be able to tell them that she has to come to the House to defend the decisions and explain why, if they get it wrong, it will be to the detriment of the regulation of cryptography support services. She would be able to explain why new tax burdens, such as IR35, and new regulatory burdens, such as the temp-to-perm rules for temporary staff employment agencies, would add to the cost of developing e-commerce in this country. I know that that is an argument that the Minister supports and I hope that she wins it with her colleagues in the Government.
      That principle would also act as a spur to other Departments to implement the terms of the Bill when they try to reform and update other legislation. We were told that 40,000 pieces of legislation need updating to incorporate electronic signatures. However, there are no teeth in the Bill to ensure that the Minister's colleagues do their job to ensure that e-commerce can march ahead as fast as we all want it to.
      5.39 pm
      Mr. Allan: First, I congratulate the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce on having accepted many of the amendments tabled in Committee. That Committee was one of the more useful that I have attended: there was genuine dialogue between both sides and Government Back Benchers chipped in—all too often that does not happen. In addition, we managed to create a relatively jargon-free environment. As a result, we have a clearer Bill at the end of the process than we had at the start of it.
      It has emerged clearly from Committee and Report that the legislative framework surrounding electronic communications is changing rapidly. The Bill has been referred to as the first Government legislation of the new millennium, but I wonder whether such issues will in future be dealt with by other means. For example, the Minister has referred to international agreements on taxation, which will probably be well outwith the powers of the UK Parliament. I should be interested to learn more about that dimension in the context of e-commerce and electronic communications.
      The Bill specifically covers the subject of industry self-regulation. The Minister referred to the T scheme, which will provide an interesting template for future progress. In Committee, it became apparent that industry self-regulation might be the only mechanism that can respond sufficiently quickly and with sufficient technical ability to achieve the objectives that we have set out.
      Finally, I repeat a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). There are now two Home Office Ministers on the Treasury Bench—
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Only one.
      Mr. Allan: Sorry—the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, used to be a Home Office Minister.

      183
      The Liberal Democrats are concerned that, although the Bill represents one step forward, Home Office legislation to be considered later in the Session might represent a couple of steps in another direction. Crooks have always used whatever form of communication they can get their hands on, but we must ensure that we do not cut off our nose to spite our face and start blaming their medium of communication for the fact that crooks exist.
      The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce wants to enhance e-commerce and does not want unnecessary restrictions imposed on it or business scared away by other domestic requirements, even those that are, quite properly, designed to further law and order. I am sure that she will enter future negotiations in that spirit, so that Britain becomes the place where server farms—a sort of farm that does not normally require subsidy—become one of this country's main import and domestic earnings providers.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Disqualifications Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Disqualifications Bill
    Clause 1

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1(1)(E) OF THE DISQUALIFICATION ACTS
      5.43 pm
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert—
      'Subject to section (Commencement of Act to be conditional on progress in implementing decommissioning),'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 1, line 9, after `Ireland)', add—
      ' provided that, in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly'.
      No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end add—
      '(2A) This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall not make such an order unless he has previously laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement in relation to the Belfast Agreement (Cm 3883), stating that in his opinion and in the opinion of all parties to that Agreement all aspects of the Agreement have been implemented.
      (2B) No order shall be made under subsection (2A) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      New clause 1—Commencement of Act to be conditional on progress in implementing decommissioning—
      'This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; but no such order shall be made until the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Norther Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 is satisfied that there has been substantial progress in implementing the commitments made in the Decommissioning section of the Belfast Agreement (Command Paper 3883).'.
      Mr. MacKay: I have to say, Sir Alan, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I deeply regret that the Committee of the whole House is to discuss the Bill this afternoon. You will recall that, only yesterday, there was a robust debate on Second Reading. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had to respond to many interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House and many hon. Members that expressed concern or asked questions about certain aspects of the Bill. With his usual courtesy, he was good enough to say that he would reflect on the observations made. I have to say, with the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary, that I believe that he and hon. Members have had insufficient time to do that.
      The only occasions in my recollection—and, perhaps, yours, Sir Alan—on which we have had Second Reading followed immediately by Committee, Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House have been when there

      185
      is urgent, emergency legislation to be passed. With the best will in the world, it is not possible to describe the Bill as urgent, or even as important. It is a deeply irrelevant little Bill, for which few people asked. The Under-Secretary failed to tell us yesterday who had asked for it; and while spending four days in Northern Ireland last week, I failed to find anyone who is the slightest bit interested in the Bill or wants it to be passed. Despite that, the Government, in a ham-fisted manner that shows great contempt for you, Sir, and for the House, have set the Committee stage for today.
      You, Sir Alan, will have noticed that the amendment paper contains amendments that were tabled only yesterday. We have not had time to reflect on those amendments, let alone on the many points raised on Second Reading. I ask the Under-Secretary even at this late hour to withdraw the Committee stage until we have had adequate time to reflect, which is what normally happens. At the very least, he should explain why the Bill is an urgent, emergency measure that must be passed quickly. Perhaps he will intervene on me, but if he is not prepared to do so, we will have to assume that the Bill is not urgent, emergency legislation and that the procedures of the House are being abused.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth)rose—
      Mr. MacKay: I give way to the Minister.
      Mr. Howarth: I am sorry—I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech.
      Mr. MacKay rose—
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is entitled to make some prefatory remarks before speaking to the amendment, but I advise him to move directly to the subject of the amendment. The fact that we are having Committee stage now is not a matter for me. I believe that Madam Speaker ruled earlier today that it is a matter for the usual channels.
      Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can you guide members of the Committee on how to proceed with considering the outcome of Committee stage and therefore the possibility of tabling of amendments on Report, before the House proceeds to Third Reading? Will you give us reassurance—so far as it lies within your powers to do so—that the Bill will not proceed beyond Committee stage today? Members of the Committee will want to reflect in the usual way and decide on what action to take as a result of Committee proceedings before we move to Report.
      The Chairman: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I am inclined to take a tolerant attitude toward manuscript amendments, if they are tabled. However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee to recognise that we are considering a three-clause Bill that is fairly tightly drawn. My discretion in the matter of amendments being in order might be somewhat constricted. Within the constraints of the difficult and tight time scale with which I have been
      186
      presented, I have done my best to be as generous as possible about when amendments are tabled and as flexible as I can be in the selection of amendments. We should now proceed to consider the substance of the Bill.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. Will you give the Committee a little more information? If amendments are to be tabled for consideration on Report—you have generously indicated that that possibility is open to us—are we to take them in the normal way to the Table Office, leaving it to the Table Office to draw them to your attention; or are we to bring such amendments directly to you, in which case, how will we be told whether they are in order and have been selected for debate?
      The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I should state, for the benefit of Committee, that it is usual to have a Report stage only if amendments have been made in Committee. We have not yet made any amendments, so the matter we are discussing is a contingency on a contingency.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan. I hope that the Committee does not assume that the Bill is not amendable—
      The Chairman: Order. I said no such thing. I merely said that what was being discussed was a contingency on a contingency. We cannot be aware in advance whether the Committee may choose in its wisdom to amend or not amend the Bill.
      Mr. Fallon: I understand that, Sir Alan. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I wonder whether you could advise the Committee on the difficulty of tabling manuscript amendments if the Bill is amended in Committee and we do not have a print of it. In those circumstances, I do not see how manuscript amendments could even be brought to the Table. If we do not have a print of the Bill, on what basis can we construct amendments?
      The Chairman: Should that matter arise, I think that it is possible for manuscript amendments to be brought to the Table.
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan—
      The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was trying to make a point of order.
      Mr. Ross: Further to the point that has already been raised, Sir Alan. I apologise for being a few minutes late but I was trying to check one or two things in the Public Bill Office before I came into the Chamber. If you are having some difficulty in deciding which amendments should be taken, you will appreciate—given the expertise on which you have to draw and the help that you receive—the tremendous difficulty that Back-Bench Members face in trying to table amendments. Although the Bill is narrow in content, it has wide consequences, which began to become apparent to hon. Members only

      187
      yesterday, on Second Reading. We need rather more time than we have so far had to consider the possibility of tabling amendments.
      The Chairman: That is going back over a past argument which I do not think we can now repeat. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I have not had any difficulty in my selection of amendments, which is made in accordance with the normal considerations on these occasions.
      I said earlier that I had tried to be flexible so as to give hon. Members the maximum time in which to submit their amendments, and to ensure that my deliberations encompassed the widest range of amendments that hon. Members wished to table.
      Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Sir Alan, may I ask for further guidance? If the Bill were to be amended in Committee, it might be proper, even if at that stage the Government were proposing indecent haste in pressing on immediately with further stages, to suspend the House of Commons for a period to give reasonable and proper time for hon. Members to consider those proceedings before being forced by the Government to go forward with indecent haste on to Report. Might that be in your mind, Sir Alan?
      The Chairman: All politicians fight shy of hypothetical situations, and I regard the one that the right hon. Gentleman has described as hypothetical. We shall deal with matters as they arise. The Committee might now move on to the substance of the matter.
      Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Sir Alan. You will appreciate that in considering amendments we sometimes approach the same issue from slightly different points of view, and apply different standards. Would it be possible to have a vote on each amendment in a group if that were thought necessary by Back-Bench Members?
      The Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the occupant of the Chair will judge that according to the content of the debate. I shall listen carefully to all that is said. I call Mr. MacKay.
      Mr. MacKay: I hope that you will appreciate, Sir Alan, that I would not wish to abuse the Chair. However, there are important points that I—and other hon. Members—wish to make. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has refused to accept my offer that he should confirm that the Bill is urgent or in any way important emergency legislation.
      Mr. George Howarth rose—
      Mr. MacKay: It seems that the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind; clearly he has been briefed.
      Mr. Howarth: I intervene for the purpose of the record, Sir Alan. As you rightly said, this is a short three-clause Bill. It was published before Christmas. There were consultations—and certainly with the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party. I cannot
      188
      understand what the present concern is all about. There has been plenty of opportunity to debate these matters. Members were able to read the Bill and introduce any amendments that they thought suitable. Indeed, some right hon. and hon. Members have done so. I fail to see what all the fuss is about.
      Mr. MacKay: I do not want to be distracted unduly, but I must respond to the Minister, who has given no reason why the Bill must proceed with such haste. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for some years—it is some time since he won his by-election—but I shall give him a brief tutorial none the less. The normal circumstance is that a Bill has its Second Reading. If that is agreed to, the Bill goes into Committee the following week at the earliest. Only urgent or emergency legislation goes into Committee the following day. I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that the Bill is neither urgent nor emergency legislation. I am asking the Minister to tell me why it is urgent.
      Mr. Howarth: As I understand it, these matters were sorted out through the usual channels. I do not believe that any concerns were raised by the official Opposition about timing. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has chosen today to raise them.
      Mr. MacKay: Let me make it absolutely clear—I have checked with the Opposition Chief Whip—that there has been no consultation through the usual channels. We were merely informed. We were not asked for our views and we were not given an opportunity to consider an alternative timetable.
      I shall finish my tutorial. It seems that the Minister does not fully understand the procedure. In normal circumstances, a Second Reading debate takes place one week and, at the earliest, the Bill is considered in Committee the following week. In my recollection, the only exception—I have served in the House of Commons for more than 20 years—is when we deal with emergency legislation. I do not believe that the Bill is emergency legislation. Perhaps the Minister might care to tell me why it is.
      Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, I think somewhat disingenuously, that the Opposition were consulted through the usual channels, and said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, not consulted."] Well, he said that they were told through the usual channels. He said that that is not quite the same as being consulted. But if the Opposition were not happy with that, they should have raised their concerns at that stage. They did not do so, and we were entitled to believe that the official Opposition were content with the timetable. We proceeded on that basis, and I see no reason for the Committee to be detained any further on this matter.
      Mr. MacKay rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I said to the right hon. Gentleman that I would allow him some prefatory remarks before he moved into the substance of his speech on the amendment. Almost a quarter of an hour has passed, during which points of order have been raised, and I think that it would be in better order for the Committee to proceed to the substance of the amendment.
      Mr. MacKay: Let me say, Sir Alan, how much I agree that it would be in better order if we moved to the

      189
      substance of the important amendment that I am moving. I would not have discussed other matters for so long if I had received some sort of answer from the Minister. I place it on the record that the Minister has signally failed to tell the Committee why the Bill is emergency or urgent legislation.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): It is not.
      Mr. MacKay: Oh, it is not. I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have an answer. I appreciate that. From a sedentary position, the Home Office Minister has said clearly that this is not emergency or urgent legislation. That being so, I fail to understand why it is being pushed through the House of Commons at such speed. As the hon. Gentleman seems to know more about the Bill than the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, perhaps he will explain to me why the Bill is being dealt with at such speed. It seems that he is not prepared to do so.
      It is now clear, Sir Alan, that we are not dealing with urgent or emergency legislation. That being so, we are faced with total abuse of the House of Commons. You have been placed in an extremely difficult position. As you rightly said earlier, you have had a tight timetable, as has the rest of the House of Commons, to consider amendments. We know now of the Government's arrogance. We know also that they could not care less for the House of Commons. They wish to push through non-urgent legislation at an extremely fast pace. We now see clearly what the new Labour Government are all about, and it stinks. The Under-Secretaries of State should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
      I shall now proceed because I do not wish to drag you into these matters, Sir Alan. My quarrel is not with you because you are being put in an equally difficult position. Having said that the Ministers should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and its having been made clear that this is not emergency legislation, I repeat that the Government are bulldozing the Bill through the House of Commons in a most unsatisfactory way. I shall now discuss my amendment in some detail.
      Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Sir Alan. If no explanation is forthcoming from the Government Front Bench as to why Second Reading and Committee are being taken so close together, can you tell the Committee whether any explanation has been given to Madam Speaker?
      The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.
      6 pm
      Mr. MacKay: Let us consider amendment No. 10, which is grouped with new clause 1. The latter was tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and Ulster Unionist Members. A month ago, the courageous First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), made the decision to enter into an Executive with members of Sinn Fein. We considered the matter long and hard, and concluded that he was right and that, yet again, we would walk the extra mile with him to try to ensure that the process moved forward. We have always supported that process, from the Belfast agreement onwards. The Under-Secretary of State
      190
      for Northern Ireland will willingly confirm that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) started the process, and was ably abetted by Lord Mayhew and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is in his place.
      There were signs before Christmas that Sinn Fein-IRA would at last fulfil its obligations under the Belfast agreement. I use the phrase "Sinn Fein-IRA" correctly because successive Prime Ministers and Taoiseachs have stated that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked and one and the same; they are two sides of the same coin. There were signs that Sinn Fein-IRA would decommission its illegally held arms and explosives by May 2000. That hope was shared, perhaps naively, by me and others. The majority of Members of Parliament supported the Government and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann as First Minister of the Executive that was being set up.
      All hon. Members in every party in the House are democrats. We all believe that it is unsatisfactory for Ministers to run part of the United Kingdom when they remain inextricably linked with men of violence who have failed to end their violence for good or fulfil their obligations under the Belfast agreement to decommission any of their illegally held arms and explosives. Not one gun or one ounce of Semtex has been handed in by any of the paramilitaries—republican and so-called loyalist—whose political associates signed the Belfast agreement.
      It would not be right in our free society for the two Sinn Fein Members of the Assembly who are Ministers respectively for Education and for Health to retain those Executive positions without substantial decommissioning. I therefore support what the Secretary of State and the First Minister have said repeatedly: early decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives must take place. Most reasonable people believe that that must happen this month, which ends next Monday, or shortly thereafter.
      Sadly, having met a wide variety of people in the Province during a four-day visit, which concluded on Sunday, I can report that few people believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will fulfil its obligations and decommission. I hope and pray that they are wrong, because it is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning occurs, and that the Executive is able to continue to run much of Northern Ireland. The politicians whom the people of Northern Ireland elected should be responsible for much of the running of their Province. That is healthy and helpful, and we wish to encourage it. The people of Northern Ireland would dearly like to continue with that process.
      Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 show that we have absolute faith in General de Chastelain and the commission. It is for him, not—with the greatest respect—for you, Sir Alan, or me or the Under-Secretary to decide whether decommissioning has taken place. If the general, when he reports on Friday or Monday, reports that there has been no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by the Provisional IRA, the Secretary of State has no choice but to do that which he has promised the House and the people of Northern Ireland: he must suspend the Executive until progress has been made.

      191
      Conservative Members believe passionately that, in such dire and sad circumstances, it is up to the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive. It should not be left to the First Minister and his Unionist colleagues to resign and thus close down the Executive.
      Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that Conservative Members relied totally on General de Chastelain. It may well be possible to rely on the general's words, but how can we rely on any construction that the Government's spin doctors might put on them?
      Mr. MacKay: The general is obliged to report by the end of the month. When he does that, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members will study his words carefully, and we shall take no notice of whatever spin is put on them by those who wish to influence events. I know the general, and I believe that his report will be clear and succinct and not open to various interpretations.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: I do not know the general, but I am sure that he is an excellent man. Everything that I have heard about him is good. However, there is currently an idea that, instead of being destroyed or surrendered, weapons will be kept in bunkers in which terrorist organisations place them, where they will be permanently out of their reach. How can any intact weapons, in bunkers whose location is known to terrorist organisations, be permanently out of their reach? Perhaps my right hon. Friend can enlighten me.
      Mr. MacKay: If I answered that point in too much detail, I would be trespassing on your good nature, Sir Alan. However, I shall respond briefly to my hon. Friend, who takes a deep interest in such matters. He is joint vice-chair of the Conservative Northern Ireland Committee.
      Successive Governments have used the word "decommissioning" rather than destroying or surrendering. I am not too fussed about the way in which weapons and explosives are decommissioned as long as it happens. It does not matter whether they are destroyed, handed in or left in sealed containers, provided that General de Chastelain and his staff can police them at all times.
      Mr. Fallon rose—
      Mr. MacKay: I will certainly give way but first I want to clarify our position for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). Where I have great criticism of the paramilitaries, republican and so-called loyalists, is that not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in. I want substantial progress towards the decommissioning of all illegally held arms and explosives by the appointed day in May this year. So far, we have seen no progress whatsoever. That is what really counts.
      Mr. Fallon: The word "decommissioning" is used in my hon. Friend's amendment, so I am sure that he is right
      192
      to explain at length what is meant by it. Is my right hon. Friend saying that putting weapons in a sealed container is decommissioning? If so, can he say the purpose for which those weapons could possibly be needed?
      Mr. MacKay: The word "decommissioning" is not only used in the amendments but was used in the Belfast agreement and all the legislation that came from it. I am sure that successive Governments have been right to define that process as decommissioning. I am anxious to ensure that weapons are decommissioned—taken out of commission. Whether they are taken out of commission by being destroyed or are retained in a sealed container that is properly policed is secondary to ensuring that they are all decommissioned. We want them all decommissioned by the said date in May. That is essential.
      Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend knows well that the Bill is about a proposed change to an aspect of our constitutional arrangements that many of us believe is of fundamental importance—allowing aliens to enter the House. Given that he believes that such a change could properly be brought about provided the words in the amendment are fulfilled, does he not think it reasonable to be more than fully satisfied that the meaning of the words "decommissioning" and "substantial progress" are positive, reassuring and provide a guarantee such as we would require before allowing aliens into the House?
      Mr. MacKay: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why I have discussed decommissioning at some length and am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) for pressing me to define "decommissioning" more fully.
      Mr. William Thompson rose—
      Mr. MacKay: I have not completely answered my right hon. Friend and know that he will want me so to do. It is vital, as decommissioning goes to the heart of the amendment and new clause, not only to debate the merits of decommissioning but to take a look at where we are on decommissioning and how it relates to the Executive. Vital, crucial days lie ahead for the Province. Every law-abiding person in both communities is hoping and praying that there will be substantial decommissioning so that the process and the Executive can proceed. That is the crucial test.
      Mr. Thompson: Is it not a fact that under the legislation by which General de Chastelain is operating, the arms have to be destroyed? Hiding them in bunkers will not satisfy that law.
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman and I were both sitting in the House when that legislation was passed in July 1998. I would need to double check the detail of that legislation before answering. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby whether I would be satisfied with decommissioning if it turned out to be, as he would put it, merely sealing the weapons in bunkers. I said it was vitally important that we had decommissioning in full and, provided that it is properly policed by the general and his staff, I could live with that. If my hon. Friend the

      193
      Member for Sevenoaks is asking whether I would prefer the weapons just to be sealed, of course the answer has to be no. My preferred option is obviously to have them destroyed in front of General de Chastelain's staff.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby was trying to tease out of me whether I could live with the weapons being sealed. The answer is yes. What is vitally important is that decommissioning takes place, so that the process can move forward and the Executive can continue to function. That is absolutely what the overwhelming majority of both communities in Northern Ireland want and I believe the majority of right hon. and hon. Members want that.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is not the essential point that the so-called paramilitaries hold weapons illegally? There are no circumstances in which they can hold those weapons legally. The ceasing of all holding of those weapons is decommissioning. I beg my right hon. Friend not to allow a grey area into the debate at this stage. We cannot accept anything other than paramilitaries no longer having illegal weapons in their physical possession—even if policed for the time being by General de Chastelain's officers.
      The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I may be of assistance. I begin to see in my mind some limitation on the extent to which one can define the word "decommissioning". As I read the amendments and new clause, it is a matter of the belief of the Secretary of State in one case and, in the other, of the belief of the commission. Those are the matters being debated and it would be out of order if the Committee attempts to make fresh definitions. The definitions required are explicit in the amendments.
      Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Surely the term "decommissioning" is only defined, so far as the law of the United Kingdom is concerned, in the Act that creates the decommissioning process. The definition in that Act should matter, not anything that people might wish to introduce by any side wind during this debate. We are dealing with decommissioning as already legally defined—as being the destruction of the weaponry.
      The Chairman: Order. Nothing I have said implies any detraction from what is said in the original Act. I merely repeat my advice to the Committee that the amendments deal with the opinions of certain other stated persons or bodies, as to whether or not decommissioning as defined is being fulfilled.
      Mr. MacKay: I naturally accept your advice, Sir Alan, and will proceed accordingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has immense experience in this field and is joint vice-chairman with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby of the Conservative Back-Bench Committee and has taken great interest in these matters.
      The Chairman: Order. Notwithstanding the experience of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), which I acknowledge, that does not altogether debar him from sometimes stepping aside from the amendment being discussed.
      Mr. MacKay: Therefore, Sir Alan, it is worth reminding my hon. Friend that I have stressed to you the
      194
      phrase, "illegally held arms and explosives" every time that I have discussed the matter. I think you will confirm, Sir Alan, that I have used the word "illegal" every time. There is no question that persons could retain the weapons in bunkers themselves; those bunkers would not be under their control but would be overseen by the commission. As you rightly say, Sir Alan, that moves us away from the amendment, although I might add that that movement is not of my own making, but has been caused by interventions.
      Mr. Graham Brady: I hesitate to intervene on that cue, but will my right hon. Friend elucidate for my benefit? Does the earlier legislation define "substantial progress"? If not, surely it is necessary to debate what constitutes substantial progress towards decommissioning for these purposes.
      The Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is, by his own admission, having difficulty in determining whether he is straying out of order as a result of interventions rather than anything he has said himself, I might help him by saying that he would be unwise to answer.
      Mr. MacKay: May I answer briefly? No, and wisely so. New clause 1 quite rightly refers to "substantial" decommissioning and, although we had little time due to the speed at which the Bill was foisted on the Committee, we took some trouble to draft it carefully. We believe that General de Chastelain can say in his report whether substantial decommissioning has taken place. In other words, token decommissioning will not satisfy the House. Substantial decommissioning, heading towards full decommissioning by the appointed day in May, appears to us to be quite reasonable and it is well within the scope of the amendment, and within the House's understanding of decommissioning, to allow him to define whether that has taken place. We need substantial decommissioning and substantial decommissioning we must have.
      I return to the Bill in general and why we have tabled the amendment and new clause 1, which, with respect, are the most important and substantial of those before the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will disagree, although you, Sir Alan, may consider them to be the most important. The Bill does not in any way flow from the Belfast agreement. It is not urgent, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have more or less confirmed from the Dispatch Box and in sedentary interventions, and, so far as I can see, not many people have asked for such a measure.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) deeply believes the Bill to be to be a constitutional outrage—as do my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who is much respected—but we on the Conservative Front Bench are fairly agnostic. We think that it is not anywhere near the constitutional outrage that they suggest, although we would be happy to give it fair wind if only we felt confident that it would be enacted only as and when General de Chastelain made it clear that there had been substantial decommissioning. I shall tell the Committee why, because that is the key issue.

      195
      The process has been all take by the paramilitaries, and absolutely no give. The British and Irish Governments and the peace-loving constitutional parties—Unionist, Alliance or nationalist—have jumped every hurdle that they have been asked to jump. The Assembly elections have taken place. The Executive has been set up—with two Sinn Fein Ministers—as was correct under the legislation. Terrorist prisoners have been released early from jail and are back on the streets—more than 300 hundred already.
      North-south bodies have been set up. The Patten report on policing in the Province has been completed and the Government are shortly to introduce legislation to make changes. That is all give by the Government and all take by the paramilitaries, republicans and so-called loyalists. Some of us might say that we have had precious little in return so far.
      I fundamentally disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Although I do not believe that the Bill is important, why should we pass unimportant legislation and give a bit more when we are getting nothing in return? Is not it time for the House and the Government to draw a line in the sand and say, "This far and no further. We will agree to the Bill going through only if there is substantial decommissioning as defined by General de Chastelain."? That is why I commend the amendment and the consequent new clause to the Committee.
      Mr. Forth: Following directly from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has said, it is interesting that in yesterday's debate the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said:
      "In particular, the establishment of the new institutions provided for in the Good Friday agreement makes the measure timely."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.]
      That clearly establishes a link in his mind between the Good Friday agreement and the measure before us. It can do none other. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that
      "the arrangements between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and this House—and the Government—are unique and different. Our response to the agreement must reflect that. The argument is about context rather than precise linkage."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 73.]
      Two Ministers said in the debate on Second Reading that there is a connection—a link—between the Good Friday agreement and the Bill. I do not see how they can deny that, because their own words, which appear in Hansard, illustrate the point all too directly. We have an answer to the question that we all struggled with yesterday. Given the benefit of reflection—how valuable it is during parliamentary proceedings—we are beginning to detect a link in the minds of Ministers. That is helpful and puts the amendment in context.
      Mr. Fallon: Does that suggest to my right hon. Friend and the Committee that some understanding between the two Governments on that precise point—secret, perhaps, or covert—has not been revealed?
      Mr. Forth: I would like to think that we shall learn more today than we did yesterday and my hon. Friend is
      196
      correct to raise that point. Our suspicion yesterday was not that there was an arrangement between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, but, much more sinister, that there was a deal or undertaking between the Government and Sinn Fein-IRA. That is even more worrying and we suspect that it, rather than the connections between the Good Friday agreement and the Bill—which Ministers had dragged out of them, as Hansard has verified—may be the genesis of this ill-begotten and untimely measure.
      Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we have not yet had a comprehensive list of all whom the Government consulted in regard to the Bill. We have dragged out of the Government only that they consulted the leader of the Unionist party and, presumably, the usual channels.
      The Chairman: Order. That is a matter for Second Reading, which has passed.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Forth: A perusal of yesterday's Hansard might show that Ministers said that they would consider those matters and report back, but perhaps this is not the moment for that to happen.
      In speaking to the amendment in my name, amendment No. 1, so far I have not been persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, in his elegant moving of his amendment and new clause, for a reason that began to become rather too obvious—for him to seek to link the mechanism contained in the Bill with the decommissioning process may well be unsatisfactory. I regret the fact that I do not believe that the words of my right hon. Friend's new clause, which rely on the words "Decommissioning" and "substantial progress", give sufficient guarantees or reassurance when it comes to altering an arrangement as fundamental as that relating to who is or is not qualified to sit in the House of Commons. I simply cannot see that.
      I shall argue in the context of my own amendment that nor was I entirely satisfied with the provisions in the new clause that the Act should come into force
      "on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".
      That is a pretty slender basis on which to base such a measure, as we all realise. My amendment, by contrast, seeks to both broaden and sharpen the requirement by providing that the section would
      "come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State"
      who
      "shall not make such an order unless he has previously laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement in relation to the Belfast Agreement …, stating that in his opinion and",
      crucially,
      "in the opinion of all parties to that Agreement all aspects of the Agreement have been implemented."
      What the amendment seeks to do is make much more certain the basis on which we might proceed to the measures contained within the Bill.
      I made it clear on Second Reading—I hope that I shall make it clear again on Third Reading—that I am against the Bill in principle. I want that to be absolutely clear.

      197
      I took part in a vote against the Bill last night, but what we are doing now is different: the House having given the Bill a Second Reading, we are now seeking ways in which to improve and strengthen it. It is in that regard that I put my amendment to the Committee this evening.
      Before we can progress with the Bill, a number of closely interrelated things must happen. The first is that the Secretary of State will make an order only if he has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement that, in his opinion, all of the requirements of the Belfast agreement have been met, but also, crucially, that all parties to the agreement state that all aspects of it have been implemented. This will give the whole matter a much more solid and reliable foundation, because we are now not only relying on the Secretary of State, who is always a key element in these matters, but—in my view rightly—asking all parties to the agreement to say "We are sufficiently satisfied that the agreement has been met in all respects and we are now prepared to accept that we move on to the next crucial stage of allowing foreigners into the House of Commons."
      Mr. Robathan: Given what my right hon. Friend is saying, which makes great sense, and given that we all accept—on this side of the House, even if the Government might deny it—that the whole purpose of the Bill is yet another bribe to Sinn Fein, can he imagine why the Government would not accept his amendment? Surely the bribe to Sinn Fein is designed to get Sinn Fein to give up its weapons. Therefore, is he surprised that the Government appear to be likely to oppose the amendment?
      Mr. Forth: That remains to be seen. What my hon. Friend illustrates yet again is that we are all still guessing. Is it not a disgrace that, at this stage in the Bill's proceedings, the House of Commons is still not clear as to the motivation behind the Bill, the reasons why the Government have introduced it and why they are bringing it in with such undue haste? There is widespread suspicion, certainly on this side of the House, that it is part of an extremely grubby deal, where the Government are prepared to give away another key element of our constitutional arrangements for nothing at all. That is how it looks, and it is the only assumption on which we can operate unless Ministers tell us otherwise.
      If my hon. Friend accepts the quotations of Ministers that I gave from yesterday's Hansard, he will agree that, in the minds of Ministers on the Treasury Bench, there is a link between the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday agreement and the Bill. Amendment No. 1 seeks formally to embed that in the Bill. I simply seek—perhaps fortuitously, because I tabled the amendments before I had even heard what the Ministers said, but everybody has to have a little bit of good luck in their time—to give Ministers a formalisation of the link that they themselves were making, as reported in yesterday's Hansard. To the extent to which that is the case, I have enormous confidence that Ministers will want to accept my amendment.
      Ministers might even prefer my amendment to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell because, for the reasons that we saw just a moment ago in the debate, my right hon. Friend, with all his skill and experience, was not quite able to persuade some of us that his amendment was sufficiently airtight and watertight to
      198
      give us the reassurances that we would naturally want to have. I believe that my amendment does the job even better, because it involves the judgment of the Secretary of State on the one hand and the judgment of all the parties to the agreement on the other. It then goes even further, because in subsection (2B) it says, crucially:
      "No order shall be made under subsection (2A)"—
      that is, the Secretary of State's order with the agreement of all the parties built into it—
      "unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
      What we are saying is that it would require both Houses to agree that the composition of the House of Commons could be changed as envisaged in the Bill. That would mean, in this case, the ability of aliens—non-United Kingdom citizens from the Republic of Ireland, a different and separate country, with many different and separate interests, as we explored briefly on Second Reading yesterday—to enter the House of Commons.
      It distresses me that I must disagree with my right hon. Friend: he thinks that this is a small measure, whereas I think that it is a profoundly important measure. What could be more important than who is or is not entitled to come to this House and represent the people of the United Kingdom, from all parts of the United Kingdom? What could be more important, as a matter of definition of our nationality and as a matter of a statement of our relations with other countries? That is why I believe that we would have to be doubly, triply—or even more than that—satisfied before we allowed any significant alteration to the arrangements that have hitherto applied on these matters. We are talking about citizens of the Republic of Ireland—legislators in the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland—being qualified to sit in this House. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, an explicit linkage to the Belfast agreement must surely be appropriate.
      Mr. David Winnick: Since the right hon. Gentleman puts so much emphasis on a connection between the Bill and the Belfast agreement—it is his wish to make such a connection—may the House know whether he is in favour of the agreement? When I look at the Opposition Benches, I note that all the Unionist Members present are against the agreement. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who takes a close interest in Northern Ireland and has done so for many years, is against it. What is the right hon. Gentleman's view?
      Mr. Forth: My view is that an agreement that has facilitated the release of some very disgusting people from prison into the community, is facilitating terrorists' friends being invited into United Kingdom institutions, and may now be being used as the vehicle whereby a change such as that encompassed in the Bill is to be made to our constitutional arrangements, is of increasingly doubtful validity.
      Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman has given the answer to my question, but was he against the agreement when it was signed? The hon. Members I mentioned, who have every right to their opinion, as I have to mine, made it clear at the time that they were against the agreement. Was the right hon. Gentleman against it?
      Mr. Forth: I may have had my doubts at the time, but I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to all

      199
      parties to the agreement, on the assumption that, if they were all operating in a spirit of genuine goodwill, it provided an opportunity to resolve the problems that have bedevilled part of the United Kingdom for so long. Time has passed, however. Changes have occurred, and the factors that I have mentioned have led me to doubt increasingly whether we were right to feel so optimistic.
      Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms of the Bill are outside those of the Belfast agreement in any event?
      Mr. Forth: That is an important point. It is all very well for Ministers to sit grinning and nodding, but it is they who made the connection between the agreement and their own Bill. Unless they retract, clarify or change the meaning of what they said yesterday, that remains the case. I quoted those words only a few minutes ago—not my words, but those of one of the Ministers. I hope that one, or both, will take the opportunity—
      Mr. George Howarth rose—
      Mr. Forth: Of course I shall give way to the Minister.
      Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman did, indeed, read out the relevant words from Hansard, but they do not mean what he suggested. In the part of my speech that he quoted, I specifically used the word "context". The right hon. Gentleman should realise that using the word "context" is different from saying that the Bill is in some way related to the Good Friday agreement, and he should not misrepresent what was said by me or by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
      Mr. Forth: That is all very well, but I quoted the words of the Under-Secretary of State first, and I think that they were even more relevant. Having been asked to quote them again, I will—with your indulgence, Mr. Martin. The Under-Secretary of State said:
      "The Bill is just one example of that closer relationship … it is built on the firm foundation of the principle of consent that is central to the Good Friday agreement, and which was enshrined in law … The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it."
      All the words that the hon. Gentleman used yesterday—there were many more, but I shall not weary the Committee with them now—sought to establish a causal link between the agreement and the Bill.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend omitted a key part of what was said by the Under-Secretary of State. He said:
      "The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it. Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.]
      Does that not suggest that there were discussions at the time of the agreement, and that they were part and parcel of the Bill?
      Mr. Forth: It is beginning to sound very much like that, is it not? I wish that, rather than sitting there
      200
      giggling, Ministers would do the Committee the courtesy of giving us a proper, full and open explanation of the genesis of what increasingly seems to be the grubby little measure that we are considering. They should let us know what gave rise to it, why they are presenting it now, why it is so urgent, and what they expect to gain from it.
      I hope that, if the Ministers did not understand what they were told, they may understand it better as a result of the help that they are being given. I also hope that, when they reply to the series of important debates in which we shall continue to engage during the next few hours, we shall discover from them what on earth is going on.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: We have two options. The first is to believe that the Bill emerged from behind-the-scenes discussion with Sinn Fein in an attempt to hand Sinn Fein another sop in terms of the agreement, arising from it. The second is to believe that—all of a sudden, out of a clear blue sky, with no prior discussion, with no public interest and with no newspaper commentators raising the subject—a Government with a huge agenda manufactured the Bill. Which option does my right hon. Friend prefer?
      Mr. Forth rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is talking about the Bill. Interventions should relate to the amendments and new clause that we are discussing.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin. You have possibly saved me from having to make the difficult choice presented to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I may return to the matter later, when I gauge that you might allow me more leeway, but I dare not do so now.
      Mr. Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: I am approaching the conclusion of my speech, and I hope that my colleagues will bear that in mind; but I will give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Robathan: Earlier, my right hon. Friend responded to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked whether he supported the Belfast agreement. We supported it—with some reservations—because it appeared to be supported by the great majority of people in Northern Ireland. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable misgivings felt by large sections of the community in Northern Ireland, especially the Unionist community, who voted in favour of the agreement but now believe that they were hoodwinked in certain ways, not least by the Prime Minister?
      Mr. Forth: I cannot answer the question that my hon. Friend poses, but others in the Chamber can, and I hope that they will seek an opportunity to do so. It is important for us to know as much as possible about the views of the people of Northern Ireland before we proceed much

      201
      further. This is a valid aspect of our considerations. I cannot give the views of those people, but there are those sitting very close to me who could.
      What I am trying to say is very simple. In my view, the key measure in the Bill—I am against the Bill in principle, but the House gave it its blessing by agreeing to Second Reading—cannot be allowed to proceed without conditionality. It cannot be allowed to proceed without reassurance and guarantees. The guarantees that I suggest—I hope that I shall be able to test the Committee's view at an appropriate time—would explicitly link activation of the Bill with completion of all aspects of the Belfast agreement, as established by all parties to that agreement. I consider that to be proper, reasonable, straightforward and comprehensible, and I think that it should therefore form a key part of the Bill.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: I call Mrs. Dunwoody.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I realise that one of my advantages is being so tiny and insignificant that I am rarely noticed.
      It will greatly please Ministers to learn that I do not intend to speak at length. The amendments, however, strike me as important, in as much as they relate to the Bill and to the qualifications of those who will have the right to sit in the House of Commons.
      The title of the Bill is a bit of a misnomer. It is not so much a disqualifications Bill as a qualifications Bill. One of the hazards presented by the new clause and, from a different angle, the amendments is the confusion in Members' minds about whether the particular measure being introduced relates to a particular group of persons who have not been identified. If that is the case, and if it had been put to us that we are now confronted by an entirely different political situation that requires us to make fundamental changes to the qualifications of those who wish to enter the House of Commons because we need much wider representation, people would be better able to judge the amendments.
      Before my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asks, I am in favour of the Belfast agreement. If I have objections to the Bill and to the amendments, they arise from my belief that, if constitutional change is made without detailed examination, once the legislation is on the statute book—especially if debate has been, what shall I say? somewhat foreshortened—we often end up with wording, even with basic changes, that may not constitute exactly what we foresaw. That is why I feel impelled to say that I am worried not just about the amendments, but the qualifications that would apply in future to people who wanted to be candidates.
      I do not have a great wish to be a Member of the Dail, not least because one of my best friends had to sit through eight recounts before knowing whether he had been elected. I pointed out to him that, after the second recount, I would put my coat on, go home and suggest that someone tell me when a conclusion had been reached. However, I would not want the Minister to think that my views on proportional representation were influencing any of my comments tonight.
      202
      The amendments and the new clause can be dealt with simply. If we were told whether some political decision or political change necessitated the passage of the Bill in this form, without qualifications or restrictions on the people who can be candidates for the House of Commons, and if we were told that the changes had to be made now, the matter would possibly be dealt with quickly. I do not think that we have been told those things. Those who propose restrictions in the amendments do so from a genuine desire to ensure that we do not allow constitutional change to put us in a position that we might regret, if not in the near future, certainly before many months have passed.
      So I make one suggestion to Ministers: speak clearly to us, explain fully to us what is implied and, above all, remember that constitutional change applies to every Member of the House of Commons, wherever they come from, whatever their background, sex, religion or general approach to life. It therefore behoves those of us who believe in democracy to ensure that the one thing that they have in common is a commitment to a democratic form of government.
      Mr. Cash: Last night, I voted against the Bill on principle, for several reasons. I saw no reciprocity between the arrangements that are being provided for the House and the arrangements in the Dail and in Eire as a whole. That in itself is unfair and unreasonable in all circumstances, but the issue goes much deeper than that. The question that is before us has not been answered by the Government. We have continually put to them issues relating to why the Bill should be brought before us at this stage. We have had no answer whatever. That is an outrage and it is why I tabled the amendment.
      My amendment No. 32 states:
      "in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly".
      I challenge the Government to answer the point. Is it conceivable that anyone who did not disavow terrorism as a matter of principle would take their place in a democratic society and democratic Government under a constitutional arrangement, whether in respect of the House of Commons, or the Northern Ireland Assembly?
      Mr. Mark Oaten: The hon. Gentleman speaks of Members coming into a democratic society. Is it not for a democratic election to decide the merit of those individuals and which House they enter? The electorate would ultimately make that judgment in a democratic society.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is not inconceivable that there are people in Ireland who would want to stand for election and who had not disavowed terrorism. If they stood and were successful, it would be inherent in the Standing Orders of the House and in the duty to protect the people of this country to ensure that anyone who did not disavow terrorism should not take their seat in the House—just as, without going into the merits of the process, they would not be able to take their seat in the House without

      203
      declaring their Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. The question of terrorism is thus of fundamental importance in the context of the Bill.
      We face a strange situation. After all, in the 19th century, during debate on the home rule Bill in 1886, Mr. Parnell, who took a strong position with respect to home rule, supported by Mr. Gladstone, made it clear in a memorandum that was put forward, effectively, in his name that he
      "would not stand out on the question whether the Irish Members should reman in the imperial Parliament or be excluded from it."
      We have come full circle. It is clear that, at that time, Mr. Parnell was not against the idea of members of the Irish nation, as he would have put it, being excluded from the so-called imperial Parliament. We are posing for ourselves the West Lothian question in relation to Ireland as a whole. If members of the Irish nation, as they would put it, are to stand and to be elected in this country, it follows that we will face exactly the same issues as those raised by the West Lothian question. As a colleague of mine said to me earlier today, instead of the West Lothian question, we might just as well raise the East Connemara question.
      The Bill is directly relevant to a devolution question. I believe strongly that we should also look at a much deeper question that faces the Committee: what really lies behind the Government's objectives.
      As I have often said, the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. It is becoming clear that the best way to keep a secret is to promote a Bill without giving any reasons for it. We have not had a single reason from the Government. I look to the Minister, who is now shaking his head—he was nodding earlier; he does not know which way to go—to say why the Bill has been introduced at all.
      Some of us look at the Irish issue not as a means of dividing ourselves from our colleagues or friends in Ireland, but to discover whether what is being done is inimical to the interests of this country, or indeed of Eire as a whole. We have no reciprocal arrangements in respect of the Bill. I demand that the Minister explain before the debate on the amendment is concluded, or on Third Reading, why the Bill has been introduced.
      On Second Reading, many people raised the legitimate question of the conflict of loyalty and interest—that Members cannot serve two nations—but there is another question at the heart of what is behind the Government's thinking. There is a proposal, albeit embryonic, for arrangements within the—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the Bill in its entirety. He must confine himself to the amendments, one of which is his own.
      Mr. Cash: I will indeed. Anyone who promoted terrorism and was not prepared to renounce it would invade the sovereignty of the country in which they proposed to stand and be elected, or be disqualified under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Anyone who proposed to stand for this Parliament but was not prepared to renounce terrorism would invade the sovereignty of the citizenship and the right of the electors.
      204
      7 pm
      I therefore ask the Minister to answer this question: is it inconceivable that the real reason why the Bill has been introduced is that Ministers are proposing an arrangement whereby there is no conflict, and people are able to stand for election and to be elected to the House, because we shall be subject to a European Union arrangement under which Ireland and the United Kingdom are part of the same province? That would be a very convenient way of dealing with the problem that Ministers face with Sinn Fein and its aspirations in relation to Ireland as a whole.
      Has the Minister had any direct discussions with Sinn Fein on the Bill? We know that there were secret discussions last year. I should like to know whether the Minister is prepared to deny that the arrangements for this Bill and for the future of Northern Ireland were discussed with Sinn Fein-IRA, within a constitutional—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman mentioned the amendments and not the Bill in its entirety. He could have raised those issues in yesterday's debate on Second Reading.
      Mr. Cash: I am speaking to an amendment that raises the issue of whether a person who stands for election to this place or to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and who is elected, should be prepared to disavow terrorism. That is the key issue. Anyone who is prepared to stand for and to achieve election to this place, but not to disavow violence and terrorism, should be prevented from becoming a Member of this place. That is the key element of amendment No. 32.
      I should be interested to know whether Opposition Front Benchers are prepared to support amendment No. 32, requiring a disavowal of terrorism. I do not know the answer to that, as I have had no indication from Front Benchers whether they would be prepared to go down that road. However, a requirement to disavow terrorism must be equivalent to one requiring us to take the Oath of Allegiance.
      Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend will be aware that, very wisely, legislation on the Northern Ireland Assembly that he and I helped to pass includes a provision requiring Assembly Members to disavow violence before taking their seats in the Assembly, let alone on the Executive. It is an interesting issue, and we should give it further consideration. Nevertheless, I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking to his amendment, enabling us to discuss the matter in greater detail.
      Mr. Cash: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. However, although that provision may apply to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it does not seem to apply to the House of Commons.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), does it not seem to be a contradiction that we have Assembly Members who are supposed to have repudiated violence saying publicly that, if they do not get their way, they will go back to doing the things that they do best—blowing up schools, hospitals and industry, and killing people? How can anyone say that a person

      205
      who says such things has given up violence? We know perfectly well that some of those who have been released on to the streets have gone back to violence and attacking police.
      Mr. Cash: That was one of the reasons why, last year, when we were considering other legislation, I was deeply concerned. I objected to releasing terrorists into the community simply on the basis of a very sordid deal with Sinn Fein-IRA.
      Does the Minister agree that the Government should clearly state that, in principle, no one who fails to conform with the requirements of a provision such as amendment No. 32—which is consistent with the provisions of the Terrorism Bill—should be allowed to take a seat in the House of Commons?
      We are debating a matter of principle and legislation that Ministers say is urgently needed, and I should like to know whether the Government are prepared to support my amendment. If they are not, they are effectively saying that, as far as they are concerned, anyone who does not renounce terrorism should be qualified to be a Member and to speak in the House of Commons.
      I see the Minister shuffling around. He almost came to the Dispatch Box, but has not quite made it. Will he be good enough to tell me whether the Government agree with my amendment? If he is not prepared to say whether the Government agree with it, the Committee would be entitled to draw the conclusion that Ministers do not agree with it. The Committee would also be entitled to conclude that Ministers are prepared to allow those who do not renounce terrorism—in the context specified in the Bill—to join the House of Commons. I give him another opportunity to answer that question.
      Mr. George Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience, I shall speak later in the debate and deal with the points that have been raised.
      Mr. Cash: Will the Minister answer my specific question? Does he countenance on behalf of the Government the attendance in this place of those who are elected to the House but who are not prepared to renounce terrorism, although their track record clearly shows that they were interested in pursuing terrorism as a means of achieving change? Will he, please, answer that question? He has indicated a quarter of the answer, but will he now answer it?
      Mr. Howarth: I shall answer it in my own time and in my own way.
      Mr. Cash: I shall leave it at that. We shall have to wait until we hear the Minister's reply. However, the fact is that the Government are not prepared to state quite clearly that anyone who is elected to the House but not prepared to renounce terrorism will not be able to take his or her seat.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend will know that the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), has clearly said that he believes that the House should have the same level of security as the Northern Ireland Assembly—where, at least
      206
      supposedly, those who sit have said that they have forsaken any type of violence and believe in democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members are right to insist that the Government should include in the Bill at least that safeguard, if not any other?
      Mr. Cash: Yes. I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, which were absolutely to the very point of the debate.
      The Opposition spokesman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), has raised the decommissioning issue. However I say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) with great respect—at the heart of the issue is not merely a technical matter about bunkers or about whether we will make sufficient or substantial progress on decommissioning. Although that is a part of the issue, the real question is whether people should be in the Northern Ireland Executive or elected to the House if they are not prepared, given their track record, to renounce terrorism. In this Bill, that is the fundamental issue facing the Committee.
      Mr. MacKay: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, but I want to press him a little further on this point. It is my understanding that the Belfast agreement's requirement that violence be renounced for good means that there must be no association with a paramilitary organisation that has failed to decommission its illegally held arms and explosives. As I said earlier, every Prime Minister and Taoiseach has said that Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked. It follows that people cannot renounce violence simply by swearing that they have renounced it if the paramilitaries with whom they are associated have failed to decommission, or have not even begun to do so. Would my hon. Friend accept that proposition?
      Mr. Cash: I would certainly accept—as I have said repeatedly—that there is an absolute requirement for decommissioning in respect of the whole process, including the Belfast agreement. However, for any people with a track record of terrorism who stand for election to the Northern Ireland Assembly or this House, it would have to be clear, not only that they were associated with the process of decommissioning, but that, on behalf of their constituents, they would disavow terrorism. That is the gravamen of the amendment. It is a fundamental constitutional question about democracy.
      I need not elaborate any further. I am deeply disappointed that more hon. Members are not present for this important debate, which is fundamental to the workings of our democracy. Given the history involved, and the practical realities of the present, it is disappointing that more attention is not being devoted to the matter.
      I am strongly of the opinion that the Opposition should have voted against the Bill as a matter of principle yesterday. However, having said that, I look to the Government to support amendment No. 32. If they do not, they will stand condemned by their unwillingness to go along with the clear principle that people who want to become members of a legislature—whether it be the Northern Ireland Assembly or the House of Commons—cannot stand for election without disavowing terrorism.
      Mr. William Ross: As yesterday, the debate is more wide ranging and interesting than the Government would have wished. The questions raised by all contributors go to the heart of our democracy, and the Government have not yet given us any real answers.
      We are still considering the first group of amendments selected for debate, and I am grateful for the fact that it will be possible to go beyond 10 pm tonight. I hope that we will not be confronted with a motion to guillotine discussion on this important Bill. However, I should be somewhat surprised if we were not, as I suspect that Opposition Members are prepared to carry on the debate beyond the next two and three quarter hours so that the Government will be able to hear their views as we explore the detail of the Bill.
      Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 tie implementation of the Bill to decommissioning. I shall return later in my remarks to decommissioning and what it means to any reasonable citizen in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
      Amendment No. 32 would exclude unreconstructed terrorists from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The degree to which some terrorists remain unreconstructed was made plain at the weekend, when we saw Mr. Adams—who should be regarded as a Member of this House—carrying the coffin of Tom McWilliams.
      McWilliams was hanged in 1942 for the murder of a Roman Catholic police officer in Northern Ireland. Such murders were carried out whenever the IRA planned outbursts of violence in Northern Ireland to disrupt this country's war effort. An uncle of mine who died last year aged more than 90 was involved in work against the IRA at that time, so I know something about the period.
      McWilliams belonged to the original IRA, the predecessor organisation to the Provisional IRA. The appearance at the weekend of Mr. Adams, given his role in Sinn Fein, illustrates the seamless spiritual line of violence in Irish politics that extends from long before 1942 right up to the present day. It is an unbroken line—
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Joined-up terrorism.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for that phrase. The truth is that such people have not deserted violence. As I said yesterday, a mental reservation exists in them. They have proclaimed several times that the wording of the oaths and undertakings that they have been asked to accept was such that they were able to accept them.
      That is why the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) may have been somewhat amiss in his remarks. Wording that is tight enough to tie down the IRA and their fellow travellers will be refused. Those people will not utter any words that do not allow them to justify, to themselves and their followers, what they have done. They will accept only words that allow them to continue with their violence, as and when they consider it necessary.
      Amendment No. 1 would achieve two things: first, the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, and secondly, that implementation was by order of both Houses of Parliament. Those are reasonable points that
      208
      need to be accepted. All the tests set out in this group of amendments are reasonable tests of commitment to democracy.
      How can armed terrorists be allowed into government? That is what has happened in Northern Ireland. The people involved are still armed. Anyone who thinks that they have deserted violence and are no longer tied to the IRA should have been disabused by the funeral at the weekend.
      Those people's grip on their weapons is a public declaration that they believe in the power of weapons. They are wedded to the belief that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. It is not so much that they distrust the path of peace and democracy, but that they despise it. As de Valera once said, the majority have no right to be wrong—the corollary, of course, being that anyone who disagrees with the majority is wrong. De Valera changed his path eventually, but I suspect that he never changed his mind.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I might have been remiss in respect of aspects of my amendment No. 32. However, the question of mental reservation would not arise if it were accepted, as it specifies explicitly that people would have to disavow terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Bill currently being considered in Committee, so people would not be able to engage in a mental reservation. Is not that suggestion reasonable?
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's proposal uses language that is much stronger than that of any of the undertakings or commitments that the people about whom I speak have had to give to enter the Northern Ireland Assembly, so to that extent I agree with him. He is asking that a complete disavowal of terrorism be a requirement of any person seeking election, but the phrasing of that disavowal must be a great deal stronger than what has so far been used in Northern Ireland.
      The amendments under consideration vary somewhat in their approach. Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 tie the application of the Bill to weapons, while amendment No. 32, rightly, demands visible and verbal conversion to democracy.
      However, in some ways amendment No. 1 is more comprehensive, as it sets the whole of the Belfast agreement as the standard with which those who benefit from it must comply. In other words, it would require people to accept the agreement as a whole and not cherry-pick, as the term that is often used has it.
      Messrs. Adams and McGuinness say that we should stick to the agreement. They mean, of course, that we should stick to their construction of the agreement, and not to that of any reasonable man. Those are two very different things. The reasonable man put his construction on the agreement at the start, so many of them voted for it and soon regretted it.
      Amendment No. 1 makes the implementation of the agreement subject to the opinion of the Secretary of State and the judgment of Parliament. It says that the Secretary of State can accept that weapons are being decommissioned, and that the people who used them have been converted and are now decent, law-abiding and snow-white citizens. But, having made that judgment, the Secretary of State would, under the amendment, have to come before Parliament with an order. It would be

      209
      debatable and could be considered and explored so that its spin doctoring aspects might, to some extent, disintegrate. We could consider what the agreement and the decision reached actually meant, and whether these people had changed their minds. Such an examination should be welcomed by every hon. Member. If such a detailed examination were undertaken, we would know whether there was compliance with the requirements of the Good Friday agreement.
      If the amendment were accepted, the agreement should be lauded by the Government. If a genuine conversion took place, the Government, every hon. Member and everyone in Northern Ireland would rejoice. But unless such an examination, or something like it, can be carried out, I think that people in Northern Ireland and many hon. Members will be extremely suspicious.
      Conservative Members should also welcome the amendment. It avoids the dangers of cherry-picking, whether that is done by the Government, by the IRA or by parties prepared to be satisfied with less than the ideal. This is a holistic approach to the problem, and I think that the Government should welcome it. They tell us that we must not cherry-pick by taking out bits and pieces of the agreement but accept it as a whole. That is what we should be applying as the real test and standard of behaviour to be observed by folk who benefit from these things. There should be no mental reservations.
      Let me turn now to decommissioning. There seem to be different views about the meaning of the word. I believe that under the agreement, the weapons must be destroyed. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) told the Unionist party that decommissioning meant what we saw happen to the Loyalist Volunteer Force weapons. That was nearly 14 months ago. The LVF brought in some home-made weapons—they had some ancient rifles that looked like the stuff brought in by Lord Carson for the old Ulster Volunteer Force in the early years of the last century. Some of the weapons could still be fired, and ammunition could be obtained for them but they were not modern weapons. If the LVF was relying on that armoury, I suspect that it is not in very good military shape.
      No more have been produced, but the principle was clear. The weapons were brought in and cut up in front of television cameras. It was shown on television nationwide. That is what the leader of the Unionist party has told his party members that decommissioning means to him.
      There have been reports in the press that the IRA could blow up the weapons. Let us be clear what that means. We cannot blow up guns. Suppose we built a stack of them and put a lot of explosive in the middle of it—we would simply distribute them to all and sundry for half a mile in every direction. Many of them would, I suspect, still be usable after that. Guns cannot be destroyed by that method. They have to be cut up or melted down—there is no other way. Rockets and mortars can be blown up, but that is a different kettle of fish.
      Furthermore, what explosive would be surrendered? We could not be satisfied with a bang in a bog, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said. A bang in a bog could be created by a home mix—something that the IRA is expert at producing. So that is not acceptable. Such material must go to people who are
      210
      professionally qualified to say whether an explosive is Semtex or another explosive. It can then be blown up, burned, or whatever.
      Bullets are a particular problem. They cannot safely be crushed, for they might explode, and they cannot be burned or exploded. They must be destroyed in some other way.
      Ministers have made it plain that there must be substantial decommissioning and that it must be verifiable. Nobody has yet spelt out what substantial means; I have spelt out what verifiable means to me and, I believe, to the leader of my party, to every reasonable man and woman in the House and to the people of Northern Ireland. Given that we only have until May, the first tranche is unlikely to consist of half a dozen rusty revolvers or weapons that have been used to commit murder or other acts of violence. "Substantial" will mean many hundreds of weapons—large quantities of them—and hundredweights, possibly tonnes, of Semtex and other explosive.
      The question has been posed time and again: who asked for the Bill, and why the rush? Who did the Government discuss it with? Is it related to the request or suggestion of members of Sinn Fein that Northern Ireland Members be allowed to sit in the Dail? We know that such a suggestion has been made—there is reference to it in the excellent documentation on the Bill produced by the Library. What would that mean? Is it not an effort by Sinn Fein-IRA to get a measure of condominium or joint authority in a more visible form over Northern Ireland? Is that what underlies the Bill? We deserve to be told; the longer these discussions continue, the more suspicious I become.
      I can see no real reason for the Bill. There is certainly no urgency about it, yet it is being rushed through before we have time to ask the questions that need to be asked.
      7.30 pm
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I want to focus my remarks on amendment No. 10 and new clause 1. Before I do so, I should like to commend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on her speech. It is a pleasure, in a serious debate such as this, to be able to say to someone on the other side of the Committee that I agree with virtually every word that she said. I agreed not only with what she said but with the significance that she attached to clause 1, the qualification for serving in the House and the amendments that might affect that. I hope that she will not mind my saying that I also greatly admired the fineness and sharpness of her stiletto. In fact, it was so fine that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland still does not realise that he is bleeding.
      The fact that amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 are on the amendment paper tells us something of significance about the Bill. Earlier, Mr. Martin reproached me for a question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I asked why the amendments to this clause had been put to the Committee today in such a rush after yesterday's Second Reading. I offered him a choice of answer: either that this was complete happenstance—the business managers had nothing better to do so they dreamed up a Bill that had no relation to anything and thought they would take up a couple of days of our time with it—or that the measure related to the Belfast agreement.

      211
      It is significant that all the amendments, which have been tabled and accepted as legitimate, relate to the agreement. They all relate to the process. It is clear—not only from Hansard, as my right hon. Friend pointed out—that the House authorities have no view on the merits of amendments, they rule only on the acceptability of amendments in the context of the Bill. That is what we are discussing.
      In that light, the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich becomes even more important. She rightly pointed out that the debate is about qualification for serving in the House. That is an issue of fundamental importance, which goes far beyond whether a couple of Sinn Fein politicians—or even a couple of IRA or loyalist paramilitary politicians—are eligible to serve in this place, or whether that is desirable. Clause 1 carries far wider ramifications than that.
      The first point that I make to the Government is that the amendments all set the context for the debate as to qualification for service in the House. The Minister would do the Committee a considerable service, and would lessen the contempt that the people of Northern Ireland will feel about the way in which the Government are proceeding, if—as his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said—he was a little more open with us as to the background to clause 1 and the amendments.
      Mr. Oaten: Is it not because the Bill has wider implications, which go beyond Sinn Fein and Ireland, that it is somewhat unwise to link it to decommissioning issues? The Bill should stand alone.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is right in so far as clause 1 deals with a non-specific issue; it adds Ireland to several countries that are affected by the disqualification provisions—Commonwealth countries and so on. In that narrow sense, he has a point. However, I hope that he will not take it amiss when I point out that those of us who are operating in the real world understand what clause 1 and the amendments are about.
      Clause 1 and the amendments that have already been accepted put the Bill in the context of the agreement—in the context of decommissioning and of terrorism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who has temporarily left the Committee, and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) pointed out. Although the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) is technically correct, the rest of us are debating the real issue that lies behind the amendments.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Reference has been made to other countries. The Americans do not allow people in, even on a visitor's visa, if they have a murder conviction. Can we possibly imagine that we should allow people—even those from Commonwealth countries—to stand for Parliament if they had such a record? The intervention of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) was not relevant.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I suspect that I should get on the wrong side of Mr. Lord were I to develop the hon. Gentleman's point, although it is a good one, which the whole Committee will understand.
      212
      I want to draw the Committee's attention to two aspects of amendment No. 10 and new clause 1: conditionality and progress on decommissioning. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is no longer in the Chamber, because it was not clear to me that there was as much difference between his view and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) as he thought. In the context of the agreement, decommissioning is the outward and visible sign of an inner grace. It is a demonstration of the fact that a renunciation of terrorism has taken place—or that there is a willingness to move away from it over time.
      I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell as expressed in the phrasing of amendment No. 10 and new clause 1. I suspect that, had the roles been reversed and the Conservatives were in government, we might or might not have introduced the Bill. However, we are not debating the principle of the Bill; we are debating its substance, line by line. It has received its Second Reading. Given the Government's majority, it will become law. We are considering whether we can improve it.
      That was the approach, with which I agree, taken by my right hon. Friend in his introductory remarks. He put his finger on two issues in the amendments that would make the Bill better. The first is progress on decommissioning. All of us—especially those who have been Members of Parliament for some time and, in particular, those of us who have had the privilege of serving in Northern Ireland—understand that the Belfast agreement was a deal. It was a deal endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and that gave legitimacy to those right hon. and hon. Members who bought into it, despite our reservations about one or other aspect of the agreement. However, the legitimacy derived from the referendum told us that we had to buy into the deal.
      As is shown in relation to amendment No. 10 and new clause 1, part of that deal related to decommissioning. If we consider the other issues in the deal, we find that progress has been made on all of them, with the one exception of decommissioning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell said that the Unionist community had given and given, but that no one else had given anything in their direction. I do not want to pursue that line of thought, although I share his perception.
      Progress, which would have been inconceivable to many people a few years ago, has been made on the whole agreement, except on that one issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have had the pleasure of exchanging views on other matters, but he is not helping the Committee or—far more important—the people of Northern Ireland by maintaining that the Bill has no significance to the deal that was done in Belfast.
      It is not helpful for the Committee to get into a debate tonight about the definition of decommissioning. However, I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell that, like him, I was recently in Belfast, and I was deeply worried to hear the latest Sinn Fein lie on decommissioning, which runs something like this: "We are not using the weapons. That is decommissioning". It is not, and to make substantial progress against a

      213
      background of Sinn Fein saying, "We will not use them any more and that is substantial progress on decommissioning" is to treat people with contempt.
      Mr. MacKay indicated assent.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that he would not countenance that definition of decommissioning. Were he to countenance it, he would lose the support of all Conservative Back Benchers in the process.
      Mr. MacKay: I confirm that I share my right hon. Friend's disgust that Sinn Fein-IRA representatives are now simply saying that the fact that they are not killing or maiming many people with their guns is a form of decommissioning. That is not decommissioning as defined in legislation. More important, that is not decommissioning as defined by any reasonable, civilised person, and it certainly would not be acceptable to us or, I trust, to the Government.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am not in the least surprised, but I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend says. I know that Conservative Back Benchers will share that perception, but we need to hear that the Government also share it. The amendments concern substantial progress in decommissioning. Their importance, in the context of the clause, is that they affect the qualification for serving in the House.
      My second point concerns conditionality. I have at least the virtue of being consistent. From day one—as the Minister, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and my right hon. and hon. Friends know—whatever reservations I might have had, I gave my support to the agreement. I have not wavered from that view. I have made it clear from time to time that I felt as much anger and distaste as did others, when I saw flocks of people being let out of jail, but I always gave the agreement my support, because it was a deal.
      The Minister's problem, and the reason why these two amendments would introduce conditionality, is that there is a growing view in this country and in Northern Ireland—I hope that the Minister will not take it unkindly if I put it this way—that the political judgment of Ministers is now itself starting to undermine the agreement. There are those who simply do not understand why a more cautious approach was not taken to the release of prisoners, with conditionality built in, requiring response before the next step was taken. Any expert on conflict resolution or negotiation anywhere in the world could have told Ministers that the way that they are proceeding is precisely the wrong way to deliver the deal at the end.
      As recently as last Wednesday, I was the first—perhaps the only—Member to raise conditionality with the Secretary of State in the context of his statement about reforms to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I said that reforms were manifestly necessary but I invited him to make the name change conditional. I was not greatly encouraged by his response, but he did not flatly say no, and I shall hang on to that, bearing it in mind that even he is not planning to implement the measures until the end of next year. A lot can happen between now and the end of next year.
      214
      7.45 pm
      The conditionality of the amendments is not a new concept. Many of us have adhered to it from the beginning of this process, and it is precisely because tonight the prospects of progress on decommissioning do not look good, as the Minister knows, that conditionality becomes even more important.
      Those of us who have taken an interest in Northern Ireland know—we do not suspect, we know—that in conjunction with the Bill, the Government planned this week to move orders to permit Sinn Fein elected representatives to make use of these facilities. We also know that the Government have shelved that plan indefinitely. Given that there is neither urgency nor emergency in respect of the Bill, the Government would have been wise to have taken a similar line, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, but two helpings of embarrassment on the same subject in the same week were probably too much. Having been a Minister, I understand that. Given that that followed a week in which the wheels kept coming off the Government's wagon, I can understand why they are forcing the Bill through tonight. However, that does not mean that the Bill cannot be improved and make some recognition of the realities of what is happening out there, and of what I learned in Belfast yesterday.
      The Minister will not be inclined to accept conditionality—that was the message from the Secretary of State last week—and I understand that, but he would be well advised to do so. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell will press amendment No. 10 to a Division. If he does, I will vote with him. I tell the Minister that that vote will not be a cooling on the agreement by those who vote against him. It will be saying on the record that unless the Government look to their political judgment in these matters, we shall all find ourselves in extreme difficulty very shortly. It is right, and the role of the Opposition, seriously and carefully to warn the Government that there is a way to avoid that stigma. One way to avoid it would be to accept amendment No. 10 and new clause 1.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I shall follow the right hon. Gentleman.
      I understand the aims of those who supported the agreement, and I am not arguing about the agreement, but I believe that a dangerous situation has developed. Last week, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear that those of us who had misgivings about the agreement had no right to make any comments in the House on recent developments. That was a shameful exhibition, and I hope that that theme does not re-emerge tonight. Time and again, we hear Labour Members who, rightly, are still fighting the battle of the coal mines, and it seems to me that any of us are right to keep arguing the case that we believe to be right. The average Ulsterman will not buy a pig in a poke, and wants to know what the bargain is. Some of us recognised the difficulties from the beginning.
      There are those who keep arguing about decommissioning. I cannot understand how anyone in this House can be against proper decommissioning when this House legislated to decommission legally held sporting firearms throughout the nation. If we were concerned

      215
      about that, we ought to be concerned about the decommissioning of illegal weapons in the hands of terrorists.
      My sense of humour has not left me completely, and I was amused to be told by certain sources that it was being considered that the weapons would be put in concrete bunkers and sealed. Some of us thought that if those people could tunnel out of the Maze, they could tunnel into those bunkers. I understand that someone with connections to Sinn Fein-IRA has said that there will be no announcement on decommissioning because there would need to be a convention of the IRA called to announce that, and no convention has been called.
      The Bill contains a statement by the Home Secretary that the Bill conforms to European legislation. We believe that the Bill must conform to the Belfast agreement. I know that our Sinn Fein opponents, in political terms, do not believe that decommissioning was in the agreement. However, even a blind man on a galloping horse could see that it was in the agreement that decommissioning must take place.
      The Government would be standing by and consolidating the agreement if they came forth now and said that they were prepared to accept the amendment and that there will be no further move on this issue unless the Belfast agreement has been ratified completely. That would save a lot of hassle, and would prevent a Division. However, I can assure the House that if the amendment is divided on, those of us voting for it will be putting on record the fact that if the Government are not prepared to stand by the agreement in all its parts, we are.
      Mr. Hunter: In his exchange with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was characteristically over-generous. One need only look at the five lines of the Bill's title to see how narrow and limited it is in its objectives. There are deeper implications, but the Bill itself is restricted.
      So far, our attention has been focused on three amendments and one new clause. However, that has been sufficient to bring to light some of the many baffling and puzzling features of the Bill.
      First, why is the Bill being pushed through so rapidly? Still, no answer has come to that question. Secondly, what is the need for the Bill in the first place? We have speculated on that matter during our deliberations on the amendments.
      The third baffling and puzzling point—there are many more to come—came when my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) invited the Minister to state unequivocally and unambiguously that it is totally intolerable that those who have not disavowed terrorism should be in this House. There were baffling moments when the Minister declined to answer. I thought that that was an extraordinary episode—that a Minister of the Crown should hesitate and remain silent on that issue.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made a strong argument on amendment No. 32, which amounted to this: why should the Government not accept the proposition in the amendment? That proposition is that there is no place in a democratic Parliament for people who are terrorists. That is consistent with the spirit of the Belfast agreement,
      216
      of which, I acknowledge, I am not a supporter—although I accept that others are. The proposition is consistent with the spirit of the agreement, and with the letter and spirit of Government policy. The Government therefore have no reason to reject the amendment.
      We started our deliberations on the amendments with something of an academic argument about what we understood by decommissioning—a concept that is central to new clause 1 and the amendments. We may have started from different points, but we have finished very much on common ground. We understand that illegally held arms are precisely that: they are illegal and they should not be held. Decommissioning means the irretrievable and irreversible physical separation of paramilitaries from those weapons. Most of us can see no alternative to the physical destruction of those weapons. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) came to that position by the end of the exchange.
      I strongly support the underlying proposition in new clause 1—that there should be linkage between the decommissioning of illegally held arms and the implementation of the Bill. To be honest, I would rather not have the Bill at all. I voted against it yesterday, and I oppose it in principle. Nothing that I heard last night—and, I suspect, nothing that I will hear tonight—has led me to change my mind.
      Nevertheless, the composition of the House is such that the Bill is proceeding. On pragmatic grounds, one must try to be as positive as possible about it and to argue that its damage should be limited. In that respect, the linkage between decommissioning and the implementation of the Bill is a significant step in the right direction.
      The arguments have been well rehearsed, and I can summarise them briefly. So far, there has been concession after concession to the republicans—concessions that have come in return for virtually nothing. Their prisoners have been released, and the north-south body—the embryonic structure for an all-Ireland Government—has been created. They have places on the Executive, and they have achieved their long-held objective of the effective destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Now, it is their turn to deliver on decommissioning. I strongly support the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell that they should do that.
      8 pm
      I have one slight reservation about the new clause. The emphasis on implementing the Belfast agreement is not enough. The agreement is woefully inadequate on decommissioning. All that it demands is co-operation with the Decommissioning Commission, and that the political parties use their best endeavours to persuade the paramilitaries to decommission by May 2000. My right hon. Friend argued that the wording of new clause 1 goes further than the Belfast agreement, and I hope that that is so. We want the verifiable, on-going decommissioning of all illegally held paramilitary weapons.
      Amendment No. 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and it is supported by my hon. Friends the Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). There is much to commend the amendment. It would offer a belt-and-braces process and it seeks more cast-iron reassurances than new clause 1

      217
      that verifiable commissioning will become a reality. I confess that I have a reservation about the proposed new subsection (2B) because the composition and arithmetic of the House is such that one wonders whether all Labour Members would approach a draft order with independent judgment and thought.
      However, the key point is found in proposed new subsection (2A), which would require all parties to the Belfast agreement to accept that decommissioning should be a reality. That is vital. It would give a status to the constitutional and democratic parties of Northern Ireland that they rightly deserve. If we can use the old cliché, it would provide a Unionist veto, but that is absolutely right. It has been one of the sadly missing ingredients in the process to date.
      Amendment No. 32, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, is self-evidently justified and it is a matter of deep regret that the Government did not instantly respond to the reasonable challenge that he presented. New clause 1 is a significant step in the right direction in that it would establish linkage. However, we come to the heart of the matter in amendment No. 1. It would give a positive role to the parties of Northern Ireland in establishing whether verifiable, genuine decommissioning is on-going.
      Mr. Thompson: Together, the new clause and the amendments would link decommissioning with the enactment of the Bill. That is right and I support that principle.
      We must consider why the Bill has been before the House for the past two days. When I read remarks that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made about the Bill yesterday, I was amazed that the Government were suddenly worried about some right that we have in Northern Ireland that the people in the rest of the United Kingdom do not have. That is extraordinary. I would rather that there was more concern about the rights that the rest of the United Kingdom has and that Northern Ireland does not have. The Government should be keen expeditiously to amend those and not introduce the one in this Bill, which they say is so necessary.
      The Minister said that the Bill would bring into parity not only the House, but the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. However, there seems to be nothing in the Bill that applies to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. That suggests that the Bill was introduced quickly and that it is not well thought out. Judging from yesterday evening's discussions, it is clear that the Government have not considered many aspects of the Bill or its repercussions.
      Those of us who live in Northern Ireland were very surprised when we heard about the Bill. We had to ask ourselves what on earth it was about. I suspect that very few Members of the House were aware that the Members of legislatures in the Commonwealth could become Members of the House. We have learned something that we did not know. However, we were not at all conscious that there was any pressure from anywhere that Members of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland were desirous of sitting here or that Members of this House were desirous of sitting in the Irish Parliament. Therefore, we had to ask a second question: who would benefit from the Bill?
      The only people who are likely to benefit from the Bill are Sinn Fein. Of course, the Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) are
      218
      elected to the House, but I suspect that, in future, they may wish to sit in the Dail: they need the Bill so that they do not lose their membership here. In other words, the Bill is another act of appeasement to Sinn Fein.
      The Minister has refused to say why the Bill was introduced at this time. I suspect that he dare not say why it was introduced now because it was simply introduced to appease Sinn Fein. We all want Sinn Fein to decommission its arms as quickly as possible, and preferably before the end of this month. Therefore, it has sought concession after concession. It has sought the removal of army posts, the drawing of soldiers away from Northern Ireland and more and more. No doubt, the Bill was one of the concessions for which it asked.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has just implied that he believes that the Government, and perhaps the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have discussed the contents of the Bill with a certain party that was elected to the House, but has not chosen to take up its seats. Does he believe that the Government have discussed the Bill's contents with Sinn Fein-IRA and, if they have, why have they not had the courtesy to discuss a constitutional measure with the leaders of other parties representing Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Thompson: I certainly believe that the Government have discussed the Bill with Sinn Fein. I ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and deny that such discussions have taken place.
      Why is the Bill being rushed? It is being rushed so that Sinn Fein can be assured that it will be on the statute book before decommissioning starts—if, indeed, it ever does. There can be no other reason why the Government should give up valuable time to spend two days debating the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and deny that, too. We in Northern Ireland believe that the position is as I have described it and that the Government are acting in the hope—probably fruitless—that if Sinn Fein are given concession after concession, they will deliver on decommissioning. In fact, concessions will be made and appeasement will continue, but, at the end of the day, there will be no decommissioning. It appears that the Government never learn.
      That is why I believe that it is essential that the linkage set out in the amendments should be made. The Bill should not be brought into force unless there is complete decommissioning and we have seen that Sinn Fein-IRA have had a change of heart and have decided to turn away from violence for good. They must show that they are prepared to give up their arms and decommission them to prove that, in future, they are willing to tread the democratic path. Only in that way should they be able to achieve their ambitions. I shall fully support the amendments.
      Mr. Fallon: I share the revulsion expressed by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) at the haste with which the Bill is being taken. We have had stages of Bills concertinaed before, but I cannot recall such a thing being done without a proper explanation being given to the House. The Bill is bad, and the only merit of the first group of amendments is that, if accepted, each of them would, in its own way, delay implementation of the measure.

      219
      I do not find all the amendments in the group equally attractive. Of them, I prefer amendment No. 32 on the ground of its clarity. It is self-evident that what is good enough for the Northern Ireland Assembly ought to be good enough for the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister will explain why a protection he thinks it necessary for the House to put in place for the Northern Ireland Assembly should not be applied to the House. We have not yet heard Conservative Front Benchers' views on the amendment, so I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) express full support for it.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke to amendment No. 1. I note that, yesterday, he announced that he, too, is opposed to the Bill "in principle". However, he is apparently prepared to accept the Bill passing into law when a number of things happen. When those things have happened and he is satisfied that they have happened, he is—reluctantly, I assume—prepared to move to what he called "the next crucial stage". That puzzles me. If we are opposed to the Bill in principle, why do we have to accept that, when a number of completely unrelated events happen, the principle must be dispensed with and there has to be a next crucial stage? I look to my right hon. Friend to reassure me on that.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Forth: I was trying to say—obviously, with insufficient clarity—that, despite my having opposed and continuing to oppose the principle of the Bill, I, as a good parliamentarian, have to accept that, because the House has given the Bill its Second Reading and thereby agreed it in principle, it is now our job collectively to improve the Bill as best we can. There can legitimately be a process whereby one opposes a Bill's Second Reading but acknowledges the will of the House and plays one's part in improving the Bill.
      Mr. Fallon: I fully understand and accept that. My point was a slightly different one—perhaps my right hon. Friend did not quite catch it. When speaking to amendment No. 1, he said that, if a number of other matters fell into place and events happened in the order and to the extent that he wanted them to happen, we could then move to "the next crucial stage". I do not accept that. If the Bill is bad in principle, how would the amendment enable us to sweep away its unacceptable features and move on?
      New clause 1, which stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench, is in many ways the weakest of the amendments in the group. For wholly understandable reasons, it links the constitutional change, to which we have strong principled objections that were ably expressed yesterday by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, to the pace of decommissioning. If I were uncharitable, I might criticise the acceptance of the concept of the pace of or "progress" towards decommissioning, because it perpetuates the wholly false assumption that decommissioning is some sort of process. To my mind, decommissioning is not a process, but an act.
      The moment we concede that decommissioning is not an act, we are inevitably drawn into agreeing that it is a process, which may be long drawn out or difficult to
      220
      define. I reject that and I am disappointed that the new clause implies that such "progress" is tradeable and that its definition is a matter of argument. All we are asking Sinn Fein-IRA to do is decommission. We are not asking them to commit themselves to decommissioning, or to make some sort of progress towards it. We are asking them to do what they agreed to do—decommission.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend says he regards decommissioning as an act. Will he concede that it might consist of a number of acts?
      Mr. Fallon: Of course I concede that it might consist of a number of acts, because it involves a number of people. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend, whose speech was easily the most compelling of the speeches so far on the group of amendments, agrees that, if we concede that decommissioning may be a process, we are in danger of being drawn into ill-fitting definitions of pace and progress and what does or does not constitute substantial progress.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, although there might be a number of acts of decommissioning, decommissioning is supposed to be complete by May this year.
      Mr. Fallon: I am well aware that the timetable has been set out and that it now presses. That timetable could easily have been complied with. Although decommissioning is a complicated act that involves a certain amount of good faith and a leap being made by several parties in Northern Ireland, it does not have to be drawn out over a couple of years.
      I have reservations about the Bill, which were set out yesterday far more eloquently than I could have done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). the shadow Home Secretary, and by the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The Bill does not exclude Ministers in the Irish Government from being Members of the House of Commons, and does not guarantee the continuance of the Oath that we have all sworn or affirmed.
      If we are to concede that the Bill might somehow become acceptable if there is some progress towards decommissioning, I fear that we are falling into that classic Northern Ireland trap of compromising our principles in return for what at best are promises. I look to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to reassure me.
      Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: My name is associated with new clause 1. Last night I voted with colleagues against the Bill in principle because I believe that it is unnecessary legislation. There is no demand for the Bill among the wider population in Northern Ireland. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) that the Bill has only one purpose—to provide a further concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. It is to facilitate that party. Incidentally, that party has returned to the House of Commons two Members, who refuse to take their seats in the Chamber. Yet we are taking up the valuable time of this place to facilitate those two same Members to take seats in a

      221
      foreign Parliament. It makes a mockery of our constitution that we should do such a thing and that the Government propose it.
      With other hon. Members, I look to the Government to explain why we need the proposed legislation that is before us. At present, the provision within it is available only to members of legislatures within the Commonwealth. I accept that that is a general point, but it relates to the amendment. The Irish Republic has not rejoined the Commonwealth, so why do we need to provide legislation specifically to facilitate the Irish Republic? I am not aware that the Irish Government have been calling for the Bill, so it must be Sinn Fein-IRA that is involved.
      There has been reference to the Good Friday agreement. Perhaps I am unique in this debate because I was involved in the negotiations in that agreement until the end. That being so, I have some knowledge of the agreement. I know that the provisions that are contained in the Bill were never discussed during the negotiations. We are told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of my party, that they were not part of the recent review that was carried our under the chairmanship of Senator Mitchell. Therefore, we must conclude that the Bill is coming forward because the Government have done a back-door deal with Sinn Fein-IRA. That is why it is important to provide linkage between the proposed legislation—
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The House of Commons will acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was deeply involved in the Belfast agreement negotiations. Perhaps he will try to enlighten us by explaining why in yesterday's proceedings the Minister said:
      "Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement"?—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.]
      That suggests that there were discussions of some sort taking place, otherwise the Bill and the links to which we have referred would not have been envisaged. Can the hon. Gentleman help us?
      Mr. Donaldson: There are linkages proposed within the Belfast Agreement, not least with the British-Irish Council, which brings together not only the Westminster Parliament but various legislatures and assemblies throughout the United Kingdom, together with the legislature within the Irish Republic. There were discussions about linkages at that level. I think that the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary group was discussed also. However, as far as I am aware, there was no mention and discussion of the specific legislation that is before us, and it is not part of the agreement. Therefore, we must consider where it fits into the political process in Northern Ireland, and the timing. Why, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone asked, are the Government in such haste to bring forward the Bill and to get it through Parliament? The Committee is entitled to an answer to these reasonable questions.
      I appreciate the comments that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has made about decommissioning, but I refer him to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which includes provisions about a process of decommissioning and defines decommissioning in those terms. I agree with the
      222
      hon. Gentleman that decommissioning is in itself an act. Unfortunately, under the Belfast agreement it became a process, which is set out in the Arms Decommissioning Act. We are told that the process begins with the appointment of an interlocutor by the various terrorist organisations. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that that step was taken as recently as December 1999, a year and a half after the Belfast agreement was signed. So it is a process, whether we like it or not. I would much rather it were more narrowly defined in terms of an act.
      The linkage between the Bill and its enactment and progress on decommissioning is important. Irrespective of whether the Government care to admit it, the Bill is linked to the political process in Northern Ireland. The problem with that process, if I may call it that, is that in terms of the so-called confidence-building measures that are an integral part of the agreement, it has been a one-way street of concession after concession to the republican movement without requiring something in return.
      It has been said that it is time to draw the line. It is right for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to press the amendment and to create a linkage between disarmament and the enactment of the Bill, even though I do not like the measure and do not accept the need for it.
      Given the Government's majority in this place, I accept that the Bill's passage in inevitable. That being so, we must build in safeguards. Why is that? Is that just to be stubborn? No. We must protect the people of Northern Ireland by providing some leverage in the process so that we might achieve the disarmament that we have been seeking. The Government have been far too weak in pursuing the republican movement, and it is time that they started to get tough with the leaders of republicanism.
      The people of Northern Ireland are dejected, depressed and demoralised, not least because of what the Government proposed last week for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They feel that it is time that instead of pandering to the whim of the abstentionists in this place, they should listen to the voice of the democratic majority. We are saying that people need safeguards, and we believe that the new clause provides a reasonable one. We seek to extract from the republican movement something in return for a constitutional concession specifically for it. We are talking about a party that represents 18 per cent. of a small region of the United Kingdom.
      I urge the Government to consider accepting the amendment, not because it is designed to destroy the agreement or the process but because it is an act that is designed to bring about progress on the one issue that is capable of destroying the entire process, which is that of disarmament.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on tabling new clause 1, which cuts to the heart of the Bill. The measure is being rushed through in an extraordinary manner for one reason: because Sinn Fein wants it. The new clause is important because it acknowledges that, and declares that, if Sinn Fein wants the Bill, it must pay a price—that of decommissioning. Without the new clause and the price it demands, the Bill will become what my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)

      223
      describes as another step on the shameful road of appeasement. The new clause is important because it names the price.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Like several of my hon. Friends, I voted against the Bill last night. There were 19 of us, and I suspect that more hon. Members would have done that, had they realised the precise implications and potential consequences of the Bill.
      I was joined in the Lobby by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who also voted against the measure on principle. I was interested in his assertion that there was no public demand for the Bill. Not only is there no public demand for it, there is no demand for it among Labour Members. No Labour Member has spoken to support the measure. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made an extremely valuable contribution, but not in support of the Bill. She acknowledges the effect of the amendments on a measure about which she feels unhappy. In such circumstances, it is astonishing that the Government attempt to drive the Bill through. One or two Labour Members have come to listen to the debate, but no Labour Member has sought to attract your attention, Mr. Lord, to speak in support of the Government.
      I hope that, when the witching hour of 10 o'clock approaches, the Government will not try to move the 10 o'clock motion to enable further consideration of the Bill tonight. That would be inappropriate because the measure is not urgent. As we progress, more and more deficiencies are revealed. Yet the Government provide no adequate, convincing explanation of why the Bill should be passed, let alone why it should be rushed through.
      If the Bill remains unamended, there will be suspicions throughout the country that the Government are involved in some sort of squalid deal. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley and others suggested that the Government have made a squalid deal to support some arrangement with Sinn Fein. In the light of the Minister's explanations, one can be driven to no other conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) hit the nail on the head when he said that there were only two explanations for the Government's behaviour: that the Government chanced on the measure to fill a bit of spare time; or that the Bill was part of a deal, which had to be made. Ministers deny that the Bill is part of a deal, but they are singularly ineffective at explaining why it has been brought before the House. They have failed to convince us and, I suspect, the only Labour Member who intervened in the debate.
      The amendments give the Government an opportunity to say that they understand the fears about the legislation and how it will be viewed in the country, and that the amendments are reasonable. If the Government accept them, they will at least make some effort to reassure the country that the measure is not part of a squalid deal and that they have not traded entitlement to membership of the House for decommissioning. The Government should accept the amendments.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: If the Bill was supposed to be a carrot to encourage decommissioning, and decommissioning does not occur but the Bill is enacted, the measure will remain an Act.
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. There are no conditions attached to the Bill. If it is part of a deal, the law-abiding people, as always, will deliver first, while the holders of illegal weapons deliver nothing. In the so-called process, not one ounce of Semtex, and not one bullet or weapon has been handed in. The Minister should understand the strength of feeling on this side of the Committee: we, who have seen our friends cut down by murderers, are asked to go along with the process when there is no evidence that Sinn Fein is prepared to abide by the agreement that it signed.
      Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman insists on talking about that side of the Committee. It is important to emphasise that the anxiety that he expresses is shared generally in the country and on this side of the Committee.
      Mr. Howarth: That intervention does not surprise me. The right hon. Gentleman has appeared in the Chamber only recently and I warmly welcome his words, which will be widely welcomed in the country. I do not suggest that there are no reservoirs of anxiety on the other side. I pointed out only that there was no evidence of such anxiety, apart from the contribution of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has shown that there is cross-party concern about the matter. The Minister should take note of that.
      Symbolism is important when discussing Northern Ireland. We must tread carefully; not allowing the Bill to pass unamended will convey a clear message and an important signal. Even if we do not support the Bill, we must accept that it has been voted on, but we should not allow it to continue unamended. If we did that, we would send the wrong signals to those who have the power to decommission but have shown no signs of exercising it. The amendment is an opportunity for Ministers to make the position clear, and I hope that they will take it.
      It is an enormous privilege to serve in the House. All of us have struggled to get to the House—perhaps not all of us, as some of us arrived here unexpectedly, as I did in 1983. However, most hon. Members take membership of the House seriously and regard it as a great privilege to serve in the oldest Parliament in the world, which dates back to 1265. It may be unrealistic to imagine that any member of the Irish Parliament would be prepared to swear an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Nevertheless, the Government are seeking with this Bill to give away the right to sit in this hallowed place without getting a single thing in return. That cheapens membership of the House and shows yet again how much contempt and how little respect the Government have for the House of Commons.
      Many references have been made to yesterday's debate. Most of the amendments were available only today and it is discourteous to the Committee that important amendments were not made available for consideration by right hon. and hon. Members in advance. We should have more time to consider them.

      225
      I am genuinely mystified as to why the Government are pursuing this Bill. I do not think that they are being totally dishonourable. I certainly do not think that my namesake, the Minister, is a dishonourable man. However, we cannot see where the Government are coming from. I am struggling. I searched yesterday's Hansard and saw that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said:
      "It is time to build a sounder basis to our institutional relationships and to provide a basis on which we can proceed, as two islands just off the mainland of Europe, with many common links, historical and otherwise, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—a basis for ensuring that those closer links are given some institutional background. I believe that that explains this fairly modest Bill."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 29.]
      If the Bill is not part of the discussions that took place in Belfast, of which the hon. Member for Lagan Valley had no knowledge—we were told that parliamentary links between the various legislatures were discussed at that time—we are told that it is to provide some linkage between the institutions.
      The Irish institutions have not been particularly helpful to this country. Time and gain, we have seen attempts to extradite people wanted for serious crimes in this country. Whatever the actions of the Government of Ireland, their institutions have been singularly unhelpful in enabling us to bring those persons to justice before our courts.
      Mr. Brady: Nor, it seems, does the Dail see any merit in the Minister's argument. Otherwise, we might see some reciprocity.
      Mr. Howarth: I believe that we shall deal with reciprocity in a later amendment.
      Amendment No. 1 is rather more comprehensive than the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). It is unquestionably linked specifically to the terminology of the Belfast agreement. Amendment No. 10 nevertheless makes the point that I sought to make and sends a clear signal that we want some measure of decommissioning. I prefer amendment No. 1, but am happy to go along with amendment No. 10 and new clause 1.
      Amendment No. 32, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), is also worthy of consideration and I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). If it is good enough for the Northern Ireland Assembly to have protection against terrorism, it is certainly good enough for this House. I say this to the Minister: if you will just turn to your right—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.
      Mr. Howarth: I apologise, Mr. Lord.
      If the Minister were to turn to his right, he would see at the entrance to this Chamber the coat of arms of Airey Neave—a Member of this House who was blown up by terrorists in pursuit of objectives in Northern Ireland. It is an affront to suggest that we should allow membership of the House to people who, if they have not committed the same crimes, hold similar aspirations. We owe it to the memory of Airey Neave to state in the Bill that nobody
      226
      engaged in terrorism should be entitled to membership of the House of Commons in the way that it is phrased in amendment No. 32. If it comes to a vote, I shall certainly support that amendment.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Oaten: The propositions are that there would be a link through the Bill to decommissioning and to a denouncement of terrorism. Both propositions come from the same perspective. Liberal Democrat Members are as frustrated as any party at the delay in making progress with decommissioning and wish to see it proceed as speedily as possible.
      Tempting arguments were made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who suggested that the Bill should have some link with decommissioning, to speed the process. In negotiations, the Government have held a few cards that they could play at various points, but they appear to be running out of cards. The Bill might be another card to be played. Tonight's debate has not cleared up when it should be played.
      Would coupling decommissioning with the Bill help the peace process? I am disappointed that we have yet to receive clear guidance from the Minister. It is unhelpful that the Government have not been open about the process. There is a nervousness on all sides that some kind of deal has been done. If one has been done, we would judge it on its merits. We accept that the whole process has been risky. If the deal is that the Bill has to pass before decommissioning, I may accept that that is another risk on a difficult path. Being unclear whether that is the case and where the process is going is not helpful. Although it may be tempting to link the Bill and accept some of the amendments, I and others on the Opposition Benches are left to take on trust that the Government know what they are doing—[Laughter.]—and that they are doing this in the interests of peace.
      Mr. Forth: I am slightly surprised at what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is it not at least possible that his party would know a lot more about the Government's motivations through one of the rather sinister Committees on which the hon. Gentleman's colleagues sit cheek-by-jowl—indeed, in bed—with Government Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more than he cares to reveal at this stage and is just bluffing.
      Mr. Oaten: I assure the Committee that the pillow talk does not go anywhere near Northern Ireland. The issue is whether or not linking decommissioning with the Bill would help the process. Although the Government are not being open and clear, some discussions have taken place. We must take it at face value that, broadly speaking, it would not be helpful at this stage to link decommissioning with the Bill.
      Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that the process will be harmed if the Government have done a deal with Sinn Fein on linking the Bill with decommissioning and that link is written into the Bill. I cannot understand that. If we accept the amendment, surely the link will be set in stone. If they have come to an arrangement, it will not be damaged if it is included in the Bill.
      Mr. Oaten: That is a chicken-and-egg situation. It would be helpful if the Minister explained, but I sense

      227
      that the Bill may need to be passed before decommissioning can take place. The amendment proposes an alternative that is the other way round. That is the difference.
      Mr. Brady rose—
      Mr. Oaten: I shall not give way. I want to make progress on amendment No. 32.
      On terrorism, the proposition is that the Bill should be linked with a statement from Members moving into the House making it clear that they disown terrorism. That is another tempting proposition, but I return to the point that I made in an intervention: an important principle would be broken because those individuals would have stood for election and been democratically elected. We would be saying that democratically elected individuals could not take their seats.
      Mr. MacKay: Were we wrong to pass such legislation on the Northern Ireland Assembly where, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, no one can take his seat unless he swears that he has given up violence for good? Is there to be one law for Northern Ireland and another for the rest of the United Kingdom? I think not.
      Mr. Oaten: The issue could be considered in terms of the ability of individuals to stand for election in the first place and what they say in their statement before they stand. I am uneasy about the principle of a person being elected and conditions being attached to his election. We may impose the condition of renouncement of terrorism, but what other conditions and aspects could be imposed? The principle is dangerous.
      Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a predictable Liberal "on the one hand, on the other hand" effort. Does he not understand the difference between democratic elections and trying to destroy a society or a Government by force and by terrorism? The whole point is that those who take part in a democratic election say, "I will foreswear the Armalite; I will go for the ballot box." People cannot use the ballot box and the Armalite. Surely he must understand that.
      Mr. Oaten: I understand that point, but the process of standing on a platform and being democratically elected would be overturned by amendment No. 32 because it concerns a person who has already been elected. I would have had more sympathy for it if it related to whether a person was able to stand for election in the first place.
      Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Oaten: I want to conclude my remarks.
      Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Oaten: No, I want to conclude my remarks.
      228
      We are uneasy about being unable to back the amendment. The Government could have been more open with us on those issues, but, in the interests of making the peace process work, we are prepared to back them and reject the amendment.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) because, although I am not sure that he has given the Committee any true knowledge of where the Liberal Democrats stand on the Bill, he has at least suggested that they are not particularly happy with it and we are grateful for that.
      The Bill is an important constitutional measure and some truly valuable contributions have been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney)—sadly, he is not in his place—drew attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is also not in her place, although she has been present for most of the debate. Her contribution was a rapier thrust at the chest of the Government because it concentrated the minds of hon. Members on the purpose of the Bill.
      I remind the Committee that the hon. Lady has been a Member of the House for many years, is one of the most senior Labour Members and is highly regarded across the House. She asked Ministers to be honest, open and transparent about the purpose of the Bill. I make a plea to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: I hope that he will be open, honourable and transparent with the Committee and will tell us precisely the purpose of the Bill, why the Government have introduced it now and why they have rushed it through in such a hurry, allowing inadequate time for the consideration of amendments. Clearly the Opposition are in a sizeable minority. We therefore have to accept last night's decision to give the Bill a Second Reading.
      I am opposed to the Bill in principle and on principle, and there is a difference. It is fundamentally flawed, it is unnecessary and it leads members of the Committee to hold strong suspicions about its objective. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made an outstanding contribution. He naturally advised the Committee that he had served as a Northern Ireland Minister and of course he has a pedigree that connects him directly to Northern Ireland. I very much value, respect and appreciate his views and he touched on all the important issues relating to the amendments.
      I also commend the speeches made by official Ulster Unionist party Members, whom I describe as my hon. Friends. In my view they always have been. I have taken a strong interest in Northern Ireland affairs ever since I was elected to the House 29 years ago and am happy to advise the Committee that the first time I voted against my party was on the prorogation of Stormont in 1972. I believe that that was the most insidious form of surrender to terrorism, the enunciation of which I heard from the mouth of the then Conservative Prime Minister. From that moment, we have never stopped making concessions to terrorism.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred to the coat of arms that we see over one of the entrances to this Chamber of the House of Commons, the coat of arms erected on the instruction and at the wish not only of the House, but of the then Speaker: the coat of arms of Airey Neave. I feel very

      229
      emotional about my hon. Friend's reference to Airey Neave, because I was the last Member of Parliament to speak to Airey Neave before he went off to his tailor that Friday morning and before I went up to my constituency by car. It would be an insult to his memory if we allowed anyone to enter this place as a Member of the House of Commons who had not renounced terrorism and a wish to achieve their objectives through armed conflict or terrorism, whether by the bomb or by the bullet. So I am speaking strongly in favour of amendment No. 32, tabled by my very good hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I believe he is absolutely right to have this matter placed on the face of the Bill.
      9 pm
      I repeat that I do not like the Bill. I do not believe that it is necessary. But now that it has had a Second Reading, I believe that amendment No. 10, with which other amendments and new clause 1 are linked, is absolutely correct. It would be improper, it would be immoral, it would be dangerous and it would be wrong for this measure to take effect before decommissioning had taken place.
      In this debate we have had discussions about the action of decommissioning. The excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) highlighted that. Then the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) drew attention to another piece of legislation in which the phrase "the process of decommissioning" formed a part.
      I am sure it is not necessary to remind the Committee that decommissioning was really the essence of the package put forward, I think, three years ago by Senator George Mitchell. Of course, we know that at that time no progress was going to be made towards a peace settlement at least until decommissioning had started. We know now that Sinn Fein has achieved a considerable amount since then. Not only has not a single weapon been decommissioned by Sinn Fein—or a round of ammunition or a pound of Semtex—but the party is now in the Northern Ireland Executive; it is in part of an institution of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend also recall that one of the Mitchell principles was that all parties to talks, let alone any further stage, would have renounced violence for good? Does he not think it might be helpful to remind the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), of that? I know that he was not in the House then, but I am sure he understands that it is a pretty good principle, which has been established for some time.
      Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, but I believe I would be straining your patience and tolerance, Mr. Lord, if I went back to everything that has occurred since Senator George Mitchell came on the scene and decommissioning became such an important part, supposedly, of making any progress whatsoever. I do not need to mention again matters referred to by the hon. Members for Lagan Valley and, I believe, for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson)—not only that Sinn Fein has achieved what I have already indicated, but that the RUC is being decimated; I used the phrase in a supplementary question to the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland,
      230
      and I believe that the RUC's death warrant has been announced by the Government. Certainly the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been devastated by what I see as the insult that has been delivered to it, only a few weeks after it was rightly awarded—because I believe it is the finest, most courageous and most professional police force in the world—the George Cross. Just a few weeks after that it learned that in due course it is to be deprived of its name, its oath is to be changed and the whole composition of the force is to be dramatically altered and its numbers reduced again. That was one of the purposes of Sinn Fein-IRA.
      So what we in the Opposition are seeking to do—I believe that some of what I am saying is shared by Liberal Democrat Members—is to see some safeguards put into the Bill, however undesirable it is in principle to us. The House, in its wisdom or otherwise, because of the Government's very sizeable majority, gave the Bill a Second Reading. I believe that it is absolutely right that if the suspicions of the Government's acts and intentions are not to grow, these amendments need to be included in the Bill in one form or another.
      I nevertheless make a plea to Ministers. Not one hon. Member has spoken in favour of the Bill. I hope that, if democracy is to mean anything—and to me it is very important—Ministers will heed what I consider to be the properly founded, well considered arguments of Opposition Members, and will make a gesture of some kind. What, otherwise, is the House of Commons about? Why have this debate? People are asking why the time should be expended if the Government are not prepared to listen to the—I think—well argued cases advanced by Opposition Members.
      I still believe in this place, and to me it is valuable that people out there still believe that this place is valuable. Are the Government going to reduce its credibility by forcing the Bill through without any proper, detailed, open response, or are they going to respond to the genuine concern that has been expressed, reply positively and accept, if not the wording of all the amendments, at least the intention behind some of them?
      It is not often that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire comes to the Chamber, as an ex-Minister, to make speeches such as the one that he made tonight. His knowledge is considerable; his commitment to Northern Ireland and to the peace process is also considerable, respected and well known. On his behalf, and on behalf of all Opposition Members who have spoken, I make this plea to the Government: please be honest with us. Please do right by the people of this country who believe in justice, democracy and law and order. Do not forget the overwhelming majority of peace-loving, law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland, for whom we seek to secure the best deal—and the Bill, as it stands, is not the best deal.
      Mr. Robathan: I apologise for my absence for an hour earlier.
      I shall be brief: I do not want to repeat all the excellent arguments that have been presented by my friends and colleagues. But I think the debate has shown that the Government, if they do not already know it, should study the old adage: "Act in haste, repent at leisure". The Bill, ridiculously, is being rushed through in two days, allowing hon. Members no chance to table amendments

      231
      or even to think about what the Government are trying to say. My hon. Friends have been poking holes in the failings of the Government's argument throughout today's debate.
      I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that if the amendment was not accepted, the Opposition would not give the Bill a fair wind. I did not oppose Second Reading yesterday, because I felt that we should at least have a chance to amend the Bill. Perhaps the Government will accept amendments, and perhaps the Bill will then be passed—although, frankly, I think that it is pretty much of a dog's breakfast. It strikes at the heart of much of our constitution; it is ill conceived and badly thought out.
      Let me say a little about the constitutional change that the Bill proposes. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) drew attention to the terrible mistake of introducing constitutional changes in this manner, but I think we can all see from what has been said today that the Bill is purely a sop to the IRA. It has been put together with Sinn Fein. No one else wants it; no Labour Member is prepared to stand up and talk about it, because none of them wants it—if they even know what it is about.
      The Government are giving away yet another card. As the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) pointed out, they have laid their cards on the table, but what are they getting in return? What cards do they have up their sleeve to use against IRA-Sinn Fein, who are inextricably linked and who still maintain huge arsenals of weapons?
      One has to question—I do not like to do so—the Government's motives. Why do they want that constitutional change? What is it for? Is it just that they hate the United Kingdom Parliament? Do they hold the UK Parliament in contempt? They do not treat it well; we all know that. Even the most loyal Labour Back Bencher knows that. What is the Bill about? What are the Government about this afternoon? I hope that we will be able to ask that question for a long time after today; we shall have to discuss the matter on some other occasion, too.
      I turn to decommissioning, which is the point of most of the amendments. I much prefer amendment No. 1, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to amendment No. 10, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), because amendment No. 1 is absolutely clear. It says that the Belfast agreement has to be put into force completely before we can proceed. In other words, all decommissioning would have to take place.
      Those of us who were unhappy in some part with the compromises that have had to be made for peace in the past three or four years would be much happier if amendment No. 1 were accepted. We need an absolutely clear-cut guarantee that those to whom concessions have been made—Sinn Fein and the IRA—will make some concessions in return. I would like all weapons to be destroyed, not sealed in some bunker that might yet be under the control of terrorists, or indeed of some dissident terrorist group. I should like weapons to be destroyed before we give any more concessions to the IRA.
      232
      In the last fortnight, we have had several concessions. We have had the destruction, or emasculation of the RUC, the name change and everything that goes with that. We have had the Bill. Hon. Members may not even be aware that, in another Bill, we have a clause to exempt Sinn Fein from the rule to stop political parties receiving donations from foreign countries. It should be called the Noraid clause, but I will not stray further down that road because I know that it would be out of order.
      I said that I would be brief and I have been, but I just wish to add my voice to those of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have all made such good points, saying that the Bill should not proceed unless it is fundamentally amended.
      Mr. Brady: I have been in the Chamber throughout the debate. It is probably one of the shabbiest episodes that I have witnessed as a Member of Parliament, and not only because of how the Government introduced the Bill, which is of questionable worth. They introduced it in a hurry, on two consecutive days. The whole thing has been handled in a way that is utterly unacceptable in a civilised Parliament, especially when Ministers are prepared to say that there is no emergency. There is no reason why it should be done in such haste.
      The debate has also been shabby in that, with the honourable exceptions of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who have indicated at least some capacity for sentient thought, not a word has been uttered by Labour Members to justify what they are doing. Not a word has been uttered in criticism of the sensible and moderate amendments tabled by Opposition Members, whether from the official Opposition or the official Unionists.
      I can only come to the conclusion that no plausible and honest argument can be advanced by those Members who oppose the amendments. I was confirmed in that view when I heard the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). He at least had the decency to say something, but he did not advance a plausible argument against the amendments. As I said when I intervened during his speech, I cannot see the logic of the argument that, if the Government have done a deal to link the Bill with decommissioning of terrorist weapons, it must not be put on to the face of the Bill because it would cause difficulties.
      Including the deal in the Bill would accomplish precisely the opposite effect. It would not prevent the Bill's passage, but simply create certain safeguards involving the legislation's commencement date or the behaviour of Members who might be affected by its provisions.
      Mr. Oaten: The problem is that we cannot make a judgment because we have not been told about the deal, if there was one.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Brady: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, and agree that there is a problem. However, when Ministers demonstrate a total lack of openness and candour, it is not incumbent on hon. Members to accept what they say. Indeed, it is precisely then, when Ministers will not tell us what they are doing and show no respect

      233
      for the House, that hon. Members—whether Labour, Ulster Unionist, Liberal Democrat or Conservative—should do what we have been sent here by our constituents to do. We must think, be cautious and use some common sense in legislating, particularly on the most sensitive matters in relation to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the deal that everyone is talking about is the Good Friday agreement; that no other deal should be necessary to achieve decommissioning; that decommissioning should start without the Bill; and that that is why we need to pass the amendments?
      Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. I do not believe that Ministers are rejecting the amendments—they seem to be rejecting them but perhaps they are playing us along for a few hours to keep us in suspense—because they have done a deal or secured something in return for what they propose to give away. They are simply locked into a process of giving things away, of letting things go by default and of expecting nothing in return from those who, sadly, to date, have given no sign of wishing to move forward to genuine peace and disarmament.
      Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend remember from his history lessons the danegeld and how one just had to keep on paying it, but received nothing in return?
      Mr. Brady: I remember it well. However, I do not intend to be diverted down that historical road, pertinent as it may be. There are many examples of appeasement in history, whether it be the danegeld or more recently, and we know that appeasement does not work.
      The Government, in proceeding with the process over almost two years, have shown that appeasement does not work. Ministers have never insisted on delivery of something in return from Sinn Fein, but consistently conceded more. They have never stood up or said what they should have said—that the people of Northern Ireland, and people across the United Kingdom, wish to achieve objectives and a very important prize. The Government do not have the courage or backbone to insist on moving towards achieving those goals.
      In his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) dealt with the importance of conditionality and of including that vital principle in the Bill.
      I do not intend to speak at length to the amendments in this group, but should like to deal briefly with the three key subgroups of amendments in the group.
      Amendment No. 10 and new clause 1 deal with the importance of the principle of negotiation and of conditionality, and of ensuring that we receive something in return for what we give away.
      Amendment No. 1 insists that there should be full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, and not some fudge, half-baked deal or failure to implement the agreement. It is also vital because it would ensure that implementation could not proceed without the agreement of both Houses of Parliament. That brings us back to the crucial point that the Bill must enjoy proper democratic assent. The Government cannot get away with sitting mute and not attempting to defend their proposals.
      234
      Finally, amendment No. 32 is absolutely vital. The other amendments deal with the commencement of the measures, and the point at which it will be permissible for Members of the Dail also to sit in the House of Commons. However, they do not provide permanent security for this House—[Interruption.] A rather frightened mouse has run across the Floor, Mr. Lord, just as I was expounding the argument that I smell a rat with the legislation.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There are some things in this Chamber that the occupant of the Chair cannot control. I suggest that we carry on with the debate in the usual way.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Is not the mouse an indication to the Government that we should not let vermin into the House?
      Mr. Robathan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. Do not Standing Orders state that no animals other than guide dogs will be allowed into the House?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I suggest that we continue with the debate.
      Mr. Brady: That intervention by the frightened mouse can be likened to the behaviour of Ministers, who have failed to stand up for what they should be fighting for. They have shown neither fibre nor substance in handling the negotiations entrusted to them.
      Finally, it is crucial that future hon. Members whom the Bill will allow to join the House should disavow terrorism. Amendment No. 32 is the only proposal that would guarantee permanent security. I hope that decommissioning of weapons begins or that there is substantial progress to that end. However, it will remain possible that those who resorted to violence in the past could return to it.
      In those circumstances, the conditionality that would be introduced by new clause 1 or amendment No. 10 would not give that vital protection. However, amendment No. 32 would give some permanent guarantee, in the event of a wholesale return to violence and terrorism affecting the whole of the United Kingdom and not just Northern Ireland, that those who refused to disavow violent intervention would not be allowed to sit in this House. It would mean that we would accept only those who believed in democracy and wished to participate in our democratic process.
      Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has just criticised me for not taking part in the debate at some earlier juncture. However, he will accept that the whole point is that Ministers responding to a debate listen to what hon. Members have to say. That is why I have sat here patiently noting all the points that have been raised. I intend to respond to them as fully as possible.
      The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has asked me to be candid, and that is my intention. I believe that it is inappropriate for me to be on the receiving end of criticism for having shown disrespect to the House in some way. At least three right hon. and hon. Members who have been present for all or most of the debate will attest to the fact that on every occasion on which I address

      235
      the House and respond to issues raised by Opposition Front-Bench Members, I take the House very seriously. I am sure that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) would accept that. I see that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) accepts that. The criticism that has been levelled at me is slightly unfair.
      Mr. Brady: I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be a courteous man and a courteous Minister. What I believe to be wrong is the disrespect that the Government have shown for the House in the way in which they have handled this piece of legislation.
      Mr. Howarth: I will demonstrate in a moment why I do not believe that that criticism can be sustained. Certainly, some of the criticism, including that made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was directed at me, and I think it appropriate and relevant for me to respond.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I, for one, would not have wished the hon. Gentleman to take the comments personally. He is at the Dispatch Box, representing the Government, and the criticism was of the Government. I made it, as did others, and I do not resile from it.
      The hon. Gentleman said that he has listened carefully to the debate. Does he now have any sense of the anger and unhappiness that those interventions sought to convey to him about the taking of business today?
      Mr. Howarth: I will address, as far as I can, all the concerns that have been expressed during the course of the debate. 1 am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that I will do that in due course. Of course, I have listened very carefully to what everyone has said. In no way would I make the criticism that any of the speakers who have taken part in these Committee proceedings have done so with anything less than seriousness. People felt that they had to make their points and, even if I do not agree with them, I recognise that they were made with all seriousness and proper concern.
      I want to begin by dealing with some of the general points made in the debate; then I will turn to more specific points that arise directly from the amendments. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) both said in different ways that the process so far had been all take and no give. Well, that is hardly the case. For the first time in 25 years, a devolved Government have been returned to Northern Ireland. That is an achievement. For the first time in 60 or so years, there is now agreement on the constitutional issues, and articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution have been amended. Those amendments will stand, regardless of what happens to the institutions. Of course, the 1985 agreement, about which many Ulster Unionists of different kinds had grave reservations—to put it mildly—has finally been replaced. So it is simply not true to say that there have been no achievements. That is not to say that there is not more to be achieved.
      Mr. MacKay: I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for giving way. Let me remind him of the context of my remark that there has been all take and no give by the
      236
      paramilitaries. I said that the two Governments, British and Irish, had fulfilled all their obligations, including many of those that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I went on to say that the constitutional parties—Unionist, nationalist, alliance—had fulfilled all their obligations, including many of the those that the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, which I agree are important achievements.
      In return, the paramilitaries—whether republican or loyalist—who signed up to the Belfast agreement have failed to fulfil their obligations. They had two particular obligations: the first was to decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives by May; the second was to end violence for good. That is what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I mean by all take and no give. That is the point that needs to be addressed.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Howarth: I was not trying to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I accept entirely the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of their remarks. I was about to draw attention to the matters on which there are still large reasons for concern and I shall talk about them in due course.
      I stand by the fact that there is no direct link between the Bill and the agreement—it is a matter of context, as I tried to make clear in an earlier intervention. The agreement was negotiated with most—although not all—the parties in Northern Ireland; it was subsequently endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, by the people of southern Ireland.
      There has been progress on all three longstanding, fundamental Unionist objectives—rightly held by Unionists to be of deep importance. That has been achieved through the courageous leadership of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). In his speech, the right hon. Member for Bracknell referred to all the people who played a major role in bringing us to where we are today. I concur with, and add to, the list that he gave.
      I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is in his place, as he was on the list read out by the right hon. Member for Bracknell, whom I join in paying tribute to the role played by the former Prime Minister in beginning the process. I have referred to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who played an important role in the matter when she was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and to the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Everyone has put their hands to the pump; we have all tried to do the best possible for the people of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I will give way in a moment.
      I acknowledge that other elements are less welcome. However, we should not close our eyes to the substantial progress that has taken place as a result of the Good Friday agreement.
      The right hon. Member for Bracknell and others, including the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for East

      237
      Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred to the modalities of decommissioning—the how, where and when. That is central to the Opposition's main amendment, which has been the subject of much of the Committee's debate. The whole Committee would probably agree that the point of decommissioning is that arms are decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Independent Commission on Decommissioning.
      The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 makes it clear that the commission has to supervise decommissioning according to schemes that have been made. The Act requires that such schemes may include a range of methods of destruction, defined under section 10 as
      "making permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable".
      Let me simply point out what is stated in the legislation. We must wait and see what the commission reports; I shall comment further on that in a moment.
      The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is not in the Chamber. At the risk of incurring some hon. Members' wrath, I wondered why the hon. Gentleman had been stirred to take part in the debate, as he was not in the Chamber—
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman often takes part in such debates.
      Mr. Howarth: He is quite entitled to do so, although he was not here on Second Reading yesterday. On listening to and then reading the speech that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made yesterday, I realised that he had made the fatal mistake—at least so far as the hon. Member for Stone is concerned, of mentioning the word "Europe". I suspect that that may have played some part in tempting the hon. Gentleman into the Chamber.
      The hon. Gentleman tabled amendment No. 32. If it were passed, someone elected to the House of Commons who was also a Member of the Irish Parliament, had also been a paramilitary and had not disavowed terrorism would be disqualified. The difficulty is that it would not apply to someone elected to the House of Commons who was not a Member of the Irish Parliament, so it would set a different standard for different people.
      The other difficulty that arises from amendment No. 32 is that there would have to be some means of deciding who had or had not been a paramilitary. In some cases, by virtue of the fact that the person had been convicted of something, that might be obvious, but we do not have an exhaustive list of everyone who may have been a paramilitary at some time in the past.
      Mr. MacKay: I thank the Under-Secretary, who, with characteristic courtesy, has given way whenever requested. He and I strongly support the setting up of the Assembly. He and I know that we both supported in the House the legislation that set up the Assembly. He may correct me if I am wrong, but my memory of that legislation was that everyone elected to the Assembly had to swear an oath that they had given up violence for good—not just members of Sinn Fein but members of the SDLP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. That seems an interesting precedent. Whereas, as
      238
      currently drafted, amendment No. 32 may not be acceptable, it has interesting implications and possibilities for the House.
      Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and if the precedent that he referred to existed, he might have a stronger case. Unfortunately, he is wrong. The pledge that he referred to is required only of Northern Ireland Ministers. No such oath or declaration is required on the part of Assembly Members, so I rather think that his—
      Mr. MacKay: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
      Mr. Howarth: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish dealing with the intervention that he has already made, I will allow him the opportunity to come back. It is an interesting point, but he is simply referring to a precedent that does not exist. However—
      Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
      Mr. Duncan Smith: Give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Howarth: It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, to instruct me.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that every hon. Member who takes the Oath by implication denounces terrorism?
      Mr. Howarth: So why—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who came into the debate rather belatedly and contributed to it briefly from the Back Benches, would bear with me, I was dealing specifically with the arguments made by the hon. Member for Stone. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Stone was speaking, so he will forgive me if I do not take any more sedentary interventions from him.
      The group of amendments before us effectively seeks to put on the face of the Bill a direct linkage between the lifting of disqualification and decommissioning. I can see why the Opposition might want to make that linkage but, as I argued on Second Reading, it would be wrong to make that direct linkage between the Bill and that issue. I shall explain why.
      The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) supported the Government's position on that matter; and, from a slightly different angle, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a similar point.
      Let me make the Government's position as clear as I can. We entirely share the view of the Opposition, and of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire, that decommissioning is an essential part of the process—not an option; a part of the process. The process of decommissioning is being overseen by General de Chastelain's commission.
      The right hon. Member for Bracknell paid proper tribute to General de Chastelain and the other distinguished members of the commission for their independence and professionalism. I hope that the whole House would accept also that the commission brings good faith to its work. For those reasons, a great deal of trust

      239
      is put in the hands of the commission. For that reason, when the commission makes its report on progress—as it will by the end of the month—it will be a document of authority. The hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) seem to believe that some other kind of process is involved. However, that is the process.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made it clear that decommissioning is an essential part of the process. If it is clear from General de Chastelain's report that the paramilitaries are in default on decommissioning, there will be serious consequences. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that in circumstances where the commission has reported that there has not been proper progress, the operation of the various political institutions—the Assembly, the Executive, the north-south bodies and the British-Irish Council—will cease immediately. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend, who is sitting alongside me, stands entirely by what he has said on this issue, and that he takes the matter seriously indeed.
      Mr. Field: Is not it true that when the Good Friday accord was debated here, it was generally accepted with considerable enthusiasm and many of us did not look carefully enough at the details? We thought that as concessions were made, there would be clear concessions on decommissioning. Although there was a timetable for decommissioning, it was not linked specifically to some of the concessions that some in this House have found so difficult to accept. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Minister was right to emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said from the Dispatch Box about those actions that will follow if the decommissioning report is given to the House and the progress that we expect has not been not made. Surely it is at that point that the House should make its view felt about what next should happen, and we should not try retrospectively—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but his intervention is far too long.
      Mr. George Howarth: I thank my right hon. Friend for what I think was intended to be a helpful intervention. I hope that we can all agree on the fundamental importance of decommissioning.
      Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I hope that the Minister understands the importance of what he has said—especially in Northern Ireland. If the Government are saying that if the IRA is in default on decommissioning by the end of the month when General de Chastelain reports, the Government will suspend the institutions, that is a significant statement. The Minister says that the general must report that there has been proper progress. Would he care to define proper progress in terms of decommissioning, as that is important?
      Mr. Howarth: Let me make it absolutely clear what I said. I stand entirely by that. In the case of clear default, that which I have described will be the case. The hon.
      240
      Gentleman knows full well—I made the point earlier—that the Decommissioning Commission under General de Chastelain has that responsibility. We recognise its independence, its skill and experience and we also recognise its good faith. We shall have to judge on the basis of what it says not only about what has happened, but about what the intentions for the future are. In those circumstances, I think that it is entirely appropriate that that should be the case.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: Let me make a little more progress and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already been at pains to make clear. In the event of clear default, Unionists will not find that they are on their own.
      Mr. Ross: Does the Minister realise that the people of Northern Ireland will judge the outcome of the commission's report not on what it says but on the weapons that they see surrendered and destroyed?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, I know, makes a serious point. Everybody, in the end, will judge the success of the process not only on the establishment of institutions, the Executive and the Assembly, but on the extent to which it genuinely leads to decommissioning. There is no difference between us on that point. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand just how seriously my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my colleagues take the matter.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I will indulge the right hon. Gentleman for a second time, but I then will need to make some progress.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am extremely grateful, but the debate can move backwards and forwards in Committee.
      First, may I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who has consistently in recent weeks—in virtually every speech that I can find—stressed the importance of decommissioning, so there can be no doubt in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland or anybody else that the Government attach huge significance to decommissioning? It seemed to me that the Minister did not say quite the same thing in answer to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) as he said previously. Therefore, I would be grateful if he would address the matter again.
      Earlier, the Minister said that, if de Chastelain's report indicated that there had been no decommissioning, the Secretary of State would intervene and intervene quickly. However, in reply to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, he added the extra condition that the Government would then have to make a judgment about intentions. Bearing in mind that this issue will be the front-page story in all tomorrow's newspapers in Ireland, if not in this country,

      241
      will the Minister take his time and say precisely what is the Government's position so that we can all understand what we may have to look forward to?
      Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman will accept entirely that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to make decisions on the basis of what is reported to him. What he has to decide—and will decide—on the basis of that report is that there has to be clear progress towards a timetable that was set out in the Good Friday agreement. I do not think that it would be sensible—strictly speaking, I do think it would be what the House wants—for me to enter into a discussion about what progress should be made at this point. However, we need to know clearly what the intentions are. I shall not speculate on what might be in the report, because I simply do not know what will be in it at this point.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that there is a bit of confusion here. What the Minister has just said is not what we were made to believe by the Secretary of State. That had to do with real decommissioning and not with intention or with whether we could see any progress. It was about whether real decommissioning was going to take place. Tonight, the Minister has not said that and he needs to make the matter clear not only for the people of Northern Ireland who want to see decommissioning, but especially for those who do not want to do it. They need to have a clear message from the House.
      Mr. Howarth: Let me make the position clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that there is the intention to make progress and that there will be a programme that will lead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—and that there will be progress toward the commitment that exists within the Good Friday agreement. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) understands that that was the position all along. I have not changed that position tonight, nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
      I should now like to address aspects of the Bill. So far, we have dealt with matters that are not contained in any of the clauses. Perhaps we should now move on.
      Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. After the Minister's remarks, do you not catch the strong stench of sugar and butter simmering on a stove?
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.
      Mr. Howarth: I shall not go into the hon. Gentleman's culinary allusions.
      The Bill might potentially benefit Members of the Dail. Throughout the debate, many of those who have taken part have expressed the—false—assumption that it is being brought into force exclusively for the benefit of Sinn Fein. That is not the case. There have been numerous individuals who have taken up a political career both north and south of the border, including members of the
      242
      Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party of Northern Ireland, who have gone on from positions in Northern Ireland to be elected to the Dail.
      Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), but not to the hon. Member for Stone, because he did not bother to come in to listen to what I had to say about his speech.
      Mr. Thompson: Although certain persons may have served both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, is not the point they did not serve in both places at the same time?
      Mr. Howarth: I did not assert that any did. I was merely pointing out that the only people who had been mentioned during the debate were members of Sinn Fein. However, certain members of the parties I mentioned have, in the past, served both in Northern Ireland and in the Dail.
      Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has sat here throughout the debate. However, I shall then attempt to conclude my speech.
      Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister. May I take him away from the generalities of the Bill and back to the amendments, which deal with the decommissioning of illegally held weapons by paramilitary organisations? Will he now answer clearly the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who asked him to explain precisely how we would know whether weapons were being decommissioned? After the Minister's answer, I am extremely confused, as is the rest of the Committee.
      Mr. Howarth: I cannot be held responsible for the hon. Gentleman's confusion, for it is a regular occurrence.
      There is potentially a broad group of individuals, not only members of Sinn Fein, who might want to take advantage of the Bill's provisions. Of all the potential beneficiaries in the Dail, only one is a member of Sinn Fein.
      The Bill stands on its own merits as a sensible and modest measure to reflect the close and co-operative relationship that we now enjoy with the Government and people of Ireland. If there is a linkage to be made between the Bill and the new constitutional arrangements, it should be with the significant amendments to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which came into effect only last December. Those changes put consent at the heart of the Irish constitution. They remain in force regardless of other developments, and rightly so.
      Now that those arrangements have come into force, the time is right to extend the further courtesy set out in the Bill to Ireland and treat that country on the same basis in electoral law as most other favoured nations are treated.

      243
      I cannot recommend that the Committee accepts any of the amendments. In the light of what I have said, I hope that some of the right hon. and hon. Members who have tabled or supported the amendments will feel it appropriate to withdraw them.
      Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I seek your guidance. Would it be possible when we come to vote for you to be prepared to put separately to the vote amendments Nos.10 and 32 and new clause 1? They have all approached the matter in a different way and have all received some support during the debate. It would be important for the Committee to indicate which it supports.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I say no more than that.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. May I support the proposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not a point of order. I have answered the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the Committee is not pursuing it. I have said clearly that I will consider the matter. I do not want hon. Members to bring a case to me because the case has been put.
      Mr. MacKay: I think that the Committee was concerned and confused about one aspect of the Minister's response. I would have forgiven him if it had not been for the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was sitting next to him and appeared to be aiding and abetting him. In those circumstances, it is important that we have clarification. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) rightly observed, our deliberations will almost certainly be splashed on the front pages of the Northern Ireland newspapers. That being so, we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland that the Minister's remarks be clarified.
      The Under-Secretary of State said—he will correct me if I am misquoting him, but I do not think that I am—that the Secretary of State would intervene only to suspend the Executive, and in consequence the cross-border bodies and other organisations, if General de Chastelain reported that no progress was being made. He added that if the general said that there was an intention to make progress in future, that would be all right.
      I hope that I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State might want to intervene to clarify the matter. I said earlier, when I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman was understandably detained in the Province, that I much welcomed the indications that he had given publicly that if—we all hope and pray that this will not happen—decommissioning does not take place in the next week or so and the general reports that progress has not been made, he would then suspend the Executive. I added that it was vital that it was the Secretary of State who suspended the Executive and not the First Minister, who by no action of the Secretary of State was forced to resign and therefore collapse the Executive. I would appreciate
      244
      confirmation of that from the Under Secretary of State or the Secretary of State tonight. I think that that would helpfully clarify the situation.
      If the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not wish to clarify the position, I fear that we must stick to what Hansard will presumably have reported. If the general reported that there is an intention to make progress, I would accept that, if it took only a few days. However, we cannot continue for many days without progress taking place. We are hoping and expecting that the Secretary of State will stick to what he has always indicated and promised us. That is—I am glad to say that he is nodding—that he will suspend the Executive if decommissioning has not properly commenced to the satisfaction of the general. I think that I can take the right hon. Gentleman's nod as a sign that I have interpreted the position, but it is difficult to know as he is now winking at me and not prepared to rise to say one thing or the other. I suspect that he is watching the clock and hoping that the sitting will be suspended at 10 o'clock.
      It is essential that I put on the record on behalf of the Opposition that we are four square behind the Secretary of State in suspending the Executive if he feels that he must do so if there has been no proper decommissioning. It is—[Interruption.] the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) says from his place on the Bench as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, "What has this to do with the Bill?" If he has not been in his place throughout the debate, I shall explain exactly what it has to do with the Bill. Decommissioning is the key to the amendment. Therefore it is important that the matter has been raised first by the Under-Secretary and that it has been responded to by me. Perhaps that will put the hon. Gentleman right.
      I was intensely disappointed in the Under-Secretary's reply to hon. Members' complaints about the necessity for Committee stage—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Electronic Communications Bill and the Disqualifications Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]:—
      The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 156.

      Division No. 38]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Alexander, Douglas

      Benton, Joe appendix>

      Allen, Graham

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Berry, Roger

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Best, Harold

      Ashton, Joe

      Betts, Clive

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Austin, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Banks, Tony

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Barnes, Harry

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Battle, John

      Borrow, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Beard, Nigel

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      245

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hain, Peter

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Browne, Desmond

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Burgon, Colin

      Healey, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Heppell, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Cann, Jamie

      Hill, Keith

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Chaytor, David

      Hope, Phil

      Clapham, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hurst, Alan

      Clelland, David

      Hutton, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Illsley, Eric

      Cohen, Harry

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Coleman, Iain

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Colman, Tony

      Jamieson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Jenkins, Brian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cummings, John

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Laxton, Bob

      Denham, John

      Lepper, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dobbin, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Doran, Frank

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Dowd, Jim

      Linton, Martin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lock, David

      Efford, Clive

      Love, Andrew

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ennis, Jeff

      McCabe, Steve

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Flint, Caroline

      Macdonald, Calum

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McFall, John

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foulkes, George

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gapes, Mike

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gerrard, Neil

      McWalter, Tony

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McWilliam, John

      Goggins, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Grogan, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gunnell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      246

      Maxton, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Singh, Marsha

      Meale, Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miller, Andrew

      Snape, Peter

      Mitchell, Austin

      Soley, Clive

      Moffatt, Laura

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Spellar, John

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Morley, Elliot

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mudie, George

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pearson, Ian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Todd, Mark

      Pike, Peter L

      Touhig, Don

      Plaskitt, James

      Trickett, Jon

      Pollard, Kerry

      Truswell, Paul

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Tynan, Bill

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Purchase, Ken

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Watts, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rammell, Bill

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wills, Michael

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wilson, Brian

      Roy, Frank

      Winnick, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wise, Audrey

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wood, Mike

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Woolas, Phil

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Worthington, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      Wray, James

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Amess, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Brady, Graham

      Baker, Norman

      Brazier, Julian

      Baldry, Tony

      Breed, Colin

      Beggs, Roy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Bercow, John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Burns, Simon

      Blunt, Crispin

      Burstow, Paul

      247

      Butterfill, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cash, William

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Madel, Sir David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Collins, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mates, Michael

      Cotter, Brian

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Cran, James

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Oaten, Mark

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Duncan, Alan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Page, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Faber, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prior, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Randall, John

      Flight Howard

      Rendel, David

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Robathan, Andrew

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robertson, Laurence

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ruffley, David

      Gale, Roger

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Garnier, Edward

      St Aubyn, Nick

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gill, Christopher

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gray, James

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

      Green, Damian

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Greenway, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Steen, Anthony

      Hammond, Philip

      Streeter, Gary

      Hawkins, Nick

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hayes, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Heald, Oliver

      Syms, Robert

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Horam, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Thompson, William

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tredinnick, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Key, Robert

      Tyrie, Andrew

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Viggers, Peter

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Walter, Robert

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Wardle, Charles

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Wells, Bowen

      Lansley, Andrew

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Leigh, Edward

      Whittingdale, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Willis, Phil

      Lidington, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Livsey, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lougnton, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Mr. Peter Atkinson.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a result of the vote, we have to deduce that it is the Government's intention that we carry on with the Bill,
      248
      which is the second part of an accelerated process in two days. We had the Second Reading yesterday; we had a curtailed procedure before Committee stage and a curtailed procedure for the rest of the Bill. May I ask whether there is anything the House can do to get the Government to tell us why we have to move so quickly? I sat throughout the whole of the Second Reading. There was no explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, (Mr. Oaten) sat throughout the whole of the proceedings today. There has been no explanation
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I stand. He should know that.
      What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is this: the House has decided to continue with the Committee of the whole House. Therefore, that is what I intend to do.
      Again considered in Committee.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. MacKay: When the 10 o'clock motion was sort of moved, I thought that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) first of all was pulling stumps when he was tweaked and changed his mind. I was complaining that the Under-Secretary of State in his summing up had not once told us why it was necessary for this legislation to be rushed through so quickly. Let me explain why my colleagues and I voted against the 10 o'clock motion. Quite simply, it is normal practice in the House to have a Second Reading debate—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The House decided on the 10 o'clock motion. The one thing I do not want to do is repeat myself, because I usually advise hon. Members not to do so. The right hon. Gentleman must come back to the amendment that he was so kindly winding up.
      Mr. MacKay: When you called me to order originally, Mr. Martin, because it was 10 o'clock, I was remarking to you and the Committee that in listening to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland summing up the debate, at some length, and rightly so—I make no quibble about that—it was concerning to hon. Members on this side, from all parties, that he had not addressed at all in his winding up the fact that nearly every hon. and right hon. Member who had spoken had asked why it was necessary to have a Committee stage of a Bill the day after Second Reading. You, Mr. Martin, will understand, as the Secretary of State, who is returning to his place, will understand, because he is an experienced parliamentarian, that the normal practice is that a Second Reading takes place, a vote is taken, and if the Bill receives its Second Reading the House, either on the Floor or upstairs, moves into Committee the following week. There is a very good reason why this happens. It is so that the House and Ministers can reflect—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. What is done is done. I have no control over these matters. The House has decided that I must return the Committee to the debate on

      249
      the amendments, so the right hon. Gentleman must speak to them rather than discuss the history of how we arrived at this position.
      Mr. MacKay: I have no wish to question the vote on the Ten o'clock motion. I have moved from that, I hope—as you rightly requested me to, Mr. Martin—to where I was at 9.59 pm, after which you—again, rightly—called me to order because the clock had struck ten. At 9.59 pm, I was saying the same to the Under-Secretary of State as had been said by every other Member who had spoken; I assume that they were in order. Like them, I was asking why we needed to rush the legislation through.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department confirmed to me, from a sedentary position, that the Bill did not constitute either urgent or emergency legislation—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue. The other hon. Members who have spoken may have mentioned the Second Reading in passing, but it is not permissible to concentrate on Second Reading in a debate on amendments. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point; I now ask him to speak to the amendments, which are indeed very narrow.
      Mr. MacKay: At no point was I discussing Second Reading. I was discussing something much more important than Second Reading, which, as you rightly say, was past, done for and gone yesterday. I was asking why the Committee stage of a Bill that is not urgent or an emergency Bill need take place this week, and my question was not answered.
      The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) rightly asked what was the special reason. We have been given no special reason, and that makes it very difficult for many Members—especially the Liberal Democrats, who, not uncharacteristically, have not yet made up their minds—to decide which way to vote. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Winchester, who is not capable of making up his mind until he knows why we need to rush the legislation through. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to tell us why it is being rushed through, why it is emergency legislation, and why—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to keep interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but let me say this to him. I would not allow the Under-Secretary of State to discuss these matters, because what we are discussing is not the legislation in its entirety or the way in which it is being rushed through, but the amendment and those grouped with it. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is what he must discuss.
      Mr. MacKay: The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland failed to respond to any of the points made by hon. Members speaking to my amendment and new clause, and the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). It is interesting, and needs to be pointed out, that not one Labour Member supported the Front Bench. We heard a good speech from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and a very good intervention from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but not one Labour Member saw fit to support
      250
      Ministers. I consider that deeply significant. Having been in the Chair for some time on more than one occasion during this Committee stage, Mr. Martin, you will have noted that for almost all the sitting—nearly five hours so far—hardly any Labour Members have been present until the vote. That is disgraceful.
      The Under-Secretary of State—rightly, I believe—made much of what had been achieved under the Belfast agreement. But he must accept that his Government—rightly—the Irish Government—rightly—and the democratic non-violent parties, Unionist, nationalist and Alliance—rightly—have jumped every hurdle. Only one group have not fulfilled their obligations under the Belfast agreement: the paramilitaries, whether they are republican or so-called loyalist. They have not fulfilled their obligations on two counts. First, they do not appear to have renounced violence for good because beatings, mutilations and tortures are still going on. Secondly, even more significant, they have failed to decommission any of their illegally held arms and explosives.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland singularly failed to address the point that I made earlier and that others have endorsed: many believe, I included, that the process to date has been all take by the paramilitaries and no give. The Bill—I have already begged to differ with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—is relatively small beer and relatively unimportant. Therefore, it is not right that it be passed, unless my amendment is incorporated. It says that, unless substantial decommissioning is confirmed by General de Chastelain, the Bill should not become law. That is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, many Labour Members who have expressed reservations publicly or privately, the Liberal Democrats, who have expressed reservations through the hon. Member for Winchester, and Unionist Members who also oppose it, to vote against it.
      It is a sad day for the House of Commons when legislation, for no good reason, is pushed through without any chance for us to consider it properly. Much as I genuinely like and respect the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I believe that he has, under orders, behaved disreputably by pushing the Bill through without proper debate. It is shameful and wrong. He and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will live to regret it.
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: I thank you, Mr. Martin, for calling me. I apologise to those who will have noted that I have not been in the Chamber all day. I have been participating in the Committee stage of the Terrorism Bill. None the less, I have heard much of what has been discussed.
      I feel somewhat sorry for the two Ministers who have had to carry the burden of a Bill that was contrived by—I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has just left; I understand his sensitivity to what I have to say—the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Yesterday, on Second Reading, we discussed why the Bill had been introduced in the first place, and we have discussed for whom the Bill is drafted.
      I have some sympathy for the two Ministers in that respect, but I still cannot understand why, in responding to the Committee stage, the Under-Secretary of State for

      251
      Northern Ireland repeated inadequately what he said on Second Reading yesterday. He did not elaborate at all on those points, but referred to them in the most general terms. He did not elaborate, for example, on the consultation. He indicated that the consultation involved many others, yet I know that he was inaccurate—unavoidably inaccurate, I hope—when he suggested that others besides Sinn Fein had an interest—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Committee must come to order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the Committee.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Maginnis: Thank you, Mr. Martin; that was helpful, given the current state of my voice.
      Although the Minister mentioned those other matters, we know—I have pointed it out to him—that Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Democratic Left and the Irish Labour party are not interested in participating as Members either of this place or of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In conversation, that was made obvious to me. To try to justify himself, the Minister pointed out that Austin Curry and John Cushnahan, among others, stood for seats in the Dail. However, they did so not simply because, as Irish citizens, they were entitled to do so, but rather because there was no opportunity to pursue their political careers in Northern Ireland, which was in the direct-rule process.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: The situation was even more serious than that. Like other politicians in Northern Ireland, they had played a part, but, as there was no elected Chamber, they had difficulty even in finding secondary jobs to keep themselves occupied.
      Mr. Maginnis: Indeed that was the case. Consequently, they moved, and one served in a European assembly and the other in the Dail.
      The Government are making an effort to enamel on to the edge of the agreement provisions that are specifically designed to facilitate the position of Sinn Fein. However, he, I and every other hon. Member want Sinn Fein to exercise what, so far, it has claimed to be a voluntary obligation to disarm.
      What is happening to that voluntary obligation after all this time? Today, I saw the Under-Secretary of State struggling, and failing, to try to explain what the Government's reaction will be if the de Chastelain report were couched in negative terms. Part of the Minister's difficulty is that he is afraid of offending Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein would use that offence as an excuse—that is the reality—for not presenting before General de Chastelain reports at the end of this month.
      I shall relieve the Under-Secretary of the obligation and tell him what will have to happen. If I am wrong, he will be able to clarify the position for the rest of the Committee and contradict me. If there is a positive response, it will mean that there has been a first significant disarmament phase and that the general will be able to say in an agenda how events should proceed until 22 May.
      252
      If there is not a first round of disarmament, General de Chastelain will have to report that. Immediately, there will be an obligation on the Government to suspend the Assembly and return Northern Ireland to a direct rule system in the interim. That will be supported by the Government in Dublin, even though they have no direct say in the matter. If I am wrong, I hope that the Under-Secretary will contradict me now. If he does not, we will know the process that we must expect.
      Amendments Nos. 1 and 10 are in line with what is necessary if Northern Ireland is to be governed in the same way as other regions of the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary has stated that the Bill is not the direct result of the Belfast agreement. I do not know whether that is so, or not. I do know, however—because I was fairly close to the heart of events—that the Bill was never mooted during the negotiations on that agreement, nor during the Mitchell review.
      No Bill relating to Northern Ireland and the affairs of elected representatives there can stand apart from what is contained in the Belfast agreement. Even if the Government fall down on their obligations, Opposition Members must ensure that disarmament is an element of this Bill. I see no justification at all for the Bill, and many agree with me. However, no Bill such as this can be at variance with the conditions laid down for devolved government in Northern Ireland.
      Disarmament is not a simple political issue in Northern Ireland. It is not a question of two opposing views. Disarmament is an inherent part of democracy. It is vital if those who have relied on violence or the threat of violence for more than 100 years are to be moved to recognise the primacy of democracy.
      The importance of this Committee stage is immense, in the context of the House's procedures, traditions and protocol. It is important in terms of the way in which people in Northern Ireland see themselves as being treated as fellow citizens in the United Kingdom. If they find that the interests of 657 Members of this House are secondary to the interests of two Members who do not take their places here, their faith in the institutions of government, which we are trying to achieve under the most difficult circumstances, will be less than that needed to sustain what we are trying to do.
      The Minister must speak frankly. He must tell us about the others who have been party to this. He must stop giving the impression that the leader of the party to which I belong was privy to the Bill when it was mooted. The leader of my party was made privy to the Bill when the Prime Minister informed him that it was to be introduced. He made known his antipathy to the proposals, and made it very clear that there would be a conflict of interest if the Bill was introduced in the form that was shown to him. That did not mean approval.
      Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will, I think, accept that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was consulted about the intention to introduce the Bill and the principles contained therein. As a result of those consultations, clause 2 was added to the Bill.
      Mr. Maginnis: That is the clause to which you would not wish me to allude in any depth, Sir Alan. Clause 2 prevents a Minister in one legislature from being a

      253
      Minister in the other. In fact, discussion of what my right hon. Friend has suggested is not yet complete, but we shall come to the relevant amendments later.
      I suggest that the Minister intervene once again—I know that he will find this difficult, if not impossible—and tell us which of the Irish nationalist parties will take advantage of that provision, or wants to take advantage of it, or suggests that it should have the right to be a Member of another legislature in the United Kingdom as well as the Dail.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This may be of interest, but it is straying too far outside the scope of the amendments. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many arguments have been deployed over the past five hours, and he must not stray from order by repeating them too much or by not keeping within the scope of the specific amendments. I hope that he will govern his remarks accordingly.
      Mr. Maginnis: You can be assured that I will do my best, Sir Alan, while, at the same time, trying to encourage Her Majesty's Ministers to be frank with the Committee. What is the purpose of the Bill and who will it benefit beyond those who have, as yet, failed to show any inclination that they are about to disarm and, hence, to meet the requirements of us all under the Belfast agreement?
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Forth: The Committee has laboured mightily to try to elicit from the Government the rationale that lay behind the Bill—the amendments sought in part to do that and, in that context, to improve the Bill. However, we have failed, as the speech by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) showed all too well. Those of us who have sat through the debate in its entirety are little wiser than when the proceedings started as to why the Bill was introduced and why the Committee had to sit so hard on the heels of Second Reading.
      The Minister urged the Committee to reject all the amendments. In doing so, he tried—interestingly—to have the argument both ways. He tantalised us with much talk about the importance and ramifications of the Belfast agreement, while trying to distance the Government from any connection between the agreement and the Bill. The Government seem to be trying to have it both ways. They hint at, or tantalise us with, the prospect that the Bill would add significantly to the goodies—the benefits—that have flowed from the Belfast agreement thus far. That has been challenged frequently during this brief debate. However, I do not want to linger on that matter, as we may have an opportunity to return to it in our further proceedings.
      Not only are we no clearer as to the Government's motive in introducing the measure, but we are even less clear as to whether there is a connection in the Government's mind between the agreement, with all its ramifications, and the provisions of the Bill. In relation to the amendments, we are no further forward in understanding why the Minister has urged us to reject all of them, given that amendment No. 10, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), would strengthen the measure by an
      254
      explicit reference to the decommissioning process, linked to the trust that we all put in the de Chastelain part of that process.
      Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend says that we are no further forward. Has he reflected on the fact that perhaps we might have moved slightly backwards? In his summing up, the Under-Secretary used one phrase that we have not heard before: he said that there was "no direct linkage" between the Bill and the Belfast agreement. Does my right hon. Friend consider that there is some indirect linkage?
      Mr. Forth: I congratulate my hon. Friend. He has identified more from the Minister's remarks than I was able to do. He has suggested an intriguing possibility. While my hon. Friend was speaking, I watched the Minister carefully—as ever I do—and I saw him shake his head. The Minister, from a sedentary position, by subtle use of body language, sought to refute the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. From that, I conclude not only that is there no direct link, but that it would appear from what the Minister is not telling us verbally, but is telling us bodily, there is no indirect link either.
      Mr. Fallon: May I press my right hon. Friend? Does he agree that the matter is important? I made a criticism of his new clause because he was introducing to the Bill precisely the linkage that the Government were attempting to deny. If it is now suggested that there is some linkage between the Bill and the Belfast agreement, that would surely strengthen the case for my right hon. Friend's new clause.
      Mr. Forth: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend that that must be so. However, we are still left with the problem that the Minister has not yet formally conceded that point, even though I, in my modest contribution earlier, and other hon. Friends have tried to show, by quoting from yesterday's Hansard, that the Minister's very words—even more, those of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)—clearly suggested that, in their minds, there was a distinct link between the Belfast agreement and the Bill. In all those respects, we are no further forward.
      I was referring to the amendments and the new clause, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and other right hon. and hon. Friends. I was trying to establish that they did not run counter to the agreement, but were intended to reinforce what was in the Belfast agreement in the context of the Bill. The Minister rejected the new clause, for reasons that he failed to make clear.
      My own modest amendment, No. 1, tried to go even further. It tried to say that we could strengthen the Bill by amending it to give explicit recognition to the fact that, before the alleged benefits of the Bill came into effect, the parties to the agreement would all have to sign up to a statement saying that the agreement had been fully implemented. The Minister seems to have rejected even that.

      255
      What mystifies me is that we have tried genuinely, I believe, to co-operate, to take the spirit of the Bill on board and to strengthen it by means of our new clause and amendments, by making references to the decommissioning process, to the parties to the agreement and so on; yet the Minister has still seen fit to tell us that he wants the Committee to reject all those amendments.
      I have not yet mentioned the excellent amendment No. 32, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), which brings yet another imaginative approach to the Bill. It would give the Government another option that they could use to strengthen the Bill. These are not attempts to undermine the Bill. They are all patently attempts to reinforce and strengthen the Bill by making cross-references to the decommissioning process and to the agreement process; and amendment No. 32 makes an explicit reference to the rejection of terrorism.
      None of that, surely, can be regarded as remotely controversial. None of it seeks to undermine the Bill. Even those of us who voted against Second Reading have accepted the verdict of the House yesterday, and we are now seeking to look at the Bill in a positive light and to strengthen it with our amendments. I would contend that those separate approaches are not necessarily contradictory and may well be complementary.
      Therefore the Committee may—guided by you, Sir Alan—wish to express its view separately on the different approaches taken by myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I hope that you will consider that carefully, having, as ever, closely followed the Committee's deliberations, in which support has been expressed by different people for the different amendments at different stages of our deliberations.
      Even though the Minister has said that he wants all the amendments rejected out of hand, without giving sufficient reason, the Committee is entitled to take a different view. I hope that you, Sir Alan, will give the Committee an opportunity to do so in the fullest possible sense.
      Mr. Cash: I was out of the Chamber for a fairly short time because I wanted to have some discussions with other Members and ask them the reason for the Bill. I shall not betray any confidence, but I will say that I had a word with a very senior member of the Government, and when I pressed him as to the reason for the Bill, he said that it was all part of an understanding. That is as near as we have got, so far, to an explanation. There has been no explanation whatever, and I entirely—
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to tell the Committee with whom the understanding was made?
      Mr. Cash: I wish that I were in a position to be able to disclose that, but I can say that, quite clearly, the implicit suggestion was that there was an understanding with Sinn Fein-IRA. We know that discussions were going on, which have not been disclosed to the House or in any
      256
      other way—secret discussions. Baffled as many people may be by this bizarre Bill, it does not alter the fact that, in some way, there is perceived to be some advantage to Sinn Fein-IRA in the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
      Some might believe that these proposals do not relate to a member of Sinn Fein-IRA, or to any other person who may be entitled to stand for the House of Commons. However, persons who have known terrorist views could stand without any difficulty for the Assembly in Northern Ireland. It follows that we are entitled to an answer to the questions posed in my amendment. We are talking about qualification and disqualification, about membership of the Assembly and about membership of this House. The Minister has not replied to my question.
      Mr. George Howarth: I replied to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in the debate. It is just that he was not here when I did so.
      Mr. Cash: I know exactly what the Minister said, and he has not replied to my points at all. I asked him this—if a person with a track record of espousing terrorism were to take his seat, after election, in either the Assembly or this House, should he not be required to disavow terrorism before taking his seat? There has been no answer to that question, and relating it to questions of allegiance is not the entire answer. We are entitled to assume that no person who continued to espouse terrorism should be allowed to take his seat in this House or in the Assembly.
      Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend recall that the only answer that he did receive from the Minister was the technical point that the provision in the Northern Ireland Assembly applied only to members of the Administration, rather than to the membership of the Assembly itself? The Minister did not answer my hon. Friend's point.
      Mr. Cash: Indeed, and there is an enormous difference between a member of the Administration and a person seeking election. I ask the Minister again to answer my question. Clearly, he is not intending to do so because he will not come to the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Howarth: I have answered the question.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister has not answered it.
      We have had no answer on the reason for the rush, either. I suspect that it is because the Bill is part of a secret understanding, of the kind indicated to me when I was outside the precincts of the Chamber. Furthermore, there is no reciprocation in the arrangements being proposed here. I have seen the Minister shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders, giving the impression that this was a spontaneous proposal from the Government—as if they had invented the proposal out of thin air.
      The Chairman: Order. The points that the hon. Gentleman is deploying now were for Second Reading, and they are not directly addressing the amendment. I must insist that he address his remarks to the amendment. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was winding up on his own amendment. That is what he must do—not go back into the whole Second Reading debate and the reasons for the Bill.
      Mr. Cash: Indeed, but the points that I have been making are directly relevant to the question of whether or not terrorists who have not disavowed terrorism should be allowed to stand for election, as well as to take their seat in the House. It is by no means impossible that people who are terrorists and have not disavowed their terrorism will seek election in the knowledge that they will not be able to take their seats.
      Respectfully, Sir Alan, I suggest that there ought to be separate votes for the amendments which fall within the group. I am not prepared to withdraw my amendment. Furthermore, I respectfully ask you, Sir Alan, to allow a separate vote on each of the other amendments.
      11 pm
      Sir Richard Body: The Under-Secretary of State has been very patient, as he always is. However, on this occasion, his powers of persuasion have been mislaid. His comments on decommissioning and his arguments against the amendments carried no weight at all. Over several hours, he has been pressed on these issues, but he has failed to respond.
      We have been asked to rush through the Bill. It received a truncated debate yesterday on Second Reading, the whole of its Committee stage is being considered tonight and it will have its Third Reading before the end of the week. It is an important constitutional Bill, but were the Government of Ireland consulted? Presumably, they were; and that might explain why the Under-Secretary is unable to persuade us about decommissioning. I hope that every Labour Member is eager for decommissioning to take place. The amendment does little more than reaffirm that point and insist that decommissioning take place before we make yet another concession to those who are given to terrorism.
      Have the Government of Ireland been asked to intervene? Is that why we have had to give this concession, so that they might intercede on decommissioning? If that is not the reason, there is a very ugly reason for the Bill. It is that the Government are slipping away from their requirements on decommissioning. There can be no third explanation for the Bill.
      I make this plea to the Under-Secretary. Will he speak again and tell us the answers to the points that we have put? They have been put repeatedly and with almost tedious repetition, but there has been no response from him. I ask him again: what is the reason for the Bill?
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 271.

      Division No. 39]

      [11.3 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Brazier, Julian

      Baldry, Tony

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Beggs, Roy

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Bercow, John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Burns, Simon

      Blunt, Crispin

      Butterfill, John

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cash, William

      Boswell, Tim

      Clappison, James

      258

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Maginnis, Ken

      Collins, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maples, John

      Cran, James

      Mates, Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Duncan, Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Norman, Archie

      Evans, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Faber, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Flight, Howard

      Pickles, Eric

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Prior, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Randall, John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gale, Roger

      Robertson, Laurence

      Garnier, Edward

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gibb, Nick

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ruffley, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gray, James

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Green, Damian

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Greenway, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hammond, Philip

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hayes, John

      Spring, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Steen, Anthony

      Horam, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hunter, Andrew

      Syms, Robert

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Thompson, William

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tredinnick, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Trend, Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Leigh, Edward

      Wardle, Charles

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Wells, Bowen

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Loughton, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Luff, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Yeo, Tim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Mr. Peter Atkinson and

      Madel, Sir David

      Mr. Stephen Day.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Allen, Graham

      Benton, Joe

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Berry, Roger

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Best, Harold

      Austin, John

      Betts, Clive

      Banks, Tony

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Barnes, Harry

      Blizzard, Bob

      Battle, John

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Bayley, Hugh

      Borrow, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      259

      Browne, Desmond

      Heppell, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Hill, Keith

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hope, Phil

      Cann, Jamie

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Caplin, Ivor

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Chaytor, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clapham, Michael

      Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hurst, Alan

      Hutton, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Illsley, Eric

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Clelland, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Jamieson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Coleman, Iain

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Colman, Tony

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Corston, Jean

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Cousins, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cranston, Ross

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Crausby, David

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cummings, John

      Kidney, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dalyell, Tam

      Laxton, Bob

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Lepper, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dawson, Hilton

      Levitt, Tom

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Denham, John

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Linton, Martin

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Doran, Frank

      Lock, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McCabe, Steve

      Efford, Clive

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ennis, Jeff

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Macdonald, Calum

      Fisher, Mark

      McDonnell, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McFall, John

      Flint, Caroline

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McWalter, Tony

      Foulkes, George

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gapes, Mike

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gerard, Neil

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Martlew, Eric

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meale, Alan

      Grogan, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hain, Peter

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Miller, Andrew

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mitchell, Austin

      Healey, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      260

      Morley, Elliot

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Spellar, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mountford, Kali

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mudie, George

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pike, Peter L

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pollard, Kerry

      Todd, Mark

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Pound, Stephen

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Truswell, Paul

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tynan, Bill

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rammell, Bill

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Watts, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ruane, Chris

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wills, Michael

      Sawford, Phil

      Wilson, Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wise, Audrey

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wood, Mike

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Singh, Marsha

      Woolas, Phil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Snape, Peter

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Soley, Clive

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 1, line 9, after "Ireland)", add—
      "provided that, in respect of Ireland, a person who is or has been a member of a proscribed organisation within the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000 and who has not disavowed terrorism within the meaning given to that expression by that Act before taking his or her seat in the said House or Assembly shall be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly".—[Mr. Cash.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 280.

      Division No. 40]

      [11.17 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Page, Richard

      Body, Sir Richard

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Cash, William

      Robathan, Andrew

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Fallon, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      261

      Thompson, William

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wardle, Charles

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mr. Eric Forth.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Alexander, Douglas

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Allen, Graham

      Denham, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dobbin, Jim

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Austin, John

      Doran, Frank

      Banks, Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Battle, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Efford, Clive

      Beard, Nigel

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Fisher, Mark

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Flint, Caroline

      Benton, Joe

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Best, Harold

      Foulkes, George

      Betts, Clive

      Gapes, Mike

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Gerrard, Neil

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Borrow, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Browne, Desmond

      Grogan, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Hain, Peter

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Healey, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Heppell, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Chaytor, David

      Hill, Keith

      Clapham, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hope, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hurst, Alan

      Cohen, Harry

      Hutton, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Colman, Tony

      Illsley, Eric

      Connarty, Michael

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Corston, Jean

      Jamieson, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cranston, Ross

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dalyell, Tam

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      262

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rammell, Bill

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kidney, David

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rooney, Terry

      Laxton, Bob

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lepper, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruddock, Joan

      Levitt, Tom

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Linton, Martin

      Sawford, Phil

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lock, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Love, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McCabe, Steve

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Skinner, Dennis

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McFall, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Snape, Peter

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Soley, Clive

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McNulty, Tony

      Spellar, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McWalter, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stevenson, George

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stringer, Graham

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Maxton, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Merron, Gillian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Miller, Andrew

      Todd, Mark

      Mitchell, Austin

      Touhig, Don

      Moffatt, Laura

      Trickett, Jon

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Truswell, Paul

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Morley, Elliot

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mountford, Kali

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mudie, George

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mullin, Chris

      Tynan, Bill

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Wareing, Robert N

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Watts, David

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pearson, Ian

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wills, Michael

      Pike, Peter L

      Wilson, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Winnick, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Pope, Greg

      Wise, Audrey

      Pound, Stephen

      Wood, Mike

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Woolas, Phil

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Worthington, Tony

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Purchase, Ken

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Radice. Rt Hon Giles

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end add—
      "(2A) This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall not make such an order unless he has previously laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement in relation to the Belfast Agreement (Cm 3883), stating that in his opinion and in the opinion of all parties to that Agreement all aspects of the Agreement have been implemented.
      (2B) No order shall be made under subsection (2A) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".—[Mr. Forth.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 282.

      Division No. 41]

      [11.29 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Horam, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Baldry, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Beggs, Roy

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bercow, John

      Key, Robert

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Body, Sir Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Boswell, Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Leigh, Edward

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brady, Graham

      Lidington, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Luff, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Butterfill, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Cash, William

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chope, Christopher

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Madel, Sir David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maginnis, Ken

      Cran, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Day, Stephen

      Norman, Archie

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Page, Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Evans, Nigel

      Prior, David

      Faber, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence

      Fallon, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Flight Howard

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ruffley, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fraser, Christopher

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gale, Roger

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gibb, Nick

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Gray, James

      Soames, Nicholas

      Green, Damian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Greenway, John

      Spring, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Steen, Anthony

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hammond, Philip

      Syms, Robert

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Heald, Oliver

      Thompson, William

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tredinnick, David

      264

      Trend, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Walter, Robert

      Yeo, Tim

      Wardle, Charles

      Waterson, Nigel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wells, Bowen

      Mr. John Randall and

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Mr. Peter Atkinson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dawson, Hilton

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Austin, John

      Denham, John

      Banks, Tony

      Dismore, Andrew

      Barnes, Harry

      Dobbin, Jim

      Battle, John

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bayley, Hugh

      Doran, Frank

      Beard, Nigel

      Dowd, Jim

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Efford, Clive

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Ennis, Jeff

      Benton, Joe

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fisher, Mark

      Berry, Roger

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Flint, Caroline

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Foulkes, George

      Borrow, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Goggins, Paul

      Browne, Desmond

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Burgon, Colin

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Grogan, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hain, Peter

      Cann, Jamie

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Chaytor, David

      Healey, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heppell, John

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hope, Phil

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cohen, Harry

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Colman, Tony

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Corston, Jean

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hurst, Alan

      Cranston, Ross

      Hutton, John

      Crausby, David

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jamieson, David

      265

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rammell, Bill

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kidney, David

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rooney, Terry

      Laxton, Bob

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lepper, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruddock, Joan

      Levitt, Tom

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Linton, Martin

      Sawford, Phil

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lock, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Love, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McCabe, Steve

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McFall, John

      Snape, Peter

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Soley, Clive

      McIsaac, Shona

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Spellar, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McNulty, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWalter, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stringer, Graham

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Maxton, John

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Merron, Gillian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Todd, Mark

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Touhig, Don

      Miller, Andrew

      Trickett, Jon

      Mitchell, Austin

      Truswell, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Morley, Elliot

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Tynan, Bill

      Mountford, Kali

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Mudie, George

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Mullin, Chris

      Wareing, Robert N

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Watts, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Wills, Michael

      Pearson, Ian

      Wilson, Brian

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Winntek, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Pike, Peter L

      Wise, Audrey

      Plaskitt, James

      Wood, Mike

      Pollard, Kerry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Pope, Greg

      Woolas, Phil

      266

      Worthington, Tony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, line 9, at end add—
      '(2A) This section shall come into force on a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall not make such an order unless he is satisfied that Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland'.
      This is the point in our proceedings where the debate can be broadened considerably. So far, we have concentrated on some narrowly drawn amendments, but amendment No. 2 covers a much broader matter of principle. None the less, it is important. The point that underlies it is, in one sense, simple, but it properly opens a debate on a principle that I will characterise as reciprocity, for want of a better word. It does not appear in the amendment, but I hope that you agree, Sir Alan, that it admirably sums up the essence of the amendment.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have listened to my right hon. Friend and read the amendment, but it strikes me that he asks for reciprocity because he does not trust the people with whom the arrangement is being made. Surely that is not the case.
      Mr. Forth: I will perhaps come to the matter of who trusts whom in a slightly different context shortly. The point that I wanted to make in laying the ground for the amendment is this: should the change be unilateral or should it be made only if there is an equal and reciprocal change by the legislature that is most involved—that of the Republic of Ireland?
      We have to confront two separate issues immediately. First, I make no apology for coming back, however briefly, to the motivation behind the Bill and whether it is designed to react to the Irish Government or, indeed, to any other body. More important, we have to consider as a free-standing issue whether the Bill can and should proceed, regardless of what happens at the other end of the process. Put at its simplest, the question is whether we should accept into this legislative body Members of the Irish Republic's legislature when Members here are not allowed into that body.
      Mr. Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me as to how the introduction of reciprocity makes an offensive Bill less offensive? Can he describe the conditions in which any right-minded hon. Member, having the interests of the UK at heart—as he would, having taken the Oath—would wish to serve in the Dail?
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Forth: We can perhaps deal with such matters shortly. I am not sure whether it is for me to explore the motivation of Members of the Irish legislature or that of any of us who might wish to go there—although the point may become relevant as I develop my argument—but my hon. Friend's useful intervention reminds me that the principle of the Bill is something on which we can agree or disagree.

      267
      I voted against Second Reading but accept that, as the House has taken the view that the Bill is acceptable in principle, the Committee's task is to determine whether and to what extent we can improve it. In that context, I should like my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to be absolutely clear that, although I do not agree with the Bill's principle, I have to accept the verdict of the House. Accordingly, the spirit in which I move my amendment—which seeks to strengthen the Bill and its purpose—is very positive.
      We must therefore ask whether it is right, sensible and acceptable, within the sense and principle of the Bill, which was accepted on Second Reading, now to contemplate the possibility of Members of a legislature of another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland—coming to this place when no such right exists for Members of the House of Commons to go there.
      As you know, Sir Alan, Irish law currently states that only Irish citizens may be Members of the Irish legislature. I should say immediately that I agree with that. I believe that we should adopt the Irish approach to the matter, rather than any other, because I think that they have it right. They obviously have a proper sense of their nationhood, of the sovereignty of their country and of the important symbolic value of their legislature as an expression of that sovereignty.
      It is Members of this place who, if the Bill were to proceed through all its stages, would compromise our concept of nationhood and sovereignty by admitting the principle that Members of the legislature of another country may be admitted to the House of Commons. It is a very important principle.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As someone who was born and bred in the Republic, I say that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are an insult to millions of people in this land. He has no right to insult as he does millions of us who have given our allegiance in life and in death to this land. What does he seek to do—to erect the walls of yesteryear?
      The Chairman: Order. That was a Second Reading intervention on a Second Reading passage of a speech that should be dealing with amendment No. 2. I am not prepared to listen again to arguments of principle related to Second Reading. Although I allowed such arguments to be deployed in moderation in the previous debate, which was on a wide amendment, I must correct the impression of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): he may think that this is a widely drawn amendment, but I do not, and I shall rule accordingly.
      Mr. Forth: Sir Alan, I not only accept, but welcome your guidance in these matters. In seeking to make proper progress, we should have due regard to an amendment' s breadth or otherwise. I had mistakenly thought that, in my amendment, I was seeking to import into the Bill a matter of broad principle. You have said otherwise and I accept that ruling without question.
      Let us concentrate, therefore, on my amendment's very narrow point on reciprocity, which must be a relatively simple matter for the Committee to resolve. Are we
      268
      prepared to contemplate the Bill proceeding without a reciprocal arrangement or not? At the other end of this deal are the Irish, whom, I tell the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I was praising to the skies. I wish that we could have taken a similar approach to theirs in the matter. The Irish have within their law a provision that I should rather that we had. Regrettably, however, that is not the direction in which the Bill seeks to take us.
      I suggest that the amendment would reassure the Committee, the House and the people of the United Kingdom that, at the very least, an equal and opposite arrangement could be established that would allow for the mutual exchange of members of the legislatures.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one problem with the Bill is the lack of trust on both sides? Is not inclusion of the principle of reciprocity essential if trust in both halves of the deal being delivered is to be built up? That affects every element in the Bill, including the narrow point under discussion.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not trust the Government's intentions with the Bill, as they have not explained the motivation behind it. Trusting the legislators of the Irish Republic is another matter, but their law makes their view clear. The risk is that, unamended, the Bill sends out an opposite and very dangerous signal.
      Mr. Fabricant: Is not my right hon. Friend being a little unfair to the Dail, which has conceded that it no longer has territorial rights over Northern Ireland? Is not that a concession, and does it not suggest at least an element of reciprocity?
      Mr. Forth: No, I am not sure that that is so. The gesture was important in terms of the Belfast agreement, but the problem of whether that agreement is relevant to the Bill remains. Many of us think that it is, but Ministers sometimes say that it may be, and at other times that it is not. Therefore, I am not sure that the radical changes that have taken place in the Republic of Ireland's constitutional arrangements are germane to this debate. Sir Alan has placed a very narrow construct on this amendment, so I am not sure that what my hon. Friend suggests is relevant.
      The amendment speaks for itself. It states that the Secretary of State will not make an order to bring the provision into force
      "unless he is satisfied that Members of the House of Lords and House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland."
      We are talking about full reciprocity between two bicameral legislatures. That does not exist at present. The Bill would—
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that I can assist the right hon. Gentleman. I know that it is not easy, when one is advancing an argument, to be aware of the words that one is using. However, I can assure him that I have listened

      269
      extremely carefully. He has now repeated six times the wording of the amendment in one form or another. That is getting to the point of excess.
      Mr. Forth: Thank you, Sir Alan.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: Of course.
      Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend consider it possible that some conflict might arise if Members of the Dail sought to become Members of the House of Commons, given the need to take the Oath or to affirm? Similarly, might there not be problems for Members of this Parliament when it came to taking the relevant oath—or whatever is required—required by the legislature of the Republic of Ireland?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point but I am not sure that it bears upon the substance of my amendment. It is one thing to enable Members to qualify for membership of a legislature; whether individuals think that they can do what is necessary to become Members is quite another. In other words, I may be qualified to become a Member of the Irish legislature, but if I did not feel able to take whatever oath was required there, I might not want to put myself forward. There is a real difference. I am involved only in stage one of the process, if I may put it like that, not stage two.
      Mr. Alan Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any other country that allows its citizens to sit in another country's Parliament?
      The Chairman: Order. That was covered fully on Second Reading, and is not permissible in the context of the debate on this amendment.
      Mr. Forth: Thank you, Sir Alan.
      Mr. John Bercow: As one who seeks always to be a moderating influence on the deliberations of the Chamber, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the real problem is not the fact that thus far reciprocity has not been formally offered or confirmed in law, but that the Republic of Ireland, having long pontificated on this matter, has yet to offer us the product of its lucubrations? Does he think that the problem is rather like that of Billy Bunter and the postal order that does not arrive?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has the advantage of me in that he follows in detail the proceedings of the Irish legislature which, I confess, I do not. We are, in any case, sticking to the amendment, and I was about to say, partly in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), that I recognise that there could be an obstacle in the way of the amendment. I warn hon. Members that they may have to give some thought as to how serious that obstacle is. I refer to the different basis on which the political process works in terms of membership, election to this House and the Irish legislature.
      270
      Ireland has a proportional system of election that carries with it implications not only for the selection of candidates but for their election to the legislature. We, on the other hand, have our time-honoured and excellent single-member constituency system, whereby each constituency has the power—at least in our party—freely to select its candidates. I confess that that difference may be an obstacle to the full operation or fulfilment of the terms of my amendment. It need not be insuperable, because I still think that the fulfilment of its intention would rest with the individuals involved and their determination to exercise the right that it would give them to seek election to the Irish legislature from here or the right of Members of that legislature to seek election here.
      I mention that in passing, because it may be a consideration in the minds of hon. Members. I leave them to decide. I believe that the obstacle can be overcome, but I would understand if colleagues felt that it presents great difficulty.
      I do not want to test your patience any further, Sir Alan. You have been very kind in guiding me through the amendment. I characterised it with one word at the beginning, which was perhaps rather foolish of me, because it might have restricted my own approach to the amendment. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Committee that this is a vital principle. It is completely absent from the Bill and is essential for the purpose of carrying it further. I hope that the Committee will give it serious thought and support it overwhelmingly.
      Mr. William Ross: This has been an interesting debate so far, Sir Alan, and we are always glad of your guidance to keep us in order. Reciprocation and equality of esteem are buzz words in Northern Ireland, especially in Government circles. Parity of esteem is a phrase that we hear day after day—although not everyone believes that it exists, especially in the Government's attitude to the Unionist population of Northern Ireland.
      12 midnight
      In view of that, I confess to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I shall treat the amendment as a probing amendment. I want to try to find out what the Government think about those matters, and what representations they have made, on behalf of Members of this and the other place, to ensure that they have absolute clarity as to the intentions of the Government of the Irish Republic. Do they realise that the people of the Irish Republic might have to hold a referendum on the issue if a change were required to their constitution?
      Members of this place are not too clear about written constitutions; they are not clear as to their legality and the possibility of legal action, nor about the need to hold a referendum of the whole population before a change can be made to a written constitution. People in the Irish Republic could go to the High Court—as some members of our party did some years' ago—and obtain a decision declaring that any effort to set up reciprocal arrangements in this matter was completely illegal.
      In those circumstances, even if the Government of the Irish Republic wanted to allow Members of this and the other place to stand for election to the Dail, that would not be allowed under the constitution. That would mean

      271
      that if the Government of the Irish Republic wanted to make such a change, they would have to hold a referendum—at considerable cost to them. I do not know how many millions of punts it would cost, but it would cost a lot of money to undertake such a venture.
      If the proposition were accepted, the way would be clear for Members of this place to stand for Dail Eireann as well as being able to sit in the Senate—as they can at present. In the Irish Republic, the Senate is partly elected and partly appointed by the Prime Minister—the way in which we seem to be moving in relation to the House of Lords. However, I shall leave that point, Sir Alan, as I see that you are becoming uneasy. I may be reaching the limits of your patience—stretching the elastic a little—and I should not want to do that.
      Real issues are inherent in the measure. We have already discussed the possibility of conflict of interest as it might affect the Executive in Northern Ireland and people from the Dail or elsewhere who might sit here. Earlier, the Government made it clear that they accept that there would be a conflict of interest at ministerial level.
      The amendment, in effect, turns the slate over—to consider what would happen if Members of this place should find themselves sitting in the Dail. In those circumstances, there would be a grave conflict of interest—perhaps one that would not be helpful to Dublin. Sitting in their midst might be an individual whose primary loyalty might not be to the Irish Republic and the whole concept of that nation.
      Since yesterday, I have discovered that one does not have to take an Oath to sit in the Dail, although one does have to do so to be a Minister or to be the President. Indeed, at present, a citizen of the United Kingdom is President of the Irish Republic. However, as she is an Irish nationalist, and well known as such, she had no difficulty in taking the Oath, thereby deserting the whole concept of being a United Kingdom citizen. However, that is a side issue.
      Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. Although he says that no Oath is required for one's entry to the Dail, does he agree that everyone subscribing to the Irish nation is bound by the Irish constitution? I illustrate that by asking whether he recalls the court case in which five judges ruled that there was a "constitutional imperative" on all Irish people to achieve a united Ireland. They did not say how that would be achieved. Articles 2 and 3—the territorial claim—have been got rid of, but there is still a "constitutional imperative" on every person participating within the Irish nation to pursue the Irish interest.
      Mr. Ross: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I had hoped that that court decision had been overthrown by events, but he is much more expert on that issue than I am, so I am prepared to go along with his word unless the Minister can clear up the matter. He is bound to have explored that possibility in depth, and to be in a position to give us a clear answer to the point made by my hon. Friend.
      Let us imagine that a Member of this place arrives in the Dail. In those circumstances, the Government of Ireland, the people of Ireland and the Dail would be faced
      272
      with a very able man—a man from this side of the water would need to be very able to get elected to the Dail. He would probably have to stand as an independent. I could not see him being a member of Fianna Fail. He might join the Democratic Left. He would be a powerful voice, whose first duty, if he was a Member of Parliament, would be to this House, as a member of this nation. That powerful voice would be in the Dail, pushing a social and economic interest that might be at variance with that which at present—
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is putting a very interesting case, but the amendment talks about the Secretary of State being satisfied, so we are talking about a narrower case than that which the hon. Gentleman is putting at the moment.
      Mr. Ross: I am trying to clarify to the Secretary of State the issues that he would have to consider before he reached that decision. I am also trying to help the right hon. Gentleman to have a clear understanding of all the implications of the question that would then be before him. As his behaviour in Northern Ireland has not been such as to convince many of us that he really understands the Irish question or the Irish people, never mind the Ulster people, he needs all the help that he can get.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Yes, but all that the Secretary of State needs to know is about the confines of the amendment before us; and, knowing the Secretary of State, he is more than capable of doing that.
      Mr. Ross: But the amendment must be set in the context—
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman is convinced that the current Secretary of State is very capable of being satisfied, but he might not be in post for very long. Who knows? Someone less capable could succeed him.
      Mr. Ross: Of course, and it would be possible to find someone less capable and with less understanding of the Irish situation, who could therefore become a bone of contention between this nation and Dublin. We really would not want that to happen. As I was saying when I was hauled back within order, Mr. Martin, I believe that that would be a problem.
      People from other foreign legislatures might want to sit in the Dail. As you will appreciate, Mr. Martin, I would not be one of them. If there is one legislature on the face of this earth that I do not want to be a part of, it is Dail Eireann, so there will be no problem in dissuading me from moving in that direction. I am very happy where I am, and I hope to stay here for many years to come.
      Another problem that arises is that Northern Ireland citizens are treated as Irish citizens by Dublin. For instance, if I wanted an Irish passport, all that I would have to do would be to drive down to Dublin with my photographs and get it. Whenever passport offices here have queues stretching around the block, many people have gone to Dublin. They have done so unwillingly, and because they could not afford to lose their holidays. They could always get a British passport later. In passing, it is sad that UK passport applicants have to pay for the Government's misdemeanours in that area, but that matter clearly falls outside the limits of the amendment.

      273
      An all-party commission in the Dail is examining the possibility of allowing the Northern Ireland Assembly some sort of representation in the Dail. I have referred to the efforts made by Sinn Fein-IRA to allow Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to sit in the Dail. That is a dangerous road to go down, and we would need to know the underlying theory behind the IRA's demand. When the Dail talks about representation, it might not mean voting representation, so that would not be much use to anyone wanting to go there.
      There is an excellent Library research paper concerning how a Member of Parliament—or any elected representative—can carry out duties in two disparate, different legislatures. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who has left the Chamber, seems to manage fairly well in three—this sovereign Parliament, the European Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, he is a man of enormous energy, and he can possibly manage better than the rest of us.
      How could anyone carry out their duties in this House—as a Minister of the Crown, perhaps—and then hop on a plane and get over for a vote in Dublin, or vice versa? I can make it door-to-door in four and half hours from my home to here, but I cannot imagine people doing that every day of the week. There is also the question of who would pay the travel costs. Would the travel costs from here to Dublin be paid by Dublin, and vice versa? What are the ramifications of this proposal?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment, and I think that he is aware of that. Perhaps he can get back to the confines of the amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not need to explain why. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that he is moving wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Ross: I am always grateful for your guidance, Mr. Martin, and the guidance from the Chair is always sound—it is never wrong. However, I am trying to ensure that the Secretary of State, in reaching a decision, stays within the confines of reason and those elements to which he must give consideration.
      Mr. Robathan: Is not it a qualification of membership of both legislatures that one must do one's job properly for constituents? If one has constituents in Leicestershire, for instance, one must look after them. However, if one has constituents in Connemara or Donegal, one must look after them. Surely those are two competing claims on the qualification for membership of both legislatures.
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point which, down the years, has bedevilled those in the House who have looked at what should disqualify a Member of the House. One of the issues considered in terms of disqualification is the time available for a Member to carry out his duties in this place to his constituents.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Surely it is not just a question of the time demands on the hon. Members concerned, but the fact that the interests of the two different constituencies represented by the same Member of the two legislatures could well be in conflict with one another. How can that be resolved?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to have to keep interrupting proceedings. However, I am
      274
      reading the same amendment as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—it is about the Secretary of State being satisfied, and not about whether a person is capable of doing the job.
      Mr. Ross: I just want to say one sentence in reply to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised that very point yesterday, and it was definitely not answered. My hon. Friend made the point succinctly and it is well worth while reading his speech because it clearly illustrates the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Swayne: It may be the lateness of the hour or the result of a momentary lapse of attention on my part, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be developing a powerful argument for voting against the amendments. Am I mistaken in thinking that he said that he was in favour of the amendment?
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. To some extent, I am treating this is a probing amendment. However, if I am not satisfied with the answers that I receive from Ministers, I shall certainly vote for it. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has been a powerful supporter of the Unionist position and he has greater experience of these matters than I do. Therefore, I will, on this occasion, bow to his judgment. It will not take very much to persuade me to vote for the amendment.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to refer specifically to the words in the amendment. Will my hon. Friend interpret for me what he understands by the words that refer to the Secretary of State—and I hope to the House of Commons as well? It uses the phrase
      "unless he is satisfied that Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland".
      What does my hon. Friend understand by the phrase "qualified for membership"? It could mean a whole range of things—their intellectual capacities, their educational qualifications or the fact that they are just Members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. How does he interpret those words?
      Mr. Ross: That is one reason why I treat this as a probing amendment. Someone who goes to either part of the legislature of the Irish Republic must be an Irish citizen. However, as I pointed out yesterday, those in the Irish football team might not always be considered as members of the Irish nation. Some of them qualify to play for it because they have an Irish grandfather. I have heard the team described as the English second string, but it has done very well—and good luck to it.
      I am curious about the provision and that is why I want my questions answered. Is the fact that a person is—or can claim to be—an Irish citizen sufficient to qualify him? What about Members of the House of Lords? I am not sure about the current position but, until recently, peers could not vote. Some well known peers have large properties in Ireland and live there part of the year. Are they qualified?

      275
      The Secretary of State has to make an order. Does that order have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament or will it be possible for it to appear in a preliminary form with white or green edges so that we could consider it and make representations about its amendment to the Secretary of State? What will the legislative procedure be to resolve the problems that are outlined in the amendment?
      Mr. Fabricant: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. He asked whether the Secretary of State alone or the House should make the decision. Surely the judgment would not be a qualitative, but a quantitative one. It would not be a question of opinion, but of fact. It would relate to whether Members of this House or the other place are entitled to sit at that time in the Dail.
      Mr. Ross: That is a matter which could be resolved only by reference to the rules of the Dail and by reference to the Government of the Irish Republic. Perhaps, we could set up a committee between this House and the Dail to discuss and explore all the problems that might arise if we made a mistake. For example, we would not want to say that the hon. Gentleman could go to the Dail and then find at the last minute that the party that was depending on him or the independents that wanted him would not be able to choose him. That would not be right at all. We have to be dead certain that all the implications have been thoroughly thought through, the lines are clear and we know exactly where we stand. Enough has been said to illustrate that there are several difficulties that must be explored.
      I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 disqualified members of the Northern Ireland Executive from sitting in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State should bear that in mind. I note in passing that, at present, Members of the European Parliament cannot be members of the Northern Ireland Executive. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is not a member of the Executive, but the deputy leader of his party is. The same is true of the SDLP: the deputy leader is a member of the Executive, but the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is not. The two members of those parties who are members of the Executive are, of course, Members of the House of Commons, but the leaders of those two parties are debarred by the rules of the European Parliament, of which they are Members, from taking up posts in the Northern Ireland Executive. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), nods.
      That example demonstrates that reciprocity is not easy to achieve. There are all sorts of rules, regulations and problems that the Government have not fully thought through. It is the Committee's duty to explore such matters and to seek explanations in the hope that, this evening, we might receive an answer to one of our questions. If we did, it would make such a pleasant change that we would hardly believe our luck. I do not expect an answer to any of my questions, but I do ask for one. If we do not get any answers, I am sure that we shall return to these matters on Report.
      276
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has complained about remarks made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. If he were to stand, the hon. Gentleman might be elected to the Dail—[Laughter.] It is possible—he would certainly have a better chance than I would. One has to think through the steps one must take to get elected to the Dail. The Secretary of State should listen carefully, because both he and his Under-Secretary are familiar with the single transferable vote system of election.
      I believe that there are one or two Dail constituencies in Dublin that send five, six, seven or eight Members to the Dail. Let us take a four-Member constituency—the mathematics are easier to work out at this time of night. Only 20 per cent. of the votes plus one vote are needed to secure election: that is the quota the candidate needs to be home and dry. As one moves down the list, fewer and fewer votes are needed to secure election. Even if the hon. Member for St. Helens, South received a relatively small number of votes—the absolutely derisory vote that results from a by-election in a safe Labour seat or a council election, both of which attract extremely low turnout—he could in such a constituency be home and dry, a Member of the Dail. Other Members of the UK Parliament might be able to do the same. However, if the hon. Gentleman stood in a place like Donegal, where the number of seats is carefully controlled so as to ensure that it is far more difficult to get elected—Donegal is where the pro-Union population lives—he would find it impossible to get elected.
      I shall not weary the House with a chapter and verse description of the STV system of election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I shall not do so, if only because you, Mr. Martin, might consider such a description of the workings of the STV system and of the way in which the count is done to be out of order. I know that hon. Members would find it interesting, but, if not quite out of order, I would be stretching the First Deputy Chairman's patience.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: It would be breakfast time before we finished.
      Mr. Ross: On many occasions, it has been breakfast time on the second day before the result is announced.
      Mr. Brady: It may be out of order to go into detail about the single transferable vote, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has answered one of his earlier questions. With a multi-Member constituency, clearly a Member could come to this place and serve here while the other Members in the constituency worked for the constituents. That is one of the great failings of the multi-Member system.
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a failing. However, he will understand that the Member who was carrying out his duties in this place would be throwing an extra burden on the other Members of the Dail elected. It would be possible for him to be only a representative of his party. The boundaries are often drawn as they are by the governing party because it knows how people vote. That Member could find himself getting into trouble with the Whips in the Dail, and we would not want that, would we?

      277
      An enormous number of points must be answered by the Minister when he responds to the debate. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has left us again. That is sad because he is not taking enough interest in the ramifications of the matter. It seems that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will respond.
      Mr. Brady: To the single transferable vote point?
      Mr. Ross: The STV was wished upon us in Northern Ireland by the House of Commons. I note that the Government have cold feet and do not want to wish it upon themselves. Long may that happy situation persist because it is the most abominable system. Having had experience of other forms of proportional representation in this place, there is a certain coolness among those on the Government Benches towards the concept.
      Mr. John Hayes: With respect, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is straying a little far from the narrow confines of the amendment. I say that with respect, Mr. Martin. I draw him back to the specific point that is contained in the amendment about reciprocal arrangements and qualification. The hon. Gentleman has abbreviated his remarks generally, to the great loss of the Committee, and especially when he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about qualification. Was he speaking about legal qualification, and will he elaborate upon that in respect of the reciprocal arrangements? Or was he speaking about qualification in terms of political legitimacy? Will he elaborate on the issue and go into some detail in answering the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, which in my estimation he failed to answer?
      Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) arose because of his intervention. That being so, I did not have time to explore the point that he was raising. I wish that that time had been available to me because it might have been possible to have considered the issue in more depth. I shall keep in mind what he said and I hope that we can return to it on Report. It can be taken up in the House of Lords or perhaps when it returns to this place, having been properly amended. It is clear that the Bill needs many and various amendments that will be of great importance.
      Mr. Fabricant: We all know that in this place we have role models. We have heroes whom we worship. It is fairly well known in the House of Commons that my right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is my hero. For that reason, I speak in favour of the amendment.
      I was trying to get my head round the amendment, as we say in the broadcasting profession. I was trying to understand my right hon. Friend's motivation in tabling it. I think that the motivation was summed up admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), when he said, "Mr. Martin, it is all down to trust."
      Before I entered the House of Commons, in 1992, when some would say I did a real job, although they would be unfair in saying that, I was involved in setting up radio stations in about 48 countries throughout the world. In
      278
      some of those countries one could easily come to a bargain; one simply shook a hand and the deal was done—for example, with the BBC in the United Kingdom, or in Holland. I would make an offer, it would be accepted and the deal would be done. In other circumstances, one could not always trust such a handshake, and reciprocity was required. If one wanted to enter into a contract, not only offer and acceptance but consideration were required.
      12.30 am
      Why do we feel that trust does not exist between us and certain elements with whom we have entered into negotiations in the past year? I do not wish to stray from the narrow terms of the amendment, but the answer is clear: trust does not exist because of decommissioning. When we entered into a contract with representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA, the terms made it clear that decommissioning would be undertaken. Yet, as we speak, at 31 minutes past the hour on 26 January, not one weapon or bullet has been handed over. Time ticks on.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Can my hon. Friend suggest the reason for Sinn Fein's failure to decommission in January or February if it intends to do so totally by May? Does that not suggest a lack of trust?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no scope for discussing decommissioning on amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Fabricant: I always take your advice, Mr. Martin, but my hon. Friend's point is well made. If an action is to be completed by May, it could be taken in January, February or March. Failure to decommission creates doubt and lack of trust. I have now got my head around the problem, and I realise why my hero and right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tabled the amendment: there is doubt about whether trust can exist between the parties involved. I believe that shady dealing might well occur. That is worrying.
      Mr. Hayes: It is all very well to talk about slap and tickle while shaking hands with heroes and others around the world—I am sure my hon. Friend enjoyed that. However, although my hon. Friend argues that we are considering a matter of trust, we are in fact discussing qualification. As I suggested to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), qualification is either a legal matter or a broader issue. It may well be broader, and cover some of the subjects that we debated earlier, such as the ability to serve a constituency, conflict of interest and so on. Rather than entertaining us with stories of Holland and other exotic climes, my hon. Friend should concentrate on qualification, which is at the heart of the amendment.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend's incisive mind has cut to the point like a scalpel. He repeated a point that I made to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) when I said that the ability of a Member of Parliament to sit in another legislature was a qualitative, not a quantitative matter.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wants to put down a marker to the effect that trust cannot exist as long as decommissioning, and other

      279
      factors involved in the agreements that have been reached, have not been fulfilled equally by both sides of the bargain. When concessions are made continually by one side and not the other—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making what might be considered a Second Reading speech. It might have assisted him to read the amendment before rising.
      Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I am reading the amendment now and I read it earlier too. It states that
      "the Secretary of State shall not make such an order unless he is satisfied that Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland"—
      the Dail. I repeat that this is a quantitative matter, not a qualitative matter. It is not an analogue issue but a digital issue. It is either 1 or 0; yes or no. There is no rainbow. There is no spectrum. Either it is so or it is not so.
      The reason for amendment No. 2 is a lack of trust. 1 thought that the Bill was fairly straightforward. The hon. Member for East Londonderry referred to an Act of 1920. I did not catch all the details and it is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber. If any hon. Gentleman could assist by explaining the 1920 Act, I shall be most grateful.
      Mr. Beggs rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not for any hon. Member to give details of a different piece of legislation. This is a narrow amendment, and the hon. Gentleman should speak to it.
      Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) agree that, despite the wording of the amendment, the reality is that it is simply a device to enable members of Sinn Fein-IRA to sit in both the Dail and the House of Commons? Let us face up to that.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's intervention refers to, but the Committee is debating amendment No. 2. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Bill may be a device to allow something to happen, it is one thing—but the Committee is debating not the Bill as a whole but a narrow amendment to it moved by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      Mr. Fabricant: You are of course absolutely right, Mr. Martin. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Members of the Dail will only be allowed to sit in this House if we are allowed to sit in their place.
      Mr. Bercow: Some members have focused on the word "qualified"—rather as bees focus on a honeypot. Does my
      280
      hon. Friend think that the critics of amendment No. 2 would have their concerns allayed if the word "eligible" were substituted for the word "qualified"?
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend, as ever, not only plays with words but uses them to the advantage of the Committee. It is not for me to speculate on what members of the Front Bench might wish to do.
      Mr. Hayes rose—
      Mr. Swayne rose—
      Mr. Fabricant: I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who tried to attract my attention earlier.
      Mr. Swayne: The thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is that there is a lack of trust, which requires us to build reciprocity into the Bill because we cannot wait upon the expectation that reciprocity will be provided if we do not. What I cannot follow is whether that reciprocity is desirable or desired.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend asks a perceptive question. Is the amendment desired or desirable? Surprisingly enough, the amendment is not the question.
      Mr. Hayes rose—
      Mr. Fabricant: I will not give way immediately to my hon. Friend, who was so rude about my previous career, but I will give way to him in a moment. Surely the point is that we are putting down a marker.
      Mr. Hayes: I meant no discourtesy when I referred to my hon. Friend's previous career. I bear him no grudges, as he well knows.
      The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) seemed to be deeply confused, although my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield claims that he is a master of the language. He talked about eligibility and qualification as though they were significantly different in specific regard to the amendment. I suggest that if he looks carefully at the 1920 Act, he will understand that there is no significant difference and that eligibility for membership of either the House or the Irish Parliament lies at the heart of the amendment. Rather than entertaining us lavishly with stories about dancing over rainbows and all sorts of other interesting things, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield should draw attention to that specific point. I hope that he will do so with rather more speed than he has shown so far.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am shocked, Mr. Martin. My hon. Friend is applying for your job. He may at least be trying to ingratiate himself and clearly wants to move on quickly, but he has missed the point and has not been following the arguments at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said, this is a question of trust. Why should we not trust those with whom we enter into a contract? That has everything to do with experience. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that experiences, whether

      281
      in business or negotiations over politics, colour one's mind as to whether one should enter into a contract with total trust. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tabled the amendment simply because he has no grounds for trusting the other parties. Would it be right for the House of Commons to accept Members of the Dail to serve in it if there was no reciprocal agreement for Members of the House to serve in the Dail? The whole House would say that that would be wrong.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to my hon. Friend's argument with great care and ask for his interpretation of my view. It is possible that the amendment has been tabled to show that reciprocity is completely inoperable. If it is inoperable, the purpose of the Bill is unacceptable. Without reciprocity, it would be quite wrong for the House to grant to Members from another country and another Parliament the right and opportunity to sit in the House, and we have heard that reciprocity is out of the question and inoperable.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend raises a powerful point. He says that reciprocity does not exist, which is unacceptable to the House. Where has there been reciprocity so far? There has been concession after concession after concession, and they have all been one sided. I do not want to stray from the amendment, but I must say that although I was cautious at first about saying anything that I felt might damage the peace process, I see unfortunate parallels when I look back over the past few months and cast my mind back in history to what happened between 1936 and 1938. We have learned that if there is not reciprocity there will be defeat, cruelty and injustice.
      I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings that it was perfectly valid to talk about my own experiences of negotiating in countries overseas. I believe that we have strong grounds to doubt the judgment and honesty of the other people in the negotiation and every reason to table and support amendments that ask for reassurance.
      Mr. Hayes: I should like to make it quite clear that my attempt was only to bring my hon. Friend back to the confines of the amendment in respect of eligibility. I think he has moved with some speed on to that, and his final remarks clearly dealt with much of what I wanted him to cover. I did not mean any offence either to the Chair or to my hon. Friend, but that does not apply to the remarks I made about my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
      Mr. Fabricant: On those very warm notes, and with a feeling of touchy-feely, huggy-kissy reciprocity—as far as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings is concerned at least—I will rest my case.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Fallon: It is a peculiar feature of this amendment that both its proposers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), not only supported it but introduced arguments opposing it. Perhaps they were saving themselves the trouble of winding up their own debate. Who knows?
      282
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that I have exactly the same doubts about amendment No. 2 as I had about amendment No. 1. If one is opposed to the principle of the Bill, which my right hon. Friend signally is—he spoke against it with great distinction and voted against it not 24 hours ago—it is impossible to suggest to the Committee that it can somehow be improved by his amendment. If one is opposed to the principle that one cannot be subject to two sovereign states, that one cannot bear allegiance to two sovereign Parliaments, it is odd to suggest that that can simply be cured by reciprocity.
      There is no logical limit to the point that my right hon. Friend makes. Let us suppose that the People's Republic of China offered us reciprocity. We could suggest one Member of this House who might well volunteer to be a member of the National Congress of China. But clearly that would be nonsense.
      This leads me to wonder what motivated my right hon. Friend to propose this peculiar concept of reciprocity. I wonder whether there is some secret understanding that my right hon. Friend has negotiated with the Republic of Ireland, whether he has been given undertakings that the Republic of Ireland would welcome the candidacy of certain Members of this House. In tabling the amendment and advocating reciprocity, my right hon. Friend ought to come clean with the Committee and reveal any understandings that he has come to or that have been put to him about possible joint membership of the two legislatures.
      I come, finally, to the crux of the amendment, which you, Mr. Martin, identified and about which there has already been some discussion: the whole question of qualification for membership. I would suggest to the Committee a further point, which lies not so much in the words "qualified for membership", although those words, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out, are fraught with ambiguity. There is also a problem with who is to be satisfied and the fact that it is the Secretary of State. In our system, the question of whether somebody is eligible to stand for Parliament is a matter of law, not a matter for the subjective judgment of a Secretary of State. It is a matter clearly set out in statute.
      My right hon. Friend may have good and novel arguments for the reciprocity that he is putting forward, but I would ask him to address that specific point. Are we really right to leave to the subjective judgment of the Secretary of State—who is, whether we like it or not, a member of one political party—the decision as to whether candidates from other political parties are qualified to stand for membership of another legislature? That is a dangerous suggestion. The Chair has already indicated that it would be prepared to look kindly on manuscript amendments. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, even at this late stage, he could table an amendment making it clear that the definition of qualification for membership should be set down in statute, and not left to the judgment of a Secretary of State.
      Mr. Brady: Surely the Secretary of State would be bound by the normal principles. He would have to exercise his discretion with a degree of reasonableness, and would be open to judicial review if he did not do so.
      Mr. Fallon: That is precisely the sort of eventuality that we should guard against. It should not be for the

      283
      courts to decide who is eligible, after appeals, reviews, seats being declared void and so on. That is the whole point. We should set down in statute who is eligible to be a Member of this House. I do not want that to be left to the subjective judgment of the Secretary of State, to judicial review, or to an appeal process.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and I are overcome with curiosity about who wanted to be a member of the Congress of the People's Republic of China. We think that it could only be the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
      Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to deal with the south China question, but I will not allow myself to be tempted.
      I think that my right hon. Friend needs to do a little more work on the amendment. I am not persuaded that simply proposing, negotiating or agreeing reciprocity will cure the faults that lie at the centre of the Bill. It is not possible to be a subject of two sovereign states, or to bear allegiance to two sovereign Parliaments. No amount of reciprocity with any assembly or Parliament in the European Union, the western world, China or anywhere else can deal with those fundamental faults.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has argued powerfully that two, three or four wrongs do not make a right. Does he agree, however, that it is particularly important in the context of amendment No. 2 to ensure clarity, and that discretion—fettered or otherwise—for the current incumbent of the post of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is especially dangerous, given that that right hon. Gentleman, whatever his talents, is a notoriously tricky customer?
      Mr. Fallon: That is exactly the sort of suggestion that is bound to be made. Once the House decides to give discretion to any kind of Secretary of State, all kinds of questions are bound to be raised about that Secretary of State's party allegiance, his partiality, his own place in the peace process in Northern Ireland, and so forth.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will improve his amendment by removing the subjective test, and defining eligibility for membership in statute. Even if he is prepared to do that, however, I shall have deep reservations about the possibility of dealing with the whole question of dual loyalty simply by reciprocity. I do not think that that is enough, and, even if my right hon. Friend improves his amendment in the way that I suggest, unless he presents me with a much more compelling argument in favour of it, I shall not be prepared to vote for it.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the Committee appreciated the forceful arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). We missed him here yesterday. Like him, I am totally opposed to the Bill. Unlike him, I voted against it; but I know—because he assured me in the Lobby—that, had he been here yesterday, he would have voted against it too. He would also have heard what was said yesterday by my
      284
      hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), a former Northern Ireland Minister. He made some of the points that my right hon. Friend has made.
      It is true that the amendment, which was moved so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), contradicts the argument of my hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire and for Sevenoaks that it is not seriously conceivable to have dual allegiance to two sovereign legislatures. It undoubtedly creates conflicts of allegiance, but the difficulty is that we have the Bill before us. The question is simple: having lost the Second Reading vote, do we turn our backs on the discussion, say that there is nothing we can do with the Bill and just let it go; or do we seek to amend it in some way to improve it, however miserable the improvement?
      Mr. Swayne: Our contention is that, by multiplying the potential for wrongs, the amendment would make the Bill worse. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Howarth: Did the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), my fellow prison officer from Dartmoor, wish to intervene? I am sorry. I thought that he wanted to intervene.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Howarth: Of course. I will take all interventions from New Forest.
      Dr. Lewis: That is precisely the point. It is the first time that I have ever disagreed with an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Surely the point is that, rather than multiplying the wrongs, insistence on reciprocity creates the possibility of retaliation. If someone who is going to abuse his status in the House of Commons when he sits for the Dail is made aware of the fact that retaliation can occur, he may be less inclined to commit that abuse in the first place.
      Mr. Howarth: That is a forceful argument from my hon. Friend, who is the embodiment of the thermo-nuclear deterrent. I do not think that any of us would wish to cross him, but there are arguments for the amendment. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will make a speech at some point and will have to answer a number of questions. The amendment gives us the opportunity to probe further how it came to pass that the Bill was brought before the House in this form and why it is being rushed through with such expedition.
      The amendment is of a dual nature. It seeks to provide that Members of the House of Commons and the other place should be either qualified or eligible, depending on the word we want to use, for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland. That is the key issue. It is at the heart of the reciprocity argument. If, as is provided for in the Bill, Members of the Irish legislature are to be permitted to have the honour to be Members of this legislature, there should be reciprocity.

      285
      The question of how the conditions for that reciprocity are determined—whether the Secretary of State has to be satisfied, or whether another mechanism is provided—is a separate matter. However, the amendment provides us with the opportunity to test the good faith of those who are behind the promotion of the Bill. I do not believe that the Ministers are behind the promotion of the Bill. They are merely the agents. We are trying to find out not who the monkeys are, but who the organ grinder is.
      1 am
      Mr. James Clappison: Before my hon. Friend moves on to his next point, which I apprehend he will come to shortly, will he reflect a little further on the matter of reciprocity? Is it not a fact that reciprocity characterises many of the special arrangements between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, not least in matters such as the common travel area? Would it not be a shame to depart in this Bill from the principle that underlies those arrangements? Might not such a departure bring to an end the undoubted good will that exists between the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?
      Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that there are already substantial spheres of reciprocity and that the Bill would mark a substantial departure from that precedent, he owes it to the Committee to give us a rather more detailed exposition of the point. I, for one, feel that he has only touched on the point and that we need a very much more comprehensive explanation of the extent to which arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are subject to reciprocity.
      Mr. Clappison rose—
      Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will be able to enlighten me more substantially.
      Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have been provoked to intervene also by the Minister, who I know enjoys my interventions on this type of subject.
      The amendment would remedy a defect that would otherwise be present in the Bill, by ensuring continuation of the reciprocity that is a characteristic of so many arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. By contrast with what has been suggested by at least one Labour Member, the amendment is all about promoting good will between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
      Mr. Howarth: Although I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend's argument, I still share some of the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)—that the amendment would strike at aspects of the Bill's principle. Nevertheless, I support amendment No. 2 because I believe that the debate on it will provide a mechanism by which we shall be able to get to some of the truth of the matter, which we have not yet heard.
      286
      My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) asked the key question that has run throughout our debates today: why have the Government introduced the Bill? Is it part of a deal with Sinn Fein?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a case that should have been made on Second Reading. We are debating not why the Government introduced the Bill, but amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Howarth: Mr. Martin, you are absolutely right, and I apologise for transgressing. It is just that I thought that the question was part of the theme running through our debates.
      Mr. Bercow: I should like to clarify my hon. Friend's assessment of amendment No. 2. Does he agree that the amendment, whatever imperfections it may contain, is at least a variant on the theme of a multilateralist approach to the issue, whereas the Government's opposition to the amendment is emblematic of their preference, once again, for unilateralism?
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a charge that the Minister will have to answer. I am sure that the Minister is making careful notes—actually he is not, but he should be—so that he is prepared to answer the serious questions that I am asking him. He will have to answer them.
      Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it in order for hon. Members to read books, novels or newspapers in Committee?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Newspapers should not be read in Committee, but I do not see any hon. Member reading one.
      Mr. Howarth: I will try not to give you a reason to rise to your feet again, Mr. Martin, so that you can enjoy sitting in that comfortable Chair.
      As I was saying before my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) interrupted with his point of order, I believe that the amendment would provide us with an opportunity to test the good faith of those who are behind the Bill. Adopting the amendment's implicit reciprocity provisions would go some way towards sending out a signal that the Government are not trying to give a sop to Sinn Fein.
      I cannot understand why the Government are adopting what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) called a unilateralist approach. Why is the Bill a one-way proposition? Why can Members of the Dail become Members of this Parliament, but we cannot go there?
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke extremely interestingly earlier. I am only sorry that he could not enlighten us further. He asked what representations Ministers made to their Irish counterparts about reciprocity. Yesterday the Minister said:
      "Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 28.]

      287
      The concept of interparliamentary links implies links in both directions, but the Bill offers only a one-way link.
      I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee with whom the discussions were held. From what he said yesterday one is entitled to assume that such discussions took place. Which Ministers were involved? Did they propose to their counterparts in the Irish Republic that this House would be likely to demand reciprocity if the Bill were introduced here? If so, what was the response of Irish Ministers? Did they say that people in the Republic could not permit people who had taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen to become Members of the Dail?
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that, were the Government to come clean about the purpose of the Bill, this amendment and others would be rendered unnecessary? Would not the Government then be able to know where they stand much earlier than would otherwise be the case?
      Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that that would render this amendment unnecessary. However, it would at least to some extent curtail a debate characterised by the total lack of confidence among Conservative—and Liberal Democrat—Members about the Government's motivation in introducing the Bill.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I say again that the hon. Gentleman should not worry himself about the Bill but should consider the amendment before us.
      Mr. Howarth: I apologise, Mr. Martin, for making you get to your feet again.
      Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend is not going to be abusive to me, I shall be delighted to give way to him.
      Mr. Hayes: Abuse is my stock in trade, Mr. Martin. In an effort to concentrate his remarks on the specific issue in the amendment, will my hon. Friend give us his views on qualification or eligibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) tautologically—and thus rather uncharacteristically—describes it? What effect does that have on ministerial discretion?
      The amendment deals with qualification and the Secretary of State's judgment about it. My hon. Friend has not elaborated on this so far, and the whole Committee is waiting, with great anticipation, to hear his views.
      Mr. Howarth: I am touched that my hon. Friend should think that the Committee is waiting for my views on qualification. I said that I thought that the amendment was in two parts and that the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, or some other mechanism, was one aspect of it. I shall not be able to satisfy my hon. Friend in giving a great discourse on my views, because I regard the other aspect of the amendment as the more important.
      My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that simply to repose confidence in the Secretary of State's ability to be satisfied or otherwise as to the eligibility of members of the legislature of the Republic
      288
      of Ireland to be Members of this House is unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, like all of us, had very little time in which to draft the amendment. In deference to him, I think that he has done a damn good job for the Committee in the short time available to him.
      I wish to draw my remarks to a close, because I do not wish to detain the Committee too long. I have put fundamental points to the Minister. Were there discussions with his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland? What did they entail? Why was a clause providing for reciprocity not included in the Bill?
      Membership of the House is a privilege and an honour. Unless the Government are prepared to accept the amendment, they are saying that we do not value such membership to the same extent as do other people in the House, because we are prepared to trade it away in return for nothing. I think that that is unacceptable.
      Mr. Thompson: I am happy to speak in support of the amendment. The Bill lacks a provision of this kind. We have to ask why such a provision was not incorporated in the Bill from the start. It seems extraordinary that any Government of this United Kingdom would be willing to give a concession to the Republic of Ireland without, at the same time, requiring that a similar concession be given to us. Not to do so shows a severe lack of confidence in the United Kingdom and, indeed, a dereliction of duty to the United Kingdom.
      1.15 am
      Furthermore, we need to ask whether reciprocity was asked for when the Government were talking to Sinn Fein-IRA about the Bill. When they were talking to the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the Bill, did they ask whether there would be a quid pro quo from the Republic of Ireland?
      Mr. Swayne: In what way does the inclusion of the amendment respect the integument of the United Kingdom? Can the hon. Gentleman honestly say that he would have looked more favourably on the Bill if it had included the amendment in support of which he speaks?
      Mr. Thompson: Of course, we do not like the Bill. We would like to have nothing to do with it. However, the reality is that the Government have introduced the Bill—whether we like it or not. Furthermore, they will pass the Bill whether we like it or not. As the Bill will be passed in any case, it is surely in our interests to try to amend it to the benefit of this place. We should point out its difficulties and weaknesses, and try to make some improvement.
      It is incomprehensible that we are prepared to make such a concession to a foreign country without reciprocal action from that country. It is right that provisions such as amendment No. 2 should be tabled, and debated in Committee, in the hope that the Government might see the error of their ways, undergo a conversion and accept the amendment.
      Did the Government ask for a quid pro quo, and, if they did so, was it refused? In the light of the answer to those questions, we will be able to consider the Government's status.

      289
      The amendment might have been better worded. All we want to know is whether, if Members of the Dail can sit in this House, Members of this House can sit in the Dail. The only way for that to be achieved is for a similar Bill to be introduced and passed in the Dail.
      When the Secretary of State was appointing days for the consideration of this Bill, the only question he should have asked himself was whether a Bill would be put
      290
      through the Dail giving the same rights to Members of this Parliament as we are prepared to give to Members of the Dail.
      That would be a natural question for any sovereign Parliament to ask when dealing with matters that relate to a foreign country. The amendment is necessary and should command the full support of the whole Committee.
      Mr. Brady: I shall be brief, given the lateness of the hour.
      I have some comments to make on points that have been touched on, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has briefly left the Chamber. My hon. Friends have discussed whether
      "qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland"
      is the most appropriate form of words. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggested that "eligible" might be a more appropriate word than "qualified". I do not consider that that achieves the desired effect. Nor am I entirely happy with the form of words that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggests, because I am not certain that the Secretary of State could be satisfied that Members of the House or of the other place were qualified for membership of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland. However, one could expect him to satisfy himself that they were not disqualified.
      There is an important difference because, in removing the disqualification that applies to Members of the Irish Parliament in terms of a right to sit in our Parliament in the United Kingdom, we should be seeking something that is equivalent to that in the spirit of the reciprocity of which my right hon. Friend has spoken. For the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that Members are not disqualified would achieve that purpose.
      I also wish to pursue the use of the word "either" in
      "qualified for membership of either House of the legislature".
      Does that presuppose that Members would be qualified for, or not disqualified from, membership of only one or the other, or must that wording imply that they would be eligible to sit in both Houses of the Irish Parliament?
      Earlier in the debate on amendment No. 2 there was much talk about rights—of this Parliament and its Members, and those that we in the United Kingdom should be able to expect—and the theme of reciprocity was developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield focused on trust and whether the Irish Parliament might make an important gesture of good faith and good will to encourage good will in the peace process, in the way that the Government are seeking to do by introducing this measure.
      I should like to approach the issue from another angle, taking a much longer view. What good reason might there be for a Member of the House to seek to be a Member of the Dail? It seems to me that, perversely, there is a better case for a Member of the House to seek membership of the Dail than the converse. It arises from the membership of this country and of the Irish Republic of the European Union, and, more particularly, from the fact that this country is a net contributor to European Union funds and the Irish Republic a net beneficiary of them.
      Where we and the British taxpayer are expected to contribute money from which the Irish Republic can benefit, there is a good case for British politicians to take an interest in how British taxpayers' money is spent in the Irish Republic: a better case than there is, as the Bill stands, for Members of the Dail to sit in this Parliament and seek to have an input into the process—
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman should consider the good use to which the Republic of Ireland
      292
      has put that money in terms of infrastructure. There are other lessons that we could learn, perhaps with regard to membership of the euro.
      Mr. Brady: I do not wish to be drawn on to the question of the euro.[HON MEMBERS: "Go on!"] Perhaps I should. Clearly, if the UK were to join the euro, it would further underline the interdependency of the economies of the two countries. However, that would be equally true of the British and German economies, and that is outwith the scope of the amendment.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Brady: But that was exactly the point I was making, and that was why I was saying—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not say "But." He should get on to the amendment.
      Mr. Brady: I am sure that you are right to make that point, Mr. Martin. I hoped that I was making the point that it would be wrong to go too far down the euro road, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) sought to take me down. On infrastructure, Members of this House may have a legitimate input into the question of how British taxpayers' money is spent in other EU countries, particularly the Republic of Ireland. As he knows, there are infrastructure projects that can benefit the north of Ireland as well as the south, and there are some that benefit one or the other. It is a valid point.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right—consistent with your strictures, Mr. Martin—not to seek to refer to extraneous matters. However, on the strength of all that we have learned so far, is not reciprocity from the Republic of Ireland no more likely than the arrival of Billy Bunter's postal order or satisfaction of the convergence criteria for joining the euro?
      Mr. Brady: Whether the postal order is in euros or sterling, I should not follow my hon. Friend in that direction. We are debating not whether reciprocity is about to be offered by the Republic of Ireland but whether we, as a sovereign Parliament, should insist upon reciprocity if we are to allow the Government to pursue the novel concept in the Bill.
      I am arguing that we ought to require reciprocity from the Republic of Ireland—not that we should expect it to be volunteered, but that we ought to make it clear, as a sovereign Parliament, that we are not prepared to offer one side of the equation without seeing the other side brought in. That is what the amendment would achieve, and that is why Members on both sides of the Committee ought to support it.
      Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too far away from the use made of the money on infrastructure, will he consider the tremendous advantage

      293
      that the Irish Republic has gained in its work across the Irish sea between the Dublin area and north Wales as opposed to between Larne and Stranraer, which has had a bad effect on both Scotland and Northern Ireland—all with EC money?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with the amendment.
      Mr. Brady: I agree, Mr. Martin.
      Far from dealing purely with the question of rights, what we are owed, what ought to be given to us and what we ought to expect in return for something that we have given away, the behaviour of the British Government, and the nature of the Bill, are not appropriate in the modern age. The Bill has the whiff of coming from an imperial Parliament behaving in a rather high-handed way—not as it would in dealing with an equal sovereign Parliament, but as it would in dealing with a junior, subsidiary Parliament. We might be saying, "This is something that we are prepared to give away to Members of this small overseas subsidiary Parliament because we do not treat it as an equal sovereign Parliament." Ministers should consider the implications of pursuing such a policy. Surely, in 2000, we must treat the Irish Parliament as an equal sovereign Parliament and not as one that depends on the Westminster Parliament for favours and scraps thrown from the table. We should treat it on an equal footing. In the spirit of generosity that Ministers appear to have in wishing to extend the right to membership of this Parliament, the Irish Parliament could offer similar rights to Members of this House.
      1.30 am
      Mr. Forth: I find my hon. Friend's argument fascinating, but it assumes that we know what the relationship between the two Parliaments was during the process. We know either that the Irish asked for the Bill or that they did not and that we are offering it to them for nothing. Reciprocity arises in that context. I challenge him directly. Does he know how the Bill arose and the role of the Irish Parliament in it?
      Mr. Brady: I shall come to that. I wish that I could promise my right hon. Friend real enlightenment. Sadly, Ministers have been opaque or reluctant to comment on the background to the Bill, but certain private comments outside the Chamber have suggested that some kind of deal may have led to the Bill being introduced at this time. Ministers have not told us whether there has been an approach from the Government of the Republic or whether they made an approach to that Government to request reciprocity. There has been no suggestion of whether there has been any contact—diplomatic or otherwise—on that matter. I am afraid that, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have been left in the dark.
      Mr. William Ross: If we knew why the Bill had been introduced, we would have a clear idea of what was going on and knowledge—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We have heard that point again and again. It has no place on this amendment.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, because I feel a little tired. I am keen to conclude as quickly as I can.
      One final aspect has not been dealt with, and Ministers, possibly with some inspiration, may be able to set my mind at rest about it. What are the implications of the Bill if amendment No. 2 is not accepted? Will it stand under the European treaties or will it constitute discrimination? I shall not stray into a discussion of tuition fees, but we have seen the relevance of the discrimination provisions of the treaties whereby it is not possible to discriminate against the citizens of one member state as opposed to those of another.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend knows that I do not have the great depth of knowledge of constitutional matters that he does. Is he saying that we can have Greeks in the Chamber as a consequence of the Bill?
      Mr. Brady: I would not pretend to have huge constitutional knowledge. Colleagues on—
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pretend to go down the road along which he was invited.
      Mr. Brady: No, indeed, Sir Alan. However, it is important that Ministers answer the point of law as to whether the possibility has been fully investigated that under European treaties discrimination may be held to arise if we extend to the citizens of one of our EU partner countries the right to sit in Parliament and to hold office in this country in a salary or fee-paying post, but deny that same right and freedom to the citizens of another EU partner country.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend speaks of rights and freedoms, but the amendment referred specifically to qualification and eligibility. That brings us to the critical issue at the heart of the amendment: whether that means legal qualification or something broader. If we stray into the field of rights and freedoms, that qualification might be interpreted more broadly. However, I do not see it that way, and I should be grateful if he would comment on that highly pertinent matter.
      Mr. Brady: I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate. I am sure that he can develop that argument far better than I can. He says, rightly, that we might be dealing with rights and freedoms; however, given the constraints of the amendment and its reference to someone being "qualified" and the Secretary of State being "satisfied" as to that person's qualification, we have to interpret that as implying some legal form of qualification. I do not believe that it can be interpreted to encompass those broader issues. However, my hon. Friend might be able to persuade us that it can.
      Mr. Forth: While my hon. Friend is exploring the EU aspects of the amendment, may I draw his attention to the fact that the Bill contains no reference to its being

      295
      compatible with the European convention on human rights? I thought that Ministers were under an obligation to assess the degree to which Bills comply with that convention. Following his incisive analysis of the European dimension, it strikes me that the Bill might breach the convention in that it does not extend full reciprocity to members of legislatures in countries that are signatories to that convention.
      Mr. Brady: My right hon. Friend is too kind, but I fear that, for once, I must differ from his analysis. I suspect that, in scrutinising the Bill as closely as he has done, he did the obvious thing and folded it back on itself, for, on the covering page, there is such a statement. It makes it clear that the Home Secretary considers the Bill to be within the terms of the European convention on human rights; however, it makes no reference to and offers no analysis of wider issues of European law and treaties.
      I draw the Minister back to a key question. At a time when the Government—contrary to the wishes of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself—are taking this country further into an integrated Europe in which national boundaries are diminished, we are tonight enshrining a new sort of discrimination, under which Members of the Irish Parliament can sit in the UK Parliament, but Members of the French, German and other European Parliaments cannot. Unless Ministers can give an assurance that they have examined the legal implications and that the Bill has a clean bill of health in that respect, we must at least contemplate making amendment No. 2, which would lessen the discrimination. Perhaps Ministers would prefer to table their own amendment on Report.
      Mr. Hayes: If my hon. Friend refuses to deal with the question of qualification—I respect his right to do so, even after all I have done for him—will he at least deal with the issue of discretion? The amendment states that there would be a degree of ministerial discretion. If, as he suggests, there are legal constraints on the powers of the House and other alien bodies, that discretion would appear to be minimal. Will he comment on that matter?
      Mr. Brady: I think that Sir Alan might wish to guide me that discretion would be the better part of valour. I shall leave my hon. Friend to elucidate his point. I am sure that it is valid and that he will advance a cogent argument.
      I ask the Minister to make a simple, clear and unequivocal statement to the effect that advice has been taken and that there is absolute certainty within the Home Department and the Northern Ireland Office that the Bill will not lead to contravention of the European treaties.
      Mr. Robathan: The amendment, which relates to reciprocity, goes to the heart of the Bill. Why should we be qualifying some people to come to this Parliament if we are not qualified to go to another Parliament?
      I could not attempt to emulate some of the excellent speeches that have been delivered. I found my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) extremely persuasive. My hon. Friend the
      296
      Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) was equally persuasive, but in another way. I find myself in a quandary. I cannot attempt to emulate either my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) in terms of entertainment value, on which I congratulate him warmly.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has stolen one or two of my arguments—
      Mr. Brady: I apologise.
      Mr. Robathan: That is all right. I shall try to advance them in my own way.
      I wish to raise one or two points that have not been taken up so far in the debate on the amendment, and they go to the heart of reciprocity. The day before yesterday—I look at the clock—I attended more than half of the debate on Second Reading. I thought that I heard the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department say that the Irish Government were considering some form of reciprocal arrangements for Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that, either now or when he responds to the debate. That is important. Considering is insufficient but at least we would have some understanding of where the Government stand.
      As I understood the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he responded to the previous debate, I should not expect him to make his entire position clear at this stage, but that must be done before the end of the debate.
      If the Irish Government are considering reciprocity, there is no reason why the British Government should not accept the amendment outright. Surely we would not wish to be seen pre-empting the Irish Government, or moving with undue haste, when that Government have yet to come to their firm conclusion and make their own plans clear for British parliamentarians in the Irish Parliament. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position when he responds to the debate.
      The amendment does not affect me because I do not wish to be a Member of the Dail. I suspect that not many Members of this Parliament do. It is quite a long way away and I am quite busy enough being a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. Indeed, I am very busy, it now being about 1.45 am. It seems that there must be a trade off if we believe that we should have the Bill in the first place, which I do not.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West mentioned the legal position, which is important. On the European convention on human rights, the front of the Bill states that "Mr. Secretary Straw" believes:
      "In my view the provisions … are compatible with the Convention".
      I am not a lawyer, but, without reciprocity, my human rights and those of all hon. Members may be infringed because we would be giving away something for nothing, and our granting of a right would not be reciprocated. The matter might be open to judicial review at the European Court of Human Rights.

      297
      The European Court of Human Rights has overstepped the mark recently and has trespassed on matters it was not envisaged that it would consider when it was established at the end of the second world war to prevent those horrors from recurring.
      Mr. Clappison: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. He should not rely too much on the statement of compatibility on the face of the Bill, because such statements come up with the rations. To prove a breach of the convention on human rights, one of the rights has to be breached. I have considered the point carefully, and I do not know which right the Bill breaches. Perhaps my hon. Friend can explore that.
      Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is an eminent lawyer and knows far more about the law and the convention on human rights than I do. However, many cases of extraordinary depth are taken to the European Court of Human Rights and I am worried that the British Government may be in trouble because of the Bill. I agree that the statement of compatibility comes up with the rations, but let us consider the European Court of Justice, where there might be more scope for challenging the legislation than in the European Court of Human Rights if there is no reciprocity. Perhaps my hon. Friend can advise me about that.
      We are members of the great European Union, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If a Member of the Dail can sit in this Chamber, I should be able to sit in the Dail. To revert to the point about the European Court of Human Rights, a lack of justice or fairness that the Bill creates might be challenged under judicial review.
      Let us consider trust. There is no reason to distrust the Irish Government if they are considering reciprocity, although Charles Haughey was convicted of being a gun runner and Albert Reynolds jumped the gun and shook hands with Gerry Adams on the steps of the Dail on the first day of the first ceasefire that the IRA declared. Nevertheless, there is no reason to mistrust the Irish Government
      1.45 am
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the amendment. I stress to the Committee that if the same argument is played over and over, Standing Order No. 42 will be invoked.
      Mr. Robathan: I bow to your judgment, Sir Alan, but could you briefly tell me what Standing Order No. 42 is?
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will find out if he continues on his present course.
      Mr. Robathan: I shall report to your study afterwards, Sir.
      In the bounds of the amendment and reciprocity, I was trying to develop the argument that trust must exist between the two parties. We are told that the Irish Government are considering reciprocity. We are expected to take that on trust. However, in Irish politics, trust has been singularly lacking. We must also rely on the Secretary of State to make
      298
      an order with which we are satisfied. I am happy to trust the Secretary of State but I know that a large number of Government Members do not.
      Mr. Hayes: Inasmuch as trust is relevant to the amendment, if we are to trust the Secretary of State to interpret who is qualified, we need to understand what is meant by qualification. If it is a matter of rights—as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)—there may be a call on some other body that has responsibility for rights. If it is a more narrow definition, that discretion will not be so wide ranging.
      The Chairman: Order. Tedious repetition can arise in interventions as well. I have heard that point enough times.
      Mr. Robathan: I shall not therefore respond to my hon. Friend, although he makes a good point.
      The qualification for this House is election by one's constituents to come to this place. We do not know what will be the qualification for the House of Lords in the near future. We await a response to the Wakeham report and are in a state of flux. We have to trust the Government to produce stage 2 but they have not said when.
      What qualifications must Members of the Dail fulfil in reciprocity before being allowed to become Members of the House of Lords? We know that the Prime Minister intends to achieve parity between the number of Labour and Conservative Members in the House of Lords. How will an Irish Member of the Irish legislature—Senate or Dail—satisfy the qualifications? Few will be able to satisfy the qualifications we have seen recently, such as sharing a flat with the Prime Minister when first living in London—as did Lord Falconer.
      In drawing my remarks to a close—[HoN. MEMBERS] "No".—I have nearly finished my remarks but I hope that the Minister will address these points when he winds up.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who is not in his place, raised interesting points about achieving reciprocity using two Oaths of Allegiance. That is a very old concept. If I may quote badly from the Bible, a man cannot serve two masters. It would be difficult for Members of this House, having sworn the Oath of Allegiance, to accept reciprocity in the Irish Parliament—for all the reasons that people understand.
      I am conscience of your remarks, Sir Alan, about Standing Order No. 42—which I shall go away and read—so I shall draw my comments to a close.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Sir Alan. May I, through you, invite a member of the Government Front Bench to say how they propose to proceed? We started this debate more than eight hours ago, at 5.43pm. We have completed one whole debate and 11 debates are scheduled. We have completed four amendments or new clauses and there are 23 amendments or new clauses to debate. My grade in A-level maths was rather poor, but I have worked out that at this rate, we will not complete the business this side of 2.30pm.
      It is obvious that the Government want us to lose tomorrow's business. If that is an intelligent way of treating the public, international development questions,

      299
      Prime Minister's Question Time, the Financial Services and Markets Bill and a ten-minute Bill, let it be on the Government's head.
      It would be more sensible for the Government to agree—if they can do so—that, with co-operation between the parties, time could be found to complete consideration of the Bill. Perhaps a full day could be given to that, should there be a gap between the debate and the end of the deliberation. I wonder whether you, Sir Alan—through your good offices—could allow a Minister to say whether a more sensible way of proceeding might be available to us, rather than going on, as we are all quite able to do, for another 13 hours without completing our consideration. The Government have implicitly referred to the great sense of urgency in respect of dealing with the Bill, but we may have to consider it on another day.
      The Chairman: That was a very long point of order. The House has passed a motion saying that the business can proceed until any hour and I have not received any intimation that it is to be invited to depart from its decision. Unless someone intervenes, there is nothing more I can add and we must proceed.
      Mr. Maginnis: Reciprocity goes to the heart of the Bill. It should be drawn to Members' attention that Sinn Fein, for which the Bill has been drafted, boycotted the Irish Parliament for more than the first 70 years of its existence, although amazing progress has been made. It boycotted the Dail in 1921 and did not lift that boycott until the 1990s. We have all been puzzled about why we should have a unilateral accommodation, but I shall not repeat that question; you, Sir Alan, know very clearly why it puzzles me, as it has puzzled those who have articulated it again and again during our proceedings.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman referred to the 70-year boycott, but does he accept that we could consider the home rule incident of 1886, in which it was clearly stated that Mr. Parnell would certainly have preferred the exclusion of the Irish Members from the House? The irony is that, far from a policy along the lines of Mr. Parnell's being adopted, the exact opposite—including rather than excluding the Irish Members from the House—is being implemented.
      Mr. Maginnis: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's erudition. I am afraid that my academic knowledge is not as great as his. I am particularly concerned about what little I have heard from those on the Treasury Bench. I should perhaps dwell on the special relationship, which was emphasised early and repeatedly by the Minister on Second Reading. I hope that a special and honourable relationship based on trust and reciprocal confidence is developing, although such a special relationship was not terribly obvious to me in the years when my friends—members of the security services—were fighting the IRA and finding that every impediment was put in the way of the extradition of terrorists.
      300
      2 am
      I concede the point, in latter-day terms, of a special relationship, however. If that latter-day relationship is to develop, I wonder why this House proposes to adopt a different attitude to Sinn Fein from that currently being adopted by the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, who has clearly stated—I think during his recent visit to South Africa—that he would not countenance having members of Sinn Fein in a coalition Government which he led in the Dail. He has indicated that such co-operation with an organisation which retains a terrorist army, with its weapons and explosives, would not be something that a self-respecting Irish Taoiseach could contemplate.
      How do we come to a situation in which—as is now quite apparent—we make a provision exclusively to allow members of Sinn Fein to be members of the legislature in Dublin or of any other legislature, whether it be this sovereign Parliament or one of the devolved assemblies?
      Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend has said that the position between ourselves and the Irish Republic is improving, and he mentioned extradition. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the case of Mr. Fusco has been resolved, and that he is being extradited?
      The Chairman: Order. That is quite outside the scope of the amendment, and I think the hon. Member knows it. May I also say to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that we cannot have another debate on Second Reading? The House has given a Second Reading to the Bill and has therefore agreed its principle. I cannot listen to arguments now about that principle; I can listen only to arguments about the particular amendment we have in front of us.
      Mr. Maginnis: Sir Alan, you will have noted that I have been particularly careful not to stray into the old Second Reading debate. I particularly emphasized—
      The Chairman: Order. I have ruled that in my opinion the hon. Member most certainly strayed in his remarks immediately before the intervention. That is precisely where he strayed, and I do not wish to hear him stray there again.
      Mr. Maginnis: I deeply regret it, Sir Alan, if I strayed. I have been endeavouring to stick with the basis on which reciprocity might be achieved, and I intend to discover whether in fact reciprocity is possible, given the constitutional position that currently exists within the Irish Republic. I hope that it is possible for me to try to discover that.
      One thing that some hon. Members seem not to understand is that I, as a member of the region called Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, am accorded by the Irish constitution a special privilege, in that I am to be cherished equally as one of the children of the Irish nation. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). If that is the case, I have no doubt that if I sought to stand, as Austin Currie and John Cushnahan have done, for a seat in an Irish Republic constituency, I would be permitted to do so.

      301
      The inequality—in terms of this Bill being brought forward by this Parliament—is that someone living in Scotland, England or Wales would not be cherished as a child of the nation; nor could that person be. Hence some Members of this House claim that such reciprocity is not possible within the terms of the Irish constitution.
      A question then arises that has been touched on, although not in any depth, by other speakers. Does a Bill that facilitates matters for Northern Ireland Members such as myself, but excludes Members from Scotland and England and Wales, discriminate? If this Bill discriminates, I believe that it infringes the European convention on human rights. Therein lies a major problem, in terms of what is in the Bill and deemed to be effective on the authority of the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. Did he listen to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who said that there might be a breach of European Court of Justice rules whereby it would be wrong to discriminate against some European Union countries while allowing others to take part in representations in the Dail or, indeed, in this Parliament?
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to get into the bad habit of repeating himself, or repeating what has been said by other Members, because neither is permissible. I also hope that he is not going to get into the habit of turning his back on the Chair.
      Mr. Maginnis: Thank you, Sir Alan.
      I do not pretend to be an expert on European law, but I know about the emphasis that Government place, again and again, when they introduce Bills in the House of Commons applying to Northern Ireland. When we debated the Patten report—I do not want to alarm you, Sir Alan; I simply want to illustrate a point—the human rights element was repeatedly emphasised. This Bill, however, contravenes the human rights of Members of Parliament from Scotland, England—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just made a statement about a Bill to which the House has already given a Second Reading. It is not permissible for him to start to argue about a Bill to which the House has given a Second Reading—
      Mr. Cash rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I am on my feet.
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) must confine his remarks to the amendment. He is straying outside it, and I must ask him not to return to matters relating to Second Reading.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Sir Alan. An interesting point has occurred to me following remarks that I have just heard about the class of persons affected by the Bill, and the manner in which different persons within that class are treated. I should like a ruling on this, Sir Alan. Is it possible that—if we take the House of Commons as a class—the Bill is hybrid? Clearly, on the basis of the
      302
      arguments that I have just heard, there are distinctions to be drawn within that class which, on adjudication, could cause it to be construed as such.
      The Chairman: That is not a point on which the occupant Chair is entitled to rule. It is a matter of public policy.
      Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan.
      The Chairman: Order. I have ruled on that point of order. Unless he has an entirely fresh one—
      Mr. Cash rose—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot be on his feet if I am on mine. I have said that I can accept only a different point of order, as I have just ruled on his previous one. If the hon. Gentleman has a fresh point of order, I will listen to it.
      Mr. Cash: With the greatest respect, Sir Alan, the question whether this is a matter of public policy is not exclusively one that deals with hybridity. I asked whether there was hybridity, on which an adjudication may be required from the Speaker.
      The Chairman: I am satisfied that there is no question of hybridity in relation to the Bill.
      Mr. Maginnis rose—
      Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maginnis: I will.
      Mr. Robathan: I should like to raise specifically the question that the hon. Gentleman was addressing—whether the failure to ensure the reciprocity mentioned in the amendment would be open to judicial review. We have mentioned that before, but did not explore all the avenues. I am particularly concerned about that. The Home Secretary has said that he does not believe that the measure could be open to judicial review; but does the hon. Gentleman have any faith in the Home Secretary's recent judgments on various cases in the public domain, be it Tyson, Pinochet or whoever?
      Mr. Maginnis: I will not be tempted to make an adjudication on either Pinochet or Tyson, but I believe that, on this issue, the Secretary of State is in error. The Minister has an obligation to persuade me otherwise. He can do so by indicating how, while the negotiations were being conducted—
      Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maginnis: I will, but I should like to develop that point.
      Mr. Hayes: I want to be absolutely clear about the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he saying that the amendment invalidates the Bill on the ground that it introduces measures that depend on equivalence between the two Parliaments? Where that equivalence does not exist

      303
      because of constitutional bars, surely the amendment would damage the Bill; indeed, it would make it impossible to implement.
      Mr. Maginnis: That is not exactly what I am saying. Again, I am always self-conscious about the guidance that I receive, but I will try to clarify the point, with your indulgence, Sir Alan. I am saying that, within the scope of my knowledge of the Irish constitution, reciprocity is not possible at this stage, but that it should be sought if we are not to find ourselves with a Bill that discriminates, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) suggested, against a class—that class being hon. Members.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he is saying that there is a constitutional bar, surely it would not be a matter that ever came before any external alien court, Parliament or body; it would relate to existing arrangements in respect of the Irish constitution. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman is saying that something is not possible and, on the other, he is saying that it would contravene European law.
      2.15 am
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to blind me with science.
      I was saying that the House is entitled to insist on a caveat that, unless there is reciprocity embracing all hon. Members, so that they are eligible to be Members of the Dail, the Bill's provisions should not be implemented. I cannot stop the Bill becoming law, but it should contain the caveat that its provisions cannot be implemented until the inequity within it has been dealt with.
      Mr. Cash: I am extremely interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. With great respect to you, Sir Alan—with whom I am not prepared to disagree at this juncture—I simply say that the point about equity is the essence of the notion of hybridity. There are special procedures in the House to deal with those matters, which can be adjudicated only through proceedings provided in Standing Orders.
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman has again made his point, and I cannot enlarge upon it.
      Mr. William Ross: I have been trying to intervene on my hon. Friend for some time, but such was the interest in his remarks that other hon. Members wanted to have them clarified.
      My hon. Friend's knowledge on these matters is greater than mine, and I, too, seek clarification. He has drawn attention to the potential inequity and discrimination suffered by hon. Members, and he related that to the fact that people in Northern Ireland were treated as children of the Irish nation. However, as he will know, it was not only people in Northern Ireland who were so defined by the Irish constitution; so were all those whom Ireland considers to be Irish citizens, including many persons who might enjoy dual citizenship with the United Kingdom. In such circumstances, my hon. Friend would surely be wrong to confine membership of that group to those who
      304
      live in Northern Ireland. The group embodies a much larger number of people, who live not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere in the world.
      Mr. Maginnis: My hon. Friend makes a point that was developed Mary Robinson during her presidency, when she talked about the Irish diaspora. But I do not think that that point impacts on the specific point that I was making concerning the reciprocal rights of Members of this House.
      Mr. Robathan: The point about how the law affects people in the United Kingdom is extremely important. If there is no reciprocity between Dail Members and Members of this place, and if—as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has just suggested—members of the Irish diaspora who are Members of the House of Commons are allowed to sit in the Dail, it seems that there will be immediate discrimination between an English-born Member like me and southern Irish-born Members, of whom there are many in the House—
      Mr. Ross: And their descendants.
      Mr. Robathan: Yes. Although I am not a lawyer, I suspect that, without the reciprocity clause, the consequent discrimination would constitute a prima facie offence against the European convention on human rights—and, almost certainly, against English law.
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. I hope that that is the point I have succeeded in making to Ministers, because it is the nub of my argument.
      I move on in trepidation. Once again on reciprocity, I press the Minister to tell us whom he consulted. He could clarify the point by telling us whether he talked to each individual major party in the Irish Republic. He could achieve reciprocity by agreement with those parties. The strange thing is that the members of the Dail's all-party constitutional committee were neither in favour of nor against reciprocity. They were totally ignorant of the matter, which had not been put to them for consideration. They were worried about conflict of interest, as has been noted. Who had the authority, on behalf of the Irish Government, to offer reciprocity?
      I am not as clear as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that the Minister did in fact suggest that such an offer was made. I hope that the Minister will enable me to move forward by saying whether an offer on that issue—vague or otherwise—had been made by the major parties in the Irish Republic. I hope that he will accept that challenge, but I see that he is keeping his head down. I recognise the Minister's reluctance to inform the House on the question of reciprocity and the basis on which certain assumptions are being made.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Perhaps I can deal with those questions if I catch your eye later in the debate, Sir Alan.
      Mr. Maginnis: I was briefly lifted up, Sir Alan, only to be dropped again by the Minister's reluctance. However, if his promise is realised later, it is possible that some progress might be made.

      305
      I remind the Minister that the Irish constitution contains an obligation to cherish the children of the nation. I like to be cherished. I should like to believe that any cherishing done was real and had some depth. However, when Austin Currie—to whom the Minister alluded earlier—tried to make a point in Dail Eireann, using his usual blunt Northern Ireland manner, a southern Irish Member of the Dail told him to go back to the north where he came from. All the children of the nation were not being cherished quite equally on that occasion.
      The Bill diminishes the long and honourable tradition of this House whereby hon. Members have always had a clear idea of their obligations and loyalties. However, I wonder whether the Bill means that all Irish can be British, even when they do not want to be, but that no British can be Irish, however much they might wish to be. The reality is that most of us have enough to do representing the interests of one nation.
      The Bill asks us to divide our loyalties. Reciprocity would require both nations to try that impossible exercise.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I shall seek to heed your direction that the issue is narrow, Sir Alan, and speak only to the amendment. It would prevent the Bill's coming into force unless and until membership of either House of the Irish Parliament was fully open to Members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) sought reciprocity. We ban Members of the Irish Parliament from being Members of this House. There is no provision in Irish law similar to section 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords—and, indeed, Members of the legislatures of other countries—are not disqualified on that account from membership of the Irish Parliament. To that extent, the reciprocity sought by the amendment already exists. Members of the Irish Parliament are, however, required to be Irish nationals. Of course, most Members of the United Kingdom Parliament do not satisfy that condition and are therefore not eligible for membership or election to the Dail. Others may be qualified, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said in his intervention, by reason of their birth or other status. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, under particular laws in the Irish Republic, certain people who were born on the island of Ireland can stand.
      Dual nationality is open to certain persons who have British national rights, holding Irish nationality at the same time, and who hold both passports. I understand that many people in England and Wales hold British and Irish passports.
      The Bill—the clause depends on this point—raises no new principle in the sense that Commonwealth legislators can be Members of this House. We do not impose reciprocity of legal frameworks on Commonwealth legislators. I have heard no justification as yet for imposing a condition that we do not believe is desirable
      306
      in respect of Commonwealth countries on Members of the Irish Parliament.
      Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I should like to finish my point first. Some hon. Members have said that they do not believe that even Commonwealth legislators should be able to be Members in this House. Hon. Members may wish, at some stage, in another context, to consider all these issues, but this very short Bill, which deals with a specific matter, is not the place to do it.
      Mr. Maginnis: The Minister has made the mistake of not comparing like with like. Whatever the reciprocity, or lack of it, is for Commonwealth countries, it is common to all Members of this House. That is not the case with the Irish Dail.
      Mr. O'Brien: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The reciprocity to which he refers is the issue of whether, under the nationality laws, membership of a particular Parliament is open to persons who are not of that nationality. I do not know the terms and restrictions imposed by all the Commonwealth countries, but I suspect that some have a condition under which the only people who can stand for their Parliament are nationals of that country. In that case, I am comparing like with like. Given the sort of reciprocity with the Commonwealth that we are discussing, I have heard no real justification for treating the Irish Republic differently.
      2.30 am
      During the debate, the hon. Gentleman and others asked who might want to take up the right to be a Member of two Parliaments. Comment has been made—although it is not on all fours with that matter—about the circumstances of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who was, at one time, a Member of the Irish Senate. The hon. Gentleman is a well-respected Member of this House, and he did not lose that respect as a consequence of his membership of the Irish Senate. Sometimes hon. Members refer to that matter in a rather joky fashion; they should be careful about doing so, because they are talking about an hon. Gentleman whom we all respect—whether or not we always agree with him.
      Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I want to deal with some of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I shall also deal with the point that he made.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry asked several questions. Do the Irish need a referendum to allow British Members of Parliament to join the Dail? Of course, they do not because they do not ban our MPs from joining the Dail. They do not need to change their law. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was at least able to be a Member of the Senate.

      307
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry referred to the conflict of interests that would arise if someone was a member of two legislatures in different countries. We know that individuals have held such membership, although not necessarily simultaneously.
      Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall not give way at the moment, as I want to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry before giving way to several other hon. Members.
      The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of conflict of interests. If a person were elected to two constituencies, the issue of representing them both would certainly arise—as the hon. Member for Blaby suggested in an intervention. However, that would be a matter for the constituents in the two countries. They might well have a view, but it would be a matter for them.
      At present, our constitutional arrangements allow the potential for that choice in voting to be made by citizens of Commonwealth countries and by UK electors. It would be difficult to argue that we should have different rules on the matter for the Irish Republic, although there might be questions about someone who was appointed to the Senate, but elected to a British constituency.
      It would be arguable whether that was desirable, but the conflict between the two roles would be somewhat less because there would be constituents in only one country, although there might be questions as to where a person's loyalty lies. That point returns us to some of the issues raised on Second Reading, which I shall not rehearse, about people representing other countries—perhaps in the European Parliament and the British Parliament. There are precedents for those matters.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry asked what view the UK electorate would take on this matter. I can only reply that it is a matter for them. The voters would have to make their judgment in the circumstances that applied on each occasion.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
      Mr. Ross: The Minister is well aware that, if someone were elected to two constituencies in this country, he would immediately be asked which of them he planned to represent. He would be excluded from one House in respect of the other. Why does that proviso not also apply across the borders of our nation?
      Mr. O'Brien: The issue of where a Member of Parliament's loyalty lies is one for that Member's constituents. They will have to deal with that. We know that some individuals have been Members of the Irish
      308
      Senate and are now Members of the House. They do a good job—at least, the one individual that I am aware of does a good job here.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I have promised to give way to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). I just want to deal with another issue and then I shall give way to him.
      The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised in an intervention the issue of whether the wording of the amendment was unclear, especially in respect of the word "qualified". However, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) suggested that such an issue was all a matter of fact. There is room for doubt, and there is an issue about whether the wording of the amendment is clear enough for us ever to accept.
      Mr. Clappison: The Minister told the Committee that there would not have to be a change in Irish law to enable Members of the House to take a place in the Irish Parliament, because Members of the House are not disqualified from the Irish Parliament by virtue of being Members of the House. But they are, are they not, disqualified from being Members of the Irish Parliament if they are not Irish citizens. Therefore the Minister must accept that there would have to be a change in the law in that regard.
      Mr. O'Brien: Had the hon. Gentleman listened with care to what I said, he would have been aware that I have made the point that he just made, so there is no great dispute between us about that. Obviously, it would be a matter for the Irish Government. The way that I dealt with that was to say that we do not impose on Commonwealth countries to whom we apply these rules the obligation to change their laws to enable Members of the House to stand in their Parliaments. I suspect that some of those Commonwealth countries would have rules about the nationality of persons who could stand in elections to their Parliaments.
      The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) asked whether the Bill contravened European legislation. Our advice is that there is no breach of the European convention on human rights, or any other European legislation that we are aware of.
      Mr. Robathan: This is a very important point. I fear that, by trying to pass the Bill without an amendment for reciprocity, the Minister and his colleagues may have opened a can of worms. I am not as sanguine as the Home Secretary about this. Article 14 of the European convention on human rights is about the prohibition of discrimination. A very small part of it says that the enjoyment of
      "rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination"
      inter alia
      "on grounds of national origin".

      309
      That lovely can of worms is now being opened up by the Bill, whereby people with dual citizenship or Irish citizens in this Parliament will be able to sit in the Dail, whereas, without reciprocity, English citizens such as myself will not. That seems to be contrary to article 14.
      Mr. O'Brien: The Home Secretary is a lawyer, as I am. We have received legal advice that there is no contravention of the ECHR, and that article 14 must be read in the context of the other articles with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, and the Human Rights Act 1998.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I do not propose to give way again. I have been quite generous.
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone asked me two more questions. I am being cautious and watching your eye, Sir Alan. He asked me about the issue of reciprocity in terms of the law. The Scotland Act 1998 provides that Ministers in the United Kingdom Government cannot be Ministers in the Scottish Executive. That provision extends no further, so there is no ban on the election of an individual to both bodies. Moreover, there is no reference in relation to the Welsh Assembly Executive and the UK Executive in the Government of Wales Act 1998.
      I dealt with the question of whom we discussed the matter with on Second Reading, but let me make it clear that representations have been received from, and discussions held with, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the Irish Government. I understand that representations have been received by the Government from Sinn Fein. However, let me make it clear that the Government are not trading on issues. As always, representations are judged on their merits, and I believe that the measures in the Bill are justified on their own merits. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will be aware also of the issue in relation to clause 2 and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
      Mr. Maginnis: Although the Minister of State Northern Ireland Office has clarified this point, will the Under-Secretary also clarify that what he calls consultation with the leader of the Ulster Unionist party was not, in fact, consultation before the event, but rather was informing my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) after the Bill had been decided upon? Would the Under-Secretary clarify that my right hon. Friend indicated his antipathy towards the Bill, and that he mentioned the flaw in terms of conflict of interest—
      The Chairman: Order. I do not see how that relates to the amendment.
      Mr. O'Brien: I was not party to the discussions, but the Committee will have heard what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said.
      Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and say that there was consultation with the leader of the Ulster Unionist—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House, and he knows that the Chair has absolutely no control over what Ministers, or anyone else, say in the House. That is not a point of order.
      Mr. O'Brien: With your indulgence, Sir Alan, I would be happy to answer that question when I am in order. Hopefully, in due course, I shall be provided with the opportunity to do so.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: No, I will not.
      The Conservatives have argued that there is an issue of principle here. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains a provision for a Member of the Irish Senate to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand that the Conservatives did not vote against this matter—indeed, it did not seem to be worth significant comment by them.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did not vote against the measure, and did not seem concerned enough to comment. We are merely building on a principle that was established without demur by the Conservatives, and ending the anomaly whereby the measure applied only to Northern Ireland. We are ensuring that Northern Ireland is treated in the same way as the UK as a whole. All of a sudden, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is suggesting that there is a matter of principle where, previously, there was none.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I have made no contribution to this debate so far, but I wish to put our position on the record.
      We think that the Government are right to argue their case, and we would encourage the amendment's supporters not to proceed with it. Whatever we think about the background to the debate, our view is that we cannot have proposals considered by this House on the basis of linkage with other activities involving other sovereign Governments over whom we have no control. It might be a wonderful idea if the Irish Parliament decided to extend rights not just to citizens of Ireland in Northern Ireland, but to the whole of the UK. However, we have no knowledge that it is about to do that. It is not a matter that we can control. Therefore, to make the Bill conditional on what might happen to our rights to sit in the Dail is unreasonable.
      2.45 am
      I wish to make a technical and drafting point. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that, surprisingly, two interpretations can be placed on the amendment. As the Minister said, the first is satisfied by the position of Members of the Lords. Some Members of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons are qualified for membership of either House of the legislature in the Republic of Ireland. It is fair to say that only those Members from Northern Ireland who are eligible for Irish citizenship qualify under that

      311
      interpretation. If that is what the amendment suggests, it is redundant. If the amendment is intended to apply to all Members, that is a separate matter, but that is not what it says.
      We shall come to later groups of amendments that it is perfectly appropriate to debate. They deal with who should not qualify to become Members of the two legislatures, because, for example, they hold ministerial office. That is a perfectly proper matter for us to debate and Liberal Democrats will vote in favour of some of those amendments if they are moved and put to a vote. However, that is different from the issue under consideration in this debate.
      We have tried to give balanced consideration to all the issues. We have not changed our view about the concern that we have not been told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about why we are debating the Bill—let alone why we have to debate it at a quarter to 3 in the morning as a matter of urgent House of Commons business when it came on the agenda only late in December.
      The Bill seeks to deal with a mischief and to put Ireland in a similar or better position than Commonwealth countries. Given that Ireland was once part of this country and is, therefore, closer to us than any Commonwealth country, that is fair and reasonable. If it is possible to be a Member of a Commonwealth legislature and of this legislature, it is reasonable and fair—whether one thinks it sensible or not—to provide the same right to our friends from Ireland. Our links with them are as strong, if not stronger, so there is a logic to that view.
      As I said on Second Reading, we should have a debate about whether it is logical to have dual eligibility for two legislatures. It would have been better to have that constitutional debate first, even though we touched on it on Second Reading. However, that is not the approach that the Government have chosen.
      On the specific issue, the logic of the argument is with the Minister and not with those who support the amendment. That is not because we do not think it right to seek to amend the Bill in the right places. We shall support later groups of amendments that have been tabled by Conservative and Ulster Unionist Members, but we shall not support this one. If it is put to the vote, we shall vote against it.
      Mr. Forth: It is disappointing that the Minister has tried to deal with the matter in such a superficial way. I come immediately to his spurious point about me. I am able to distinguish between a national Parliament of a sovereign nation, such as this is, despite the depredations and subversions of European institutions, and the role played by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Minister suggested that I was somehow in dereliction of my duty or inconsistent in opposing Members from an alien country coming to one body but not to the other. However, I see the two issues as completely different.
      I freely concede that the Minister has listened to most of the debate, but it is worrying that he does not understand the distinction between the roles of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Houses of Parliament. That is a sad reflection on the Government's fundamental failure to understand the dangerous game that they are playing.
      312
      The point of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was a red herring. I happen not to agree with Members of Commonwealth Parliaments being eligible for election to this House. If there is an anomaly in the treatment of Commonwealth countries and Ireland, I would sort it out by going the other way and abolishing that now redundant provision.
      The hon. Gentleman says that Ireland and Commonwealth countries are in the same category, but they are not. The Irish chose to leave the Commonwealth. They made their statement and I respect that, but they must not expect the privileges of Commonwealth membership when they have opted not to be a member of the Commonwealth. That is a false argument.
      We have had an interesting and useful debate, from which a matter that is relevant to the amendment has emerged. The Minister has now said what he previously said but half denied: that there were discussions with the Irish Government and, he now adds, with Sinn Fein. That is the first time during the debates in Committee that the Minister has said, in terms and on the record, that the measure arose largely from discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland and Sinn Fein. We are now, for the first time, beginning to get a sense of the origin of the measure and the thrust behind it.
      Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will recall the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in respect of alleged consultations with the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. He was apparently not so much consulted as told what the Government intended to do, and he objected to what they intended to do. It has slowly been dragged out of Ministers that the only people who were consulted are the Government of the Republic of Ireland and Sinn Fein.
      The Chairman: Order. I have already explained that that point is outside the scope of the amendment, so I do not want it to be pursued.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Sir Alan. I shall not explore at this stage nuances in the definitions of discussion and consultation, or who pushed whom. However, I give the Minister fair notice that we shall return to the matter. In the meantime, the debate has proved extremely useful in that we have dragged out of the Government something that they had hitherto failed to state.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has dragged something out of the Government. I refer his attention to column 26 of the Hansard of 24 January.
      Mr. Forth: You, Sir Alan, would not want me to become distracted by embarking on reading a column of Hansard at this stage. I do not know what it says, or the significance of the Minister's intervention. However, if he is implying that we have already been told that discussions took place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the one hand and Sinn Fein on the other, I can say only that I am glad that he has now told us it twice.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is generous to a fault, but on this occasion he is crediting the Minister with

      313
      a clarity that was not present in his remarks yesterday. For the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. Friend accept that the reference the Minister has cited mentions discussions with
      "the Irish Government and others"—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 34 3, c. 26.]?
      Is that opaque, or what?
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to linger on the point, but, having sat through almost every minute of debate that has so far taken place on this measure, I was fairly certain that Sinn Fein had not hitherto been mentioned in terms. Now, for the first time, we have it on the record. That is a step forward. We are now beginning to get to the bottom of the matter. We shall have to return to the matter on Third Reading and in another place.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: The issue of what was said to Sinn Fein is extremely important, because no one can understand why anyone would want to sit as a Member of two Parliaments. However, we know that members of Sinn Fein want expenses for sitting as Members of the UK Parliament—
      The Chairman: Order. That was not a helpful intervention and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue it.
      Mr. Forth: I shall press on, Sir Alan.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Before my right hon. Friend does so, will he press the Minister to respond to a point made earlier? In the discussions that took place, was the question addressed by the amendment, namely reciprocity, raised with the Irish Government? In the discussions about the Bill generally, did the Minister and other Ministers discuss with the representatives of the Irish Government whether it would be a one-way Bill or whether an amendment of the sort that is before us could be incorporated in it?
      Mr. Forth: I would hope that that is the sort of matter that we might be able to explore further by means of manuscript amendments, for example, which we discussed early in our proceedings. Perhaps that is worth bearing in mind. However, I detect—I am something of a student of body language and facial expressions, and particularly those of the occupants of the Chair during these proceedings—that if I were to follow my hon. Friend's intervention, which I know was intended to be helpful, I might incur Sir Alan's displeasure, which I do not want to do.
      I want to move on to cover some of the main points that have been made in this useful debate. I confess to a feeling of disappointment and hurt that so many of my hon. Friends attacked my amendment with such vigour. I thought that I would get support from them, and all I have had during most of this part of our little debate are attacks and misunderstandings. It is incumbent upon me to try to clarify some of the points that my hon. Friends have made.
      My hon. Friends seemed to be occupied inordinately and disproportionately—they struggled over this—with my use of "qualified". The amendment was drafted, as
      314
      ever, with the help and expertise of the Clerks. I suspect that it is beyond suspicion and beyond doubt. To try to put it further beyond doubt, I had it in mind only to make the simple point that it is up to each legislature to lay down qualifications for membership of itself. I am seeking to say that such qualifications should be reciprocal. That is putting the matter in layman's language and returning to the word that I used when introducing the amendment only two or three hours ago. It is inappropriate for my hon. Friends to make heavy weather of the meaning of "qualified" in this context. I would have said "unfair", but I would not use that word when describing the approach of my hon. Friends in any circumstances. The amendment is straightforward and my hon. Friends need not look for difficulties. What they see is essentially what they will get.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) asked me a peculiar question. He wanted to know whether I had been in negotiations with the Irish Republic about my amendment. The answer is no. I am not in the habit of negotiating with the Irish Republic. I used to do so when I was a member of the Council of Ministers. I was involved then in negotiations with the Republic, and I still have the bruises and the scars. I did not find much co-operation, friendliness and helpfulness from Irish Ministers. Quite the opposite. I shall not dwell on that because it is a painful memory. However, I can say categorically that I did not negotiate the terms of my amendment with any representatives of the Irish Republic. I bear sole responsibility for it and for its many weaknesses, which my hon. Friends have been at such pains to point out.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised an important matter. He said that he believed that for reciprocity to be achieved in its fullest sense, it may be not entirely a matter for the Irish Government themselves or for the Irish legislature, given the constitutional arrangements in the Republic. He raised the fair point of the need for referendum approval of amendments to that constitution.
      That raises the prospect that we are not here, as in so many other areas, on the same footing on the two sides of the Irish sea. We have different electoral systems, and we have the requirement in the Republic of Ireland of a referendum on any change, which would not apply in the United Kingdom. So there is a question mark over whether full reciprocity in the purest sense of the word could ever be achieved.
      3 am
      I ask the Committee to put those considerations aside and treat the matter in a more straightforward manner. The Irish Government could deliver reciprocity if they wished. They have shown that in recent referendums on similar matters. We know that the United Kingdom Government can deliver because of their huge majority in the House and their part-reform of another place. We need not dwell excessively on nuances and differences; although they may seem important, they do not undermine the essential thrust of the amendment.
      The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) asked a question that the Minister failed to answer. He asked whether the Government had requested any quid pro quo from those with whom they had held discussions, namely, the Irish Government and, as we now know, Sinn

      315
      Fein. I suspect that the answer is no. The Government have offered an enormous concession, which is a breach of our nationhood, sovereignty and legislative arrangements, in return for nothing. I have been unable to detect any quid pro quo. From the Minister's complacent demeanour, I suspect that I am right. He is trying not to look ashamed, but he should be ashamed.
      Mr. William Ross: Despite the existence of many parties in Ireland, both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, the only party—apart from the Irish Government—that the Government have consulted appears to be Sinn Fein. Why have the Government consulted them alone?
      Mr. Forth: We all know the answer to that question. The Government have persuaded themselves that the only way to make the peace arrangements work is to grant concession after concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. That pattern is consistent; there is nothing new or surprising about it—it goes on and on. We are forced to take the view that the measure is yet another example of that process, which includes the release of prisoners, and the ability of terrorist sympathisers to participate in our constitutional arrangements. The Bill is another step in that direction.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) made pertinent points about the potential role of European law, the European Court of Justice, the European convention on human rights and, consequently, the European Court of Human Rights in the matter that we are considering. He persuaded me of the possibility, if not the likelihood, of running foul of one of those bodies of law or one of the institutions that are charged with interpreting that law.
      It has been pointed out that the Home Secretary—surprise, surprise—has given an assurance that the Bill is fully in line with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary is unlikely to say, "I've got a neat little Bill that I've negotiated with Sinn Fein and I want to slip it through quietly because it may not comply with the European convention on human rights." It is much more likely that, in his anxiety to please Sinn Fein, he has decided to slip the Bill through quickly, complete with nods and winks, and hope that it will not fall foul of the convention on human rights.
      Some of my hon. Friends, whose knowledge is far superior to mine—that is not difficult—suspect that we could be in severe trouble with the convention and the European Court of Human Rights, and European law and the European Court of Justice. It would be worse to fall foul of the latter, because its decisions are more binding. It would be supremely ironic if the Government, with their slavish adherence to all matters European, suddenly found that a measure designed to please Sinn Fein-IRA ran foul of their friends in the European institutions. We can only speculate at this stage, but there is sufficient evidence and a feeling in the Committee that such may be the case. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for bringing that matter to the attention of the Committee.
      My hon. Friend also questioned whether the fact that the UK is a considerable net contributor to the European Union, whereas the Republic of Ireland is a considerable
      316
      net beneficiary, would impinge on the evenhandedness or reciprocity that my amendment seeks. Having listened to my hon. Friend, I am not yet able to make that connection, but it may arise in a form that I have not foreseen. I ask my hon. Friends not to be excessively anxious at this stage about that detail but to support my amendment, because it says something important about evenhandedness and reciprocity.
      I accept that the amendment may have drafting faults. I am not persuaded, but many people seem to see such difficulties. The role of an amendment debate in Committee is to identify ways of improving a Bill and impress them on the Government, in the hope that Ministers here or in the other place will be prepared to re-examine the Bill in light of debate and the vote that may now be imminent.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked whether the Irish Government are considering making reciprocal arrangements. We have not spent much time on that interesting matter and may want to return to it. The excellent Library brief makes tantalising allusions to some sort of consideration being given in Dublin: "Don't worry too much that something may happen", and so on. I doubt whether that can be interpreted as the Irish Government considering making anything that could be remotely described as reciprocal arrangements. The Library brief was much more vague and much less encouraging, so I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, "Don't hold your breath. Don't expect that if we agree to this, we will get a corresponding concession." It must surely be the opposite. If the Irish Government and Sinn Fein-IRA think that they can get this concession for nothing, there is no incentive for them to do anything. This whole thing is the wrong way around. It should be them saying to us, "We're prepared to make this change. What are you prepared to do in return?"
      Mr. Swayne: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not sit down without dealing with the substantive point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and me in various interventions. If my right hon. Friend's amendment is successful and achieves the reciprocity that he desires, he multiplies at a stroke the opportunities for implementing the Bill's offensive principle—to serve two sovereign Parliaments at one time.
      Mr. Forth: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would not notice that I had failed to deal with that point. Sharp as ever, even at this hour, he has pulled me up and is right to do so. Anyone in my position has to make a difficult judgment. It is a matter of record that I voted against Second Reading and, generally speaking, I remain of that view. I am now in the business of seeking to improve the Bill. That is the whole point of Committee stage and my amendment. The House has expressed its view—which I reluctantly accept—and our role is to find ways of improving the Bill.
      At first blush, my amendment may seem at odds with my voting against Second Reading on principle. Some right hon. and hon. Friends do not want to concern themselves with amendments in Committee. They are

      317
      anxious, as I am, to get on to Third Reading and vote against the Bill in principle again. And if my amendment is brushed aside by the Government, in cavalier fashion—
      Mr. Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: I shall finish my point. I may be forced to reconsider, but right now I am in a very positive mood. I am looking to improve the Bill and trying to make it work better, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that. I give way to him once more.
      Mr. Swayne: I understand and entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says, but he must accept that the amendment should be greeted with equanimity, if not alacrity, by Labour rather than Conservative Members.
      Mr. Forth: That may be, but I have to gather support where I can. When I embarked on this venture, I thought that I might receive more support from my hon. Friends, although some have kindly said that they are still prepared to support my amendment, in spite of everything. We shall put that to the test shortly.
      Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: Yes, but then I really must conclude.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a reference by the Minister to the likelihood of early Irish reciprocity would have been necessary, though not sufficient, to reassure Conservative Members? Despite trawling through the genuinely riveting 32-minute oration that he delivered yesterday, I cannot find such a reference, though I feel sure that if there was such he would speedily point to it.
      Mr. Forth: I am sure that the Minister would bound to his feet, wave Hansard in the air with an air of triumph, mutter a column number and sit down thinking that he had done the job. Along with my hon. Friend, I suspect that that will not happen, although encouragingly he is leafing through a document even now. I shall stay on my feet just long enough to get a feeling of whether he will oblige.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: Yes, but this must be the last time, as I am very anxious to press on.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because the Minister did not deal with this point. In most Parliaments, those who stand have also to be voters. Citizens of the Irish Republic automatically receive the right to vote in this country, which is beyond what European Union citizens receive. Is there the same reciprocity in their voting system, which would allow us to stand for the Parliament of the Republic?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has anticipated the last point that I want to make. We are in the odd position of having multi-layered provision. I am not unhappy about that; I merely point it out. Our friends, colleagues and fellow citizens in Northern Ireland are uniquely privileged
      318
      because they have rights in the Republic of Ireland that we mainlanders do not have. I am sure that that is a matter of great joy and satisfaction to a lot of them.
      Mr. William Ross: If we have rights in the Irish Republic, we cannot recall ever asking for them. We do not see any need of them and would be quite content if they disappeared.
      Mr. Forth: That may be, but I am simply stating the facts. We are faced with a bewildering complexity of rights, lack of rights and no reciprocity, but a small and important group has rights over and above even that. The Government should have picked their way very carefully indeed through that bewildering array by consulting fully, thinking of all the implications and considering the timing, but they have done none of that. They have not thought things through and have not told us why they are introducing the Bill. My amendment surely would go some small way to putting right aspects of it that are wrong. It would offer reassurance where there is none and straighten out a serious anomaly. I hope, for those reasons, that I shall enjoy widespread support in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 243.

      Division No. 42]

      [3.14 am

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Chope, Christopher

      Thompson, William

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Maginnis, Ken

      Mr. Michael Fabricant.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Chaytor, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Austin, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Battle, John,

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clelland, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cohen, Harry

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Colman, Tony

      Benton, Joe

      Connarty, Michael

      Berry, Roger,

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Best, Harold

      Corston, Jean

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cousins, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cranston, Ross

      Borrow, David

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cummings, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Browne, Desmond

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Burgon, Colin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Davidson, Ian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Caplin, Ivor

      Denham, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Dobbin, Jim

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Doran, Frank

      319

      Efford, Clive

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McNulty, Tony

      Fisher, Mark

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McWalter, Tony

      Flint, Caroline

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Foster, Ftt Hon Derek

      Mallaber, Judy

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Galloway, George

      Martlew, Eric

      Gapes, Mike

      Merron, Gillian

      Gardiner, Barry

      Miller, Andrew

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Moffatt, Laura

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Goggins, Paul

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morley, Elliot

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mountford, Kali

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mudie, George

      Grogan, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Oaten, Mark

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Healey, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Heppell, John

      Pearson, Ian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hill, Keith

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Hope, Phil

      Plaskitt, James

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pollard, Kerry

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Illsley, Eric

      Rammell, Bill

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Jamieson, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Jenkins, Brian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Sawford, Phil

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kemp, Fraser

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Singh, Marsha

      Kidney, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Laxton, Bob

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

      Lepper, David

      Soley, Clive

      Leslie, Christopher

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Levitt, Tom

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Linton, Martin

      Stevenson, George

      Lock, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Love, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Stringer, Graham

      McCabe, Steve

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Macdonald, Calum

      Stunell, Andrew

      McDonnell, John

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McFall, John

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      320

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Watts, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wills, Michael

      Todd, Mark

      Wilson, Brian

      Touhig, Don

      Winnick, David

      Trickett, Jon

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wise, Audrey

      Wood, Mike

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Woolas Phil

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Worthincrton Tony

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wray, James

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tynan, Bill

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Only because the matter comes up in every debate, through you, I ask whether Ministers are willing to table for the Committee, or to put in the Library of the House, copies of all the representations that they have received so far on the Bill.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that Ministers will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 6, page 1, line 9, at end add—
      '(3) At the end insert "is a Minister in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom; or"'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in title, line 4, after 'Oireachtas', insert—
      'to extend that disqualification to Ministers in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom'.
      Mr. Ross: This is a fairly simple and straightforward little amendment. As I am sure you will have noticed, Mr. Martin, today's selection list—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Committee must come to order. There is far too much noise and conversation.
      Mr. Ross: Mr. Martin, you will have noticed that the selection list contained a curious little addendum. I cannot recall ever having seen such an addendum before. I should be grateful for your guidance on how often they have had to be included.
      It caused me some concern. I tried to find out what words had not appeared in the printing of amendment No. 6. I discovered that it was purely a technical mistake in that the words "At the end insert" had been left out in the printed list of amendments. If something like that happens, it should be made clearer to hon. Members what the mistake is. It was not immediately clear. We had to read it several times before it became apparent that it was only a clerical or technical error.

      321
      This is a modest and simple little amendment. It would exclude from the Executive of Northern Ireland any person outside the United Kingdom who is a Government Minister elsewhere in the world. Amendment No. 8 is consequential on it, in that it inserts the same disqualification into the long title of the Bill. It is not often that we try to amend the long titles of Bills, but this is one such case. The two amendments hang together.
      It seems to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), to me and to the Opposition that the amendment is modest and reasonable. In fact, it is so reasonable that only the most malign could reject the principle embodied within it. Many of the elements of the Bill have been addressed in earlier debates, but I make no excuse for raising them again. Time and again, we have to examine those matters carefully, so that we can reach sensible conclusions about them.
      3.30 am
      In any country, Ministers are very busy people who are weighed down with responsibility and the cares of office. They have to deal with demands from their constituents, from fellow members of the legislature, from the Government and from pressure groups. It would be quite wrong to burden them with any more work. Indeed, it would be quite unfair to leave in their way the temptation of further office—or, in some countries, the spoils of further office. We should guard them against such temptation.
      The danger is that some of those people might be moved to take on the burden, but find themselves so weighed down with responsibility that they will do neither job well. They may well have a multiplicity of jobs. It would be quite wrong to burden any man or woman with such a multiplicity, as it could lead to his or her disillusionment, and to his or her constituents' anger and frustration that their representative was not available or able to do the necessary work. In the long run, therefore, it is not a good idea for people to have so many responsibilities. No one should not be placed in such a situation.
      There are also issues of conflict of interest and clash of demands. They were partly explored in earlier debates and place the most immense burdens on the individuals concerned. There is conflict between different states about job creation measures and social legislation—such as welfare to work, child benefit, divorce, abortion and tax, not to mention international trade and defence issues involving the states concerned. All those considerations are bound to lead to the most intolerable pressures on individuals and generate enormous friction.
      Such individuals will have personal financial considerations. In the United Kingdom, there has been a dependence on the Crown for patronage, and on the Crown and Parliament for salaries and allowances. There has been dependence on the Prime Minister for his patronage, which enables one to advance within the Government of the United Kingdom.
      I foresee problems even in the position, in the House and in the government of London, of Ministers of the various devolved bodies of the United Kingdom. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said in the previous debate, presumably because of a potential clash of interests, Ministers in the Scottish Executive cannot hold office in the United Kingdom Government. If
      322
      a possible clash is recognised at that level, should we not recognise the far greater potential of pressures being generated in the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country?
      I should think that the Scottish Executive have good reason for wanting a representative who speaks for them, rather than through the Secretary of State for Scotland within the House and the United Kingdom Executive. In those circumstances, I should have thought that it would be only reasonable for us to examine Scotland's relationship to the House, rather than the relationship that exists between us, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dail.
      Welsh Members can be members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, thereby having an impact on the powers of the two bodies concerned.
      I am not too clear about whether there can be dual membership of the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, and the Northern Ireland Assembly. That must be clarified. Such problems will only get worse when countries outside the United Kingdom are taken into account.
      The Minister gave the impression yesterday that he would try to clear up such problems. He tried to persuade us that he had given a clear indication of all the people with whom he had discussed such matters. In fact, he had not been entirely candid. Today, it was wrung out of him that he had also talked to Sinn Fein. Yesterday, he told my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that the Bill would cover this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. A little later, I asked him to confirm why the Bill did not bar Members of Parliament from becoming Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. He said that the matter would be discussed in Committee.
      We are in Committee now. The Minister also said:
      "Following representations of which the hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware,"—
      I was not—
      "it was argued that, because it might give rise to concern in Northern Ireland, that issue should be specifically addressed in legislation. It has been addressed in clause 2."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34.]
      I do not think that it has.
      The Minister went on to say that he hoped that I would be satisfied that the Government were listening to representations from all parties. I suggest that they are doing so some months too late. The necessary representations and discussions in connection with the Bill should have taken place long before it was published.
      Why should we allow foreigners to rule over us? That is the bottom line. Why should we even leave that door open? It will be exploited sooner or later. This country's experience of getting into bed with foreigners in the past has cost us more dearly than it has cost them.
      We should not go down that road. We should stick to representing our constituents in the United Kingdom. Anyone who wants to represent people in another country

      323
      should live in that country. People who live in this nation should give their loyalty to this nation. That is why we have tabled the amendment.
      Mr. George Howarth: Yesterday, on Second Reading, I said that the Government were aware that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had tabled some amendments. Although I had not seen their exact terms, and could make no commitment as to the outcome of our consideration, I made it clear that we would, naturally, study them very carefully and reflect on them overnight. I want to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to his views. His distinguished and courageous role in seeking peace has been rightly praised in our earlier debates, but he is also the First Minister of the new, devolved Executive.
      I know that I speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when I tell the Committee that one of his concerns since taking up his current responsibilities has been to ensure that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his party have felt that the Government have taken the fullest possible account of their interests. I hope that he and his colleagues recognise the serious efforts that have been made by my right hon. Friend in that respect. It is no secret that the final decisions of various discussions have not always been what they wanted. Given the divisions that still exist in Northern Ireland, no one would expect that. However, I hope that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and his colleagues will recognise the honest and determined efforts that my right hon. Friend has made in this respect.
      Although the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may have wished that consultations on the Bill had started earlier, they took place before the Bill was introduced. The form of the Bill was amended to take account of some, though not all, of the concerns expressed in those representations. In particular, clause 2 was incorporated in direct response to concerns raised by him. I say all this simply to demonstrate the effort that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made to take into account the views of the right hon. Gentleman, alongside the proper concerns of other parties.
      I know that this is not precisely the subject of the debate, Mr. Martin, but it may be helpful to say that the Government are minded to accept the principle of amendment No. 7 in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. We accept, uniquely, that statutory committees in the Assembly have more than a scrutiny role. Under the Good Friday agreement, they have a role in policy development, so there is a good case for treating their chairs and deputy chairs as akin to Ministers.
      I will not dwell further on those arguments because they are properly the subject of another debate. However, this demonstrates that we listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on Second Reading. We took full account of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment and reflected on the issue overnight, as I said that we would. However, having reflected on amendment No. 6 very carefully, we cannot advise the Committee to accept it. Under the amendment, any Minister of a country outside the United Kingdom would be disqualified from being a Back-Bench Member of this House or of devolved legislatures. The Bill, as it was introduced, was concerned
      324
      purely with the small extension of existing provisions from Commonwealth countries to include Ireland. The amendment would take away the existing right under law—however theoretical that right may be—of Ministers in any Commonwealth country to be Members of this House and the devolved legislatures.
      On Second Reading, some Opposition Members thought that all such Commonwealth rights should be swept away. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was one of them. That is certainly not a position that the Government advocate. We warmly support the Commonwealth and the special links that exist with all the countries in it. If we wanted to change the nature of those links—and we have no such plans—we would want to do so in consultation with the countries and Governments concerned. We have had no opportunity to do so, and it was not the purpose of the Bill to affect existing rights that apply to Commonwealth countries. On those grounds alone, I am bound to oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Oaten: Is the Minister saying that in future the Government will make such representations to the Commonwealth so that the logic of the Bill is carried through in that area as well?
      Mr. Howarth: There is no intention to do so at this time. We have no reason to believe that that would be helpful in our continuing relations with the Commonwealth. I see no reason for such a debate on what are effectively theoretical rights which have never, to my knowledge, been taken up.
      I recognise that the real concern behind the amendment, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry expressed, is to disqualify Irish Ministers from serving as Back-Bench Members in this House or the Assembly.
      3.45 am
      We have been consistent in the view that conflicts of interest might arise if individuals were allowed to be Ministers in both jurisdictions. That is why clause 2 is in the Bill. Any Minister's duty extends far beyond the constituents who elected him or her. Ministers must properly have regard to the interests of all the people for whom they govern.
      However, we do not take the view that a conflict of interest arises between being a Minister in one jurisdiction and a Back Bencher in another. Indeed, it is conceivable that a constituency electorate in Northern Ireland might feel that its interests were likely to be advanced better if its Member were also a Minister in the Irish Government. Other constituency electorates would obviously take a different view. Our view, reflected in the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, is that, in a democracy, it is up to the electorate to decide.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: Yes I will, although I was drawing my remarks to a close.
      Dr. Lewis: My question is straightforward. Can the Minister envisage an occasion on which a constituency interest in the south might conflict with one in the north, if an individual were elected to serve two constituencies?
      Mr. Howarth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended the earlier debate when that matter was raised. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made it clear that, in such circumstances, it would be for the two sets of constituents to sort out what was right and proper. It is not proper for the House to set such qualifications in regard to Members. We do accept that there is a distinction, which has some force, between being a Minister in one Government and a Back Bencher in another.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: That point is clear. The Ulster Unionists have commented on the representations made on that point and there have been references to the representations made by Sinn Fein. Have there been any representations on that specific point from the SDLP, including from its leader? I ask because there has been discussion not only about a member of the SDLP who held office as a Senator in Ireland and was a Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, but about a role in Ireland for the current leader of the party, who is also a Member of the UK Parliament.
      Mr. Howarth: If I am mistaken in my response to the hon. Gentleman, I shall correct it later—I am not aware of any such representations.
      I regret that we do not advise acceptance of the amendment, although, as I have pointed out, we have looked sympathetically on amendment No. 7, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who is also the First Minister of the Northern Irish Assembly. In view of that and given my explanations, I hope that—not for reasons of time but of principle—the hon. Member for East Londonderry will not feel it necessary to proceed with the amendment.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: When the Minister rose to respond, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and I said to one another, "Ah, the Minister is going to accept the amendment." For a moment, it sounded as though the reflection that the Minister promised us yesterday, and that he told us had taken place overnight—I am not sure which night—had resulted in the Government acknowledging the validity of the case put with quiet eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). We thought that the Minister was going to accept the amendment, but he has not done so.
      The Minister tried to fob us off by saying that the Government would accept a later amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and I support the amendment because we realise that the First Minister—who, sadly, cannot be with us at the moment; he is a wise man not to be in this place at this time of the day—and his colleagues have a real point. The Minister's reply dramatically illustrates the absurdity of taking a Bill of this nature in this manner. I do not question the Minister's good faith when he says that reflection has taken place, but I believe that, if there had been the usual timetable, with proper opportunities to discuss the amendments and for Report, it would have been possible to reach a solution acceptable to everyone.
      In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry made a very good case. I find it extremely difficult to accept the logic of what the Minister is saying. The Bill is riddled with anomalies, and it seems
      326
      to me that we shall have an absolute absurdity if we reject the amendment and allow people to be Back Benchers in one Assembly and Ministers in another. I do not think that it will very often happen. Many of the things in the Bill are wholly theoretical—one can hardly ever conceive of some of these people being elected—but we are legislating. We are saying what is permissible.
      The case that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry advanced as he moved the amendment, which was tabled by the First Minister of Northern Ireland, was cogent and sensible. I pay the Under-Secretary the compliment of saying that I believe that if he had had proper time to discuss this, in a cross-party way, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and others, he would probably have been persuaded.
      Mr. George Howarth: Am I to take it that it is the position of the official Opposition that they would like to deprive Commonwealth members of the rights that they already enjoy?
      Sir Patrick Cormack: We believe that there is an anomaly. We are not seeking to rewrite the whole set-up whereby such members can be Members of the House, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) advanced a powerful case for considering the entire position. However, we are saying that to be a Minister in one country and a Back-Bench Member in another inevitably creates a potential conflict of loyalties that is in the interests of neither party, neither state and neither Government, nor in the interests of the electorate.
      Mr. Howarth: I believe that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the amendment that he is speaking to. Perhaps he should read it again. If it is pressed and the Opposition vote for it and are successful, the effect would be to disqualify Ministers of Commonwealth countries from being Members of the House. I made that absolutely clear in my speech. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) takes that position. Is that the position of the official Opposition?
      Sir Patrick Cormack: In a word, yes—but I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee of any Minister in any Commonwealth country who has ever sat in the House while he has been a Minister in a Commonwealth country. It is purely theoretical.
      Mr. Howarth: That is not the point.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: With great respect, it is the point; because when the House passes legislation that is so theoretically absurd as never to be practically possible, it is making an ass of itself.
      Mr. Stephen Day: What is the point of passing it?
      Sir Patrick Cormack: As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position—although he should not—what is the point of passing it? The House is being made to look fatuous and absurd by taking the line that the Minister is

      327
      taking; and yes, yes, yes: the official Opposition believe that the amendment is entirely logical and sensible, and we will most certainly vote for it.
      Mr. Forth: It might help the Committee if I read from the excellent Library research paper on the Bill, which sets the context in which this important debate is taking place.
      "The main purpose of disqualification is to ensure that Members are fit and proper to sit in the House, and are able to carry out their duties and responsibilities free from undue pressures from other sources. These considerations may be called 'House-based' and are the basis not only of disqualifications under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 but of the whole range of earlier disqualifications for the Commons. However, there is also another consideration, which may be called 'office based'. This is the wish to ensure that an office held by an individual is not adversely affected by his membership of Parliament. This is of more recent origin."
      Under the heading "Practicalities", the paper goes on to list a large number of public office-holders who are disqualified under the 1975 Act. The list includes judicial officers, civil servants, members of the armed forces, police officers and so on.
      I wish to dispute the Minister's point that we should leave it to the voters to decide whom they shall elect. I suspect that Ministers do not really believe that because, after a moment's thought, they might realise that there might be some people who they would want to prevent from standing for elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "You!"] I thought that I might get that response from some Government Front Benchers.
      It is a well-established principle that we have seen fit over many years—including in the 1975 Act—to assist the electorate by disqualifying certain groups and classes of people from the right to stand for election to this legislature. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that we are interfering in the rights of electors, and that they should be allowed to decide on absolutely anyone that they want. They are not and they have not been, and it is well established in our law that disqualification is a proper principle. However good the Minister's idea may sound theoretically, it will not wash.
      I ask the Government—do they intend to repeal the 1975 Act? I gather not, so the Government accept the principle that it is valid and legitimate, in certain circumstances, to disqualify certain groups and classes of people from standing for a legislature.
      Mr. Fabricant: Would my right hon. Friend speculate on what grounds he thinks that some of those classes of individuals should be disqualified—some, perhaps, because they have a conflict of interest?
      Mr. Forth: That is an obvious one. The judiciary has a special lack of relationship with the legislature, if I can put it that way. The military and the police are in another position. It is a matter of great pride to us that our civil service is non-political, and therefore—above certain relatively low levels—civil servants are not able to stand for the House of Commons. They are disqualified. These reasons are well understood and well founded, so we can lay to rest the Minister's spurious argument, which he has used two or three times now.
      328
      I have identified some characteristics that Ministers have, as distinct from legislatures, which I believe must disqualify them—in the context of the 1975 Act—from the ability to stand for a legislature. I would broadly categorise the characteristics as Ministers' responsibilities, commitments and access to information. In a sense, their responsibilities are fairly obvious. Anyone who has had the honour of holding ministerial office readily understands the implications of that, as should the Minister himself. It is obvious that anyone with ministerial responsibilities in any political system that is familiar to us would not be able to discharge the responsibilities of a representative or a legislator in a legislature in another country.
      4 am
      That point must be so self-evident that it is hardly worth making. Yet, it appears that we have to make it because the Minister said that there need be no necessary conflict between being a Minister in one jurisdiction and being a Back Bencher—I think that that was the word he used—in another. That is patently absurd. It is absurd at the level of practicality and at the level of the everyday discharge of a Minister's responsibilities.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I wish to support my right hon. Friend's argument. Is he aware of the report that was produced at the beginning of the year that showed the voting record of the past two Secretaries of State for Wales, both of whom hold offices in the Welsh Assembly and remain Members of this House? In 73 Divisions in the House, one of them voted only once and the other did not vote at all. Does that not illustrate my right hon. Friend's point?
      Mr. Forth: What a typically perceptive and helpful remark from my hon. Friend. I could also cite the example of the Prime Minister. How often in the discharge of his high responsibilities does he find time to come to this legislature, of which he is a Member, to vote? The reason that we are given—if we are ever given one—for the Prime Minister's signal failure to attend the House, which he holds in such contempt, is the weight of his ministerial responsibilities. He is busy spinning, making ridiculous visits for photo-opportunities or doing other things, but he does not come here. My hon. Friend makes the effective point that it is difficult to square fully the responsibilities of ministerial office with the full discharge of legislative responsibilities.
      I do not want to be particularly offensive or personal, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not here now. He is probably in his office, signing his letters, going through his red boxes and discharging his ministerial responsibilities. He is not participating in a debate in the House on a matter that relates to his Department. It goes almost without saying that the nature of ministerial responsibilities preclude someone from carrying out a full role in a legislature in his own country, never mind another.
      I have referred to the narrow departmental commitments of Ministers. However, they have many others that they rightly have to discharge. They attend meetings with interest groups and travel around the country so that they are aware of the circumstances with

      329
      which they have to deal. That is right and appropriate, but it is a serious obstacle to their even contemplating a proper role in a legislature elsewhere.
      Then there is the issue of the loyalty to Government expressed through the collective responsibility doctrine with which we are familiar. Again, that is proper and it is expressed in the meetings of Cabinet, Cabinet sub-committees and similar bodies. One does not have to think for very long to realise that the proper exercise of collective responsibility, binding as it does Ministers closely together in the unified discharge of their responsibilities, must be at odds with the suggestion that they could, at one and the same time, be Members of a legislature in another country. The demands and loyalties of collective responsibility must almost constantly conflict with the proper demands of the other legislature. We begin to see emerge a clear pattern of problems and conflicts that provide insurmountable obstacles to someone being a Minister in one jurisdiction and a legislator in another.
      I have not yet mentioned the EU dimension, which brings such problems into sharp focus. There, Ministers have to discharge a different responsibility, one that is unusual and provides greater challenges. When a Minister from a country that has the misfortune to be a member of the EU has to deal with the representatives of other EU member states, he finds himself operating in a new political dimension, in which new tensions arise and new loyalties are suggested. He is removed from his own legislature and his own country, never mind that of another. The status of the United Kingdom and the Republic Ireland as EU member states would give rise to conflicts of interest, even in the voting procedures in the Council of Ministers. Such conflicts would provide the ultimate expression of the lack of harmony that one might imagine exists.
      At every conceivable level, we can see that the job of a political Minister in an Administration, in the governmental context, carries with it a range of demands, requirements and responsibilities that effectively preclude that Minister from discharging any sort of responsibility in another country's legislature.
      The other heading I have jotted down is "Information". Ministers, by definition, are in possession of large amounts of confidential information. Many Ministers are in possession of highly confidential security information that is vital to their country's national interests. It is possible that, were someone in that position to gain a place in a legislature in another country, that person's position might be significantly compromised by his being both in possession of security information from one country and a member of a legislature in another.
      I have given a few examples to illustrate the fact that there is a real principle at stake and practical considerations at work. That brings me back to my first argument—that a purist or an innocent like the Minister might argue that such matters can be left to the electorate. However, that is not true.
      Mr. George Howarth: Democracy.
      Mr. Forth: The Minister mutters, from a sedentary position, the word "democracy". Democracy is a process whereby voters are enabled to choose their
      330
      representatives. However, the Minister has not yet responded to the question I asked: whether he wants the 1975 Act to be repealed.
      Mr. Hayes: The point is not one of democracy, but one of democratic legitimacy. The legitimacy of the House is derived partly from those who can sit as Members and the means by which they come to do so, and partly from the restrictions on those who cannot, for good constitutional reasons, sit as Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend gave the excellent example of civil servants and in this sense the democratic legitimacy of Parliament is partly dependent on ineligibility.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I doubt whether it will elicit a helpful response from the Minister. I believe that I have posed a perfectly proper question. Either the Minister will have to say that he intends to repeal the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, because it cuts across his apparent concept of democracy, or he will have to accept that his concept of democracy can encompass a disqualification process properly passed by Parliament in the past.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the Minister's reliance on the abstract concept of democracy rather fatuous when we consider that if we are talking about a proportional list system in at least one of the parliaments or assemblies, the position on the list may be such that the people have no effective say about whether they can punish an individual for a conflict of interest that he has not satisfactorily resolved? Does not the same apply even in a first-past-the-post system, if he happens to stand successfully for a very safe seat on behalf of his party? The people cannot resolve these conflicts of interest by a process of abstract democracy.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is again correct. Regrettably, we have had a redefinition of the practicalities of democracy by the Government, principally through their introduction of the wicked and pernicious closed-list system for the European elections. The Minister will have to think more carefully before he parades this new and ill-formed definition of democracy before us, which seems to encompass closed lists and the electorate running amok and electing anyone it wants because the Minister will presumably have to repeal the 1975 Act. He cannot have it all ways round and it will have to be one or the other.
      Mr. Bercow: The sheer fatuousness of the Minister's position has been adequately exposed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is particularly unfortunate that a Minister should be clinging to a feeble theoretical model of abstract and total democracy, when last week he was seeking to impress us with his knowledge of Popperian theory?
      Mr. Forth: Yes. I was present when my hon. Friend and the Minister had a rather frustratingly unsatisfactory exchange about Karl Popper and his works. We may be able to return to that subsequently, but I suspect not on this occasion. Let us put down a marker that we shall have to examine the Minister on his full understanding of Popper to ascertain whether he measures up on that. If

      331
      his knowledge of that is as good as his understanding of democracy, I am not optimistic. However, we live in hope.
      We are discussing an important amendment. The Minister made some play of the idea that there is something shocking that we should be saying to our partners in the Commonwealth, given the way that a mature Commonwealth has developed, with so many Commonwealth countries having become republics and with the Australians having a proper debate about their relationship with this country and with the Commonwealth as a whole, "You will forgive us, won't you, if we assert the principle that only United Kingdom citizens should be able to be elected to the UK Parliament?" I cannot imagine that any of our Commonwealth friends would be shocked if we said that to them to correct what has now emerged as an anomaly.
      I have not yet taken the trouble, although I could attempt to do so and return to help the Committee further with the information, to go through the list of Commonwealth members to see how many of them offer reciprocal arrangements. I shall not do so unless pushed. I would make my own judgment about how shocked or not they might be if we were to end the arrangement. I have no problem with that and no fear of it. I am prepared to have amicable discussions with my friends in the Commonwealth and to say, "You do understand this development, don't you?"
      Mr. Oaten: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government had not been rushing the Bill through the House of Commons and had adopted a more normal pace, the discussions of which he talks could have taken place, and we could have had the Commonwealth issue resolved as part of the Bill?
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is right. This indicates yet again the indecent haste with which the Government are trying to smuggle, force or ram the Bill through its parliamentary procedure. If there had been proper time between its stages of consideration, as there usually is, we would all, including the Government, have had time properly to consider the matter. We are where we are; we have to deal with current circumstances. The Government want to invite alien nationals from a country that is not even in the Commonwealth to sit in Parliament. Part of their argument is that they want to correct an anomaly and bring a country that voluntarily left the Commonwealth into line with countries that are in the Commonwealth. The logic escapes me, and would have done so even in normal working hours.
      The amendment is proper and essential. I hope that the Government will reconsider it before we proceed much further. Failing that, I hope that it will receive wide support from the Committee That will show how seriously we take such matters.
      4.15 am
      Mr. Donaldson: Earlier, the Minister pressed the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) about the official Opposition's position on the Commonwealth. The problem would not arise if the Government had not created a precedent by affording rights to nationals of a
      332
      country that is not a member of the Commonwealth. The Government have caused a problem, by extending to the Irish Republic a privilege that previously applied only to Commonwealth countries. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out, that country left the Commonwealth some years ago. The Government have not provided an adequate reason for extending the privilege. On this side of the Committee, we suspect that the decision is to do with the republican movement rather than with the Government's desire to correct an anomaly.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman speculate about why Sinn Fein is so keen on the concessions? We have tended to assume that, for some reason, Sinn Fein members want to sit in the United Kingdom Parliament. However, I suspect that they may want that concession so that they can sit in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Am I right, or do they want to sit here as well as in the Dail?
      Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman is right. The motivation of Republicans who belong to Sinn Fein-IRA is not taking seats in this House as well as the Irish Parliament, but blocking seats here. The constituents of Mid-Ulster and Belfast, West are not properly represented at Westminster. Members of Sinn Fein-IRA want to hold such seats and be eligible to stand for election to the Irish Parliament, and perhaps hold ministerial office there. Sinn Fein-IRA aspires to be part of a coalition Government after the next election in the Irish Republic, perhaps with as few as four or five seats.
      Let us consider circumstances in which a Minister in the Irish Government was also theoretically a Member of Parliament here, but, in practice, did not take his seat. That could cause a conflict of interest. I shall give the Minister an example of a potential conflict of interest for a Minister in the Irish Government who was also a Back-Bench Member of this House. The Irish Republic might declare itself neutral when this country was at war. We might have a Back-Bench Member who was a member of a Government who adopted a neutral stance, which perhaps leaned towards the country with which we were at war. I shall not rehearse the events of 1939 to 1945, when the Irish Republic was neutral. We all know how De Valera, who was then Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, leaned towards the Germans and assisted the German Government in many ways to thwart this country's efforts in defence of freedom. There would be a conflict of interest for a Member of Parliament in a country that was at war, who was also a Minister in a country that was neutral, and in some ways assisted the country with which the first country was at war. That is not an illogical point. Such circumstances could arise in future.
      Why is the privilege being extended only to the Irish Republic? Are we suddenly setting the Republic apart from other nations within the European Union? Do we have a special relationship only with the Republic, and not with other partners in the EU? I do not argue for the moment that the privilege should be extended to them—far from it. I cannot understand the Government's logic in wanting to step beyond the confines of the Commonwealth to extend such a privilege to the Irish Republic.

      333
      It is churlish of the Minister to launch an attack against the official Opposition on the question of the Commonwealth when the Government are taking the privilege beyond the confines of the Commonwealth and creating a situation that has given rise to the need for the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
      Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend is well aware, as I am, that we are talking not only about the fact that the Irish Republic is being treated in a unique way but about the fact that only one party in the whole British Isles is being treated uniquely in regard to the funding of political parties. It claims to be a cross-border body and because of that—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot allow that subject to be debated under this set of amendments.
      Mr. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman makes a relevant point that goes to the heart of the debate. Why is this legislation before the House? Despite the Government's failure to provide a proper reason, we have no doubt that it is part of a deal that has been done with the Republican movement. There may be other aspects. We are demeaning the role of a Member of Parliament by encouraging a Member representing a constituency in the United Kingdom to be a Minister in the Government of another country.
      Mr. Hayes: Ministers take on authority and power on the basis that they can do certain things but not others. The example was given earlier of confidential information. Certain privileges that are unique to a Minister and not shared by Back Benchers make it entirely inappropriate for someone to serve simultaneously as a Back Bencher and Minister. Is that not right?
      Mr. Donaldson: It is. The point was ably made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that there is a conflict of interest, in terms even of the time that a Minister in the Government of another country can devote to his duties in this House. If we say that it is perfectly okay for a Member of this House who has legislative responsibilities to be a Minister in the Government of a foreign country—and so to be unable to devote the time that we expect of our legislators—that demeans and diminishes the role of a Member of Parliament.
      It is not sufficient to leave it to constituents to sort the matter out. Are the constituents of Belfast, West likely to remove the Member for that constituency because he is an abstentionist Member of Parliament? We shall see. It is unlikely because those constituents have voted for that Member for reasons other than that he ought to be their proper legislative representative in this House. We cannot rely on the safeguard that the Minister says is available and leave it to constituents to attend to the problem.
      Parliament has a wider responsibility to safeguard the constitution of this nation. That is why we are elected to this place. If it is for the people to decide on every occasion, why have Parliament in the first place? On this important constitutional issue, Parliament ought to have the right to legislate to safeguard the role of Members of Parliament in participating properly in the life of this body.
      334
      It is wrong for Parliament to create that potential conflict of interest. It is also wrong to move beyond the confines of the Commonwealth and extend to the Irish Republic a privilege not extended to any other nation outside the Commonwealth.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am following the arguments carefully, but I understand that a Minister of the Crown is prevented under legislation from taking a salary from somebody else. I cannot understand how the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can possibly suggest that a Minister could take a separate salary completely outside Government and Parliament.
      Mr. Donaldson: We look to the Under-Secretary for a response.
      In normal circumstances, no one on this side of the Committee would have raised the issue of ending the current situation in respect of the Commonwealth, because it would not have been significant. The Government have created these circumstances, so they cannot blame the Opposition if we unfortunately have to penalise our friends in Commonwealth countries as we try to safeguard Parliament. The Government are seeking to extend that privilege beyond the Commonwealth without good reason.
      Mr. Bercow: Given that a Minister cannot also operate as a Back Bencher in the House and all Ministers readily accept that limitation, is it not peculiar and absurd of the Under-Secretary to argue that a Minister could be a Back Bencher in another House?
      Mr. Donaldson: Ministers are denied the role of Back Bencher because of their responsibilities, but they could sit alongside Back Benchers who are Ministers in the Government of another country. That shows the absurdity of asking Parliament to pass this Bill. Again we ask Ministers why. We conclude that it is to assist the representatives of a party that commands 18 per cent. of the vote in Northern Ireland, whose population is 1.7 million of the 56 million or 57 million people in the United Kingdom. That is nonsense, but why is that party so important to the Government? Why are they going through this process? Precisely because that party has something that other parties in the House do not have—an arsenal of illegal weaponry at its disposal. Its mandate comes not merely from the ballot box, but, to quote one of its representatives, from the Armalite.
      That party believes that power resides not only in the right of the people to vote in elections, which the Under-Secretary has espoused, but in the barrel of a gun. That is what we are dealing with. Parliament is being asked to change a constitutional aspect of our law to assist that particular party and in that sense the Bill is absurd, in parliamentary and constitutional terms. We are extending to a country that is not in the Commonwealth a privilege that was exclusive to member nations of the Commonwealth. What does that say to those nations, which work alongside us?
      The answer to that question concerns our close relationship with the Irish Republic. I am not against good, neighbourly relationships, but surely we ought to ask whether the Irish Republic should rejoin the

      335
      Commonwealth if there is a desire for its citizens or Members of its legislature also to be Members of this House.
      It appears that that option is not available—that the Irish Government for some reason are not prepared, in spite of the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, to rejoin the Commonwealth. It appears that the special relationship is not quite as special as some people would make it out to be. Indeed, when it comes to extraditing people who have been responsible for some of the most serious crimes in the United Kingdom, the special relationship does not count for very much, as we are seeing at the moment in Northern Ireland.
      4.30 am
      Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who has given us some important insights into the Government's motives in bringing forward this legislation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made an important contribution to the debate, not least because he announced an important new plank of Conservative party policy: this is all part of the commonsense revolution. Indeed if ever there was common sense it is that we should not allow Ministers in Governments in other countries and members of other legislatures to be Members of the House of Commons. It must have been an anomaly that was never intended in any legislation that evolved at the same time as the colonies were developing into the Commonwealth, and it resulted in a power enabling the Commonwealth countries to have Ministers serving as Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The fact that that privilege has never been exercised by any Commonwealth country, and the fact that it is a privilege that is not reciprocated by any other Commonwealth country, suggests to me that the whole thing was anomalous in the first place and that those Commonwealth countries realised that it would be in breach of common sense to allow their Ministers to be Members of our legislature.
      For the Minister to suggest that the only reason he is not prepared to accept the amendment is that it would be an affront to Commonwealth countries is disingenuous in the extreme. It is also wrong of the Minister to suggest that this problem can be overcome by leaving it to the electorate, because the issue is about timing. What happens if somebody who is a Member of Parliament in both a foreign country—a Commonwealth country or the Irish Republic—and in the House then becomes a Minister? What say do the electorate have in that situation? They cannot intervene until the next general election.
      The Minister's response that it is for the electorate to deal with the matter does not wash, because the whole essence of the Disqualification Acts is to prevent that from happening in the first place. That is why they take effect before somebody stands for election. For example, before joining the House after the last general election, I was a member of the Health and Safety Commission, and I had to be sure that I had resigned properly from that commission, because it was an office of profit under the
      336
      Crown, before standing as a candidate in the general election. At that stage, I could not be sure of the outcome, but I still had to give up my office of profit under the Crown. The Minister is saying that the electorate can intervene, when clearly they cannot.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether in the future people will not apply for the Chiltern Hundreds; they will apply to become Ministers in the Irish Republic and therefore disallow themselves from carrying on.
      Mr. Chope: That is a very interesting idea. Some hon. Members are highly principled. The former Member for Ceredigion decided that it would be wrong to hold two mandates at the same time, which is why he resigned his position and why a by-election is pending in Ceredigion.
      Perhaps one of the reasons why the Government are embarrassed about accepting the amendment is that they have a large number of MPs whom we never see in the House, who hold office in Scotland and Wales as Members of Parliament and of the Assembly, and as Ministers. Effectively, they are wearing three hats and being paid three salaries. Perhaps that is why the Minister does not find it possible to support the amendment: he knows that it attacks the principle of wearing three hats and having three salaries, which I think most members of the public would find offensive. I certainly do.
      Mr. Ken Purchase: Three salaries?
      Mr. Chope: Until the present Government took office, Ministers took reduced parliamentary salaries. Now, because of the fat cats who are in control, the Government think it necessary for them to have a full parliamentary salary and a full ministerial salary, and for Members of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers to have those two salaries as well. People find that utterly offensive.
      This is an issue of common sense. It is not a case of causing affront to the Commonwealth; it is a question of asking whether we are to extend privileges that do not extend currently in circumstances in which they make no sense to ordinary people.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is just as well for the Government that the amendment is being debated at 4.36 am. If it were being debated at a more reasonable hour, when the press were present—who knows who is watching on the parliamentary channel; perhaps some insomniacs in the Press Gallery are watching—people would see the absurdity of the Government's proposal, and of driving it through the Committee and the House at this ridiculous hour.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I was greatly encouraged by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). He nearly always says sensible things, and he says them with passion, especially when it comes to matters regarding the House. I was delighted when he announced a shift in Conservative policy on this matter, because it is clear that the 1975 Act is an anachronism. The Government are tinkering with the Act, rather than addressing the fundamental irrelevance of the legislation to our present circumstances.

      337
      As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, it is fatuous to suggest that people who represent constituencies in other legislatures should be entitled to sit in this House or, indeed, the other place.
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister is, in fact, challenging the whole principle of disqualification. He said that the arbiter should be the electorate—that the electorate should judge who was eligible or ineligible.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can help. I do not regard the whole question of disqualification as relevant to the discussion of this amendment.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I note your strictures, Mr. Martin. I think that the Minister would like to intervene. I give way.
      Mr. George Howarth: I caution the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that they should not misrepresent anything that I have said.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Of course we do not intend to misrepresent anything that the Minister has said. He has been perfectly clear and I think that my hon. Friend made the right assessment of the line the Minister took.
      I ask the Minister to contemplate: are we seriously suggesting that a Minister in a Commonwealth country who has the right of residence in this country will apply for membership of the House? Is he seriously telling the public that, in 2000, we believe that that is a serious possibility?
      Mr. MacKay: It is preposterous.
      Mr. Howarth: Absolutely.
      If the Minister is advancing that argument, he should start to consider its logical corollary. If he is not prepared to support the amendment, which would rule out Ministers in other Commonwealth countries becoming members of the UK legislature, we could face some bizarre situations.
      My hon. Friends have drawn attention to the idea of people representing other Governments and being fifth columnists here. What would happen, for example, if a Minister from the Government of Zimbabwe took advantage of the legislation, sought election to the House and, by some bizarre circumstance, got elected here? We could then find ourselves in the ludicrous position of a man coming here, taking advantage of being in the Lobby with the Foreign Secretary and saying, "Come on. Give us a few more Hawk spares." He would not say that on behalf of a constituency—well, I suppose that he could be acting on behalf of both constituencies; he could represent a British Aerospace factory in the north-west. Then he would square the circle—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) wish to intervene?
      Mr. Purchase indicated dissent.
      Mr. Howarth: We are always looking for interventions by Labour Members, who have been remarkably silent.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Assuming that the Minister from Zimbabwe was sitting on the Government Benches, it would at least create some lively discussions in the Government Lobby on the subject of section 28.
      Mr. Howarth rose—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will not be tempted down that road.
      Mr. Howarth: I could be, but, looking at your disposition, Sir Alan, I think that I will resist the temptation to follow my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, there is a serious point here. We are seeking to rule out a circumstance that can prevail at the moment. However bizarre it may sound, legislation currently permits some extraordinary things to happen.
      The point that Opposition Members seek to make to the Government is that, instead of dealing properly with disqualification, or qualification for membership of the House, they have gone for one tiny element of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and others have suggested, it is because there is some squalid deal with Sinn Fein, or republicans of some description or other.
      The amendment takes a much more fundamental look at the legislation and suggests that if the Government are not prepared to deal comprehensively with the anomalies that arise out of the legislation as it relates to Commonwealth countries, they should accept the amendment, thereby making it explicit that at least we will rule out the possibility of a Minister in another Commonwealth country having the right to sit in the House.
      I suppose that one could say that there might be advantages. If a Minister in Barbados sought membership of the House, many of us could find arguments for reciprocity, which would become hugely attractive. Conversations in the Lobby would be wholly different from the one that I have outlined in connection with Zimbabwe.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Twinning would take on another form.
      Mr. Howarth: Indeed. There could be all sorts of corruption possibilities as people competed for twinning with Barbados.
      4.45 am
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is describing pithily what will obviously be a conflict of interest if we are not successful in securing the amendment's passage. Does he agree that allowing a Minister in another Parliament to serve as a Back Bencher in this Parliament would enable that individual to use the latter capacity to advance his interests in the former? Could we not have a situation in which such a Minister, using his Back-Bench role in this

      339
      Parliament, would be able not only to make representations to the Foreign Secretary, but, for example, to lobby the Secretary of State for International Development for an improvement in the aid and trade provision to the country in which he was a Minister?
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Pie in the sky.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) has just said that that is a load of rubbish, but, as you will attest, Sir Alan, he has not been in the Chamber or listened to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is entirely right.
      We have to consider other matters. Membership of the House carries certain other benefits, such as provision of research assistants; access to the Library and to information; and the ability to table questions and early-day motions. All those benefits would be afforded to people who might have a conflict of allegiance, which is a serious matter.
      The situation was wholly different in 1955, when Commonwealth countries were essentially governed from this place. Although those who represented people in those various countries sat in their own legislatures, they were British citizens and probably had a house also in the United Kingdom. Therefore, at the time, it made perfect sense not to rule out their entitlement to sit in this place. However, that was 1955.
      In 1975, the opportunity was not sought to change the legislation to reflect the fact that Britain had gradually given up its colonial inheritance.
      Today, 43 years on from the first colony's independence—in the Gold Coast, which became Ghana in 1957—we are in a wholly different position. What is our Government's motto? What was the watchword that appeared in the Queen's Speech time after time? It was modernisation. We have a Government who are committed to modernisation, but they have had the audacity to introduce this miserable little Bill, the true motive for which they will not—
      The Chairman: Order. In previous speeches, the hon. Gentleman has tried to extend his comments to deal with the Bill's general principle, but that is not permitted. He must concentrate his remarks on amendment No. 6, and I do not want to hear arguments that I have already heard repeated. He must stay within the bounds of the amendment and in order.
      Mr. Howarth: I apologise and take your strictures, Sir Alan.
      The Bill presented the Government with an opportunity for modernisation. Amendment No. 6 offers a microcosm of such modernisation. It would provide an opportunity for the Government to say, "We recognise that, although the Disqualification Act 1975 is still valid, we wish to make some wholesale changes to it. We'll deal properly with it."
      Although the Opposition cannot persuade the Government to make other changes, amendment No. 6—which has been tabled not only by official Opposition Members, but by Ulster Unionist Members—would go at least some way towards dealing with one outrageous and
      340
      glaring anomaly in the current legislation. Ministers have made it perfectly clear that they are not prepared to accept even that, but that does not sit at one with the Government's much-vaunted claim to be in the van of modernisation. They are making a big mistake.
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister defended his position with regard to the amendment by saying that the electorate would be the arbiters of whether people's actions were influenced by a conflict of interest. However, we know from experience that politicians in those circumstances typically do not go before their electors. People who rat on their friends and deceive their party— [Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. First, that intervention is far too long. Secondly, I do not wish to hear sedentary comments from the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).
      Mr. Howarth: I agree—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman for Blyth Valley is not seeking to defy the Chair.
      Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), but I think that I have made the point that I wanted to make.
      Mr. William Ross: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman reflected on the mischief that a Minister of a foreign Government could cause if elected to the House. However, he did not mention that any such individual could set up pressure groups to create an atmosphere of pressure on the Government.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has drawn the Committee's attention to the further mischief that could be pursued if Ministers in a foreign—albeit Commonwealth—Government were allowed to participate in our proceedings.
      I hope that a wider audience will learn that, in the middle of the night, the Government were unwilling to address an issue drawn to their attention by Conservative Members and by members of the Ulster Unionist party. In rejecting the amendment, the Government have shown that they are not prepared to deal comprehensively with an anachronistic piece of legislation.
      Mr. Fabricant: I shall not rehearse what has been said about the amendment, but some other points occur to me. We have had 1,000 days of this Labour Government. Concession and appeasement have been evident in our relations with Ireland, and now there is a general erosion of the powers of this House.
      I telephoned a friend in Seattle to discuss the amendment. He could not believe what the Bill proposes. He likened it to a member of a foreign Government being in the House of Representatives at the US Congress and arguing his country's case in the Government of the United States of America. He asked whether that was what we—he called us "you guys"—intended to do.

      341
      My American accent may not be very convincing, but that is an extraordinary proposition. The Bill would extend—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading point. I remind him that Second Reading is over. He must speak to the amendment. I do not want to hear such general comments; the time for them has passed.
      Mr. Fabricant: The Bill would allow an Irish Government Minister to serve here as a Back Bencher. The Minister says that there is nothing wrong with that. After all, we are not saying that a Minister in the Irish Government would become a Minister of the British Crown. He said that it was perfectly normal and satisfactory for a Minister in the Irish Government to become a British Back Bencher. But it is extraordinary.
      We know that smuggling goes on between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] There may be instances in which an equalisation of excise duties is in the interests of the Republic of Ireland. What is to stop an Irish Government Minister, on these green Benches, wearing his British Back Bencher's hat, arguing the case for equalising excise duties? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is making sedentary interventions. He has come into the Chamber— staggered into the Chamber, I might say—and then makes interventions from a sedentary position. Would the hon. Gentleman now like to make a sensible point?
      The Chairman: Order. I think that if the hon. Gentleman reads those words in Hansard, he will regret them. I hope that he will not pursue that particular line.
      Mr. Fabricant: My point is that there would occasionally be conflicts of interest between someone who represented the Irish Government and was also a British Back Bencher. It is quite extraordinary that the clause is being debated, particularly at four minutes to 5 in the morning—in the hope, I suspect, that it will be covered on today's radio and television. Nevertheless I hope that it will.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks would get no coverage, at whatever time of day he made them.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman treats so lightly the British constitution. The hon. Gentleman, who has just wandered into the Chamber and is chuckling away, may or may not have been watching our proceedings on the screen. Is he aware that we are discussing the sovereignty of this Parliament?
      The Chairman: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the amendment? His general point about possible inconsistency has been worked extremely hard for many hours, and I do not think that it can continue to be repeated if the hon. Gentleman wishes to remain in order.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am discussing the amendment, Sir Alan. The whole point about the amendment is to prevent a Minister in the Irish Government from appearing in this Chamber. My point, which has not been
      342
      made before, is that there are questions to do, for example, with excise duties between the two countries. There are other questions, such as security, which have been raised before. They may cause a conflict of interest between the House and the Dail. It is important that these issues be fully discussed. I have been on my feet for only six minutes, and I do not think it unreasonable to rehearse those issues.
      The Chairman: Order. I am trying to assist the hon. Gentleman. He knows that he is going over ground that has been gone over already. Perhaps I should remind him about Standing Order No. 42. I am not prepared to hear the same arguments made over and over again, particularly if they are more nearly related to the general principle of the Bill, which was decided by the House on Second Reading, than to this specific amendment.
      Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Sir Alan. The amendment specifies that no Minister
      "in the government of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom"
      can be a Minister in the United Kingdom Government. That is absolutely right. No other contribution today has referred to cross-border issues such as smuggling, excise duties and other problems in transferring goods across the border.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now repeated himself on those very points. It may be in order to produce an example, but not to develop it to excess, as I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am only repeating myself because I am not being allowed to make my point without some interruption from the Chair. [Interruption.] However, I take your point, Sir Alan. The amendment relates to an important constitutional issue, and should be supported by Members on both sides of the Committee who have any interest in the welfare of the House and of the constituents who elected them to it.
      5 am
      Mr. MacKay: I hesitated before rising to speak, because I assumed that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would be winding up the debate. There have been several significant contributions—not least that of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who has considerable experience in the matters that we have been discussing. Perhaps I was premature in rising. Will the Minister confirm that he is not going to wind up? I do not want to jump in ahead of him.
      Mr. George Howarth: It is strange, Sir Alan. A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I intended to speak again; I made it perfectly clear that I had said everything that I wanted to say in my previous contribution. I do not know why he should assume that I had changed my mind.
      Mr. MacKay: I assumed that I had misheard the Minister. When there has been significant debate on a significant amendment—especially an amendment signed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the First Minister in Northern Ireland, and co-signed by

      343
      other right hon. and hon. Members—and the debate has lasted for more than an hour, with five or six contributions, it is normally courteous to the Committee for the Minister to wind up. However, neither you, Sir Alan, nor I can force the Minister to wind up, so I shall proceed with my winding-up remarks. It is regrettable that the Minister has not paid the Committee the courtesy of winding up the debate. Perhaps, on mature reflection, he might want to do so when I sit down.
      It is worth observing, in what has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, that we have heard no contributions in support of the Minister from Labour Members. We must draw our conclusions on that point.
      I am broadly agnostic about the Bill, but there seem to be two aspects of considerable concern. Those concerns have been expressed not only by Conservative Members, but by Unionist Members and by at least one right hon. and one hon. Member on the Government Benches—the only two Labour Members who have made any significant contribution during the Committee's proceedings.
      The first concern is that there has been constant take, take, take by the paramilitaries—republican and so-called loyalist—with no give whatever. I made that point earlier, so if I pursue it now, I suspect that I shall be out of order.
      The second valid concern is that there will be conflicts of interest and of loyalty. I welcome the fact that, to some extent, those conflicts have been acknowledged by the Government in clause 2. The clause refers to the disqualification from ministerial office in Northern Ireland of anyone who holds ministerial office in the Republic. No doubt, the Minister will want to refer to that matter when we reach clause 2—as will many right hon. and hon. Members.
      There seems to be an absolute acknowledgement that there could be a conflict of interest. Once that has been accepted, we can go a stage further. I welcome the fact that, when we come to clause 2, the Minister has agreed to accept amendment No. 7, although I am not sure whether it was in order for him to mention it during this debate. That provision also acknowledges a conflict of interest, if I have read the amendment correctly. As you will recall, Sir Alan, we have had little time to prepare the amendments, because, for some strange reason, the Government are bulldozing the Bill through Parliament in two parliamentary days; something that never happens normally.
      The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) laughs. Let me explain to her, because she is probably still quite a new Member of the House, although she is a Minister in the Whips Office—
      Mrs. Anne McGuire: Do not patronise me.
      Mr. MacKay: I think that I will patronise the hon. Lady a little, because she obviously thought it was very funny that an important constitutional Bill should be bulldozed through in two days. A Bill usually has a Second Reading and then, the following week or thereafter, passes into Committee. Only when a Bill is urgent or an emergency Bill do Second Reading and Committee take place on consecutive days; and early in
      344
      the Committee the Under-Secretary at the Home Office admitted, from a sedentary position, that the Bill was neither urgent nor an emergency Bill.
      I return to the welcome concession that it appears that the Government intend to make when we reach clause 2, by accepting amendment No. 7. It seems that the Minister is accepting that someone cannot simultaneously be a Minister in the Republic and the Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer in the Assembly. So yet again we have the acceptance of an anomaly and a conflict of interest.
      In moving amendment No. 6, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was absolutely right to say that it is vital that, if a person is a Minister in the Republic, they lose their rights to be a Member of either the Northern Ireland Assembly or this Parliament. There is a total conflict of interest.
      I said that I was agnostic. I am quite prepared to acknowledge that there might or might not be a conflict of interest in being simultaneously a Member of the Dail and a Member of this Parliament, but I have absolutely no doubt that once one becomes a Minister and is a servant of the country, there is a conflict of interest if one is in another legislature. Therefore I am even more convinced than when I added my name to the amendment originally tabled by the First Minister that I was right to do so.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am disappointed that the Minister would not respond. Surely, under the Government rules that we work to, a Minister cannot draw a salary in another House or anywhere else, so we are disallowed from benefiting from the provision, and only people sitting as Ministers in the Irish Republic would be able to draw the two salaries.
      Mr. MacKay: Correct me if I am wrong, Sir Alan, but I believe that new clauses 4 and 5, which appear much later in the selection list, cover that point. I suspect that I would be out of order if I responded in detail, except to say that I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's point.
      I return to amendment No. 6. Before I was interrupted, I was making the—I thought—important point that almost every Member who has contributed to the debate has asked why the Minister is insisting that someone can be a Minister in the Republic and still remain a Member of this place or of the Assembly.
      It is absolutely clear to any of us who know the Republic well and travel there regularly that in the mainstream political parties in the Republic, the people who have, from time to time, held ministerial office have absolutely no wish, desire or expectation to be Members either of the House or of the Assembly. There is only one reason for the provision. Mr. Gerry Adams and other members of Sinn Fein are not only Members of the Assembly, duly and correctly elected. They are not only Members of this House—in the case of Mr. Adams, who has not taken his seat for Belfast, West, and of Mr. McGuinness, who has not taken his seat for Mid-Ulster. We believe that some of those members of Sinn Fein who have been elected to our House and/or the Assembly would like to stand for the Dail. They have the deeply misconceived idea that, if they stand for the Dail and get elected in some numbers—which is entirely a matter for the Irish electorate, not for me, so I shall not comment on the merits of their getting elected—they will

      345
      hold the balance of power, due to the bizarre proportional representation voting system for the Dail. They then believe that one or other of the parties will invite them into coalition, and they will be Ministers. I do not believe that my friends in Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats and the Irish Labour party in the Dail would ever do that, but that is the reason why the Minister is resisting the amendment. It is a pretty shabby reason.
      If that is not the reason, I would like to know why the Minister is resisting an amendment that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—someone whom the Minister and I have rightly praised, and will continue to praise in the difficult weeks and months ahead—has tabled with considerable thought, and which was moved eloquently by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I can think of no conceivable reason why the Minister cannot accept it. It is strange that he can accept the position that Lord Alderdice holds, and it appears that amendment No. 7 may be acceptable. However, that is acceptable only if Mr. Adams and Sinn Fein do not want to hold the positions.
      Mr. George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman should not put words in my mouth. I did not say any of the things that he has just attributed to me.
      Mr. MacKay: With respect, it is difficult to know what the Minister is or is not saying as he is refusing to wind up the debate. If he declines to give his views, I have to interpret them as best I can. I apologise if I have misinterpreted the Minister. There seems to be a simple solution—that when I sit down, he should wind up the debate.
      The Minister told the Committee earlier that there were private discussions between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann which resulted in some changes to the Bill before it was published, one of which was clause 2. That is to be welcomed, as is the fact that the Minister plans to make further concessions in clause 2.
      Having made those concessions, there is no logical reason why the Minister cannot accept this amendment as well, as it is part of the same package and deals with the same point—a conflict of interest that we are trying to avoid. The only conclusion that we can reach is that this is at Sinn Fein's request because Sinn Fein members have a misguided view that they can be elected to seats in the Dail, hold the balance of power and become Ministers. That is a deeply shabby state of affairs, and I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. If he does not, the Committee will accept that I have found the reason.
      Mr. George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I said everything that I considered to be necessary when I spoke earlier. Frankly, it would be superfluous for me to make yet another speech, repeating all the points that I made earlier. It seems to me that there has been far too much repetition already in the debate tonight.
      Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth indicated dissent.
      The Chairman: Order. I think that the Minister has finished his remarks.
      5.15 am
      Mr. William Ross: I moved the amendment and there has been a small amount of debate on it. Many questions have been put to the Minister but, sadly, he has declined to answer them.
      The Minister suggested that clause 2 was inserted at the insistence of the Ulster Unionist party leader, the First Minister. Was the entire clause inserted at his insistence? It would have been a remarkably short Bill without it. What did the Government intend when the Bill was restricted to the provisions in clauses 1 and 3, which merely repeals a section of an existing Act?
      The Minister told us that he had grave objections to the amendment. He said that if the Government accepted it, the Commonwealth element would be excluded. That is correct, but some people said yesterday for reasons that have again been advanced in detail today that we should reconsider the involvement of Commonwealth countries in this context. If that is all that worries him about the amendment, will he accept it table one himself on Report that would take care of that objection?
      Mr. MacKay: Surely, the hon. Gentleman realises that the Bill will not have a Report stage. It is being bulldozed through, so we shall have no chance to debate it on Report. I am afraid that he will be unlucky.
      Mr. Ross: On the face of it, that is correct. However, we have been told that, under certain circumstances, manuscript amendments would be accepted. If the Minister tabled a manuscript amendment, no doubt the Table Office would accept it and you, Sir Alan, could select it so that we could discuss and rapidly agree to it. It is just a matter of the Minister scribbling it out, perhaps with a little help. It could preserve the heart of this amendment by excluding foreigners, but include those whom I consider our cousins from Commonwealth countries.
      The Minister said that a number of people and parties, including the Government of the Irish Republic, were consulted but that there was no consultation with Commonwealth countries. We understand that because of the short time scale involved. However, we have not been given—and we should be interested to see it—a full list of the individuals who have been consulted about the Bill and the amendments.
      Mr. George Howarth: The Bill was published before Christmas and it was wide open to everybody, whatever their interest in these matters, to consider it and make the necessary representations. As I said earlier, I do not have to hand a list of the representations that we have received, but we have not been inundated with them from the

      347
      Opposition or from any other part of the House. It would be superfluous to go over that argument with the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Ross: The Minister refers to representations made after the Bill was published, but I am talking about the consultations, which he has already disclosed in part, that took place before the Bill was drawn up.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition expected a proper interval between Second Reading and the Committee stage, so that there would be a proper opportunity to study the Bill and to table appropriate amendments?
      Mr. George Howarth rose—
      The Chairman: Order. The Minister cannot intervene on an intervention.
      Mr. Ross: No doubt, the Minister will want to intervene on me.
      Mr. George Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, yet again. May I repeat the point that has been made before to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), that the usual channels exist precisely so that such representations can be made. However, they were not made.
      Mr. Ross: As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has already pointed out, members of our party are not involved in the usual channels. Two weeks ago, he made representations asking for information, but received none.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Bill clearly states that it was ordered to be printed on 21 December 1999, which was either the day the House rose or the day before. It is wholly disingenuous to suggest that there was a great opportunity for consideration, as though we were meant to take the Bill home with us and study it on Christmas eve and Christmas day.
      Mr. Ross: That makes us more suspicious. I was even more annoyed that I caught the flu bug over Christmas and so was not in any state to plough through a Bill, even one as short as this one.
      The Minister has still not dealt with my point, which is that there is a difference between representations made after the Bill was published and the consultation that he admits took place with Sinn Fein and the Irish Government. In addition, he has not yet told the Committee who else was consulted about the content of the Bill—
      The Chairman: Order. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have had to do several times already, that he should be speaking specifically about the amendment, not about more general matters that he believes overhang it. We are debating the amendment.
      Mr. Ross: Regrettably, Sir Alan, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who
      348
      composed the amendment, is not present. I do not know whether it arose from his consultation with the Government, or whether he tabled it in sheer frustration at not having had the opportunity for full consultation before the Bill was published—
      The Chairman: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has nobly stepped into the breach to move the amendment, he should do so in his own capacity, rather than speculating about what other right hon. and hon. Members might have done.
      Mr. Ross: As you know, Sir Alan, I am always willing to move amendments, no matter how scant my knowledge. I do so in the sure expectation, which has been fulfilled in today's debate, that as the debate proceeds more information will seep out. As more information has been provided throughout today's debate and yesterday's, we have become more suspicious about the intentions underlying the Bill—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen to what I am saying, which is that he must stick to the amendment. We are not debating the Bill as a whole. The House has already decided on Second Reading that the Bill should be accepted in principle. We are now dealing with the amendment.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Sir Alan. The Committee is clearly in some difficulty and I wonder whether you are able to help. It would be in the interests of the House if there could be a Report stage and if manuscript amendments could be submitted for scrutiny by you and the Speaker. Will it be possible to have a relatively brief suspension between the conclusion of Committee and the commencement of Report?
      The Chairman: There is no case for that—that eventuality does not arise. The House made a decision to proceed with the business until any hour and that is the decision that I must apply.
      Mr. Ross: That was a welcome decision by the House, because it gives us time to explore the issues in moderate detail. We still have a long time to go—we do not even have to stop until this time tomorrow morning. There is no reason not to keep going, as everyone appears perfectly content and well settled down for a long stay. I was a Member of Parliament in the 1970s, when such evenings were quite—
      The Chairman: Order. We do not need a trip down memory lane. We must return to the amendment.
      Mr. Ross: Trips down memory lane sometimes serve to refresh one's memory of happier times when the House sat all night.
      Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: It was not under a Labour Government.
      Mr. Ross: As I recall, the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of Parliament then.

      349
      The amendment is designed to improve the Bill. In that context, what impinges on one part of the Bill must have an influence on the rest of it. On occasion, therefore, one has to widen the scope so that the amendment can be set in the context of the Bill as a whole.
      The amendment seeks to remove the capacity of Ministers of foreign nations to become Back-Bench Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If anyone is elected to any legislature, whether here, the Assembly or anywhere else, there is no guarantee that he will complete the full term of office. A Member might appear in the Assembly from elsewhere. He might be there as an independent, and that would most likely be the case. Under section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 there seems to be some difficulty in filling the vacancy. The Secretary of State
      "may by order make provision for the filling of vacancies occurring in the Assembly's membership … Such provision may be made by reference to by-elections or substitutes or such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
      In that light, I am not entirely sure about the provision for filling a vacancy caused if the sort of Member to which the amendment relates were to die. Such a Member may resign or want to emigrate. He might be needed back at home. In such circumstances, he might not be able to complete his term, so there would be a vacancy. How would it be filled? That is only one of the side issues that flow directly from the amendment. I am curious that the Minister has decided that he will not say anything. I hope that he will address the matter and give us his advice.
      The amendment that deals with Ministers from the Irish Republic is welcome, but I can think of other people who will come in from other countries who might well be Irish nationalists or Irish republicans in disguise, who would act as fifth columnists within the Northern Ireland Assembly. Even if they were not Ministers in the Assembly, they could become Chairmen of Committees, for example. In that powerful position they could pursue an objective that the generality of the population of Northern Ireland might not wish to see pursued. Whenever I consider that possibility and the inherent dangers for the people of Northern Ireland, I see that they fit in with new articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Government draft legislation to amend the constitution.
      You will be aware, Sir Alan, having been an assiduous observer of these matters, that although the original articles disappeared, a new one appeared which stated:
      "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage."
      That is the sort of person of whom I am thinking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, we and our hon. Friends would be cherished.
      Article 3 states:
      "It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities … recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people."
      350
      It is that consent that we are concerned with because we see signs that we shall be undermined by people coming in through the loophole that is left in the Bill, which the amendment seeks to close. I presume that people such as Austin Currie, who has already been mentioned, could stand for election. He has been a prominent member of the Dublin political establishment for many years. He is not friendly to the Unionist position, and we fear that a chap like him could get elected and be in a position to undermine Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom.
      5.30 am
      What are the real reasons for the Bill? Has Sinn Fein agreed to it and does it disagree with the sort of measures that the amendment proposes? It is not the potential conflict of interest, but the potential conjunction of interest with that of the Irish Republic that worries me. A litany of measures favours the Sinn Fein-IRA element, and no one else. For those who care to look for it, there is clear evidence that Sinn Fein is being favoured in many ways, including the funding of political parties.
      Mr. Maginnis: Does my hon. Friend realise that if the Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), took his seat in the Dail and became a Minister there, he would have to give up his position in the Assembly? Since the position of Deputy First Minister is inextricably linked with that of First Minister, the enforced resignation of the former would terminate the office of the latter. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary has considered the consequences of that.
      Mr. Ross: I do not know whether the Under-Secretary has considered that, but I have. It is one of the reasons for my objections to many elements of the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) shouts from a sedentary position. If he wants to make a speech or intervene, I am more than happy to give way to him. If a comment is not worth making in a speech, it is not worth making from behind.
      Mr. Bercow: Or even out of his behind.
      Mr. Ross: I shall use my discretion and stick closely to what I intended to say.
      I have almost reached the end of my remarks. [Interruption.] I could go on, but I know that hon. Members are anxious to examine the next group of amendments. When I have finished speaking on this group, I shall have 15 minutes in which to collect my thoughts and then I shall be on my feet again to explain the problems that the next group tries to redress.
      Mr. MacKay: First, we shall discuss clause stand part.
      Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is right; we shall spend a few minutes discussing clause stand part. That will take us until dawn at least. [Interruption.] It has been a long and cheerful night, and we are now reaching the giggly stage. That used to happen at about 3 am or 4 am, but it has happened a little later today.

      351
      I have expressed my views on the amendment and failed to get clear answers from the Under-Secretary about the reason for his refusal to accept the amendment or to undertake to table an amendment on Report or in another place to protect the Commonwealth, which, so far as I could gather from his initial remarks, was the only reason for his view—
      Mr. George Howarth indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary shakes his head and thus suggests that there were other reasons. He must reply to the debate and explain the other elements that caused him anxiety. I shall press the amendment to a Division, but I am happy to allow the Under-Secretary to intervene. Does he wish to do that?
      Mr. Howarth indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ross: Sadly, the Minister does not have an answer. He is not prepared to make an effort to improve the Bill. In the light of that, I have no choice but to press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 25, Noes 224.

      Division No. 43]

      [5.34 am

      AYES

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Bercow, John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Chope, Christopher

      Oaten, Mark

      Clappison, James

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Swayne, Desmond

      Cran, James

      Syms, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Thompson, William

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Tredinnick, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Walter, Robert

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Hayes, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Mr. John Randall and

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mr. Roy Beggs.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Browne, Desmond

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barnes, Harry

      Caplin, Ivor

      Battle, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clapham, Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Best, Harold

      Clelland, David

      Betts, Clive

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cohen, Harry

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coleman, Iain

      Borrow, David

      Colman, Tony

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corston, Jean

      352

      Cousins, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Cranston, Ross

      Levitt, Tom

      Crausby, David

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Cummings, John

      Linton, Martin

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Lock, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Love, Andrew

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davidson, Ian

      McCabe, Steve

      Dawson, Hilton

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      McDonnell, John

      Denham, John

      McFall, John

      Dobbin, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Doran, Frank

      McNulty, Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Efford, Clive

      McWalter, Tony

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Mallaber, Judy

      Ennis, Jeff

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Fisher, Mark

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Flint, Caroline

      Martlew, Eric

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Merron, Gillian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Miller, Andrew

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Foulkes, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gapes, Mike

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Gardiner, Barry

      Morley, Elliot

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mountford, Kali

      Goggins, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Grogan, John

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Pike, Peter L

      Healey, John

      Plaskitt, James

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Hesford, Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Hill, Keith

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hope, Phil

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Purchase, Ken

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Rammell, Bill

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Rooney, Terry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Ruddock, Joan

      Illsley, Eric

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Jamieson, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Jenkins, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Singh, Marsha

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Soley, Clive

      Kemp, Fraser

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Kidney, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Stevenson, George

      Laxton, Bob

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Lepper, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      353

      Stringer, Graham

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Watts, David

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wills, Michael

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Winnick, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Todd, Mark

      Wood, Mike

      Trickett, Jon

      Woodward, Shaun

      Truswell, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tynan, Bill

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Mr. Don Touhig.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 24.

      Division No. 44]

      [5.47 am

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cranston, Ross

      Alexander, Douglas

      Crausby, David

      Allen, Graham

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cummings, John

      Austin, John

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Barnes, Harry

      Daryell, Tam

      Battle, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davidson, Ian

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Denham, John

      Benton, Joe

      Dobbin, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Best, Harold

      Doran, Frank

      Betts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Efford, Clive

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Borrow, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caplin, Ivor

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clapham, Michael

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Grogan, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Colman, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Connarty, Michael

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Healey, John

      Corston, Jean

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      354

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hesford, Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Hope, Phil

      Plaskitt, James

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pollard, Kerry

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Illsley, Eric

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Rammell, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Jamieson, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Jenkins, Brian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jones, Mrs Rona (Newark)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Sawford, Phil

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sheerman, Barry

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Singh, Marsha

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kidney, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Soley, Clive

      Laxton, Bob

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Lepper, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Levitt, Tom

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Stevenson, George

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Linton, Martin

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Lock, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Love, Andrew

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McCabe, Steve

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McDonnell John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      McFall, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Trickett, Jon

      Trickett, Jon

      McNulty, Tony

      Truswell, Paul

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      McWalter, Tony

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Tynan, Bill

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Martlew, Eric

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Merron, Gillian

      Wareing, Robert N

      Miller, Andrew

      Watts, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Morley, Elliot

      Wills, Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Mountford, Kali

      Wood, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Woodward, Shaun

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Woolas, Phil

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Worthington, Tony

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Pearson, Ian

      Mr. Don Touhig.

      NOES

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Clappison, James

      Bercow, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Cran, James

      Chope, Christopher

      Day, Stephen

      355

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Swayne, Desmond

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Syms, Robert

      Hunter, Andrew

      Thompson, William

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Walter, Robert

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Maginnis, Ken

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Oaten, Mark

      Mr. John Randall and

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Mr. Roy Beggs.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Will you clarify something for the benefit of the Committee? I believe that it is right that sittings in Westminster Hall are not affected, irrespective of how long the Committee sits, and that, although it is still Tuesday in the House, Wednesday in Westminster Hall will happen as planned. Will you confirm that that is the case?
      The Chairman: The Standing Orders are specific. Sittings in Westminster Hall are not affected by a late sitting in the Chamber. Indeed, I can confirm that I shall have the honour of chairing the sitting in Westminster Hall.

    Clause 2

      DISQUALIFICATION FOR MINISTERIAL OFFICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 21, page 1, line 13, after 'Minister', insert—
      'Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 7, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
      'or
      '(d) be nominated as a chairman or a deputy chairman of a statutory committee'.
      Amendment No. 14, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
      'or is Chair or Vice Chair of a Subject Committee in the legislature of Ireland'.
      Amendment No. 18, page 1, line 18, at end add—
      'or on becoming a Chair or Vice Chair of a subject Committee'.
      New clause 3—Disqualification from election as Speaker or Deputy Speaker—
      'No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland (the Oireachtas) may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons'.
      Amendment No. 9, in title, line 5, leave out 'Ministerial office' and insert 'certain offices'.
      Mr. Ross: I had hoped that we would have time to range back over the previous debates. A number of things need to be explored, especially as the Minister saw fit not to reply to the short debate on the previous group of amendments, but, in your wisdom, Sir Alan, you have chosen otherwise, so we have come somewhat sooner than we had expected to the group of amendments relating to clause 2.
      As you have said, Sir Alan, there are five amendments and a new clause in the new group. They are all much of a muchness. The same general thesis runs through
      356
      them all. One Minister—he seems to have departed; no, he is there—said earlier that he was minded perhaps to accept amendment No. 7.
      6 am
      As you will see, Sir Alan, the amendments were tabled by me, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and by the right hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). The amendments in the group all have a certain sameness about them, and are all related in the sense that they are aimed at preventing the same evil. Therefore, if the Government really want to make some progress on the Bill, the Minister should stop me now and say that the Government will happily accept the whole group of amendments. That would immediately resolve the difficulty.
      The Minister seems to be unwilling to do that, although he has already said that he is accepting the principle in one amendment. As the principle is the same in all the amendments, what on earth is he worrying about? If the principle in amendments Nos. 7 and 21 is acceptable, why should it not be acceptable in new clause 3?
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman making the simple mistake of assuming that the Government will show some consistency?
      Mr. Ross: What troubles me is that, although the Government are sometimes consistent, the driving force behind their consistency is so carefully concealed behind a smokescreen of words and misdemeanours. One is never able to catch up with what they are doing until the evil consequences of their actions appear one year or five years later.
      Mr. Swayne: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is being fair when he says that the same principle underlines all the amendments. The chairmen are most definitely Back Benchers and are not at all comparable to members of the Executive. I think that the hon. Gentleman may have tabled and moved essentially a wrecking amendment.
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman may justifiably accuse me of many things, but, on this occasion, not of tabling a wrecking amendment. I am anxious to improve the Bill, which needs so much improvement that it needs to be rebuilt. However, that is a totally different matter from wrecking it completely.
      The Government must see some good in the proposals, or they have been grievously misled by the IRA. Perhaps Ministers have been so threatened or blackmailed by the IRA's weapons or other means that they feel they have to do as they are told. However, I assure the Committee that amendment No. 21 is certainly not a wrecking amendment.
      Mr. Swayne rose—
      Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed for a few minutes, he will see that my proposals are logical.
      Mr. Forth: For the sake of clarity, will my hon. Friend tell me why he has resorted to that ghastly "chair and vice

      357
      chair" formulation? Conservative Members still talk about chairman and vice chairman, and we are proud and happy to do so. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends from Northern Ireland have not slipped into political correctness.
      Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that our proposals had to be tabled in great haste, before we were able to think them through entirely. So many people are now so anxious to apply the strictures of political correctness that they might ask, "What if it is a lady?", forgetting that, in United Kingdom legislation, the legal definition of the male embraces the female—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentleman should not get too carried away with that information; it is much too late, or much too early, for that.
      I am talking about a legal definition, which Ministers will understand perfectly well. In British law, the term "he" encompasses "she".
      Dr. Julian Lewis: It even embraces her.
      Mr. Ross: It was a barrister who told me that, as banisters in the Committee will be aware, "he" embraces "she."
      Mr. Fabricant: I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with—I am almost tempted to say my right hon. Friend—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said that the worst thing that one could possibly write report is "she/he". Indeed, it was expunged from a Select Committee Report.
      Mr. Ross: It is time to leave these highways and byways and proceed to the amendments, although a few minutes on preliminaries are always well spent.
      I regret the usages that so offend my hon. Friend—the Tories feel like hon. Friends again after 20 years or so. It is clear, from its long title, that the Bill is somewhat restrictive. Amendment No. 9 has been tabled to correct a drafting point by replacing the phrase "Ministerial office" with "certain offices". It is necessary because of the wide range of offices addressed by various other amendments. Not all such offices are affected, but a fair number are.
      Preceding debates have made it clear that the Bill to some extent is intended to avoid the conflict of interests that has so exercised the minds of many hon. Members over the past few hours. We fear that the Bill does not achieve its aim. It is very badly drafted, and has clearly been cobbled together in a hurry. The amendments are an attempt to make it more precise and tighten the wording. We want to make certain that the Government's intention is fulfilled.
      Clearly, clause 2 does not meet the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann, the leader of our party and the First Minister in Northern Ireland. That is despite the fact that it was inserted into the Bill at his request, as we were told earlier. The Bill does not meet the needs of the Ulster Unionist party or the Conservative party. It is kneejerk, ill-thought-out legislation designed to please the IRA.
      358
      The proverb "act in haste and repent at leisure" is well known. If we were to ask the IRA, "Would this Bill please you?", the real answer would be yes. The Secretary of State, the Government spokesman or whoever the present contacts are—
      The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before this morning, he must confine himself to the amendments. They are, after all, his amendments.
      Mr. Ross: I am trying to do that, Mr. Martin, but we have gone a long time without sleep and the way hon. Members chat in the background can be distracting.
      Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is asleep.
      Mr. Ross: Yes, he is not speaking at the moment—although he is listening.
      The Government would say to the IRA, "Of course, whatever you want, right away." They are acting in haste and will repent at leisure. I note that although the amendments tabled by the Conservative party and ourselves are not exactly the same, we were aiming at the same targets for the same reason. The amendments are precise enough to meet the case.
      It is not possible to serve two masters; it is not physically possible to be in two places at once. We must make up our mind what job to do and then do it. [Interruption.] I hear it said, from a sedentary position, that it is possible to collect two salaries. I have tabled amendments to deal with that and the concept of collecting two lots of office allowance, claiming double for plane flights and car journeys and heaven knows what other dangers.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will know that the claiming of two salaries is dealt with later, when his remarks will be helpful. Perhaps he can keep his powder dry until we reach that stage.
      Mr. William Ross: I was responding to a sedentary remark, and I realise that I should not have done so. I was aware that this point would arise—after all, these are my amendments. I thought about the dangers to the public purse. It is a question not only of extra salaries but of the possibility of fraud, whether inadvertent or not. We will come back to that issue later.
      The amendments would clean up the Bill, making it precise and tight. They would make it clear that certain people should not be permitted to do certain jobs. The Government have already admitted that there could be a clash of interests if people held ministerial positions in two legislatures.
      It is impossible to imagine that a foreign legislator could do some of the jobs that I refer to in the amendments. That said, I think that we should not allow the doors to open.
      Many things are happening in Northern Ireland today that I would at one time have thought impossible. They have been tried and, even though they have not yet been very successful, some people are still hopeful. We shall see how matters develop over the next week or two. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann

      359
      (Mr. Trimble) has written his resignation. The same holds true of the president of the party and the other Ministers in the Executive. If the weapons are not given up, we will be in a difficult position relatively soon.
      I am more used to pronouncing Irish place names than Irish institutions such as the Oireachtas. I fear they are beyond me and I have no particular urge to learn how to utter these words. Bearing that in mind, let me quote new clause 3, which states:
      "No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland (the Oireachtas) may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons".
      Under no circumstances, Mr. Martin, would I like to see a good Glasgow man like yourself replaced by a Dubliner. I prefer to be sitting under your control, Mr. Martin, or under the control of Madam Speaker, of Sir Alan and all the other hon. Members who preside over this House at one time or another. Every Member of the House would want a United Kingdom citizen to occupy that position. That is why I have tabled this extremely sensible amendment.
      6.15 am
      However, the Minister had the temerity to say that the Government could not accept the amendment. If we do not include this provision, sooner or later, some clown will tell us what we must do, because the European Commission of Human Rights says that it is not fair to allow one lot in without the other. That would raise the issue of hybridity; we do not want to go down that road. That is why I tabled the new clause.
      Mr. Swayne: Although I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker should not be Members of a foreign Parliament, is he not introducing a new concept—that there would be Members of Parliament who have differential rights to be elected to particular offices? That is why I suggested that the hon. Gentleman might be proposing a wrecking amendment. In essence, he is saying that those people could not be real Members of the Parliament.
      Mr. Ross: That is my sentiment. They would have divided loyalty, so they could not be full Members of the House; they would not be part and parcel of the whole ethos of this place. In no circumstances, would I want to see the First Commoner of England a Member of Dail Eireann, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate what I am trying to do.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be in danger of a slight contradiction, depending on which way he voted earlier on the amendment that was designed to achieve reciprocation—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We will not return to how Members voted on amendments.
      Dr. Lewis: My point directly relates to that matter.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I have said that it cannot relate to that matter. That is my ruling. We stick to the amendments before us.
      Mr. Ross: Although I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, nor a mind reader, I have a fair idea of what the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was about to say. My response is that if an earlier amendment had been accepted—despite the doubts of some hon. Members—our view on this amendment might have changed. In those circumstances, we might have found it expedient not to move amendment No. 21. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that I am at least trying to be consistent in my efforts to improve this miserable Bill. I am trying to make it a little better by tightening it up.
      From the days of King Charles and before—in trying circumstances—the Speaker has always been the protector of the rights and privileges of this place and of its Members. I should prefer to be protected by Madam Speaker than by Mr. Charlie Haughey, for example. At least, I should not have to watch my wallet if I was ill.
      However, under the Bill, there would be nothing to prevent my fears from coming about. I have deep concerns; we should protect the position of the Chair. It should be reserved for a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament and for a citizen of the United Kingdom. I do not want it to go to somebody else.
      Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the Government have given any reason as to why they will not accept the new clause?
      Mr. Ross: The Minister has sat in lonely silence for a long time. We hope that, on this occasion, he will be tempted to get to his feet and explain why he is prepared to accept the principle of the provision, as he has already told us. It is surprising for a Minister to tell us long in advance that the Government will not accept an amendment under discussion, but that they will accept one that will be debated much later—two or three miles down the road. I always believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush any day of the week. The Minister is not a shooting man; he does not understand, but he will appreciate that it is always better to get what one can, when one can, from the Government and not give oneself up as a hostage to fortune.
      Amendment No. 21 applies the same rule to the Northern Ireland Assembly. A Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer should not be a member of a foreign legislature. I should have thought that that was a very sensible amendment to table—unless the matter is covered elsewhere the Bill. We have not had much time to study the Bill to decide what was needed, because one never really knows what a Bill is all about until one has heard the Ministers speak at Second Reading and the detail has been teased out to some extent. Afterwards one decides what amendments to table. This time we did not have time, and it had to be done in a rush.
      What I said with regard to the Speaker and Deputy Speaker applies with equal force to those who are the senior officers in the Assembly. The Minister tells us that the principle of amendment No. 7 is acceptable, but that amendment No. 14 is not acceptable. I have only a vague idea about the procedures in the Dail, but I am sure that it must have a Committee system, so the same principle should apply to the Dail.

      361
      That is the theory that underlies our amendments in the group. They are drafted fairly simply and straightforwardly. The Minister has not given us any reason, good or bad, why he will not accept them. We expect a bad reason if he is not accepting them
      The Minister admitted previously that Ministers in the Dail would have a serious conflict of interests if they also served simultaneously in the Assembly or the United Kingdom Parliament. Only the surface of that iceberg has been explored. The same must be true of all the officers mentioned in our amendments. It is pointless to say "Leave it to the Assembly; leave it to the electorate" when we have seen the wheeling and dealing by Government to avoid the IRA bombing some place or shooting someone or breaking their ceasefire. Mind you, whenever people are shot—a gentleman was shot at Portadown not so long ago—we are told that the people who shot them have not broken their ceasefire. People were murdered by the IRA; we are told that the IRA has not broken its ceasefire. I presume that that is looked upon as house-keeping. That is fairly bloody house-keeping, and a murderous house-keeping. It costs people their lives and causes a great deal of misery, but the IRA is still on ceasefire.
      In those circumstances, I have great difficulty in accepting what the Government say. I believe that they are wheeling and dealing and doing everything that they can to buy the IRA off, and I believe that the Bill is part of that buying off. We shall see the Royal Ulster Constabulary wrecked. We have seen the prisoners let out. We have seen the proposal to let Sinn Fein-IRA in to make use of the facilities of the House and to collect, not only their salaries but 100,000 quid to run their propaganda machine back home. We have heard all the talk about the border observation posts going. We have seen gun running and smuggling—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is definitely straying from the amendment. Even allowing for the long hours that we have worked, I cannot allow him to stray so far.
      Mr. Ross: I am sorry that you take that view, Mr. Martin. I was trying to explain to the House why the Government are not accepting the amendments. There must be something in the amendments that is offensive to the IRA; otherwise, they would be accepted.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not another possibility that the Government genuinely believe in what they are doing? It is possible to believe in two contradictory views simultaneously. It is called doublethink, which was invented by George Orwell, the 50th anniversary of whose death we are marking. Does that explain why the Government can accept the principle in some amendments and reject the same principle in others?
      Mr. Ross: I read Orwell as a young man and found it interesting. Ministers should go back and read his books again, as that might give them an understanding of themselves and the problems with their own thinking. I do not want to trespass on your goodwill, Mr. Martin, so I had better move on.
      The Government have swallowed all of those things that I mentioned earlier, at a cost of several hundreds of millions of pounds of oil revenue alone. That has been
      362
      swallowed in an effort to keep the IRA on board. We should not pay the price that the IRA are evidently demanding. The IRA should accept the standards that normal, civilised folk accept. They should leave their thuggery, violence and threats behind. They should produce their weapons, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure, accept the rule of the Queen's law and pinpoint the bodies of the disappeared. The last point is another matter that is coming up again, although not in the Bill. However, it is relevant, as many people in Northern Ireland are concerned about it.
      If the IRA left behind their embittered past and their hatred of all things British, perhaps my party might begin to treat them as a normal political party. As it is, we have to try to keep those in the IRA at arm's length to ensure that they do not get into a position where they can inflict more damage on the constitution of this country and its institutions. That is why the amendments have been tabled.
      Mr. George Howarth: I am tempted to be drawn into the discussion about the works of George Orwell—simply to say that a text that the hon. Member for East Londonderry might have read sums up a little of what has taken place in the Chamber these last hours. It is "Homage to Catalonia" in which Orwell, who fought in the Spanish civil war, described the experience of trying to fight alongside the anarchists when nobody seemed to be in control. The anarchists had taken over the war and were not making a great deal of progress. I wonder whether Opposition Front Benchers might care to reflect on "Homage to Catalonia" and the lessons that they could learn from it.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: The Minister will notice that I am temporarily in charge of our affairs, and it seems to me that we may be belated in our historical references. Was it not the white rabbit in "Alice in Wonderland" who had learned to believe six impossible things before breakfast? That seems to be exactly relevant to the situation in which the Committee finds itself at this hour.
      Mr. Howarth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is occupying the Front Bench or has stepped through the looking glass. In any event, he should consider looking at his own reflection rather than try to cast doubt on what we are doing.
      6.30 am
      Mr. William Ross: The Minister referred earlier to the Spanish civil war. It is a subject that I have not studied; perhaps he could recommend a good book.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That can be done in the Tea Room, but certainly not here.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for East Londonderry is capable of finding his own reading material without my help.
      I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and to his colleagues for drawing attention in the amendments to the fundamental difference between the Statutory Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Committees in the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. They will be aware that the Statutory

      363
      Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly are entirely different. In addition to the scrutiny role that the Committees of this House and other legislatures have, they have an important role in developing policy. They do that in partnership with Ministers, and that point is set out clearly in the Good Friday agreement and in section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
      It would be right to accept in principle amendments Nos. 7 and 9 and to include within the offices of the Assembly which may not be held by the Irish Government the positions of Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Statutory Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As drafted, the amendments apply only to the proposed new section 19A(1), covering the position in which a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly is nominated to serve as the Chairman or Deputy Chairman. To have the desired effect, the proposed section 19A(2), will also require amendment to cover the situation in which a serving Chairman or Deputy Chairman becomes a Minister in the Irish Government. The Government will therefore wish to table the necessary amendment when the Bill proceeds to another place, to cover the issues raised by the two amendments before us.
      I do not think that it would be right to extend the Bill to add further to the list of offices that may not be held, hypothetically, by Irish Ministers. There is, however, a fundamental difference between holding ministerial office in the Northern Ireland Executive or serving as the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of an Assembly Committee and serving as the Presiding Officer or Deputy Presiding Officer of the Assembly. While Northern Ireland Ministers and Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Committees are appointed under the d'Hondt system, the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer are elected by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which can therefore judge for itself whether any individual proposed for such an office is likely to be affected by a conflict of interest.
      It is appropriate that the Assembly should have the freedom to make up its own mind, and amendment No. 21 would prevent that. Similarly, this House should have the freedom to select its own Speaker. Therefore, new clause 3 should be rejected. Amendments Nos. 14 and 18 should also be rejected. As I have said, Statutory Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly are fundamentally different from those in other legislatures which do not have the same statutory role in the development of Government policy. It is not therefore necessary to prevent the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Committees in the legislature of Ireland from serving as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive.
      Mr. Forth: I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble in his courteous way to guide us in the debate at this relatively early stage. Having cleared the ground in our deliberations as a Committee, we are now starting to reach the meat of things. It is a relief to have got the preliminaries out of the way. I am delighted that we can now get down to the nitty-gritty—I have been waiting for this moment for some time.
      The Minister was, in fact, less helpful than he might think he was. He helpfully indicated that the Government were prepared to accept at least the principle of two or three of the amendments, for which I suppose we should all be grovellingly grateful.
      Mr. William Ross: We should never be grovellingly grateful to a Minister. We should be thankful for his good sense.
      Mr. Forth: That is certainly a different way of looking at things. Typically, my hon. Friend is far more charitable than I feel inclined to be at this stage in the proceedings.
      It is sad that the Minister resorted to the sort of argument that he has employed throughout our debates—one that is almost entirely false. I shall return to that matter later. First, I shall go carefully through the amendments and examine the different meaning and relevance of each one. The Minister acknowledged that they are all different by stating that he was sympathetic to some of them, but that he would reject others. That proved that, although the amendments are grouped, each contains principles and suggests approaches of which we should be separately aware.
      The essence of clause 2 is that it makes an important distinction between those who hold political office, either elective or appointed, in the Republic of Ireland, and those who are, in their different ways, to participate in the new Northern Ireland Assembly. It is important that we have clear in our minds the lines of distinction that we wish to draw, and that we decide whether we are willing to contemplate those lines being blurred.
      The thrust of much of our argument is that it is not only legitimate but essential that we maintain a clear distinction in our minds, in practice and in the Bill, between different nations, different sovereign states and different countries. It is of no consequence that those countries might share interests in the EU—that has no direct bearing on the Bill.
      I do not believe that the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its various posts should be sufficient to persuade us that there should be a crossing of the boundaries that we have hitherto held to be important in distinguishing nations and their identity, and politicians and their responsibilities. We have touched on that issue in previous debates, albeit from a different angle. Now, we clearly see that the issue is whether someone who holds office in the Republic of Ireland should ever have the opportunity to hold further office, in a different capacity, in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      The Minister has correctly pointed out that some of the descriptions are slightly strange to us—for example, the posts of Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer. He helpfully told us that the roles of the Committees is different: Statutory Committees have both a scrutiny role and a policy development role—in partnership with Ministers, he added. Ministers of the current Government do not like to let too many sentences pass before slipping in the word "partnership". It gives them a feeling a security—it is a device to make Ministers feel that they are doing good things, that they are on-message and that everything will work out well. Partnership is a word they like to use as often as possible.
      I suppose that it was innocent of the Minister on this occasion to tell us that the Statutory Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly had not only the scrutiny role but the policy development role, in partnership with Ministers. He was at pains to say that. I have no objection to the word, but I think that it is usually fairly meaningless. The real test is whether the Committees work effectively and produce results.

      365
      Surely the important point is that the role of the Statutory Committees in combining scrutiny and policy development makes them particularly vulnerable to infiltration by politicians from an altogether different country. We must be aware of that as we pick our way through the complexities of the amendments. Time and again, we must ask ourselves how far, or whether, we believe that it is or is not compatible for politicians from the Republic of Ireland—a separate, independent country—to have the opportunity to play any role in the new arrangements that are emerging and developing in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      We have the Presiding Officer and his Deputy and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Statutory Committees, who must be the subject of our considerations. On the other side of the coin, we must consider whether different sorts of people from the Republic of Ireland are, in their different ways, able to insert themselves into the political process in part of the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 14 refers—I must use the words because they are used in the amendment—to the
      "Chair or Vice Chair of a Subject Committee in the legislature of Ireland."
      Amendment No. 18 refers to
      "a Chair or Vice Chair of a subject Committee."
      I find those words difficult and distasteful, but I want to remain faithful to the amendments. I shall have a quiet word with those who wrote them later about using such ghastly forms of words. However, I suppose that we know more or less what we are talking about.
      The issue is whether the Committee believes that it is reasonable to expect politicians holding either legislative or executive office to be doing so simultaneously in the Republic of Ireland and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is a fairly straightforward question and I cannot understand why the Minister is unable to face it and accept the thrust of the argument.
      If we want to see the Northern Ireland Assembly as a new and valid body to which people in Northern Ireland will look to reflect their new identity in the sort of world that we all want to see developing there, I have serious doubts about whether it will help the process if we allow, encourage or permit participation by political figures from a different country altogether. My argument is that it will distinctly hinder the process. In blurring these hitherto well-understood political distinctions between one country and another and their respective institutions, we are getting ourselves into some considerable dangers. The amendments are entitled to somewhat closer consideration than it would appear the Minister has been prepared to give them.
      New clause 3 takes us again into different territory. It makes an explicit reference to the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, and a different argument arises. The Minister touched on a part of it, and that was a reflection of an earlier debate. He said that surely the Members of a body—the Assembly or the House of Commons—should be free to choose or to elect anyone they saw fit to hold an office such as the Presiding Officer or the Speaker, for example. That is something on which we should reflect. It is a seductive argument and it plays to our vanity that we in this place should feel secure in being able to choose anyone for those offices.
      366
      6.45 am
      I exposed the Under-Secretary's fallacious argument earlier when he claimed that the electorate should be free to elect anyone they want to a body, completely ignoring the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. I won that argument and the Under-Secretary lost it comprehensively. He has not yet come to terms with that. We could take the argument forward and claim that it would be legitimate, especially in the formative stages of the new Northern Ireland Assembly, for the House, as the Assembly's creator, to protect Assembly Members, even from themselves and their potential early misjudgments, for example, in selecting a Presiding Officer. Although it is tempting to say, "Off you go, new democratic body. Do your own thing and take your own responsibility," I tentatively suggest that the Assembly is not ready for that in its initial stages. It may be incumbent on us to consider that and decide whether we have an obligation to examine those matters carefully.
      Mr. Swayne: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We would fail in our duty if we did not take that opportunity. However, new clause 3 refers to the House of Commons, and would protect us from ourselves. I am not sure whether that is legitimate.
      Mr. Forth: It is not always a bad thing. Perhaps members of the Committee, with their combined sagacity, should protect our colleagues who have not seen fit to participate in the debate as fully as some of us. We have taken the trouble to examine the Bill and digest its contents. It may surprise my hon. Friend to realise that we took the new clause more seriously than he thought at first blush.
      The new clause develops a theme introduced in other amendments. It would ensure that
      "No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland ֵ may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker"
      here. That makes the large assumption that such a person would be elected here in the first place. Unfortunately, so far, we must take that as read.
      Mr. Chope: The current Prime Minister views the selection of the Speaker of the House of Commons as within his powers of patronage.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot discuss those matters.
      Mr. Forth: Certainly not, Mr. Martin. It is tempting to try to protect ourselves from the Prime Minister, but he is here so rarely that I do not worry about his influence on the selection of the Speaker or any other matter to do with the House of Commons. That is one of the benefits of the Prime Minister's almost complete absence from the Chamber. My hon. Friend can rest assured on that point.
      We have to make a judgment about how far it is proper and profitable in the context of the Bill and the amendments to try to protect perhaps even ourselves, and whether we should provide some assurance or protection to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is still very new. Its existence is, regrettably, a matter for doubt and speculation.

      367
      Given the uncertainties that I have outlined, there is a strong argument for saying that we are obliged to provide as much of a framework, and as much assurance and proper protection as we can to the Assembly. That applies especially as the role of the new Committees, Presiding Officers, Chairmen and Vice Chairmen has yet to develop, as the Under-Secretary helpfully told us. We do not have a full idea of them at this stage because the Assembly is new. I include even ghastly mechanisms such as d'Hondt, which roll off ministerial lips so readily. The Government are ever so familiar and comfortable with our old friend d'Hondt—even though the Home Secretary can barely mention the name without giggling. On that, I am more with the Home Secretary than with some other Ministers. The Under-Secretary of State is obviously a sophisticated and urbane man who is used to moving in European circles. He uses words such as "d'Hondt" with great aplomb. I would not be surprised if he even knew how d'Hondt works. That is one reason why the amendments are so important.
      Given the novelty of all the processes, procedures and institutions, it is incumbent on us to do everything possible to provide proper protection. I am much in favour of all the proposed measures. The Minister helpfully intervened early in the debate to give his view, but he has yet to hear the full panoply of our arguments. I am just providing a taster of the arguments that my right hon. Friends might want to deploy.
      I hope that the Minister will think again in the light of our arguments. I was disappointed that he only went so far as saying, "We might accept the principle of one or two amendments and give the usual undertaking about returning to the question at another time, in another place." The Committee must decide whether it is satisfied with that response.
      Although we may trust the Minister totally, it cannot be guaranteed that he will be in full control when the proposals go to the other place. Given the turmoil at the other end of this building, nothing can be guaranteed. A ministerial undertaking that something will be sorted in another place, given recent encouraging events there, is no guarantee. It may be that Governments could make such a guarantee in the good old days, but they cannot any more. I am happy to report that, under the allegedly temporary dispensation, the Government, it appears, cannot rely on delivering anything in another place. That makes us feel doubly nervous and suspicious of what the Minister has said, rather than reassured.
      I am looking for something very different from the Minister at the conclusion of this debate. I want him explicitly to accept at least two of the amendments—and preferably to accept them all, for the reasons I have outlined.
      Mr. Chope: I follow my right hon. Friend in discussing new clause 3, which is the most important of the new clauses and amendments in this group. The independence of our Speaker and the Speaker's role under our unwritten constitution are fundamental to our understanding of the importance of the proposed new clause.
      In the first constituency that I represented—Southampton, Itchen—I was fortunate to follow in the footsteps of a distinguished former Speaker, Horace
      368
      Maybray-King. He was originally a Labour Member of Parliament for Southampton, Itchen, but, as soon as he became Speaker, he stood as an independent. The prospective Conservative candidate was not permitted to stand against Horace Maybray-King because the convention is that a Speaker should be allowed to stand as an independent and be elected.
      Maybray-King was still alive when I was elected in 1983. I remember him impressing upon a group of my Young Conservatives the important role of the Speaker in defending our rights under the constitution. He had been a Labour man originally, but was then an independent because he had assumed a new role. To reinforce his independence, we even passed a special Act of Parliament to provide a pension, not only for his first wife, but for his last wife—he certainly enjoyed the company of women. When he visited my Young Conservatives he was given a lift by the lady president and his first question to her was whether her husband was still alive. His reputation was such, but he commanded tremendous respect as an independent upholder of the traditions of the House.
      Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend think that Horace King would have been happy in the Labour party under the new Labour regime? Would he have wanted to remain in the Labour party or become an independent?
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have a biography of Horace King this morning. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to him, which is fine, but we must discuss the amendment.
      Mr. Chope: Absolutely, Mr. Martin. In deploying my argument in support of the significance of our unwritten constitution and the office of Speaker, I refer to a lesson I was taught by another distinguished former Member of the House, the late Enoch Powell. I had the privilege of serving with him on the Procedure Committee in 1983–84. The first thing that he impressed on me was that, in the absence of a written constitution, the procedures of the House are our constitution. They are the ultimate bulwark that defends our liberties and protects us from oppression. The constitutional position is very different from that of a Speaker of a Parliament in a country with a written constitution. In the present circumstances, Madam Speaker is the ultimate arbiter on procedure, so it is of paramount importance that she is independent and seen to be independent.
      Sir Michael Spicer: Is not great force added to my hon. Friend's argument about the importance of the Speaker by the fact that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is currently going through the House and will give the Speaker enormous new powers to control the referendum process. Would not it be extraordinary if those powers were given to some foreigner?
      Mr. Chope: I must be careful about using the word "foreigner", because it might be misinterpreted, but it would be unconscionable if those powers were given to a member of the legislature of another country. That is what the amendment is about and we must face up to that problem. We expect our Speaker to be independent and

      369
      to give up all party-political positions in our legislature, but if the Speaker was also a member of a foreign legislature, he or she would fulfil a party-political role in it. Even if such a person's role was not party political, a conflict of interest would be seen to be involved.
      The great European debate has already been referred to, as has the fact that Ireland is a net recipient of aid from taxpayers while this country is a gross donor of aid to other European countries, including Ireland. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is frequently debated in the House. How could we be assured of the impartiality of the Speaker if that person fulfilled a representative role in a country that was not a member of NATO, while purportedly being an independent defender of our liberties in this country? It would be intolerable. Why will the Minister not accept the new clause? The only reason he gives is that he believes that Members of the House of Commons should have the freedom to choose.
      7 am
      Mr. Robathan: Can my hon. Friend enlighten us on the tradition in the Irish Parliament for the behaviour of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, so that we may understand what sort of behaviour to expect from a Speaker or Deputy Speaker who is also a Member of the Irish Parliament?
      Mr. Chope: Not only have I not visited the Irish Parliament; I have never visited southern Ireland, so it would be difficult for me to speculate about the behaviour of individual Members of Parliament within the Irish legislature, let alone the Speaker.
      I should like to develop my argument. I think that you, Mr. Martin, commented on this matter when I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We now have a situation in which the Prime Minister has more patronage than he has ever enjoyed before. It has been a traditional right of the House of Commons to elect its Speaker on the basis that each Member of Parliament makes a private, individual choice, irrespective of the wishes of the Government or Opposition Whips. But rumours are rife, particularly speculation that Madam Speaker may be thinking about retiring and that, for example, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) may be put up and supported by the Prime Minister as part of a deal.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot stray into that matter. It has nothing to do with the amendment, and he should not speak about it. I will rule him out of order if he continues.
      Mr. Chope: Perhaps I may explain that I am not seeking to widen the debate too far. What I am seeking to do is to point out that there is the perception at the moment that the Executive has a role, and seeks to have a role, in the election of the Speaker.
      The First Deputy Chairman: That has nothing to do with the amendment. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and he will not discuss that matter.
      Mr. Chope: The reason why there is some relevance in my submission is that the Minister says that the House should have the freedom to choose. In supporting new clause 3, I am arguing that there should be a legislative bar on any member of a foreign Parliament standing as a candidate for Speaker of the House of Commons. The Minister asks us to trust the House, but it is relevant to point out that it is hard to accept that the Executive does not seek to participate in the process for election of the Speaker.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with new clause 3, which says:
      "No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland…may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons".
      It has nothing to do with the process of electing a Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman should not stray into that matter. I told him that I will rule him out of order if he does so. If he wishes to continue, he will make no mention of the matter that he has already discussed.
      Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I seek your guidance on a matter that is troubling me, in view of the turn that events seem to be taking. It is now five minutes past 7. I am very interested in this debate, and may wish to take part in it later this morning. However, under the new dispensation, a debate in Westminster Hall will start at 9.30, and I hope to take part in that as well. Obviously, I shall have difficulty in being in two places at the same time. There is an additional difficulty: as I understand it, as far as this debate is concerned, we are still in Tuesday, whereas the debate in Westminster Hall is taking place on Wednesday, and I shall have difficulty in taking part in a debate on Tuesday and Wednesday. May I have your guidance, Mr. Martin, as I do not think that such a situation has arisen before?
      The First Deputy Chairman: The Chairman of Ways and Means made the position clear in regard to Westminster Hall. There are precedents.
      Mr. Chope: New clause 3 would prevent the Executive of the United Kingdom from being in a position to do a deal with the Government of Ireland that would involve the election of a Member of the Irish Parliament to the post of Speaker of this House of Commons. I want to guard against that hypothetical situation, which is why I support so enthusiastically new clause 3, which I think goes to the very root of our constitution.
      Mr. Swayne: The assurances given by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have been more believable had he arranged our affairs so that we might have a Report stage. In that event, they might have been given some credulity, but the vague offer the Minister gave us about another place I found unsustainable.
      I support entirely the practical objectives enunciated by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but I differ in my estimate of the impact of the amendments. I am profoundly at odds with my hon. Friend the Member

      371
      for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in my estimate of the impact of new clause 3. I believe that the new clause is a wrecking amendment in every sense of the term. It wrecks the principle of the Bill, and it wrecks this Chamber. Wrecking the principle of the Bill might have a certain attraction, but the principle of the Bill is that Members of another Parliament might serve in this sovereign Parliament.
      I believe that new clause 3 offends against that, because in effect it says that those Members of this Parliament are not real Members of this Parliament. It introduces into this Parliament a concept that all Members are not equal—that they do not all have the same rights. They do not all at least aspire to the possibility of being elected Speaker.
      I remember, in the last Session, having a debate that introduced precisely such a concept. There was a suggestion on these Benches—I mention this only in passing—that Members with Scottish seats should not vote on certain issues. Many Members reacted to that with horror and there was unease on the part of some of my hon. Friends. We did not like the prospect of introducing the concept of Members who had different rights. We are all equal Members of Parliament.
      I therefore caution Members who are enthusiastic about new clause 3 that they are introducing a novel and unwelcome concept. I entirely understand their motive. The motive of protecting the office of Speaker from being held by a member of a foreign Parliament is an entirely worthy objective, although I see no practical possibility of that happening. I therefore do not think that we should pollute our constitutional theory in an obscure attempt to prevent it.
      I am sure that the principle that I have enunciated applies, at least in some respects, to the other amendments. Chairmanships of subject committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly would probably benefit from the same principle. I am sure that any Member of such an Assembly should be able, by virtue of being a Back Bencher, to hold the office of Chairman of a subject committee. Therefore, to reintroduce a distinction between Members of Parliament is entirely invidious. We have before us an offensive Bill with an offensive principle, but we should not pollute our Parliament and arrangements in trying to work around that principle.
      Mr. Robathan: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said. He is arguing strongly against the new clause. I point out further that the new clause is defective because, although it will not allow a Member of the Irish Parliament to be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker, it will perversely—it is a great defect—allow the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, having been elected here, to become a member of the Irish legislature.
      Mr. Swayne: I am not sure that it would. My hon. Friend is harking back to amendments on reciprocity, which would have been necessary to satisfy that condition. I will not be led down that road because I am sure that it would not be conducive.
      Mr. Robathan: No, it has nothing to do with reciprocity. It is entirely within the new clause, which says:
      372
      "No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland…may be elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker",
      but it does not say that the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons might not then become a member of Ireland's legislature.
      Mr. Swayne: That is true, but, as it is not possible for a member of the UK legislature to become a member of the legislature in Ireland, the possibility does not arise. Therefore, that is not a legitimate concern.
      I have exhausted what I wanted to say. I simply offer a word of caution. I support the practical intent of the new clause, but the theory is abominable.
      Mr. Roger Gale: I know, Mr. Martin, that in your other capacity as Deputy Speaker in the House, you take the independence of the Speakership and Deputy Speakerships seriously. It will not surprise you to know that those of us who, in a minor capacity, have the duty and privilege to chair some of the House's proceedings regard the independence and impartiality of the role of Chairman equally seriously.
      I wish to be brief, but I want to raise an important point. To some extent, it reinforces the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
      As new clause 2 stands, a Minister or junior Minister ceases to hold office on becoming a Minister of the Government of Ireland, but the Speaker of the House does not, as I understand it, hold an office under the Crown. The Speaker is appointed by the House of Commons. Therefore, as things stand—I ask the Minister to address the issue seriously—clause 2 will require a Minister to resign if he or she becomes a Minister in the Government of Ireland, but it cannot require a Speaker of the House who happens to be an Irish Member to resign as Speaker, if he or she also becomes a Minister in the Government of Ireland.
      Ministers in the Government of Ireland are, properly, partisan. They are appointed by political parties. It is very unlikely, but not inconceivable, that the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is non-partisan, as tradition properly has it, could become a partisan Minister in another Government. Conversely, a partisan Minister, properly appointed, of another Government could be elected, gerrymandered in or appointed as Speaker of the House of Commons. That cannot be right. You in your role, Mr. Martin, and I occasionally in mine, surely cannot accept the concept that we have someone who has one foot in a partisan camp, but another in a non-partisan camp.
      7.15 am
      We come now—it is the thrust of my argument—to new clause 3, which, if passed, would obviate that situation. The new clause would simply state, "You cannot do it." Superficially, that solution is very attractive, as it would get rid of the problem. The new clause would ensure that the type of situation that I have just described—in which a partisan person has simultaneously to be a non-partisan person, wearing only half a hat—could not develop.

      373
      As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said, if we go down that road, we shall immediately create two classes of hon. Member: one class of people who can be selected and elected by their peers to become the holders of what all hon. Members regard as one of the most dignified and prestigious offices of the land—the Speakership of the House; and another class of people who, although they sit on these same green Benches and are properly elected by an electorate who are allowed, under the Bill, to elect them, cannot hold that office. Are we seriously saying that we shall legislate to create a situation in which that is possible, even in theory? It cannot be right.
      We cannot have two groups of hon. Member, so that Members in one group are able to become Speaker, whereas Members in the other are not. We cannot have more than one class of Member—one of which is able to hold office only in this place—or of Minister, one of which would have to resign if he or she became a Minister in another Parliament. In another group, those who hold an office that is not an office under the Crown, but who are appointed by the House of Commons, would be able not only to occupy the Chair, but, simultaneously, to sit as a partisan Minister in another Parliament.
      The provision is absolute nonsense, and the House cannot let it pass. When we vote on clause 2 stand part, I shall have to vote against it on principle alone.
      Mr. William Ross: I had not realised that we would run out of speakers to the amendment so quickly, but I have been thinking seriously about some of the comments made earlier by the Minister. Various questions remain unanswered.
      I do not know how on earth we could go along with the idea that the office of Chair or Vice-Chair could be held by a person who is also a Minister. Currently, the legislation would make that possible. It would be quite wrong to have someone serve both as Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a Committee and as a Minister. I do not know how on earth that could be acceptable to anyone. The Minister gave his views on the matter, but he did not convince me that his views were reasonable.
      The Minister is also refusing to accept a reasonable proposal preventing the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer from serving as a Minister. I do not know how on earth we could allow them to serve as a Minister. Although those Members, as Presiding Officer and Deputy, would have their own particular role to play and very considerable centralising powers, we are being told that they should also be able to hold down a ministerial post. Allowing them to do both would, among other things, upset the balance.
      The person serving both as the Chair or Vice-Chair and as a Minister would upset the balance under the d'Hondt system. If we were to allow it, it would cause grave problems. The Minister said that the matter is for the parties to decide for themselves. However, considerations of political advantage may play a role in a decision on making a Minister the Chair or Vice-Chair. The same would be true of the posts of Presiding Officer and Deputy. It would certainly reduce the number of posts. There is no need for 12 Ministers in Northern Ireland. I see no good reason to go down that road. The Minister will have to give much better reasons for refusing the amendment than he has done so far.
      374
      Clause 2 provides that a Minister in the Irish Republic cannot take up a similar post in the Northern Ireland Assembly, although a junior Minister can. Such junior Ministers are not banned at all, unless the word "Minister" is a generic term covering all levels of ministries in Dublin. However, that cannot be the case, because the term "junior Minister" appears elsewhere in the Bill. If it appears in one place, there is no reason why it should not appear in another.
      We must not allow junior Ministers in the Irish Republic to become Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The evils that would follow from that have been touched on in earlier debates. I can assure hon. Members who have just arrived and are no doubt amazed to see us that we are still here only because the Bill is so illogical that it could never be accepted by Northern Ireland Members, or by Conservative Members.
      We must not allow the Minister to leave without telling us why the Government are not preventing junior Ministers in Dublin from being Ministers in Northern Ireland. That would lead to a form of joint rule, control and authority in Northern Ireland which would be anathema to the Unionist population there. If such a possibility were permitted even to appear on the face of the Bill it would have serious consequences for the process of establishing and maintaining a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. It could also upset the IRA surrender policy that the Government have pursued so assiduously, and have the most serious consequences for the lives and liberties of people in Northern Ireland.
      The potential for joint control could also be used by the Government of the Irish Republic to damage the economy of Northern Ireland, and to impose their standards on matters such as abortion and divorce. It could be used by the Irish Government to impose the Irish language on us even more than at present. It could also cause mayhem in the cross-border bodies.
      For example, a junior agriculture Minister in the Republic could become a Minister with similar responsibilities in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He could do a huge amount of mischief. The same possibility would open up if the junior Minister so elected had responsibility for finance and taxation and decided that it would be a good idea to change the tax on fuel oil in Northern Ireland to the same levels as applied in the Republic. That would cause a deliberately fomented clash between central Government in London and the Assembly in Northern Ireland. Moreover, the same individual might decide to bring the vehicle excise duty into line with that in the Irish Republic.
      Those two latter points would, of course, have been widely welcomed by people in Northern Ireland since they think that tax, fuel and vehicle excise duty costs are far too high. They would ask themselves, "Why should we not reap the benefits of this?" In pursuing that populist course, the Minister would be driving a wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Those items are a result of the Government's failure to deal adequately with the problem. I am curious as to why they decided not to accept the very sensible amendments in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, which were supported by the Conservative spokesmen. I cannot for the life of me work out why amendments Nos. 12 and 17, on junior Ministers, were not called. The wording is much the same in many of the amendments, and someone may

      375
      have become confused and decided that the same issue was being described in two different ways. That is not so, as a quick look at the amendment paper will reveal. The amendment was very different; it was aimed directly at junior Ministers. One way or another it will be appreciated that I have a number of concerns that have not been dealt with adequately.
      I had to leave the Chamber for a short time for a bite to eat. It is a very long time since I had my supper, and it is breakfast time now. So I went off and satisfied the inner man and, as a consequence, missed a valuable contribution that may well have addressed these matters. I deeply regret that, and am grateful to those who have been expressing concerns while I was absent from the Chamber. I am back now, and I hope that the Minister is prepared to take my remarks on board.
      Mr. Swayne: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he address the concern arising from new clause 3? While the objective of the new clause was agreed to, there was a belief, certainly on my part, that it would introduce the principle of two classes of Member in this Chamber, which is not acceptable.
      Mr. Ross: That is perfectly correct; I indicated earlier that the element of having two classes might make the Bill hybrid, although I am not sure. Hybridity is difficult to define, but I understand that experts recognise it as soon as they see it. It is like seeing one's wife, mother or father a long distance away; we glance at them and know who they are but if we had to describe them we could not. Hybridity, while recognisable, is difficult for the layman—like me—to define.
      Mr. Gale: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was briefly absent from the Chamber while we were discussing this. Is the Bill not already hybrid, in the sense that clause 2(2) creates a situation in which the Speaker of the House of Commons could be an office holder, and therefore partisan, in another House?
      Mr. Ross: That is the difficulty. One of the Deputy Speakers concluded earlier that that was not the case. However, if he were to consider the points that have been raised since he made that decision, he might be in time to change his mind. I hope to have a chance, later in the day, to examine the issue more closely to see whether there is a danger of hybridity. The Bill would then have to go through the peculiar procedure necessary for that type of Bill. There would have to be a Joint Committee of both Houses. The matter raises an interesting question.
      7.30 am
      However, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was more concerned that there would be two classes of person in the House. One group would be eligible for the office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker, but the other would not. There would be two different classes in any case, as some individuals would also be members of another legislature. They would have duties, concerns and responsibilities in that regard which would inhibit their capacity fully to perform their duties in this place.
      376
      That would give rise to a grave difficulty. Indeed, that difficulty springs from the intention of the Bill to allow outsiders to become Members of the House while they are members of another legislature. That is a basic flaw in the Bill and we should acknowledge it.
      The Bill has great flaws. The Minister has not satisfied hon. Members—he certainly has not satisfied me—by what he said earlier. He has not adequately explained why it is possible for the Government to accept amendments Nos. 7 and 9, but not to accept other amendments, even though they are similar. He has given an extremely inadequate explanation as to why he refuses to accept amendments Nos. 14 and 18.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause, because it demonstrates the absurdity of the Bill. Was that why he tabled it?
      Mr. Ross: I thought that the Bill was absurd, that it fell far short in the expertise of its drafting, and that it fell below the philosophical standards to which we are accustomed. However, I realise that the Government have a huge majority. In Northern Ireland, we have the word "thrawn"; it means being awkward for the sake of it. That describes the attitude of the Government. They have a huge majority; their followers expect to be able to sweep every measure through the House, so the Government have become careless.
      The Bill is careless and badly drafted; it fulfils no useful purpose. As it is wrong and the Government are intent on putting it through, we should try to improve it.
      Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Member has been a Member of the House for many a year. Does he believe that the Bill would have been presented in this form, if, for example, Walter Harrison or Michael Cocks had still been Whips?
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) should not answer that question; he should return to the amendment.
      Mr. Ross: Fond as my memories are of the two gentlemen in question when they were Members of the House, I will not follow up the question put by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), other than to point out that if Mr. Harrison were still a Whip, there would not be so few Labour Members in the Committee—they would all be here. They would all have to answer to him—heaven help them if they were missing.
      I am sure, Mr. Lord, that you recall Mr. Harrison as well as I do. He was a most remarkable man. I found him most congenial, but of course he was not my Whip. I got on well with him. He was a man of high moral and religious standards, having—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now doing precisely what I asked him not to do. Will he please address the amendment?
      Mr. Ross: Of course, Mr. Lord. However, I hate to leave the subject of Mr. Harrison because I had such high

      377
      regard for him. We all like to remember our departed friends—departed only from the House, not in any other sense.
      The Bill is a bad one. We have endeavoured to improve it with these amendments and others. The Government know that all the amendments are perfectly acceptable, but they cannot admit that they got it so wrong. It is only because they are forced by logic—a rare matter in government—to admit that the principle behind two of the amendments would improve the Bill that they are prepared to accept them. They therefore want to accept them, but they are not prepared to accept the same principle in regard to the other amendments. We heard the very weak argument that the Minister made against these sensible amendments.
      I believe that the Minister should reconsider and I should be grateful, Mr. Lord, if you would advise me, because I need some advice. As you say, I have been in the House for a long time. However, as I have not been a member of one of the main parties, it has not been my responsibility to ask questions of the Chair and to discover how these different amendments will be dealt with. As has been said, the Government accept the principle underlying amendments Nos. 7 and 9. Will they accept those two amendments as they stand? If they accept those, does it mean that we must have a series of Divisions on them? What is the position regarding amendments Nos. 21, 14 and 18 and new clause 3? May we have separate Divisions on those amendments? I should be grateful if you would let me know how it is proposed to deal with this matter.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: As the hon. Gentleman has said, he has been a Member of the House for a long time. He therefore knows exactly how we deal with these amendments. He should address his amendments, not the procedures of the House.
      Mr. Ross: The problem is, Mr. Lord, that the procedures of the House will determine whether we can have a separate Division on each amendment, so I am just serving notice that we want separate Divisions on them.
      There is also the question of amendments Nos. 7 and 9. I want to know whether the Minister is prepared to accept the wording of those two amendments, or whether he will go away, think about them and come back with a different wording at a later stage—either by tabling a manuscript amendment on Report, or by taking care of the matter in another place.
      There is much more that one could say on these matters, but I think that, in these few minutes, I have addressed the thing as best I can. I would leave it there, and I should be grateful if the Minister replied.
      Mr. George Howarth: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as I always do, and he has not asked me to cover any ground that I have not covered already or that, as in the case of hybridity, has not been ruled on by the Chair. Fascinating though some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises are, I would be in danger of tedious repetition if I discussed them and, mindful as I am of the previous strictures from the Chair, I do not intend to do so. With the assurances that I have given on amendments
      378
      Nos. 7 and 9, which the hon Gentleman is well aware of, I would recommend the the Committee oppose these amendments.
      Mr. Gale: I am sorry, Mr. Lord; I was hoping to catch the Minister before he sat down. I should like to ask him two absolutely straight questions, to which there are yes and no answers. One: is the Speaker of the House of Commons the holder of an office under the Crown—yes or no? Two: if not, is it, under the Bill, technically possible for the Speaker of the House of Commons to be a Minister in another Parliament—yes or no? If so, we could not possibly support clause 2.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the answers to his questions. He has checked the matter out. I will not be involved in any games that he might be playing. The Speaker of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows—I recall that he is a member of the Chairmen's Panel—is elected by the House and the House alone. When the Bill comes into force, technically speaking, the Speaker of the House could serve in another legislature and could, technically, hold office in that legislature, but I think that any Speaker who contemplated taking such action might find it difficult to gain the support of the House.
      Mr. Gale: Forgive me, Mr. Lord, but I do not know of any procedure—you will correct me if I am wrong—for removing a Speaker from office during their holding of that office, and if, as we have now agreed, the Speaker is not a Minister under the Crown, the Speakership is not covered by clause 2(2). That must be nonsense, because it means that the Speaker could hold a non-partisan office and a partisan office simultaneously.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 202.

      Division No. 45]

      [7:40 am

      AYES

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Beggs, Roy

      Loughton, Tim

      Bercow, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Maginnis, Ken

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Oaten, Mark

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Randall, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Clappison, James

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Collins, Tim

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gale, Roger

      Syms, Robert

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tredinnick, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Wardle, Charles

      Key, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. William Thompson

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisle N)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Allen, Graham

      Benton, Joe

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Berry, Roger

      Barnes, Harry

      Best, Harold

      Battle, John

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      379

      Blizzard, Bob

      Jamieson, David

      Borrow, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Browne, Desmond

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Burgon, Colin

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Kidney, David

      Caplin, Ivor

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Cawsey, Ian

      Laxton, Bob

      Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

      Lepper, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Leslie, Christopher

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Levitt, Tom

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Linton, Martin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Lock, David

      Clelland, David

      Love, Andrew

      Coaker, Vernon

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cohen, Harry

      McCabe, Steve

      Coleman, Iain

      Macdonald, Calum

      Colman, Tony

      McDonnell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      McFall, John

      Corston, Jean

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Cousins, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Cranston, Ross

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Crausby, David

      McNulty, Tony

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Cummings, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Mallaber, Judy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Marshall, David (Shetteston)

      Davidson, Ian

      Martlew, Eric

      Dawson, Hilton

      Merron, Gillian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Miller, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Moffatt, Laura

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Doran, Frank

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Dowd, Jim

      Morley, Elliot

      Efford, Clive

      Mountford, Kali

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Flint, Caroline

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Pearson, Ian

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Gapes, Mike

      Pickthall, Colin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Pike, Peter L

      Gerard, Neil

      Plaskitt, James

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Pollard, Kerry

      Goggins, Paul

      Pope, Greg

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Pound, Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Grogan, John

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Rammell, Bill

      Healey, John

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Rooney, Terry

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hope, Phil

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Sawford, Phil

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

      Singh, Marsha

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Soley, Clive

      380

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Spellar, John

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Tynan, Bill

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stevenson, George

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Watts, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wills, Michael

      Taylor, David (NWLeics)

      Winnick, David

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wood, Mike

      Tipping, Paddy

      Woolas, Phil

      Todd, Mark

      Worthington, Tony

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Truswell, Paul

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      7.45 am
      Mr. William Ross: Mr. Lord, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 7, 14, 18 and 9, but to move new clause 3 separately as it deals with an entirely different matter. The new clause deals with the Speaker, you and your colleagues in this House, and you are of far more importance than any of the subjects covered by the other amendments.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the amendments. As for the new clause, we have had a wide ranging debate and I am satisfied that there is no justification for calling any more separate votes.
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
      'or a member of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 18, at end add—
      'or a member of either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland'.
      No. 33, in title line 7, after 'Government', insert—
      'or members of the legislature'.
      No. 5, in title line 7, at end insert—
      'or members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland'.
      Mr. Forth: The amendment takes us into a completely new subject. We can put behind us the debates of the past few hours and march boldly into new territory, which is both deliberate and proper. Until now, we have been considering in some, although not excessive, detail the relationship between the Executive of other Parliaments and the institutions of the United Kingdom, especially

      381
      those of Northern Ireland. However, I want to extend the logic of that argument to encompass Members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland.
      Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for not having raised this matter before he started to speak.
      Mr. Lord, I do not believe that you were in the Chair about an hour ago, when I raised the issue of this morning's sitting in Westminster Hall. My question about the fate of that sitting was satisfactorily resolved at that time. The guidance that I was given—that the Westminster Hall sitting would proceed, even though the Committee of the whole House continued to sit—was helpful to me as one who is interested in this morning's proceedings in both Westminster Hall and the Chamber. However, a further issue has since occurred to me, Mr. Lord, on which I seek your guidance. What will the position be if a Division is called in the Chamber and the sitting at Westminster Hall is proceeding? Will the Westminster Hall sitting be suspended?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I can deal with that quite quickly. That will be a matter for the Deputy Speaker at Westminster Hall at the time.
      Mr. Forth: I am advancing an argument that is exactly parallel to the argument about whether it was legitimate, valuable and acceptable for members of the executive branch of government in another country to be able to participate either in the House of Commons or in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The parallel argument must now be raised in relation to Members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland and their eligibility for this place or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      I concede that, in some ways, the arguments are rather different because there is a difference in kind between the Executive and the legislature, but I want to advance the case that arguments about conflicts of interest are equally legitimate, as are the arguments about the demands of time and of place. As we know, it is impossible for a person to be in two places at once. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) illustrated that in his point of order. The fact that he cannot be in Westminster Hall and in the Chamber simultaneously neatly illustrates in a timely way how much more difficult it would be for any hon. Member to serve in the legislature of the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly or the House of Commons at the same time.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is even more difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), given that it is Tuesday in the Chamber and Wednesday in Westminster Hall?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may not believe this, but we have had rulings that there is no problem with that. We have a bifurcation of time in this legislature. It appears that the occupants of the Chair are comfortable with the fact that it is one day in the Chamber and a completely different day in Westminster Hall, which is a few hundred yards away. I have an intellectual difficulty with that concept. My hon. Friend, who is much more
      382
      intellectually gymnastic than I am, may be comfortable with the concept of two separate time zones in one building.
      Mr. Taylor: There is no problem, but can my right hon. Friend tell me where the date line is?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I would be grateful if we could return to the amendment that is being moved by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and not continue to deal with matters in Westminster Hall, which the Chair has already dealt with.
      Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Lord. You will have to forgive my disorientation, which is obviously natural following that short exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I shall do my best to gather my thoughts quickly.
      The argument is essentially about whether our debates about the executive branch and the legislature in different countries can be comfortably and credibly carried forward to a similar argument involving different legislatures. That is the thrust of the amendment.
      It is patently the case that there is a real difficulty in terms of Members doing justice to their duties in the legislature as well as doing justice to those whom they represent in an elected sense. However, how much more is there a problem with a potential conflict of interest? Knowing as we do the wide variety of matters that are dealt with in the natural course of events in legislative bodies—I include the Northern Ireland Assembly in a broad definition of a legislative body, and I hope that the Committee and the Minister will accept that for the sake of the argument—how much more is it possible that there will be almost daily contradictions and conflicts between matters being dealt with in the legislature of the Republic on the one hand and by the Northern Ireland Assembly on the other? That would certainly apply to the House of Commons.
      8 am
      Mr. Sayeed: It is a matter not simply of legislatures, but of different constituencies. Let us suppose that my right hon. Friend was Member of Parliament for an English constituency and an Irish constituency, and both constituencies were bidding for investment from the same company. He would have to speak for both constituencies. That would be absurd.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has anticipated my line of argument, but I am grateful to him because he has brought into sharp focus the point that I wanted to make. He illustrated the inherent conflict of interest that must exist when the same person tries to be a representative in two different legislative or deliberative bodies.
      That problem would arise not only in the particular circumstances that my hon. Friend outlined, but in a range of others, especially if the legislative bodies considered international conflicts or, if both legislatures were members of the European Union, ways of dealing with European law. Genuine difficulties emerge when we consider the concept of elected Members simultaneously serving in two legislative or deliberative bodies in two separate sovereign states.

      383
      The Government have a problem in getting to grips with the difficulties. We have already found it difficult to persuade the Under-Secretary that it is legitimate for a law-making body such as the House to try to identify people who may be disqualified from standing for elective office. I have had a running debate about that with Ministers throughout our proceedings. Ministers have claimed time and again that we must allow the voters to decide. I replied time and again that the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 identifies groups of people who may not serve in the House of Commons for legitimate reasons. Those groups include civil servants, members of the judiciary and the armed forces. The principle that it is our duty properly to restrict the sort of people who may be eligible to stand for election to a legislative or deliberative body is therefore long established.
      Even if I cannot persuade Ministers of the existence of that well-entrenched body of law, or persuade the Under-Secretary to tell me whether he intends to repeal it, we have established the argument that it is the Committee's proper responsibility to consider whether one person can properly make decisions in more than one legislative body. My answer to that is no. The reason was shown by the specific example that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) gave.
      I do not want to weary the Committee with a long list of examples, although it would be easy to do that. However, we can all imagine cases in which those who served in the legislative assembly of the Republic of Ireland and in the House of Commons would quickly find themselves in an impossible position—physically, temperamentally, in terms of policy and, above all, loyalty. Hon. Members who wanted to take their seats in the House of Commons would have to swear the Oath of Allegiance. I am told that there is no parallel oath in the legislature of the Republic of Ireland, but there is something with similar force. Any Member who sought to represent voters in two different legislative bodies—
      Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
      Mr. Forth: Yes.
      Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted two important elements. The procedures and rules of the two establishments would be totally different. In the short debate on the last group of amendments, we discussed whether there could be a series of votes or only one vote. I have been in the House a long time, but I am not totally clear about that the present rules. The rules change and someone who is absent for a month or two could return to the House and be caught flat footed—as I was this morning.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is more right than even he knows. When I was in the European Parliament many years ago, I served on the rules and procedure committee. That body's rules were in developmental mode at the time, but it had a slim body of rules that served as our bible and worked well. By coincidence, I was recently appointed to the Procedure Committee so I am aware of
      384
      the problem. It is made worse by the Government changing the rules of almost everything in the name of modernisation. I have not quite got to grips with how that benefits the House, but there is a fetish among most Government Members for doing almost anything that wrecks our traditions and long-standing practices in the name of modernisation.
      I am sure that that phase will pass, but it is particularly tiresome because familiarity with the rules and environment is important to the effectiveness of the House collectively and of individual Members. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, my effectiveness as a Member of the House depends to a large extent on my familiarity with the way the House works, its written rules, ambience, customs and traditions. It would be difficult to shuffle between two completely different legislative bodies that would almost certainly take a different approach to most things. One example is the seating arrangement in this Chamber compared with the ghastly hemicycles that are adopted more and more in a pseudo-continental sense. Something as simple as that can be very disorientating to legislators who want to concentrate on the subject matter rather than worry about the seating configuration. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.
      It is difficult enough for right hon. and hon. Members fully to discharge all their responsibilities to their electorates in terms of balancing constituency work with work in the House and so on. How much worse would it be to contemplate serving two different bodies in two different sovereign national countries.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: Did the right hon. Gentleman give up his seat for Birmingham, North in the European Parliament as soon as he was elected Member of Parliament for Mid-Worcestershire?
      Mr. Forth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Chamber. It is good to see a smiling face. I hope that he will participate fully in these debates. I promise him that there is lots of meaty stuff still to come. We have a long way to go even before Third Reading—and I promise that that will be a corker. We have lots and lots to say on that. We are not there yet, but we are making good progress.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me about the period of overlap between the time that I had the honour to be an MEP and receiving the even greater honour of being elected to this House. There was a year in which I was a Member of both Houses.
      I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman as it had not occurred to me that I have direct personal experience of the dual mandate. That is unusual but not unique, as the dual mandate has been held by a number of other colleagues. I almost certainly did not do justice to either job and the guilt is with me even now. I had to carry all those extra expenses back and forward to the bank and also had to carry extra salary—a third extra—on my slender shoulders for that whole year. Worst of all, I did not know where I was or what I was doing. When I was supposed to be here people thought that I was in Strasbourg and when I was supposed to be in Strasbourg people thought that I was here. Who knows where I was in the meantime?
      The hon. Gentleman has allowed me to illustrate the point from my direct personal experience. A humble, simple politician cannot possibly do justice to two

      385
      demanding jobs and that, better than anything else, shows the force of my amendment. Surely we have to face up to the problem and cut through it.
      Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend has been addressing the problem of serving in two legislatures at the same time and his rather lucid argument has rather taken me away from the point of his amendment. It would prevent somebody who serves in the Irish legislature from becoming a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. He referred to the problem of expenses and salaries. When people become Ministers here or in Northern Ireland they have to give up their outside interests and outside remuneration. Members of the Irish legislature receive remuneration as such. Can he turn his mind to that? Can somebody who is being paid as Member of the Irish legislature serve as a Minister in Northern Ireland? Would that be right?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend rightly raises another dimension to the problem. We shall touch on pay and provisions somewhat later in our proceedings, and I am sure that a lot of us cannot wait to get there because they will raise some really interesting problems, but he has given us a taster. We know how difficult it is to deal with the anomalies, conflicts and overlaps that can arise when a Member of the House becomes a Minister or has a dual mandate for the House and another representative body, whether it be the European Parliament or one of the new Assemblies. That would all be bad enough, and we have to devise rules to work our way through it, but how much more difficult would it be when a conflict arose because someone could sit in one legislature and be a member of the Executive in another? There would be a conflict of duty and responsibility and also simple pay and provisions difficulties—how would one be reimbursed for making a journey between the two, for example?
      That is a fair and legitimate question. Reimbursement for travel between the House and a constituency is fairly straightforward as is reimbursement for travel between London and Strasbourg, as those of us who have served in the European Parliament know. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, who is sitting beside me, has also served there. That can be dealt with, but we may add yet another dimension to the difficulty and I am pretty sure that Ministers have not given those matters a single thought.
      The lack of thought on the Bill has become more and more obvious as the proceedings have unwound and we still cannot understand the motivation behind it. Hints are coming through, however, and it apparently relates to pressure being put on Her Majesty's Government by the Irish Government and Sinn Fein. Our Government, regrettably, have seen the need to accede to those requests without getting anything in return. There is a problem there and we have to get to the bottom of it.
      That would be bad enough, but, as our proceedings continue, the evidence grows that the Government have not properly considered the details of the Bill. A moment ago, the Minister had to concede to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that they will have to make changes. He has not told us quite what, but said, "Trust me, I'll do it." That is all we have, but the mere fact that he has said it shows that there has been a lack of thought on the Bill.
      8.15 am
      Mr. William Ross: I thought from the way in which the Minister was shaking his head that he was already beginning to resile from the undertaking on the principle of amendment No.7 He is shaking his head again. Perhaps he cannot make up his mind. Maybe he would like to explain exactly what the position is.
      Mr. George Howarth: I was shaking my head because I do not think I ever used the words "Trust me". What I said was that there was a commitment to introduce amendments in another place covering amendments Nos. 7 and 9.
      Mr. Forth: That is what worries me, because these days when a Minister says "I will deliver these amendments in another place" I am not sure how certain the Minister can be of his capability to deliver them in another place. That is an issue which we may have to come to—not now, I accept, although it is somewhat relevant. The Committee of which I am now a member, the Procedure Committee, might have to look at this. Until now, we have been lulled into a false sense of security when a Minister says,"I can't do it here for procedural reasons, but I undertake to bring the amendment forward in another place, so it's all right." But, given what happened very recently in another place, I am not sure that the Government can guarantee to deliver on that.
      Mr. Sayeed: As I understand it, the Minister was not saying that he would bring forward the amendment in another place, for procedural reasons. Is it not simply that if he has to bring it forward here we have to have a Report stage?
      Mr. Forth: I had spotted that, and I suspect the Minister had as well. The Government are trying to duck the Report stage of this Bill. They are trying yet again to pull the wool over our eyes. They tried it by rushing through Second Reading, allowing no time for amendments between Second Reading and this Committee stage. There would be no time between Committee and Report stage, although we have had an indication—I will not call it a helpful indication—from one of your colleagues, Mr. Lord, that manuscript amendments might well have been accepted in these circumstances. This is no way to legislate.
      We are talking about a very serious matter, bearing on some very serious constitutional issues, and we are having to stumble along, being given half-hearted assurances by the Minister, who does not seem quite sure whether he has given them or not. Now he is telling us that, if we hold our breath, shut our eyes and pray, the amendments might bob up in the other place and the Government might get them through. That is no way to make the law, no way to change fundamentals of our constitution, which is what is involved here. We are talking about potential eligibility for membership of the House of Commons, yet we are expected to do it on a wing and a prayer.
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      Mr. Forth: I will give way, but I am anxious to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
      Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is doing very well. There is quite a lot that he could address yet.

      387
      The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of manuscript amendments. How on earth can anyone put down an amendment until we know the form in which the Bill ends this part of its passage? Only when we reach the end of the Committee stage shall we know whether any amendments have been made. We then need time to look at the shape of the Bill and decide what, if any, amendments we need. Already some amendments have been promised, which would colour our thinking. How on earth could we put down manuscript amendments?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that, may I remind him that he himself has already said that that matter has been dealt with?
      Mr. Forth: We have been told the way in which it will be, Mr. Lord, and I will not pursue the matter, following your guidance.
      I think we have said enough to illustrate that we are potentially in very real difficulty here, unless we are prepared to face squarely the sort of difficulties that I have been describing and have the determination to do something about them.
      Mr. Sayeed: In his distinguished career as a Minister my right hon. Friend had to hold very private discussions within his Department where policy and a negotiating stance were decided upon. Ministers in the Irish Parliament obviously have to do the same. If he were a Minister there how would he be able to come to a different Parliament with which negotiations and discussions might have to take place and be able to keep his tongue still?
      Mr. Forth: I freely concede that the difficulty my hon. Friend suggests is a real one. It arises from the confidentiality of so much of what Ministers have to do. We of course operate in a very open environment; most of the time we are open to scrutiny and under the public gaze. But Ministers are in a different category altogether. The mixing of the two environments could create real problems.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: Does not my right hon. Friend personify an even greater problem, in as much as he is a Privy Councillor. How does he cope with that one?
      Mr. Forth: That is something we have all missed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised it, and I feel humbled by the fact that he has. I had not spotted it myself. Perhaps the Minister should think about whether membership of the Privy Council would have a bearing on eligibility for membership of a body outside the Commons; and about whether the equivalent obtains in any other legislature. The Oath that we take is a sacred one, and I shudder to think that anything might compromise it. So my hon. Friend is definitely on to something which we must attempt to clarify, even within the ridiculously short amount of time allotted to us.
      Mr. Gale: I should like to take my right hon. Friend back to the amendments under debate. I am conscious
      388
      that he has been slightly distracted from the purposes of amendments Nos. 3 and 4, but I have been studying them carefully, and I cannot understand how they deal with the problem my right hon. Friend referred to earlier concerning multiple seats and mandates.
      I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is currently a Member of the European Parliament, of this House, and of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under this legislation, it would be perfectly possible for the reverend doctor to go on to become a Member also of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland—and probably of the Scottish Parliament, too. I cannot see how either amendment even begins to deal with that difficulty.
      Mr. Forth: A number of points were wrapped up in my hon. Friend's succinct presentation. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), because he was born in Northern Ireland, is eligible for the Republic's legislature; but only by dint of the fact that he was born in Northern Ireland. That bestows on him a privilege that those of us who were born on the mainland do not have.
      I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Our main concern has focused on a clash of loyalties in sovereign Parliaments, of which ours is still, I hope, one. The other bodies that my hon. Friend mentioned are not: the Assembly in Northern Ireland is a subsidiary body, and the European Parliament is mercifully not a sovereign body, and I hope it never will be. Therefore, it is possible and perhaps even proper for an energetic individual of the type that my hon. Friend mentions to serve with distinction in an Assembly such as that in Northern Ireland, in a Parliament such as that in Strasbourg and in the House of Commons. We may not see much of the individual in any one of those places, but that is okay.
      It is possible, but only because the Irish allow it, for that same individual, by dint of having been born in Northern Ireland, to be both a citizen of the United Kingdom and eligible for election to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland. It is a complicated set of circumstances, but I think that I have it right. In mentioning that example, unusual though it is, my hon. Friend may have neatly wrapped up most of the arguments. I do not at this stage want to argue about whether one can have dual or triple mandates in the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the Assembly. That may be for another day. I do want to advance the argument that it is wrong for anyone to seek to serve in the legislature or Executive of both this country and a sovereign country with different interests at one and the same time.
      That is the essence of my argument. I hope that the Committee will accept it.
      Mr. William Ross: On multiple representation, the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned single, double and treble mandates, but the quadruple element still remains for the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and, indeed, for the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). For different reasons, both are likely to get elected to both Scotland and Dublin. One is likely to be elected to Dublin because of his Irish nationalism, the other because of the

      389
      fact that people might want a totally honest face down there. In Scotland, both would enjoy quite large support from disparate elements of the population.
      Mr. Forth: I concede that those are all possibilities. It simply illustrates the nonsense of a multiplicity—a plethora even—of representative bodies, which seem to be sprouting before our disbelieving eyes weekly, if not monthly. I hope that my party will have the courage to say to the electorate at the appropriate time that we do not regard that as irreversible and that we believe that the number of representative bodies at any one time should be discussed, debated and considered. That would be my devout hope.
      I hope that I have said enough.
      Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: It must be the last time.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's generosity is boundless. Does he agree that dual, triple or indeed quadruple mandates are problematic on either score? If the Member concerned is sufficiently energetic to be able to participate in the deliberations of all the legislatures of which he is a member, he is almost certainly repeating daily the conflict of interest that many of us find so repugnant. If he is not doing so because he lacks energy or the flights do not permit him to be in the relevant place at the right time, he is thoroughly ineffectual. Either way, it simply does not work.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is forcing me unwittingly to agree with the Minister, which pains me at this stage of the proceedings. By my reckoning, I have spent the best part of 15 hours disagreeing with the Minister and feeling comfortable about it. Now, at this advanced hour in the Committee stage, I am about to agree with him. I hope that it does not put his career at risk. Here, his point about leaving it to the people has validity. If those who have elected the individual with the multiple representation are prepared to put up with that and to accept, as must be inevitable, that the individual cannot possibly give as much time, dedication and involvement to each of the bodies in which he is serving, that must be a matter for them. Our role is to satisfy ourselves on the qualification point. We must then leave it to the electorate to make their judgment on the representational point.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I am sorry that the 15 hours appear to be taking their toll on my right hon. Friend's memory because I thought that I had dealt with that point thoroughly in an earlier intervention. I pointed out that, if people are elected to those multiple positions on proportional representation list systems, there is no way that the electorate can punish them because, if they are placed high enough on the list, it is the people lower down the list who will take the punishment. For all their abuses, those high enough on the list will continue to be elected.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the good old days, if memory serves—it is failing a bit because I am old man and I have been on my feet for quite a long time—we were able to be elected to single Member constituencies in the European Parliament, single Member constituencies in the House of Commons and, in
      390
      the really good old days, single Member constituencies in Northern Ireland. Now, of course, the Government are undermining all that, and that is where my hon. Friend's point comes in. Shall we call it a draw, and perhaps give it some further thought?
      8.30 am
      Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend's memory really is failing him. Although I do not wish to quarrel with him this early in the morning, it was only a relatively few moments ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made the point on Westminster Great Hall and the House and my right hon. Friend agreed with him, saying that it proved the point that we are having difficulty in being in two places at once.
      At 9.30 tomorrow morning—in today's terms, given the insane way in which we are required to operate—I should like to be in Westminster Great Hall, where a debate on education is being held that directly affects the future of grammar schools in Kent. At the same time, however, I should like to be in the Chamber, quite properly continuing and participating in this debate. If I and my hon. Friends cannot be in two places at the same time today, I fail to see how we shall be able to be in Strasbourg, Dublin, Scotland and Lord knows where else at the same time. I also do not understand how amendments Nos. 3 and 4 remotely deal with the problem.
      Mr. Forth: They do not, because they were not designed to. However, all those points are perfectly valid and strengthen the general thrust of my remarks. However, I am saved all that embarrassment, because I have made my own personal decision that I shall not honour Westminster Hall with my presence at all. I do not want to give it any encouragement or support, because I do not want the so-called experiment to be declared a success at some time in the future and be made permanent. However, we can address that issue later and separately.
      I have done my best to make a modest pitch for my modest but important amendments. I hope that the Committee will be able to agree with me, as I really believe that the provision, if it were included in the Bill, would strengthen it and make it more credible, and would move the Bill some way from being totally inadequate to being just about acceptable.
      Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Lord; I wonder whether you could help me. I spent all of yesterday—which is still today—first, considering the Terrorism Bill in Committee, and, secondly, in this Committee. In the debate on clause 3, I had hoped to be able to deal with the Bill's financial aspects.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We have already dealt with clause 3.
      Mr. Maginnis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. My difficulty is that, after waiting all night to speak to

      391
      the clause, I now find it impossible to address the issue of the Bill's financial aspects in relation to added costs to the House.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat the precise clause or matter that he is dealing with?
      Mr. Maginnis: The issue pertains to the demands that would be made by Members of the Dail who come to the House and insist that we use the Irish language.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I repeat my request to the hon. Gentleman. Will he tell the Committee which amendment or new clause he is speaking to?
      Mr. Maginnis: Mr. Lord, I am sorry if I do not make myself clear. My difficulty is that there is no provision in the Bill to address a finance issue that needs to be addressed.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman from speaking, but unless he is dealing with a matter that is immediately before the Committee, I cannot allow him to continue. I shall now put the amendment.
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Is it a point of order?
      Mr. Ross: No; I was hoping to speak to the amendments. However, before I do so, I should say that I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that he was speaking to clause 3.
      Mr. Maginnis: Yes.
      Mr. Ross: I also believe that you, Sir, mistakenly mentioned clause 3—which we have not reached yet. This group of amendments—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That was my mistake. I assumed that the hon. Gentleman was referring to new clause 3, and we have dealt with that already.
      Mr. Ross: Clause 3 is a repeal clause, so is not really relevant to what my hon. Friend said about new clause 3.
      There are four amendments in the group. Amendment No. 33 is in my name and the names of my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone and the hon. Member for Macclesfield. The other amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and are supported by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). They would prevent people from holding multiple seats in various legislatures, and are worthy of careful consideration for that reason.
      The amendments to which I have put my name seek to implement our opinion that a conflict of interests would exist if a Member of a foreign legislature were allowed to take decisions that impinged on the social and economic issues in Northern Ireland and its constitutional future,
      392
      and on the long-term prospects of its citizens. I have already spoken about the effect that that would have on social matters such as divorce, and on all social legislation. The question of constitutional objectives would become deeper and more bitter if Members of a foreign legislature were involved. Would the Queen's law run in such circumstances, or would Irish opinion prevail?
      Those questions are all covered by the amendments, and they cannot be avoided. The amendments are at the heart of our contention that the Bill implies a measure of joint authority. They are therefore essential in order to prevent that coming about.
      Yesterday, the Minister agreed that a conflict of interest existed when Ministers were involved. The Dublin Government, like this Government, have a system of collective responsibility, but the system in Northern Ireland is far from the concept of a normal Executive as it is understood here or in Dublin. The Northern Ireland Executive has 10 Members, each of whom has the capacity for independent action, as I shall illustrate later. Of course, a party system also operates, with the same slight differences of opinion that occur anywhere else.
      Because the 10 Members of the Executive are effectively free agents, the Northern Ireland Executive does not follow a Cabinet system. Members who are not Ministers have to go along with party policy, much as we have seen here in the past few hours.
      Let us suppose that the Cabinet in Dublin decides on a course of action and tells those of its Members who happen to be with the Northern Ireland Executive or Assembly that they will be expected to follow the policies laid down by the party. The first loyalty—even of those elected under the single transferable vote system—would have to be to the party. The party Whips would make their lives a misery, as hon. Members here will recognise.
      The Members about whom I am speaking will be required to implement the decisions taken by the party in Dublin, over which the electorate in Northern Ireland have no control at all. The amendments seek to prevent that from happening. Those people will be loyal party members. It matters not whether they are members of Sinn Fein-IRA, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael—they are all bound by their party's decisions and by the policy of the Executive in Dublin. There is no question in the wide world but that they and their colleagues in the STV constituency support the party line because of the real electoral dangers to themselves if they do not.
      An interesting aspect is that Sinn Fein-IRA is the only political party to operate in both jurisdictions. Its members always take an all-Ireland view, so they have a certain advantage in the collection of money, for example. They do not have to account for it to this place under the legislation covering the funding of political parties. There is a real difficulty here for everyone concerned, and that alone should be sufficient to convince any reasonable man. Sadly, the Minister and his colleagues are proving themselves to be most unreasonable men in this respect. Any reasonable man would recognise the glaring conflict of interest and the conflict that would arise for citizens. Any reasonable man would also recognise the dangers inherent in igniting, in even fiercer form, all the problems that we have had because of Northern Ireland's constitutional position in the recent past. I think that that

      393
      has been snowed under only temporarily by the spin doctors and do-gooders, and that it will come back to the surface again.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told us of his difficulties when he served in this sovereign Parliament and in the European Parliament at the same time. I can appreciate the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman experienced in those circumstances. He had to fly hundreds of miles to and from the European Parliament, he had to get to his constituency of Birmingham North and he had to get to his parliamentary constituency. He was in quite a different position from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who were mentioned earlier. They represent all of Northern Ireland, so all Northern Ireland is their constituency. Their parliamentary constituency lies within it, and so does their European constituency. In contrast, the constituencies of the right hon. Gentleman did not coincide, so he had a great deal of travelling to do.
      When I first came to the House, I was an elected member of my local council.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must not pass in front of the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Chair.
      Mr. Ross: Instead of being tied up in Parliament and in Europe, I was tied up in Parliament and my local council, which had a narrow majority. I therefore gave my party and council friends an undertaking that I would be present at every critical time. I was in that position for about 18 months until the council elections took place. I always believed that it was impossible for me to give up my council seat, and I could not very well give up my parliamentary seat. Therefore, it was essential that I attended both bodies as and when the necessity arose. It caused me a great deal of difficulty. I can sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman because of my own minor problems. The whole idea of a dual or a triple mandate is nonsense; it is not physically possible to hold such a mandate.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and others referred to the problems that we encounter when procedures change. Sometimes, I think that our procedures change whenever Back Benchers catch up and make use of them. Governments decide that it is not good for Back Benchers to be doing as well as the Whips and that they can snarl this place up. Indeed, we shall be lucky to escape some change in procedures as a result of the past few hours. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Procedure Committee jealously guards of the rights of Back Benchers and that he will ensure that none of those changes are made. The Committee should try to reimpose on the Executive the authority of the House—
      8.45 am
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The amendment does not deal with the procedures of the House of Commons. Furthermore, we have heard
      394
      sufficient examples of people who serve in different legislatures. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will direct his remarks precisely to the amendment.
      Mr. Ross: I appreciate the point that you make, Mr. Lord. We have largely thrashed that horse; we have reached a clear understanding of the matter.
      The Bill is nonsense in the eyes of everyone in Northern Ireland, with the sole exception of Sinn Fein-IRA, who clearly want it—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is veering towards a Second Reading speech. Will he please come back directly to the amendments before the Committee?
      Mr. Forth: Keep it for Third Reading.
      Mr. Ross: As the right hon. Gentleman observes, we can raise those issues on Third Reading.
      The IRA welcomes the Bill because its members can see its possibilities. The amendments would diminish those possibilities. For that reason alone, I support the amendments and hope that the Minister will accept them. The IRA would be very much put out if the amendments were accepted; they would cause the organisation problems. That is a good reason to accept them.
      The debate illustrates the problems for a Member of the Dail and of the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Executive. Hon. Members should not forget that, often, because of problems in the Dail, majorities are narrow. Governments exist on a knife edge and can change, without an election, as a result of a few people crossing the Floor.
      The same problem is imminent in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In some ways, the Assembly is worse off because of its structures—Committees, Ministers and so on. I suppose that Ministers are supreme, but an interesting series of events has taken place during the past few days, which show the necessity for the amendments. The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee has taken certain decisions in relation to the location of maternity services in Belfast. My impression is that the Committee is trying to bounce the Minister, but the Minister, who is a Sinn Fein Member, is saying, "I shall make the decision." There is already the possibility of a clash between the Minister and the Committee.
      How much worse will that be if we take the route mapped out by the Bill? It is because I fear those dangers that I ask the Government to prevent them by accepting these sensible amendments.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Sometimes it is a good idea to come to the House early because one finds that interesting things have been going on, which deserve a wider audience. I saw that the House was still sitting, and I thought that there might be a filibuster; I cannot imagine why I would think that. However, a few moments ago I picked up the amendment paper.
      We may hear in a few moments whether the Minister will oppose amendment No. 3, which is just about as sane and sensible an amendment as one could want. It is all about who one owes one's loyalty to. It is about whether

      395
      one can serve two masters. It is about whether one can serve two legislatures. Ultimately, it is also a question of how many salaries one seeks to draw.
      I do not see how one can draw a distinction between being a member of a legislature and being a Minister of that legislature. Different countries have their different traditions, but it is common to most legislatures, and it is certainly common to the legislatures of Northern Ireland, of Great Britain and Eire, that the Ministers are drawn out of the Parliament. That is what it is all about under our democratic system: it is about drawing Ministers out from the legislatures in which they sit.
      I do not understand how one is to have a system that properly distinguishes between being able to be a member of a legislature and a Minister in it on one hand or saying that that would not be appropriate, and then at the same time not extending that to cover a Minister of either House as well. It seems to me that those things stand or fall together. I find it remarkable if we are about to hear that the Minister could possibly be resisting that. The two things hang together. For the reasons that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has given, the clause presents irreconcilable conflicts of interest.
      If the Minister, in good faith, expects the Bill to proceed—as I expect he did expect it to proceed—in a fairly straightforward manner, he will have to address the issue of those conflicts of interest. There is no tenable argument against the amendment. I can see the Minister thinking about that now. He has had long enough to think about it. Amendment No. 3 should be accepted.
      Mr. Gale: I shall speak very succinctly to amendment No. 3 only. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I cannot see how the Minister, if he pursues any sense and logic through this peculiar piece of legislation, can possibly reject amendment No. 3. We have heard earlier this morning that it is possible for a Speaker of the House of Commons to be a Minister in southern Ireland. We have, as far as I can see, created a situation where, under clause 2, we are preventing a Minister in the Irish Republic from being a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, while it is perfectly possible for a Secretary of State or a Minister of State for Northern Ireland in this Parliament to be a Minister in the Irish Republic. There does not seem to be any logic there. The Minister should think that one through.
      Yet again, under clause 2, we are creating two tiers. We are creating a tier of people who, if they are Ministers in the Irish Republic, cannot be Ministers in Northern Ireland, and a tier of people who are Ministers in the House of Commons, who are Ministers in Northern Ireland and could be Ministers in the Irish Republic. Where is the logic in that?
      If there is any logic in this at all, surely it must be the case not only that anyone who is a Minister in the Irish Republic cannot hold ministerial office in Northern Ireland, but that any member of either House in the Irish Republic cannot hold office in Northern Ireland. That is precisely what amendment No. 3 says. I should be very interested to know on what basis of logic—if there is any at all in these arguments—the Minister can possibly reject that amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On Second Reading, I said that we were bound to come to this issue because it is, as it were, halfway between whether one can be in two legislatures at once—the Government's proposition—and whether one can be in two Governments at once, which no one has argued should be the case. Therefore, this is probably the one area of the Bill that is not approached as a question of principle.
      My party's position is that there is not the same conflict of interest if one is a member of both legislatures and becomes part of the Administration of one, as clearly there would be if one were in both Administrations. The Bill does not argue that there should be no dual mandate. We could debate dual mandates within the UK, and within the UK and the European Parliament, or between two legislatures—including two Commonwealth legislatures, as, under existing legislation, one can be a member of two Commonwealth legislatures at the same time.
      We have accepted that the Bill does not seek to address that wider issue. There should be a debate about that matter, but I accept the point made by the Under—Secretary earlier that if we were to debate a change to the dual mandate rule in the Commonwealth, we ought to do that after consultation, and not suddenly put it on the agenda here without having raised it with Commonwealth partners.
      Mr. Clappison: I note the hon. Gentleman's point about the distinction between being a Minister in both countries and being a member of a legislature in one and a Minister in another. However, is it possible to draw a neat and tidy line between being a member of a legislature and being a Minister? What about those who fall somewhere in between—those who may have the expectation of becoming a Minister, and do not wish to do anything to prejudice that ambition? What about those who may hold some office in between being a member of a legislature and being a Minister? We are familiar with that scenario in this House. Surely, somebody in that situation would have a conflict of interest—even though it was not immediately apparent to people on the outside.
      Mr. Hughes: I understand that point. This debate concerns the most finely balanced issues. Clearly, someone who serves in the Dail and in either the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament might well aspire to be in government. That might not be made public because they might be waiting to see which legislature offers the best opportunity first, so there is a potential hidden conflict of interest.
      There is also a conflict of interest, of a type, if one is in the Government in one place—be it the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Government—and only in the legislature of the other because, by definition, one has a prior duty in the Administration which is in addition to one's duty as a legislator. It cannot be argued that it would be constitutionally justifiable for somebody to represent the UK Government—or the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly—while seeking to speak for the Government of Ireland. Clearly, that must be precluded.
      Mr. Gale: So far, the Minister has agreed that the points that I have raised in relation to the Speakership are right. However, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has not taken on board my earlier point. This clause bars Ministers from the Irish

      397
      Republic from holding office in Northern Ireland; it does not appear to bar Ministers from the UK House of Commons from holding office in Ireland. It does only half the job, if it does the job at all.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and our subsequent debates will address that point. I support the implication of his intervention, which is that it should not be possible to be a Minister in both legislatures, and my party has tabled a new clause to that effect. I hope that it will be accepted when we reach that debate. If the hon. Gentleman bears with our proceedings, he will be able to argue his case. I hope that he will support the new clauses then.
      9 am
      Our view is that, on the more limited point, the hon. Gentleman is right. The amendment is simply about whether one can be in the legislature of Ireland and a Minister—the First Minister, Deputy First Minister, a junior Minister or nominated to hold ministerial office—in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That does not raise the same constitutional objection as the point that the hon. Gentleman properly raised. We shall not support the amendments, but we shall support the later new clauses and amendment that will prevent coterminous ministerial office in both sovereign Governments or in the Government of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      Mr. Swayne: I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that have been well rehearsed in the past hour. Instead, I wish to focus the Minister's mind so that he can deal with the principal question when he replies.
      We have dealt with the physical practicalities of dual mandates and with the principle of the desirability of holding such mandates. Much of the complaint that was made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was conceded on Second Reading. The amendments give us the opportunity to correct one of the more glaring problems that remain—the possibility that a Minister of the Crown serving in the Assembly in Northern Ireland can, at the same time, be a Member of either House in the Irish legislature. That absurdity would be closed off by the amendments.
      It is absurd because if someone discharges his responsibilities to the Crown and pursues, protects and defends the interests of Her Majesty and the people of Northern Ireland, how can he discharge his responsibilities to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland and to his constituents there? That problem spans almost every sphere of Government activity. For example, it covers the differences in agriculture and the differential interests between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland when they negotiate in Brussels.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told us of his experience as a Minister in the councils of Europe and of the difficulty that he had in squaring the interests of the United Kingdom with what he scathingly described, in some
      398
      cases, as the activities of Irish Ministers. One must not be so scathing, because, after all, they were only defending the interests of the Republic.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I agree with every criticism that my hon. Friend has made of what would happen if the amendments were not accepted. In an intervention on the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), my hon. Friend accused him of moving a wrecking amendment. However, if the amendments were accepted, as I hope they will be, would they not be wrecking amendments? What be would left of the Bill if the absurdity is rectified?
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is mistaken. I was honest in describing it as a wrecking amendment because it would undermine the principle of the Bill that had been conceded on Second Reading. However, this amendment would remedy a problem that we had with conceding the principle on Second Reading. It tightens up the Bill and thereby improves the Bill's quality by removing a dishonest possibility. I use that phrase because I do not believe that Ministers of the Crown can discharge their responsibilities to the Crown while simultaneously serving the interests of the Republic of Ireland responsibly, as a Member of its Parliament.
      I have already mentioned agriculture, which spans every sphere of Government activity. It is highly pertinent to consider the implications of the Bill in the context of economic activity. The Republic of Ireland is now part of the eurozone, whereas the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, is not. That creates divergent interests between the spheres in which such a Minister would operate. It would be truly impossible for him responsibly and honourably to discharge his responsibilities to both sets of constituents.
      Another sphere in which that would be impossible is defence. The United Kingdom—and, by implication, Northern Ireland—is part of NATO, whereas the Republic of Ireland has always been neutral. It is monstrous to suggest that, given those stances in international affairs and defence capabilities, one could expect a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive—a Minister discharging responsibilities to the Crown in defence matters—honestly to represent the interests of the Republic of Ireland.
      That problem would be remedied by the amendments. I hope that the Minister can explain why he will not accept the amendments, but I would prefer him to explain why he will.
      Mr. Sayeed: It has become clear during this debate that there are a series of anomalies within the Bill as originally drafted, that there are contradictions inherent within the Bill, and that absurdities may occur because of the Bill. My question to the Minister is simple: when he was going through the Bill with his civil servants and other Ministers, did they spot those absurdities and notice those contradictions? If so, how did they answer them at that time, to themselves, and will the Minister tell the Committee what those answers were?
      Mr. George Howarth: Before I deal with the amendment, I should like to comment on remarks made by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who readily conceded that, late in the day, he had walked in,

      399
      picked up a copy of the Bill, looked at the amendments and framed his remarks accordingly. He based his remarks on the principle he enunciated at the start of his brief contribution: that one cannot serve two masters.
      Mr. Nicholls: I wondered how the Government could so mishandle their legislation that it was necessary for my right hon. and hon. Friends still to be probing matters so late into the night. When I looked at the amendment the Committee was debating, I could see what the Minister was up to. That is why I came to the Chamber and made my speech.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that further clarification, but I note that the hon. Gentleman does not deny that he based his remarks on a principle he holds important: that one cannot serve two masters. The Committee might be interested to learn that, in the most recent edition of the Register of Members' Interests, under the heading "Remunerated employment, office, profession, etc.", the hon. Gentleman lists no fewer than eight such interests. He is quite within his rights to have such interests and he has quite properly registered them. However, we are bound to ask, how many masters does he serve? We addressed the principle behind the amendment—
      Mr. Nicholls: Much as I have always liked the Minister, I have never given great credit to his intellect. Perhaps he cannot understand the difference between having different sources of remuneration and owing allegiance to two different heads of state. Even by his standards, that was a ludicrous contribution.
      Mr. Howarth: I am none the wiser as to how the hon. Gentleman sorts out the different principles in different contexts. I shall leave it to the Committee to judge why and how he chose to advance the argument about two masters.
      We addressed the principle behind this amendment in the context of an earlier amendment, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Amendment No. 3 is not entirely new territory, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) tried to argue. We covered some of the same ground earlier. In saying that we could not accept the earlier amendment, I set out the Government's position on potential conflicts of interest. We recognise that a potential conflict of interest might arise, were an individual to be a Minister in the Irish Government and in the Northern Ireland Executive. Any Minister must have regard not only to his own constituents, but to the interests of all those in the jurisdiction for which he has responsibility. As a result, it may well be that genuine conflicts of interest arise in those circumstances.
      In the rest of the United Kingdom, we can look to the Prime Minister or, for that matter, to the First Minister, whichever may be appropriate, to resolve conflicts of interest. By using his discretion in appointing and dismissing, he has the power to control the situation. No leader of a Government will want in his Government a Minister who is not committed to the interests of all the
      400
      people he is charged to serve. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Ministers serve at the discretion of the leader of the Administration.
      Uniquely in Northern Ireland, the First and Deputy First Minister do not have discretion to appoint or dismiss all the members of the Executive. Those members are selected under an automatic proportionate system, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, which is the d'Hondt formula. That is why the Government believe that it is right that the clause makes special provision to ensure that an individual may not be a Minister in the Irish Government and in the Northern Ireland Executive.
      Mr. Sayeed: I thank the Minister for his courtesy. Does he understand that it is not necessary to be a Minister to have a conflict of interest? All that is necessary is to have two sets of different constituents. As I suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), someone may have two constituencies, one in Ireland and one in England, and be trying to bid for the same contract. In that position, it is not possible to serve two masters effectively.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman was perhaps a little precipitate in intervening, because that is the next point in my speech.
      I explained in the earlier debate that we do not accept that conflicts of interest necessarily arise where an individual is simply a Back-Bench Member in one jurisdiction but a Minister in the other. Our position, which I have repeated—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I will have to differ on this point—is that, in such cases, it is a matter for the relevant electorate to decide at whatever point the person concerned submits himself either for election or re-election. They have to decide whether they consider that it is an appropriate thing to.
      These amendments turn on the same general issue. The effect would be to prevent an individual from becoming a Member in Northern Ireland, not only if he were a Minister in the Irish Government but if he were a Back-Bench Member in either the Dail or the Irish Senate.
      9.15 am
      It will therefore be no surprise that we oppose the amendments for almost exactly the same reasons as we gave in an earlier debate. I will not repeat those arguments in detail because we have heard them time and again.
      I draw the Committee's attention to a further issue to which the amendments give rise. The amendments would disqualify even a Member of the Irish Senate from being a Minister in Northern Ireland, even though that is possible under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The official Opposition, including the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, did not oppose that measure. Yet the right hon. Gentleman would now reverse that legislation. Section 36(5) of the Act removes the provision for disqualification from the Assembly of Members of the Irish Senate. Parliament made no provision to prevent Members of the Irish Senate from taking up ministerial positions in Northern Ireland. Of course, none of the Northern Ireland Ministers are currently Members of the

      401
      Irish Senate. None the less, the amendment would remove an existing right, and not merely constrain the extension of a right.
      The Government believe that the House made the right decision last year on the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We oppose the amendment for that reason, and because of the general issues to which I referred.
      Mr. Forth: The Under-Secretary's response was perhaps predictable, but it is nevertheless disappointing. He suggests that we must agree to differ. However, it is sad that we have been unable to persuade him of our case over hours of debate in the Chamber on many different amendments.
      Mr. Swayne: The Under-Secretary refused to tackle the arguments. He claimed that he had done that in earlier debates. We failed to convey to him the difference in the nature of this debate, which covers Ministers and legislators, rather than mere legislators, which earlier debates tackled. The Under-Secretary did not even address the arguments. That is why his response was so disappointing.
      Mr. Forth: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I suspect that the Under-Secretary does not perceive the force of the argument. He does not want, cannot or is not allowed to acknowledge the difficulties that will inevitably arise when tensions occur. At worst, that could undermine the effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Assembly and sour relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, entirely foreseeably.
      However, there is an underlying principle, which bothers me. There is an increasing erosion of nationhood, identity, borders and institutions because of the European Union, and we are now considering another influence, which erodes those institutions in a similar way. That is an inherent part of the debate and the anxiety, which many of us share.
      Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I apologise to my right hon. Friend and to you for raising this point of order now. I would ordinarily have done my right hon. Friend the courtesy of waiting until he had finished speaking, but I suspect that we are heading for a Division. I do not know of any procedure for raising a point of order during a Division in Committee, although such procedure exists for the Floor of the House.
      I was not present when the Chairman of Ways of Means made his ruling, but I understand that he ruled that it was entirely proper for sittings to take place in Westminster Hall when the House was sitting. The order that the House made on 24 May 1999 allows for Westminster Hall to sit on Thursdays from 2.30 pm for up to three hours while proceedings take place on the Floor. A precedent exists, and I understand the reason for the ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
      The motion passed on 24 May states that on days that the House shall sit, there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesdays between 10 am and 1 pm and on Wednesdays between 9.30 am and 2 pm. You may think that this is esoteric, Mr. Lord, but I have consulted "Erskine May" and the precedent is clear. While the day's sitting continues, the House of Commons is sitting, in this case, on Tuesday.
      402
      While this House is sitting on Tuesday, I fail to see how a sitting deemed by order of the House on 24 May to start at 10 o'clock on Tuesday—because it is still Tuesday—can or should be allowed to proceed at 9.30am in Westminster Hall. I am certain that when the Chairman of Ways and Means made his ruling, he did not take that into account. I understand why. The fact is that we are sitting on Tuesday, not Wednesday, and Westminster Hall cannot—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means was well aware of all the background when he made his ruling. I believe that he has already dealt with that matter.
      Mr. Clappison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not think that there can be anything further to that point of order.
      Mr. Clappison: It is a separate point of order, Mr. Lord. We are very close to 9.30am and my right hon. Friend is about to conclude his remarks.
      Mr. Forth indicated assent.
      Mr. Clappison: There will be a Division and it is likely that it will coincide with the beginning of the sitting in Westminster Hall. In those circumstances, what is to happen to those of us who wish to take part in the Division and travel in time to Westminster Hall tomorrow?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been in and out of the Chamber this morning but I have already ruled on that point. It will be entirely for the occupant of the Chair in Westminster Hall. We have now dealt adequately with that point of order.
      Mr. Forth: We are facing a combination of factors that are conspiring to make it difficult for us to be persuaded by the Minister, to whom many of us have listened over a long period.
      Mr. Swayne: That is not entirely true. The Minister has been very sparing with his words at the Dispatch Box. We wished to listen to him a great deal more than we have been able.
      Mr. Forth: That must be a matter of judgment. I do not want to fall out entirely with the Minister quite yet because I still nurture the hope that we may be able to persuade him.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I believe that I am correct in saying that the longest speech so far in Committee has been a ministerial speech.
      Mr. Forth: There is a nugget of information to treasure. It will be interesting, when Hansard finally appears, to see what information was imparted during that

      403
      lengthy ministerial speech. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we should run an eye over the proceedings, to see where the balance lies.
      We have tried hard, and happily there is much more to be considered in Committee. We are only part way through the proceedings. To date, we have not been able to persuade the Minister to accept any of the important and fundamental points made in a series of debates.
      Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the points of order, which were properly ruled upon, show that even in this House there can be extremely difficult conflicts of interest over where one should be debating? In a few moments my right hon. Friend, who I believe is a great devotee of Westminster Hall—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That point of order has nothing to do with the amendment before the Committee.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's point and my personal circumstances of some years ago illustrate that such conflicts arise more often than might be anticipated. We should have been able to draw the Minister's attention to that in persuading him that something should be done.
      It is increasingly likely that the Bill will have no Report stage. It will have been shoved all the way through Committee without amendment. I regret that that is how things look, although there is still hope. The Bill will pass through this House unamended—hardly touching the sides in parliamentary terms—and go to the other place—over which, I am happy to say, the Government do not have any control. There is a real risk that this important and controversial Bill will end up unsatisfactory, unsound and unsafe. If it does, the Committee will have failed to do its job.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Unusually, the right hon. Gentleman has missed a trick because the Home Secretary was in the Chamber and I had hoped that he would catch him. Over the past 12 hours, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who are in charge of the Bill, have been here. Had the right hon. Gentleman been really quick he could have asked the Home Secretary whether he at least could explain why we are considering the Bill so urgently. Sadly, he may have to wait until the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reappears to ask that question.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) did not stray down that route and devoted his attention to the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: I have not left the Chamber for 16 hours so the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who understands these matters, will perhaps forgive me if I miss the occasional opportunity. I am still doing my best and if he looks at the amendment paper he will find that there are many exciting opportunities still to come.
      404
      I give you, Mr. Lord, a little advance notice. I hope that you agree that a brief debate on clause 3 stand part is appropriate, for example, because we have not yet touched on that subject. There is something for us all to look forward to and there are many more goodies to come. The highlight of the debate—the bonanza—will of course be Third Reading, when we shall all have an opportunity to review where we have arrived at—in order and with your guidance. We could perhaps exchange ideas about how the Bill could be dealt with, even at that late stage, but I am anticipating myself and the proceedings.
      Mr. William Ross: My right hon. Friend talks about Third Reading, but we should have a detailed look at my new clauses on salaries and allowances before that. We could not possibly allow them to pass us by.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. First, we should deal with the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: Certainly, but I make a plea. The Committee should give the Government yet another chance to improve the Bill by supporting the amendment. I hope that it will do so, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, this will not be the last chance to make improvements.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 234.

      Division No. 46]

      [9.28 am

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Chope, Christopher

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gale, Roger

      Thompson, William

      Hunter, Andrew

      Wardle, Charles

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. David Maclean.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Burgon, Colin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Allen, Graham

      Canavan, Dennis

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ashton, Joe

      Cawsey, Ian

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Chaytor, David

      Battle, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clelland, David

      Best, Harold

      Coaker, Vernon

      Betts, Clive

      Cohen, Harry

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coleman, Iain

      Blizzard, Bob

      Colman, Tony

      Borrow, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corston, Jean

      Breed, Colin

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cranston, Ross

      Browne, Desmond

      Crausby, David

      Burden, Richard

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      405

      Cummmings, John

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Dalyell, Tam

      Macdonald, Calum

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      McDonnell, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McFall, John

      Davidson, Ian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Dawson, Hilton

      McIsaac, Shona

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Denham, John

      McNulty Tony

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McWalter, Tony

      Doran, Frank

      Mallaber, Judy

      Dowd, Jim

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Efford, Clive

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Fisher, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Maxton, John

      Flint, Caroline

      Meale, Alan

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Merron, Gillian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Miller, Andrew

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Gapes, Mike

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gardiner, Barry

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Gerrard, Neil

      Morley, Elliot

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mountford, Kali

      Goggins, Paul

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mudie, George

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Grocott, Bruce

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Grogan, John

      Olner, Bill

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Pearson, Ian

      Healey, John

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Pike, Peter L

      Heppell, John

      Plaskitt, James

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hope, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pope, Greg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hutton, John

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Rooney, Terry

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jamieson, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Jenkins, Brian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Sawford, Phil

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Sheerman, Barry

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Keetch, Paul

      Simpson, Alan (Nottinoham S)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Singh, Marsha

      Kidney, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Laxton, Bob

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Soley, Clive

      Linton, Martin

      Spellar, John

      Lock, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Love, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McCabe, Steve

      Stevenson, George

      406

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stringer, Graham

      Watts, David

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Willis, Phil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilson, Brian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Winnick, David

      Todd, Mark

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Touhig, Don

      Wood, Mike

      Trickett, Jon

      Woolas, Phil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tyler, Paul

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Tynan, Bill

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived, nil
      THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): In view of the delay in the Division Lobby, I would ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 228, Noes 22.

      Division No. 47]

      [9.42 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clelland, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Battle, John

      Colman, Tony

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Connarty, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cooper, Yvette

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Berry, Roger

      Corston, Jean

      Best, Harold

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cranston, Ross

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Crausby, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cummings, John

      Borrow, David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Davidson, Ian

      Browne, Desmond

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burden, Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burgon, Colin

      Denham, John

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Dismore, Andrew

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Canavan, Dennis

      Doran, Frank

      Caplin, Ivor

      Dowd, Jim

      Cawsey, Ian

      Efford, Clive

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Chaytor, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Clapham, Michael

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      407

      Fisher, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Maxton, John

      Flint, Caroline

      Meale, Alan

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Merron, Gillian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Miller, Andrew

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Gapes, Mike

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gardiner, Barry

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Gerrard, Neil

      Morley, Elliot

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mountford, Kali

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Goggins, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Olner, Bill

      Grogan, John

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hain, Peter

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Pike, Peter L

      Healey, John

      Plaskitt, James

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Heppell, John

      Pound, Stephen

      Hood, Jimmy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hope, Phil

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Rammell, Bill

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Rooney, Terry

      Hutton, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Ruddock, Joan

      Illsley, Eric

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Sawford, Phil

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Jamieson, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jenkins, Brian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Singh, Marsha

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Soley, Clive

      Kemp, Fraser

      Spellar, John

      Kidney, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Laxton, Bob

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lepper, David

      Stevenson, George

      Leslie, Christopher

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Linton, Martin

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Lock, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Love, Andrew

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McCabe, Steve

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Macdonald, Calum

      Touhig, Don

      McDonnell, John

      Trickett, Jon

      McFall,John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      McNulty, Tony

      Tynan, Bill

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Walley, Ms Joan

      McWalter, Tony

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Mallaber, Judy

      Wareing, Robert N

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Watts, David

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      408

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Worthington, Tony

      Wilson, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wood, Mike

      Mr. Graham Allen and

      Woolas, Phil

      Mr. Gerry Sutdiffe.

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Beggs, Roy

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Brake, Tom

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Breed, Colin

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Thompson, William

      Cotter, Brian

      Tyler, Paul

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Willis, Phil

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Gale, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mr. David Maclean.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I wonder whether you can help us. I am aware that sometimes the Chairman of a Committee knows what the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker might know. Have any amendments been tabled yet for Report? Could they have been? Is it in the mind of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker to allow a Report stage? I ask that for the convenience of all hon. Members, so that we know what lies ahead.
      Secondly, has there been any indication of when this matter is expected to be considered in the other place? That, too, may govern how we want to organise ourselves today, especially with regard to whether we sit beyond 2.30 pm.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that there will be a Report stage only if the Bill is amended. It has not so far been amended. The question of the other place is nothing to do with these Committee proceedings.
      Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. When the Select Committee on Modernisation set up the sittings in Westminster Hall that coincide with those in the Chamber, do you know whether it considered the problem before us?
      The First Deputy Chairman: There is no problem before us. I am going to put the Question that clause stand part. There is absolutely no problem in this Committee.

    Clause 3

      CONSEQUENTIAL REPEAL
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Forth: We have had some interesting debates. They have been a bit fragmented, which is natural. But now we can get our teeth into a clause with some real issues in it. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends

      409
      will agree that the clause requires particularly close attention. I suspect that many of my colleagues will want to have their say about it.
      The clause is deceptively simple. At first reading, it looks like a straightforward matter that can be dispensed with readily, allowing us to move on. Of course, we want to move on; I cannot wait to get to Third Reading. There is a really big speech in me and I am desperate to make it. These matters are almost distractions, albeit important ones.
      Clause 3—seductively inoffensive as it appears—contains some real issues. For the first time, we can concentrate our minds on the Irish Senate. I feel more comfortable with that nomenclature. I cannot be doing with all the funny wording in the Bill; if I tried to pronounce it, I should probably get it wrong. If you will indulge me, Mr. Martin, I think that "Irish Senate" will do.
      Clause 3 refers to section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—a copy of which I have before me.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: If we are proposing to repeal that subsection of the Act, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether other parts of the section should be considered? Is subsection (5) the only one that could possibly be described as redundant because it is covered elsewhere?
      Mr. Forth: That is an important question, which my hon. Friend put with typical incisiveness. Section 36 of the 1998 Act is headed "Disqualification". If I may briefly digress, that has a bearing on some of our previous debates. For the past 17 hours, Ministers have been at pains to tell us repeatedly that disqualification is a chimera because such matters should be left entirely to the electorate.
      However, section 36 of the Labour Government's 1998 Act sets out disqualification provisions. When I referred earlier to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, I would have understood if Ministers had used as their excuse the fact that it was an old Act. However, their own 1998 Act covers disqualification.
      Mr. Brady: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not let the Government off quite that lightly, because the 1975 Act was also passed by a Labour Government.
      Mr. Forth: I suspect that, if we were to pursue the matter—although I shall not do so—Ministers would claim that the 1975 Act was old Labour and that the 1998 Act is new Labour. We are considering new Labour disqualification.
      In order to set the scene and to make a telling point to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I note that section 36(3) states:
      "A person who is Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for a county or county borough in Northern Ireland is disqualified for membership of the Assembly for a constituency comprising the whole or part of the county or county borough."
      That disposes of the specious argument, which we have heard again and again for the past 16 or 17 hours, that we must leave all those matters to the electorate. However,
      410
      the new Labour Government's own Act, bearing on Northern Ireland, contains a disqualification of Lord Lieutenants—
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Lords Lieutenant.
      Mr. Forth: I stand corrected. I have been in the Chamber for a long time and my hon. Friend must forgive me.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend poses the Committee what seems to be a puzzling conundrum. Does he agree that, by and large, the ministerial offender who is most at fault on the subject of "leave it to the voters" is not the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is currently sitting on the Treasury Bench, but the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? During the passage of the 1998 Act, was not the present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Home Office Minister? He has only recently been transferred—I think, without fee—to the Northern Ireland Office.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The clause is extremely narrow. I cannot allow those matters to be discussed.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Martin. It leads me directly to section 36(5) of the 1998 Act, which is referred to in the clause. It states simply:
      "A person is not disqualified for membership of the Assembly by virtue of subsection (1) by reason only that he is a member of the … Senate of Ireland".
      There "Senate" is in English, which helps me.
      We are confronted with, on the face of it, a simple question: should Members of the Senate of Ireland be disqualified and, if so, from what? That is a new question for us to face, because I think that I am right in saying—although I have been in the Chamber for so long that I have not been able to do as much research as I should have liked—that the Irish Senate is not a directly elected body but almost entirely appointed. It is a sort of Irish Tony's cronies.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: That is not completely correct, because I believe that some of the Members are elected by the universities.
      Mr. Forth: I am not sure that I would count that. I believe that my general point stands.
      Here we have the opportunity to seek to draw a distinction, if such a distinction should exist in this case, between elected representatives in assemblies, and Senators, who are not necessarily elected. I want to develop that argument in the context of whether there should be a disqualification across a national boundary.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I was going to offer my right hon. Friend some comfort by reminding him that Gordon Wilson of Enniskillen, whose daughter was killed in the Enniskillen bomb and who, with great Christian grace,

      411
      forgave those who caused her death, was appointed to the Irish Senate subsequently; so at least some Members of the Senate are appointed.
      Mr. Forth: The appointment of that individual also illustrates two or three of the themes of our debates, as my right hon. Friend knows. First, it shows that someone who is born in Northern Ireland has a unique distinction and qualification south of the border. Secondly, that it is by dint of a decision of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland that these things happen. I have no problem with that, and I have made no argument with the Irish over that decision. We are talking about what decisions we should take here, in this sovereign Parliament, about whether we believe that politicians of whatever kind should be able to cross our border into part of our United Kingdom and play a part in a representative body.
      The interesting thing about clause 3 is that here, for the first time, we can focus—and I want to be very focused on this because if I was not, I would fall over—on the fact that we are talking now about the Senate, a non-elected body. The question that we must ask ourselves, in the context both of clause 3 and of the 1975 Act, is whether we believe that the fact that the Senate is not directly elected should lead us to treat it any differently from a political body composed of elected members.
      That is a very real question, for many reasons. Earlier, we considered some of the conflicts that could arise as between elected members of one body and elected members of another. We did so in some detail, but not as much as I should have liked. In my opinion, we have skipped lightly over the Bill. We have done our best, but time has not been generous to us. However, we have dug up, discovered and examined several of the conflicts that could arise. There have been obvious conflicts of time and place. There have certainly been conflicts of loyalty. We have even occasionally touched on the subject of oaths and whether oaths of loyalty or their equivalent would create difficulties for elected members in two different bodies trying to square the circle and discharge their responsibilities in the fullest possible sense.
      Of course, the question may be different—I pose it as a question because I still have not resolved the matter in my mind—for a Senate-type body or a body of the Irish Senate type, which is largely appointed or delegated and not elected. One could argue that, because the body is not elected, and because it has therefore a different role and different responsibilities—
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I intervene at this point to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is indeed a very narrowly drawn clause. As he has pointed out, we have dealt with the points that arise from it because this is consequential upon clause 1, where the issues have already been discussed.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I call Mr. Forth.
      Mr. Forth: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I prefer your guidance to that of the Minister in these matters. I will overlook his impudence, as I am sure you will, since you are a generous chap.
      412
      If the Minister wants to skate over this point, that is a matter for him. However, that will simply reinforce the view that we have held increasingly during these proceedings—that Ministers are not prepared to look seriously at their own Bill.
      Mr. Robathan: Does not the clause show how the Government overlook things and get things badly wrong? We were told that the question of allowing members of the legislature in Ireland to sit in our Parliament was considered at the time of the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Yet within 18 months of that Act becoming law, we are being asked to change it. Surely that shows how little faith we should have in Ministers who do not consider the details of their legislation.
      Mr. Forth: With his usual perspicacity, my hon. Friend has anticipated one of my next arguments. I am only in my preamble, and there is a lot more to come.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: What would happen if the Government were to change their mind again and repeal what will become the Act, and then reinstate section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998? If the Government have not considered that, we ought to get a policy statement. Perhaps the Minister should be consulting his advisers and finding out what his view ought to be, let alone what it actually is.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I would point out to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that I have already stated that this is a narrow clause. The reason why it is a very narrow clause is that it is a consequential clause, because the Committee has already agreed to clause 1. In effect, this is a consequential amendment. Therefore, we cannot go over all the arguments put with regard to clause 1 again.
      Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. If my intervention on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst prompted that ruling, I apologise. I was hoping to ask what happens if the Bill becomes an Act and is later repealed. Were clause 3 not to stand part of the Bill, the qualification for a Member of the Senate to come in would still apply. If I trespassed over ground that has been covered before, I apologise.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I stress that it is a small point that the hon. Gentleman makes—it is not a point that we can make a meal of at this time.
      Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Martin. The distinction in my mind is that whereas clause 1 refers in a generic sense to the Northern Ireland Assembly disqualification, clause 3 focuses specifically on the Senate. There is an opportunity under clause 3 for us to consider whether the Senate should be treated differently from or the same as the Assembly. That is a crucial difference, especially given the fact that the Senate is of a different political nature.
      Mr. James Gray: My right hon. Friend might value the information that the Irish Senate

      413
      consists of 43 members elected to represent five vocational panels, six members elected to represent Irish universities and 11 members appointed by the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Forth: I hesitate to explore that matter further. However, I suspect that the use of the term "elected" is rather loose, as I doubt whether they are directly elected. I do not want to get distracted in that way, as I wanted to take a succinct look at the matter. I wanted to set the stage for the debate, rather than hog the time. As you know, Mr. Martin, I try never to do that. I am trying to draw out the main themes of the debate in the context of section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
      10.15 am
      I was briefly considering the difference in treatment that the Committee might have to consider. A political body that is elected and which is therefore fully comparable to the House and to the Northern Ireland Assembly even though it is peculiarly elected by the gentleman called d'Hondt, about whom we keep hearing but none of us fully understand—
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: He is dead.
      Mr. Forth: Well, the dead d'Hondt—or the late Professor d'Hondt, if one wants to be more gentlemanly about it.
      Consequential or not, the Irish Senate is referred to separately in clause 3 because it was dealt with separately in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That means that we must give it proper and separate consideration. It might have been treated separately because it is, in substance, different from the other bodies that we have considered. It is certainly separate in the context of the Bill.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I am a former graduate of Trinity college, but a much earlier graduate, Edmund Burke, gave us the guideline that Members should come to the House not as delegates but as representatives. Is there not a difference between those, such as Gordon Wilson, Dr. Robb and others, who were appointed to the Senate by the Taoiseach and those who were elected? Where does the loyalty of those appointed by an individual lie?
      Mr. Forth: These are vital considerations. An interesting and respectable publication has fallen conveniently into my hands. It was produced by the constitutional unit of the UCL school of public policy, so I suppose that it can be trusted. I shall quote it briefly because I am sure that the Committee wants to understand the context:
      "The Irish Senate is a weak second chamber within a relatively weak Parliament."
      That is not very complimentary. Are its Members the people with whom we are supposed to be playing transfer? It adds:
      "Its powers were weakened under the new constitution of 1937. It has only 90 days to consider any legislation that comes from the Dail, which in turn may overturn any amendments after a further 180 days. The Senate has no powers over financial legislation and no power to appoint or dismiss the Government."
      That illustrates that we are dealing with a political body that is quite different from the elected Assembly in the Republic of Ireland and from the unicameral Assembly in
      414
      Northern Ireland. It is different again from the combination of the House of Commons and the new transitional House of Lords, whose final composition we do not yet know.
      Mr. David Maclean: My right hon. Friend suggested that the Senate was not elected in the normal sense. The excellent constitution unit booklet shows that it is made up from five vocational groups, it is voted through by the out-going Members of the previous Senate, by some people in local councils and by Members of the lower House. It is very much an old boys' and old girls' network who put in their own placemen from their own vocational groups. He is right to suggest that it is not an elected Assembly.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a convenient point to stop the right hon. Gentleman. Once again, I make it clear that such arguments could have been made on clause 1. If my memory serves me correctly, they were made on clause 1. [Interruption.] Order. I have as good a memory as any other hon Member. That is why am in this job.
      Clause 1 refers to the "member of the legislature". That includes the Senate as well as the Dail. This is a technical and consequential clause, and we are narrowly constrained by it. We cannot talk about the make-up of the Senate in this debate.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Your remarks are helpful, but will you confirm that clause 1 provides for the removal of a disqualification, whereas clause 3 provides for the removal of a qualification, and that there is, in some sense, a difference between the two, even though they appear to be the reverse of each other? Although the clauses are different, the arguments are not identical, and it is relevant to note the distinction between the two clauses.
      The First Deputy Chairman): It is not my obligation, but the Minister's, to explain the Bill to the Committee. If the Minister were to start to explain clause 1 in great detail, I would rule him out of order, because we moved on from clause 1 after having a lengthy debate on it. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must speak only to clause 3. If he or any other hon. Member who intervenes during his speech strays from the confines of that narrow clause, I shall have to intervene. I do not like having to intervene, because it disrupts the flow of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. You have referred to matters that should have been debated and answered during the debate on clause 1, but what if it is the view of the Committee—at least, those on the Opposition Benches—that those matters were not properly dealt with at that time? Is it not the right of the Committee to probe such matters during debate on a later clause, even though that clause is rather tightly drawn, as you have rightly pointed out?
      The First Deputy Chairman: We have to keep within the narrow confines of clause 3. My remarks might be construed as implying that clause 1 offered greater opportunity and scope to debate the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Therefore, in a sense, hon.

      415
      Members have missed the boat by waiting until clause 3 stand part to raise matters that they should have raised in connection with clause 1.
      Mr. Brady: On a separate point of order, Mr. Martin. You have, rightly, drawn attention to the Bill's description of the clause as consequential. However, my reading of the two clauses reveals no inconsistency between the provision removed under clause 3 and that which is proposed under clause 1. Surely, clause 3 is not strictly consequential, given that there is no need to remove it from the other legislation?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I can concern myself only with clause 3. I used clause 1 as an example, but said that we had now moved on from that clause to clause 3, which is narrowly drawn. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has got my point.
      Mr. Forth: I have indeed, Mr. Martin—indeed, how could I fail to do so? I am a simple man and can only tell these things as I see them. It complies with your guidance to say that it struck me that there had to be a clause 3 to determine the treatment of the Irish Senate within the overall framework of the Bill. If that determination had been unnecessary, clause 3 would have been unnecessary. My view is that clause 3 is necessary because of the provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which, in turn, singles out the Irish Senate, albeit for different reasons.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
      Mr. Forth: Have I upset my hon. Friend?
      Mr. Bottomley: No, I am not upset; I just think that my right hon. Friend is wrong. If the Government had not proposed clause 3—we have yet to hear why they thought it essential to do so—the result would have been belt and braces, with all sorts of reasons given as to why a Member of the Senate should be able to be qualified. The question of whether Lords-Lieutenant should be able to do certain things is another matter. However, I do not believe that clause 3 is necessary—it is matter of choice. The question of why that choice was made is one that my right hon. Friend should ask. If I have misunderstood his remarks, I apologise.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is, as ever, helpful, in that he has got to the point quicker than I would have done. That is, of course, a good thing, which we all want.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I wonder whether you can help the Committee. Westminster Hall has now started Wednesday's business. Before the commencement of the Westminster Hall experiment, Tuesday's business in this place continued until 2.30 pm, when Wednesday's business began. Can you help us by telling us whether we are now in Tuesday's business or Wednesday's business?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are in Tuesday's business. What goes on outside the Chamber has nothing to do—[Interruption.] Order. I would appreciate being able to answer the right
      416
      hon. Gentleman. I shall then take other points of order. What goes on outside the Chamber is nothing to do with us. This is a Committee of the whole House.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: That is a helpful ruling, Mr. Martin, but will you go one step further to remove a continuing confusion that I at least have? My understanding was that Westminster Hall was but an extension of the Chamber, and that the rules setting it up in effect moved Wednesday's business from the Chamber to Westminster Hall, but did not establish a separate entity. In that sense, it is but an extension of this place. Therefore, I remain confused because Westminster Hall is on Wednesday's business and we are on Tuesday's business, though it is but an extension of us.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot go into the business that is taking place in Westminster Hall. I have instructions to take the business of the Committee and to be its Chairman. That is what I must do. If the right hon. Gentleman has any concerns about what is going on in Westminster Hall and feels that perhaps it is a breach of the rules of the House, he can take up the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means. He is entitled to do that.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Your advice about taking up the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means is useful. However, I wish to raise a different matter.
      We have a dilemma that we share with other parts of the House. The words that are being said in Westminster Hall will be recorded in the Official Report. The question is which day they will be reported under. If, for example, this debate continues and we lose Wednesday's business, there will not be a Wednesday's Official Report. It may be that what is said in Westminster Hall on a Wednesday will be reported on a Tuesday in the Official Report; or it may be that it will have to be reported on a Thursday when the House comes back.
      Obviously these are not matters for you, Mr. Martin, as Chairman of the Committee. However, it might be helpful if some of these matters could be considered. Whatever decisions have to be taken during the next day or two, or this day, should not be regarded as precedents if they involve matters that should be referred to another Committee or for deeper consideration. We should understand that what is happening now is provisional and that what is happening apparently at Westminster Hall on a Wednesday might be taking place on Tuesday, Thursday or Wednesday.
      The First Deputy Chairman: This is a Committee of the whole House. The best that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that his voice and concerns have been heard. That is the best way I can put it.
      Mr. Nicholas WintertonOn a point of order, Mr. Martin. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber recognise the difficulties in which you find yourself as a result of the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). However, I must support what he said. Westminster Hall is an extension of the Chamber.

      417
      May I press you a little further, Mr. Martin, because you are supposed to safeguard the rights of the House of Commons and the rights of Members? Could you, as Chairman of the Committee, seek to make inquiries as to whether it is in order for Westminster Hall to be sitting at this time?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I have no difficulties with that. I am here to chair a Committee of the whole House. As the hon. Gentleman said, hon. Members have rights, including a right to be heard in such a Committee. Westminster Hall has its own rules and it is not for me to concern myself with what is happening there. My current duty is to chair the Committee of the whole House. If many hon. Members make points of order about Westminster Hall, we shall be in danger of departing from the Committee's business. I can say no more about Westminster Hall.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I am sorry to trouble you, but it is important for the constitutional position to be clear, especially to new Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that Westminster Hall was not separate from, but was an extension of, the House. That point is underlined by a simple occurrence that we witness daily: the Official Report of the debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall are reproduced in the same volume. Does not that testify to the fact that they are one entity?
      The First Deputy Chairman: All the rules and conventions for Westminster Hall have been agreed by the House. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that we are now in a Committee of the whole House and we must get on with the Committee's business.
      Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is not about Westminster Hall.
      Mr. Maclean: I am afraid that it is a related point. You rightly ruled that we should take up the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, it is difficult to do that while participating in the debate in Committee. Hon. Members in Westminster Hall may also want to participate in our debate—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to cut the right hon. Gentleman short, but when I told the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire to take up the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means, I did not expect him to go to Westminster Hall, and take the Chairman from the Chair for a discussion. He and other hon. Members can arrange to meet the Chairman of Ways and Means to discuss the matter.
      Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. My point is about the good standing of the House. I know that you and your colleagues—indeed, the Speaker herself—take seriously the standing of the House, which is the mother of Parliaments, and respected throughout the
      418
      world. Do we not look ridiculous if we are sitting in two different places on different days, which are really the same day?
      The First Deputy Chairman: That matter has been covered. The House has considered those issues.
      Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. To my surprise, the Table Office says that today is Wednesday, whereas you have ruled that it is Tuesday, regardless of events in Westminster Hall. Surely the Table Office should remain closed until Wednesday's business begins.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Today is obviously Wednesday. [Interruption.] Order. I told the Committee that we were dealing with Tuesday's business because the sitting has been unbroken. We remain in Tuesday's sitting.
      Mr. Fabricant rose—
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have made my ruling. We must return to the business of the Committee. Did the hon. Member for East Londonderry have a point of order?
      Mr. Ross: I am not sure whether it is a point of order or a point of clarification. You told us earlier, Mr. Martin, that we were in a Committee of the whole House. However, with the best will in the world, it is impossible for the whole House to be present. Half the hon. Members are in Westminster Hall.
      The First Deputy Chairman: We are in a Committee of the whole House in the sense that all hon. Members can be here if they wish. Attendance has nothing to do with the Chair. The important thing is that I am here, and so is the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Forth: I will express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) in his absence, so that it can be reported to him and he can read it in Hansard. He unerringly put his finger on a point that I had not quite zeroed in on, when he pointed out the blindingly obvious. The Government are making a discretionary change that, if they had not made it, would have left the status quo ante. That simple matter leads us directly to consider a positive act by the Government in seeking to change the status in of the Irish Senate in the Bill.
      You are right, Mr. Martin, to remind me that the debate is narrowly drawn. I will not explore the composition of the Irish Senate, however fascinating that may be, but I thought it legitimate to point out that the Senate's unelected composition might give it a different relationship with the Northern Ireland Assembly and House of Commons.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend seems to be embarking on an exposition that focuses on an argument between form and substance. Heeding your exhortation, Mr. Martin, that my right hon. Friend and I should not discuss the make-up of the Irish Senate but could more

      419
      profitably focus on the fact that it is not the means of getting into the Irish Senate that matters but the rights and powers that somebody, once there, can exercise—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I will not even allow the right hon. Gentleman to answer. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and knows full well what I mean when I say that this is a narrow and consequential motion.
      Mr. Forth: Of course I accept your guidance, Mr. Martin, but the provision does seek to change the status of the relationship of the Senate and its members. If clause 3 did not exist, that status would remain the same, as determined by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Government, in a positive act, decided to introduce clause 3—which overturns the 1998 Act and alters the status of the Irish Senate. I submit that the Committee is obliged to focus on that issue and ask whether it is content.
      If we vote against clause 3 stand part, that would leave the requirements of the 1998 Act intact—which would in turn allow members of the Irish Senate to be members also of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      Having set the scene, and taking the hint that my mind is giving me, I will invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to debate the matter. I have not made up my mind. I have not come down on one side of the argument rather than the other.
      Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Forth: I will—but with some reluctance because my mind is mud.
      Mr. Maclean: Because of the points of order, I rather lost track of the central thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument. I was hoping that before he sits down, he will, within order and without repeating himself, give a brief synopsis that I can explore in more detail.
      Mr. Forth: I was trying to do that and had just about got there when my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West—no doubt trying to be helpful—almost threw me off track. I will try and boil it down as simply as I can for my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, because I know he likes it that way.
      Clause 3 seeks positively to alter the status quo prevailing before the Bill, as laid down in the Northern Ireland Act 1998—which provided for disqualification.
      Our decision at its simplest—although it cannot be treated too simply—is whether to accept the change in the clause. I hope that that is simple enough for my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, because I am unlikely to have another go at it. That is the way I see things. A lot of useful debates have led up to this focused discussion, which will allow us to consider the Senate and its relationship with other bodies. I look forward to the debate that will follow my brief introductory remarks.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The clause is narrow and consequential. It provides for the repeal of section 36(5)
      420
      of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which allows a Member of the Irish Senate to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Slow down."] Clause 1 has the same effect. As section 36(5) is no longer needed, we have in that sense already discussed those issues.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it in order for the Minister to jump to the Dispatch Box, gabble incoherently for 30 seconds and sit down without explaining the clause or taking interventions?
      The First Deputy Chairman: What the Minister says is absolutely nothing to do with me. I am not responsible for his speech.
      Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. We all have a problem: the Minister talked so fast that we do not know what he said. [Interruption.] I am not sure that Hansard will pick it up either, and civil servants will probably be sent to check his remarks. Even they might not know what he said. With great respect, I suggest that he repeats his speech.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The delivery of the Minister's speech is absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. Is not it part of the rules and procedures of the House that a Minister should at least be intelligible to other Members? Unlike him, I have been here all night. Nevertheless, my faculties are still sharp enough to enable me to distinguish one word from another, if they are distinguishable. His were not.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The Chair is not responsible for whether hon. Members understand one another. That is not a matter for me.
      Mr. Nicholls rose—
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members do not intend to raise points of order on the Minister's speech.
      Mr. Bercow: On a point of order—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Please sit down, Mr. Bercow. I hope that these points of order are not on the Minister's speech because we have had a series of them about that.
      Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. As you have so rightly said on so many occasions, hon. Members have to take responsibility for what they say, but I did not hear what the Minister said and neither did my

      421
      hon. Friends. You must have heard what he said, otherwise you would be as angry as we are. Can you tell us what he said, because clearly he cannot?
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Listening to these points of order is becoming tiresome. I hope that this one is not on the Minister's speech.
      Mr. Bercow: My point of order is not to do with understanding the Minister; it is quite different and separate.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I have made my case on the Minister's contribution. You must resume your seat, Mr. Bercow. I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have a responsibility to allow the Committee to flow properly.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. In response to an earlier point of order, when I sought your guidance, you invited me to take advice from the Chairman of Ways and Means about the fact that we are on Tuesday's business and the extension of the Chamber—Westminster Hall—is on Wednesday's business. I believe that I can accurately reflect the remarks of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He said that this situation is not covered in Standing Orders, that it would be in the spirit of the Westminster Hall experiment to continue, albeit on different days, and that no doubt the Modernisation Committee would wish to review the matter in the context of the overall experiment.
      Having reported back on doing what you suggested I should do, Mr. Martin, I wish to raise the following point of order. Given that this matter is not covered by Standing Orders, is the Chair content that it has all the powers necessary for the proper conduct of this business, in view of the ambiguity that has arisen?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I am not responsible for Westminster Hall; I am responsible for this Committee of the whole House. If the right hon. Gentleman has any problem about Westminster Hall, this is not the time and place to raise it. I have devoted some 20 minutes to the question of Westminster Hall. I really cannot take any more points of order about it.
      10.45 am
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Mr. Martin, at last! Good morning. I imagine that even that early contribution may be controversial.
      Points of order have been perfectly properly raised about the links between here and Westminster Hall. We are now into a debate that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) introduced on whether people in the Irish Senate could also be Members
      422
      of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have to reflect that the one question that still remains unanswered in all this is why these sorts of issues—in what is, by any definition, a relatively modest Bill—should have taken—
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      Mr. Hughes: I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a modest but important Bill, as I indeed said on Second Reading. We wonder why it should have detained the House on Monday and the Committee for a very large part of Tuesday and for another period, either Tuesday or Wednesday, which is a matter yet to be resolved.
      Mr. Ross: This allegedly modest Bill has vast consequences. That is why we have been here since 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. That is why we were here until 7 o'clock the night before. We have been on a very restricted timetable. Will the hon. Gentleman please remember that that which appears modest is in fact most immodest?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I will not tolerate such behaviour. Perhaps I was distracted because I was speaking to another hon. Gentleman. I do not want to hear any comments about the Bill in its entirety. We are speaking about a very narrow matter.
      Mr. Hughes: Having also laboured through Monday and Tuesday, and whatever it is now, I certainly do not intend to go over what is already on the record, such as my contribution on Monday, when I said what sort of Bill it is.
      We have a clear position—which we addressed on Monday—which relates specifically to the clause, namely, that it is right that Members of the Irish Senate should be able to be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is one of the anomalies that we have inherited and has been the position for quite some time. As Ministers and colleagues have said, there have been Members of this House who have been Members of the Senate of the Irish Parliament. Indeed, the law was changed some 10 years ago to accommodate that fact.
      The second point is that it was clearly illogical to have legislation—why it should come up to be debated now is a separate question—that said that if one was in the Irish Senate one could be in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but if one was in the other House of the Irish Parliament one could not. Therefore, it was perfectly proper that a Bill should come before us addressing both issues, and this Bill, in fairness to the Government, does address both. It retains the right of a Senate Member to be in the Northern Ireland Assembly and it adds the right of a Member of the Dail to be in that Assembly.
      Mr. Brady: Whether correct or not, surely there is an argument that there is a distinction, in that a Member of the Senate does not have all of the constituency responsibilities that a Member of the Dail may have, and therefore the effect in terms of conflict of interest and conflict in the daily workload of a Member might be very different.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is half right. As we learned from a mini-seminar earlier, certain Members of

      423
      the Senate are elected—those who come from the university electorate in Ireland—and there are certain Members of this Parliament who are not elected, not at this end of the building but at the other end. In that sense, both Parliaments have unelected and elected Members; both Parliaments contain Members with constituents and Members without them. Therefore—if the hon. Gentleman is making a Westminster Parliament point in comparison to a Dublin Parliament point—there is no logical reason for there not to be a parallel view on whether people can be members of both legislatures. Clause 3, however, does not deal with that point. It deals only with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dail point, which is different.
      Mr. Brady: Nevertheless, it is not anomalous, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that the legislation as it stands should remain. Is he arguing that, merely because some members of the Irish Senate have been elected, they have a responsibility to represent their constituents as Members of this House have a responsibility, or is it simply that they are selected to be Members of the Assembly by virtue of an election, but then sit there without a responsibility to represent people?
      Mr. Hughes: I will no go far down that road, but I will say that before the hon. Gentleman was born—indeed, before I was born—the House contained people who had been elected to represent university seats, as the Irish Parliament still does. That was the last unusual way in which the franchise was altered for the purposes of this place. In this instance, however, I think that we should focus on the narrower question of whether it is right to have legislation that enables Members of the Senate also to be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      By passing clause 1, we have already said that Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Members of the United Kingdom Parliament should not be disqualified from membership of the Irish Parliament. It follows from that that clause 3 is logical: without it, the same provision exists in two separate Acts, which is surely a nonsense.
      Mr. Nicholls: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, at least on this occasion, but does he really feel that he is on safe ground in praying in aid the university example that used to exist in this country? Even in the case of those with a dual franchise, members of the legislature had sworn allegiance to the same head of state. Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the unanswerable conflict that must permeate this and every other debate on the Bill? We are talking about people swearing allegiance to two different heads of state, and that is why the whole Bill fails.
      Mr. Hughes rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not reply to that point because it goes
      424
      wide of the clause that we are discussing. So far, the hon. Gentleman has remained in order and I would not like him to stray as a result of that intervention.
      Mr. Hughes: Let me say gently to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that, had he laboured as long on the Committee as some of us, he would know that we have already been around that course—as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Martin.
      Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: I will give way for the last time.
      Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman says that it is anomalous for the same provision to be made in more than one statute. I suggest that that is not unreasonable, and I shall give just one example. The Protestant succession is enshrined in no fewer than six Acts of Parliament that would have to be repealed were a change to be made.
      Mr. Hughes: I did not know that, but I am willing to take it as read for the time being. Perhaps the Government will come up with another little constitutional four-clauser to deal with the Act of Succession, and that will be proposed as a modest amendment to the Bill. Once we have looked at it we may discover, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has suggested, that it is not such a modest amendment after all.
      Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: Only as an absolute exception, because the right hon. Gentleman is a right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is one of the few occasions in this Parliament on which Her Majesty's Privy Councillorship has come in handy.
      Does the hon. Gentleman believe that clause 3 is redundant, in that it replicates a provision that already exists in clause 1? Does he wish it to be removed because it is redundant, or does he believe that it is incompatible with other provisions? I could accept the removal of clause 3 if it were inconsistent or contradictory. Why does he think it necessary to remove it if it is compatible, but merely redundant?
      Mr. Hughes: The answer is that clause 1 does not deal with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In fact, it deals only with two other Acts—
      Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Clause 3 deals with section 36(5), not section 35. It is important to get that right.
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate.
      Mr. Hughes: It was not a point of order, but I stand corrected. Section 36(5) is repealed by clause 3 and is not dealt with in clause 1, which deals only with the two disqualification Acts. Although it deals with the same Act—the 1998 Act—clause 2 does not deal with that

      425
      provision. However, amending the disqualification Acts means that we do not need the Northern Ireland Act provision.
      The three lines reveal that the Government have no coherent constitutional agenda.
      Mr. Maclean: That is just like the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Hughes: It is absolutely not like the Liberal Democrats.
      If the Government bring before Parliament a Bill to change the constitutional position of Members of the Senate and Northern Ireland Assembly, and have to come back to the House less than two years later to look at the legislation again, that suggests that it was not a thought-through, planned element of the constitutional jigsaw.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: Not for the minute.
      The complaint that I made on Second Reading applies specifically to the clause—namely, it is here because the Government self-evidently have come belatedly, and for no reason yet given, to get us to amend the constitution—which may be logical in itself, but would more logically have been done by looking at the same time at Northern Ireland and its relationship with the other four parts of the United Kingdom and with Ireland. We should do it all together. We are not doing so. It does not help constitutional logic and order to come back time after time, taking one bit of constitutional change at a time. I hope that the Government have more coherence in future.
      Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I have been here all night. My commiserations go to you and to your colleagues. I do not need any lectures from Opposition Members.
      The point of order that I want to raise is simple. On a number of occasions, Madam Speaker has expressed concern about how the public view the House. I wonder how people will view the House when they see how the debate has been prolonged. It is an important Bill—I do not deny that for one moment—but it need not have gone all through the night and still continue now. It does the House no service for the public to see a Tory-organised filibuster, which brings discredit on the House.
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.
      Mr. MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman missed what I said. It was not a point of order.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I call Mr. Ross.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman want to contribute to the debate?
      Mr. Ross: I want to raise a point of order, Mr. Martin.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may continue.
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that it was a Tory-organised filibuster. This Bench is occupied not by Tories or Conservatives, but Ulster Unionists.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I have just stated that it was not a point of order.
      Mr. Thompson: I welcome the debate on clause 3. However, it is unfortunate that it is the third clause in the Bill. It would have been better if it had been the first and that the Bill contained no other clauses. If that had happened, this Bill would have been a proper Disqualifications Bill.
      11 am
      The clause would repeal section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the fact that, two years after passage of that legislation, the Government are seeking to repeal section 36(5) is a reflection on their planning. The provision was included in the 1998 Act to deal with an anomaly.
      Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), is saying that two years have elapsed since passage of the 1998 Act, but that is incorrect. The Act received Royal Assent on 19 November 1998. Therefore, within 13 months Ministers had already started the process of amending the Act.
      Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his very useful intervention. The time elapsed has, therefore, been only one and a half years.
      The provision was intended to deal with an anomaly. One might therefore ask what abuse it was supposed to deal with and what was happening that required its introduction. It was introduced because the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) had been appointed to the Senate, but subsequently discovered that he would have to resign from it to become a Northern Ireland Assembly Member. The provision was therefore included in the 1998 Bill to facilitate the minority in Northern Ireland and to ensure that, in future, other hon. Members could be so appointed.
      The issue arises because the Republic of Ireland still claims that Northern Ireland is part of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Republic exercised what it considered to

      427
      be its right to appoint people from Northern Ireland to its Senate—to give the impression, of course, that it is an all-Ireland Government.
      Mr. Fabricant: We all realise that the Republic of Ireland's constitution has been changed and that it now makes no claim on the territory of Northern Ireland. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is still claiming jurisdiction, but not territory?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is really going well beyond the scope of clause 3. I also remind the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson)—he was in the Chamber when I made the initial ruling—that we cannot get into the detail of the Senate, how it is elected and why the legislation was introduced. Not only was the substance of clause 3 debated in clause 1, but it is a consequential repeal. The clause's substance is therefore very narrow indeed.
      Mr. Thompson: I listened to your ruling on the matter, Mr. Martin, and I am conscious that I have to walk a very narrow and straight path. Many of us, however, have found it difficult to keep to the straight and narrow.
      The Government, by introducing this Bill and including in it more than one clause, are increasing the anomalies and creating one even greater anomaly. I therefore believe that, in passing the Bill, rather than making the situation better, we shall be making it worse.
      The provision's inclusion in the 1998 Act was an act of appeasement by Ministers. This Bill, however, is an even greater act of appeasement.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot talk about the Bill in its entirety. Has he now finished?
      Mr. Thompson: I have, Mr. Martin.
      Mr. MacKay: I rise to say a few brief words about clause 3. You have ruled, Mr. Martin—and rightly—that the clause is closely related to clause 1. Some would say that it is consequential to what we have decided in that clause. However, the clause would repeal section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so it is worth pausing this morning—unless this morning turns out to be this evening, Mr. Martin, according to your ruling—to look at what that section did.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is a politician for whom I have the highest regard. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have, rightly, commended the First Minister on a number of occasions in our deliberations, and it would be wrong of me not to take this opportunity to state that we hold the Deputy First Minister in equally high regard. I see that the Under-Secretary is nodding his agreement with that. Together, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are taking the Executive forward. We hope and pray that a real start will be made to decommissioning in the few days left of this month, and that they can continue their work.
      428
      However, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh sat in the Senate of the Irish Republic. After being elected to an earlier Northern Ireland Assembly, he was subsequently debarred. At the time, hon. Members of all parties considered that to be a great pity. It would have been a great shame if his excellent work in the current Assembly and the Executive had not continued.
      We have nothing but the highest regard for the hon. Gentleman, but we should judge not an individual, but the rights and wrongs of whether a Member of the Irish Senate should also sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I seem to recall that you, Mr. Martin, were involved, as was I, in the progress through the House of the 1998 Act. The circumstances then were not dissimilar to those that obtain now. We were rushing the legislation through, and we were right to do so. That piece of emergency legislation was an essential part of the Belfast agreement process. It has worked most satisfactorily, and only last month spawned the Executive. We all hope that that will remain in being, although that depends on the paramilitaries fulfilling their part of the bargain and starting decommissioning.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going wide of what I have already stated is a very narrow clause.
      Mr. MacKay: As always, I am obliged to you, Mr. Martin. I was making a passing reference to the establishment of the Assembly as a means of making the point that section 36(5) was ill-thought-out by the House. I make no special complaint about that, as I know that the legislation was being rushed through at the time.
      If I may say so, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) succinctly made the point that it is anomalous to allow someone from the Irish Senate to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly but not in the other part of the Dail which, as he rightly said, is the fully elected part of the Dail. Either everyone should be allowed to sit, or no one.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I have clashed in the nicest possible way about speedy legislation. That illustrates that even with the best will in the world, when it is necessary to have speedy legislation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) questions, from a sedentary position, whether this is speedy legislation. Without trespassing on your ruling, Mr. Martin, I feel that I must respond to the hon. Gentleman, who is now shaking his head as well. Yes, it is speedy—it is not normal to have a Second Reading followed the next day by the Committee stage, Report and possibly even Third Reading. It is normal to leave at least a week in between those stages of a Bill so that we can consider the amendments that have been tabled and the contributions made on Second Reading. That, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who has not been in his place for most of the debate—
      Mr. Andrew Miller: Nor have Conservative Members.
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman says that nor have most of my hon. Friends, but they are not intervening from a sedentary position. If they did, I would make the

      429
      same point to them, because I believe that my criticism should always be even-handed, and I know that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston would want nothing less.
      I apologise, Mr. Martin, because the hon. Gentleman distracted me, and I fear that I am moving wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Bercow: You, Mr. Martin, have already advised us that clause 3 is tightly drawn and that we should focus our debate exclusively on it. My right hon. Friend will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—when he, rather briefly, set the scene for the debate—explained that he had not yet decided whether to endorse the clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) first entered the House in 1977; he is a very experienced parliamentarian. I wonder whether he could explain the merits or otherwise—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Mr. MacKay.
      Mr. MacKay: If my hon. Friend is patient for just a moment, he will have the answer. My precise and straightforward reason for rising is to comment on the clause. I shall not be tempted to do so in detail, because I sense that you wish the Committee to proceed, Mr. Martin. I see the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) nodding, and I agree with him entirely. In an act of bipartisan conciliation, Whips and ex-Whips like to stick together.
      I want to return to the point that I was making to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Our disagreement is over the speed of the Bill; the biggest disagreement is that we believe that rushing legislation by having a Committee stage straight after Second Reading results in bad legislation. Clause 3 repeals section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I submit to the Under-Secretary that that measure was rushed, for understandable reasons, and we now have to repeal it. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey clearly said in his helpful contribution, it was an anomalous piece of legislation. I ask the Under-Secretary to reflect on that when he replies to the debate.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He has rightly said that the clause is a narrow and consequential one which merely removes section 36(5) from the 1998 Act. It has, essentially, the same effect as clause 1. We have had a prolonged debate on the clause, and we have spent about 18 hours, if not more, debating the Bill. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's claim that the Bill is being rushed through is increasingly untenable.
      11.15 am
      Mr. MacKay: I am not sure whether I can respond to much of the Minister's intervention; I suspect that I would be largely out of order if I did so. As you did not rule the Minister out of order, Mr. Martin, I am put in a difficult position, so perhaps I might trespass briefly in responding to him. Otherwise, his comments will be included in Hansard—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister was out of
      430
      order in straying from the clause—[Interruption.] The First Deputy Chairman has been working such long hours that he is a little slower than he was last night. My ruling is that the right hon. Gentleman does not need to respond to the Minister because the Minister was out of order.
      Mr. MacKay: I am grateful, Mr. Martin. As someone who has also been involved throughout the Committee's proceedings, I am sympathetic. All of us are slowing up; it is taking me longer than I want to reach my conclusion.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a pity that the Minister is audible when he is out of order, but inaudible when he is in order?
      Mr. MacKay: I like to think that I have a good relationship with the Minister, so it would be wrong for me to respond to my hon. Friend. It would be for the House and for you, Mr. Martin, to judge whether his observations are accurate. It would be wrong for me to comment.
      Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that the First Deputy Chairman said that he was a bit slow. That means that he is tired. At one time, there used to be only one Speaker, who had to sit in the Chair—without food—for hours. That was a cruel way to do business. I think that we are being cruel to the present occupants of the Chair. Would it not be a good idea if the business of the House were suspended for about an hour, to give them a rest?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a matter for debate.
      Mr. MacKay: You pre-empted me, Mr. Martin. I was about to say that I did not think it was a matter for me—it is a matter for you. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who first entered the House in—
      Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. You ruled that my earlier remarks were not a matter for debate. However, I am concerned for your welfare. Perhaps you should reconsider my suggestion and suspend the sitting so that you can have a rest and a cup of tea.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I am touched by the hon. Gentleman's concern for my welfare. However, it would best be served if the Committee remained within the narrow confines of clause 3.
      Mr. MacKay: I am obliged to you, Mr. Martin. As you will have noted, I am desperately trying to conform to your ruling.
      The crux of the point that I have been making is that section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the repeal of which I am minded to support, was part of rushed legislation. A genuine misunderstanding has arisen,

      431
      because if you are somewhat tired, Mr. Martin, the Under-Secretary must also be tired. He has been sitting on the Treasury Bench for about 15 or 16 hours—
      Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
      Mr. MacKay: May I complete my point? I want to give way to the Minister, but I have been interrupted so often—[Interruption.] May I have some protection in order to complete the point?
      There is a misunderstanding. The rushing of a Bill does not refer to the number of hours allocated for its debate; it refers to the time for reflection that is allowed between Second Reading and Committee.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is definitely straying away from the confines of clause 3.
      Mr. MacKay: I wholly accept your comments, Mr. Martin. There was a misunderstanding that I needed to rectify, but I shall now give way to the Minister.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He has expressed his support for clause 3, which is consequential on clause 1. Does he also support clause 1?
      Mr. MacKay rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not need to indicate any support for clause 1. We have passed clause 1; that is done and dusted. We are now on clause 3.
      Mr. MacKay: I am obliged, Mr. Martin, because I thought that we were on clause 3 and I thought that we had voted on clause 1—which would have given the Under-Secretary an answer. I want to help the Under-Secretary. I suspect that, at this very late hour of Tuesday—I believe that it has been ruled that we are still on Tuesday; it would be an early hour of Wednesday if we were in Westminster Hall—the Minister is trying to tease out of me why I voted against clause 1 yet am minded to support clause 3. He is probably about to say that there is a lack of logic.
      It is very important that I put the record straight, because I would not want the Under-Secretary to think that there is a lack of logic, and I certainly would not wish it to be recorded in Hansard. My right hon. and hon. Friends voted against clause 1 because each of the essential amendments to the clause was ignored, with uncharacteristic arrogance, by the Under-Secretary and his counterpart at the Northern Ireland Office. I hope that I have put the record straight. Unless the Under-Secretary wants to intervene, I shall move on.
      Mr. Brady: I do not believe that this is truly a consequential clause. Because the two are not exclusive, it is perfectly possible for the relevant clause of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to sit alongside the new legislation that the Government are trying to put in place.
      432
      You acquiesced in that point, Mr. Martin. Therefore, it is surely spurious to argue that we cannot take a different view on each measure.
      Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to be fair to the Under-Secretary because it is a very late hour in the debate and I may have been slightly careless and unfair by inferring what he was about to say, not relating what he had said. My hon. Friend makes a particularly good point because we lost the vote and, sadly, clause 1 was ordered to stand part of the Bill. Therefore, as we have clause 1—unamended, which we believe to be a grave mistake—there seems to be some merit in having clause 3.
      Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. MacKay: Just a moment. I owe it to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) to answer him fully. This clause is consequential. As we have clause 1, with all its warts—there are real warts because our amendments were not accepted—there is some merit in including clause 3 in the Bill as well, largely for the reasons that I have outlined.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Brady rose—
      Mr. Maclean rose—
      Mr. MacKay: I give way again to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.
      Mr. Brady: I may be prepared to concede, as my right hon. Friend argues so cogently, that this clause is consequential in the technical sense, but will he at least confirm that it is not necessary and that we could easily pass the Bill into United Kingdom law without it?
      Mr. MacKay: I do not want to be drawn too far on that, because although I believe that the matter is in order I am not necessarily qualified to answer. I am not a parliamentary draftsman. However, if I was being asked my opinion—which I believe I was—I would say that the clause was probably unnecessary and that the Bill could have had at least one fewer clause, in which case we could have made more progress.
      Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for offering an opinion as to whether the clause might be necessary, but will he concede that the person who is being paid to tell us whether it is necessary is the Under-Secretary, who, despite drawing a not inconsiderable salary, gabbled his way through what should have been a justification, so that we still have not heard the Government's justification in an audible way that is also in order?
      Mr. MacKay: I do not want to pursue my hon. Friend's point, as that is a matter for others to decide. However, he makes an important point when he says that some people are paid to know the answers while others are not. Members of the shadow Cabinet are unpaid and receive no more than Opposition Back Benchers. The Neill committee or the Senior Salaries Review Body might

      433
      want to consider that matter. However, I will not trespass further on that point, although it is something about which I feel strongly.
      Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt—and given the Opposition's commitment to legislation being as short as possible—will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in his judgment, no negative consequences would flow from a decision by the Committee to exclude clause 3 from the Bill?
      Mr. MacKay: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I am insufficiently professionally qualified to answer that. Nor do I have the financial resources, with the limited amount of Short money, to be able to be advised in the way that Ministers are.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. MacKay: I would like to answer the point that has been raised, rather than be interrupted. Unlike some hon. Members, I have not had any sleep for at least 36 hours, and I would appreciate taking one point at a time.
      I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has been in the Committee throughout, and I do not wish to imply that he—unlike some hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—is a Johnny-come-lately to the Committee. My hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham, for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—along with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney)—have been stalwarts throughout the debate.
      I suspect that if we voted the new clause down, the Bill would be unaffected and there would be no negative consequences.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
      Mr. MacKay: The Minister, with the benefit of all his advisers and his considerable salary, wants to give us an answer.
      Mr. O'Brien: I want to ensure that no hon. Members feel that they have been short-changed. Clause 3 provides for the repeal of section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which merely has the effect of allowing a Member of the Irish Senate to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Clause 1 has the same effect, so section 36(5) is no longer needed. Therefore, it is merely tidy draftsmanship to ensure that the Bill is clear.
      Mr. MacKay: I am deeply grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which leads me to believe that it is safe to have the clause in the Bill. Equally, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that we are equally safe if we wish to remove the clause. My hon. Friend may
      434
      have a dilemma as to which way to vote, but that is a decision for him. I am agnostic and relaxed about this matter.
      Mr. Fabricant rose—
      Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has been present throughout the Committee, so I am happy to give way to him.
      Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend shows characteristic generosity. He will be aware that, with all the resources available to it, even the Home Office's explanatory notes state that the clause is "no longer needed". Section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which will be repealed by clause 3, is about the ability to allow a Member of the Senate only to become a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. What does my right hon. Friend believe was the original reason for that? Why were Senators allowed to become Members when Members of the lower House were not? We need to know that before we can make our decision on—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to know that.
      11.30 am
      Mr. MacKay: I shall not be tempted down that road, particularly as I commented on the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who raised exactly the same point.
      On balance, I am coming down in favour of supporting the retention of the clause. It was anomalous in the first place, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey rightly pointed out, to allow a Member of the Senate, and not a Member of the elected Dail, to become a Member of the Assembly.
      Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. MacKay: Certainly. I always like to give way to fellow Privy Councillors.
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is the second time this morning that being a member of the Privy Council has been of benefit to me.
      I am worried that my right hon. Friend may have misguided himself. He has concluded that, because he lost his argument on clause 1, clause 3 is merely consequential and that it would be consistent to remove it. Does he think that it is essential to remove it, or does he think that it would be inconsistent with the purposes of clause 1 if it were to stay and that that would render the Bill unintelligible?
      Mr. MacKay: I am at least grateful to my right hon. Friend for thinking that I have misled only myself, and not the House or other hon. Members. After all my years in the House, I would be hurt to the quick to think that a

      435
      Privy Council colleague thought that I had misled the House and other hon. Members. I suspect that I mislead myself a lot of the time—
      Mr. Tom Levitt: That is a qualification for the right hon. Gentleman's job.
      Mr. MacKay: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is almost a qualification. I am happy to agree with him.
      Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I am concerned that two references have been made to the fact that privilege was given to members of the Privy Council when interventions were accepted. Am I not right in thinking that the Modernisation Committee recently ruled that no precedence should be given to members of the Privy Council?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I call the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who has taken an interest in the Committee in a quasi-professional capacity—he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Home Office—almost suggested in a bipartisan spirit that misleading ourselves was the attribute of everyone in the House. However, I was saddened that he applied that attribute to Conservative Members only. I am sure that, on reflection, and in the spirit of the debate, he will wish to withdraw his remark.
      I see no harm in the clause, but, equally, I see no harm in its removal from the Bill. I am agnostic. I started in that position and, after misleading myself several times during my speech, I remain in that position.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: On the ground that it is better to be safe than sorry, I shall declare an interest. The clause is about the Irish Senate. If my understanding is correct, I qualify to be appointed to the Irish Senate by virtue of my Belfast birth. That is not an honour that I have sought or, much less, turned down. However, under the Irish legislation that was in force when I was born, I may have an interest to declare. I say "may" because I am not clear about whether Ireland's repudiation of articles 2 and 3 of its constitution, which arose from the Belfast agreement, affects my status and my eligibility to be appointed. However, on the grounds that it is better to be safe than sorry, I draw that point to the attention of the Committee.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, the issue we are debating arose out of the case of a real person, not a theoretical discussion. It was a matter of practical politics, because the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was a member of the previous Assembly and was appointed to the Irish Senate. That fact in itself lends a degree of credence to—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have said before that the substance of this matter has been debated in relation to clause 1. An argument such as that advanced by the right hon. Gentleman would have been perfectly
      436
      acceptable in that context, but it is not in a debate on clause 3 stand part. Clause 3 is consequential on the Committee having approved clause 1.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin. Not only do I take full note of and accept your ruling, but I offer you my assurance that I was not deliberately attempting to stray outside rulings that you and your colleagues have generously, graciously and, indeed, patiently given the Committee during the past few hours. I was trying to reassure the Committee and you that there is a matter of substance to be discussed, arising out of a real case.
      It is interesting that the 1998 Act distinguished between the lower House and the Irish Senate. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) pointed out, that matter was signed, sealed and settled 12 months ago and it has now been reopened. Were I to stray into the reasons for that reopening, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Martin, because we debated such matters—albeit unsatisfactorily—in relation to clause 1 and the amendments thereto.
      Nevertheless, it is interesting that section 1(1)(e) of the 1975 Act—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I happen to have a copy with me—makes no distinction between the two Houses. In the 1998 Act, which set up the Assembly, a distinction was made. It is that distinction that is addressed by clause 3, which repeals section 36(5) of the 1998 Act.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst helpfully directed the Committee's attention to the nature of the Irish Senate, and he compared it to the nature of the Dail and of the House of Commons. So as not to stray from your guidance, Mr. Martin, I shall rest my case on the erudite and convincing arguments that my right hon. Friend advanced at that time. The Committee is being invited to assume that it is acceptable for Members of the Irish Senate to have an involvement in our elected affairs, even though some of them may not have previous elected experience.
      The clause refers to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which in turn refers to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. I remind the Committee of section 1(1), which states:
      "Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person is disqualified for membership of the House of Commons who for the time being"—
      I move on to paragraph (e)—
      "is a member of the legislature of any country or territory outside the"—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but we debated

      437
      the matter that he is raising under clause 1. As I have said, clause 3 is narrow. All these matters have been debated under clause 1 and we cannot go over them again.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Martin. Actually, I was not going to debate the matter.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may not intend to debate it, but this is a matter of words. To make mention of the issue would bring him outwith the rules.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I apologise, Mr. Martin. I want to stay inside the loop. Outside it is not where I wish to be, not least because that is a place of less influence than inside it—that is, unless the loop is round one's neck.
      Clause 3 refers specifically to section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act. The first part of the section refers to the Northern Ireland Disqualification Act 1975. That is how I reached that piece of legislation. It refers to countries outside the Commonwealth. Were I to suggest that by clause 3 the Government were signalling their antipathy to the burgeoning debate about whether Ireland should or should not rejoin the Commonwealth, you, Mr. Martin, would rule me out of order, so I shall not do so—except to make the point that the thought occurred to me. As we have had difficulty—nay, I say charitably that it has been an impossibility—trying to ascertain what the clause is all about and what the Government are seeking to achieve from it, you will understand, Mr. Martin, that various interpretations have occurred to the Committee, even if it has not been possible to pursue them because of the rules of order, which I welcome and entirely accept.
      Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has pointed to the connection between the two Acts that are referred to in the Bill. He has correctly identified the change that took place in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which a year later we are repealing. What is it that necessitated the inclusion of the Irish Senate in the 1998 Act, which was not referred to previously and which we now see—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot debate that matter.
      Mr. Bercow: But we would like an answer.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who interjected from a sedentary position. We cannot debate the matter but we would like an answer. When the Minister replies, he might be tempted to respond to the concern that both my hon. Friends have expressed.
      11.45 am
      We come to the question of why the clause is necessary. There is a prima facie case. The Government have tried to direct us along their road by including, in small type, in the margins of the Bill, the words "Consequential repeal". It is not the first rule of Opposition to believe what the Government tell them to believe. If it were, there would be no Committee stage; we would simply nod legislation through on the inaudible say of the Under-Secretary.
      438
      The Government believe that clause 3 is simply consequential.
      Mr. Brady: My right hon. Friend contradicts himself a little. First, he claimed that the Government said that the amendment was consequential. He now claims to know what the Government think. There is a major difference between what the Government think and what they say. Our debates have clearly revealed that they do not say what they think.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend's preamble almost upset me. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, it would grieve me if my hon. Friends thought that I was misleading them or myself. However, I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) made. Today of all days—no, today is still Tuesday—but when we reach Wednesday, my local paper will reflect my hon. Friend's point. The Government say one thing and do another.
      Whatever the Government believe, they want us to believe that clause 3 is simply a consequential repeal.
      Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that another anomaly has arisen about the day? It is Tuesday in the Chamber, but Wednesday in the Table Office.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not want to comment on that, because he is considering clause 3.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My self-discipline and anxiety to remain inside the Chair's loop is such that I would not have responded to my hon. Friend's valid point.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's contention that the Government's description of clause 3 as consequential does not automatically mean that it is, is supported by clause 1. He will have noticed the wording in the margin, which states:
      "Amendment of section 1(1)(e) of the Disqualification Acts."
      However, on closer inspection, the clause provides for qualification in some circumstances, not disqualification.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes an important point—
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. The First Deputy Chairman ruled that the clause was consequential on clause 1. I am sure that you can confirm that and thus show that that is not only the Government's contention but that of the Chair.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Those matters can safely be left to the Chair.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful for that ruling. I intervened earlier to try to reassure the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that our biting criticism of the Government's handling of the measure was not personal. However, given the intervention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I shall

      439
      not necessarily want to be so generous to him. The Chair dealt with the substantive point but I have been speaking a short time and at no point did the Chair tell me to sit down because my remarks were unacceptable or inappropriate in terms of order. When Mr. Martin drew boundaries around interventions made by my hon. Friends, the Minister heard me tell me Mr. Martin that I would not be tempted to go outside Mr. Martin's loop—precisely because I was making a determined effort to stay within the ruling of the Chair. I was addressing my remarks, all of them pertinent thus far, to clause 3.
      Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: No, I will not give way.
      Mr. Fabricant rose—
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Of course I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Fabricant: Would it be helpful to remind my right hon. Friend that on both occasions that the Minister intervened, Mr. Martin said that the Minister was out of the loop and out of order?
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend's point will be recorded in Tuesday's Hansard and the record will speak for itself.
      Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Of course.
      Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically personal. If he listened carefully to my attempted point of order, it related not to the comments of the right hon. Gentleman but to a point made by one of his right hon. Friends.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, clause 3 does fit with clause 1, which has already been dealt with at some length. Clause 3 renders one section of the 1998 Act obsolete. It is purely and simply a tidying-up measure and should be dealt with in that way.
      Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. A fog of confusion has descended on the Committee in the last few minutes as a result of the interplay of interventions and your ruling, which was intended to be helpful. Can we be clear that it is perfectly legitimate for the Committee to approve the Bill with clause 1 but to judge that it wishes to exclude clause 3? If that is not the case, what is the purpose of a clause 3 stand part debate?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we deal with one clause at a time. The Committee has dealt with clause 1 and is now considering clause 3. I have
      440
      explained the relationship between them and how tightly drawn is clause 3. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will heed my words.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Lord. You and Mr. Martin before you, have made it clear that clause 3 is tightly drawn. You added the observation that the clause is consequential. That is the Government's contention. We are debating, I hope while remaining in order, whether the Government's contention persuades the Committee to allow clause 3 to remain part of the Bill.
      I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. I am sorry that he thinks that I was uncharacteristically brusque. I was seeking to encourage him to remain within the spirit that has pervaded the debates on this Bill since about 5.30 pm on calendar Tuesday. I take his remarks in that spirit and thank him for what I judge to be a new Labour apology.
      My first point is that the clause has substance because the debate arose not from a theoretical discussion about constitutional history or propriety, but in the person of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). That is a real issue, and I add my appreciation of the hon. Gentleman—with whom I have a personal friendship—to those already expressed. My second point, which has been commonly accepted on both sides of the Committee and which I believe to be in order, is that the clause refers to the 1998 Act, which, at the relevant point, refers to the 1975 Acts. Through that, we have traced to the Bill a divergence between the Irish Senate, on which it focuses, and the other House, which is elected, and the difference between the Senate and this House, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) so helpfully brought to the Committee's attention.
      I return to my third point, which concerns whether the repeal of the clause is, as the Government would have us believe, a minor, technical measure consequential on clause 1, which we have already debated and voted on—it is part of the Bill, so I shall not stray into that territory—or whether other significance is attached to it that might persuade the Committee that it is worth retaining.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that he could see the Government's argument that the repeal is purely consequential, but asked whether it is necessary to keep the clause to maintain what the Government claim is the integrity of the Bill. I am not convinced that it is, so let us consider what would happen in the unlikely event—I grant the Minister that it would be unlikely—of their losing the vote on clause stand part. I assume that my right hon. and hon. Friends will ensure that a vote takes place.
      If the clause is deleted, will the integrity of what the Government are trying to achieve be damaged? My judgment is that it will not. Clause 1—which we have debated and voted on and therefore cannot revisit—deals with the qualifications pertaining to membership of the House, but the Government have seen fit in clause 3 to draw special attention to the Irish Senate. I continue to ask myself why. Is it simply because the repeal is consequential or ought we to consider something further?
      Mr. Fabricant: The Government's explanatory notes are brief and simply say:
      "Section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is no longer needed",
      implying redundancy. To reply to my right hon. Friend's point, it may be safely assumed that if it is redundant, it does not matter whether the clause is repealed.
      12 noon
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he puts beautifully the idea that I have been struggling to convey to the Committee.
      Our experience with this Government is that they say one thing and do another. Our experience of this Government in the context of clause 3 is that within 12 months they have changed their mind on a significant constitutional issue.
      Despite our best efforts in always seeking to stay on the right side of you and your colleagues in the Chair, Mr. Lord, the Government have flatly refused to explain to us why we are now where we are. We cannot open that debate again; that is your ruling, and I accept it, so I will not try to reopen it. But this leaves my right hon. and hon. Friends with a difficulty.
      In an earlier debate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) encouraged the Minister to be open and explain what lay behind the Government's apparent volte-face in 12 months with respect to the Irish legislature, among other things. He has refused to do that. His refusal in this debate was, though clearly within order, edging towards contempt of the Committee.
      Therefore, I hope, Mr. Lord, that you will understand that we might be persuaded when the Minister winds up that this is but a consequential amendment. All of us wish to make progress and get on to the meatier debates on clause 4 stand part and on the new clauses, not to mention Third Reading. So if the Minister took the advice of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, came clean with the Committee and gave us an explanation, we might accept his argument that this was a consequential repeal.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to my right hon. Friend with great care. He is certainly reflecting the unhappiness that I feel, because is it not right that members of Her Majesty's Opposition should seek whatever opportunity offers itself to try to find out what lies behind the Bill, its purpose? If the Government are not prepared to come clean with the Committee, despite the strictures of the Chair, has not the Committee a duty to seek every opportunity to ascertain precisely the objective and purpose of the Bill? The Government to date have not come clean with us.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Mr. Lord, you would want me to respond to my hon. Friend by not going down the constitutional path that he has opened up, save perhaps to say that his point is valid and important, and that the matter that he raises is, frankly, impeding the Committee's understanding of clause 3 and consequently holding up our progress.
      I reiterate that when the Minister winds up, he will find that I at least am willing to be persuaded that the clause is merely consequential. If he were to treat the Committee
      442
      with contempt and not seek to respond to the serious points raised since his brief and unsatisfactory earlier intervention, we shall face a dilemma.
      We suspect that, given the change in fundamental Government thinking between their Act of only 12 months ago and this Bill, there is more to this than meets the eye. Unless the Minister tackles that head on, I for one will want to listen to the other speeches made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and draw my own conclusion about how to vote when the matter is put to the vote.
      Mr. Maclean: When I first looked at the Disqualifications Bill—an oddly named Bill, but perhaps we shall deal with that in the next clause stand part debate—and at clause 3, I looked, as one perhaps inevitably does, at the note in the margin, relating in this case to "Consequential repeal". It was tempting to assume that the clause was a tidying-up measure, consequent on some other aspect of the Bill; so I read the Bill more thoroughly. After I had read clause 1, clause 3 still did not make much sense unless I looked at precisely what it said. What it says is that it repeals section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
      I acquired a copy of the 1998 Act, and turned to section 36. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said, that also refers to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. The Act is relevant, but I do not need or wish to refer to it for the purpose of my remarks about whether we should retain clause 3.
      Having skipped the clauses dealing with Lord Lieutenants and membership of the House of Commons, I came to subsection (5), which clause 3 of the Bill proposes to delete. It states:
      "A person is not disqualified for membership of the Assembly by virtue of subsection (1) by reason only that he is a member of the … Senate of Ireland".
      Mr. Robathan: Does not this narrow provision, entitled "Consequential repeal", illustrate very well the law of unforeseen consequences? The Government produced it only 15 months ago.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but he has taken me 20 minutes ahead of my argument. I am grateful to the Government for allowing us to explore the issue, and for not forcing ruthless closures on such an important debate.
      Clause 36(5) of the 1998 Act permitted a senator of Ireland to be a member of the Assembly. My hon. Friend asks whether this is indeed a consequential repeal, given that clause 1 of the Bill, which we have already amended, now permits members of the Irish legislature—members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland—to be Assembly members. We must ask ourselves whether the provision is redundant because it says that members of the senate are no longer disqualified.
      The Government say that the clause is merely consequential. They say that we no longer need legislation permitting members of the Irish senate to be members of the Assembly, because clause 1—which we dealt with earlier—covers all members of the legislature, which includes the lower House and the Senate. The Government may be saying, "We do not need clause 3,

      443
      because it is already swept up in the more general terminology of the legislation." I am not sure. That is the key question with which I have been wrestling all morning while listening to the debate. I listened to my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It took a few minutes before he was able to encapsulate the essence of his concern. Towards the end of his excellent contribution, I thought that I was content with the Government's proposal that clause 3 should stay in the Bill and that it was merely consequential. Then I listened to the Minister, or I attempted to listen to him. He made the fatal mistake of taking a two-minute contribution and delivering it in about 20 seconds. None of us heard it. When we are dealing with an important clause, deleting legislation that the Government passed only last year and the Minister jumps to the Dispatch Box and does a 20-second gabble, I begin to smell some stinking fish.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have, I think, on three occasions repeated exactly the same phrases about the clause. I repeated them rather quickly because many hon. Members seemed to be taking their time unnecessarily. I then repeated them, using the same words, in two interventions. If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening on each occasion—it is important that hon. Members should listen to the debates, particularly those who have not been up all night—I am sure that he would have understood precisely what I said.
      Mr. Maclean: I am sure that you, Mr. Lord, understood it precisely.
      Mr. Bercow: I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that, during our relatively brief deliberations, the Minister has fallen into the trap of arguing by advocacy, not by evidence. Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the Minister, during the whirring, washing-machine gabble of a response earlier, did nothing more than assert that clause 3 was consequential on clause 1? What he failed to do, which I was earnestly hoping he would do, was explain how the exclusion of clause 3 would have any deleterious consequence whatever.
      Mr. Maclean: As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right in his customarily highly erudite intervention. He makes two valid points. The Minister did not explain why the clause was consequential. He merely asserted it. Well, that is the bit I heard—that it was merely consequential. He said that it followed on: if we enact clause 1, we will need clause 3. There we go. We must have it. It says so in the explanatory memorandum. In effect, he used exactly the same 20 words. He said it, so it must be the case, but there was no explanation from him as to—
      Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Maclean: May I make the point and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
      In my limited understanding of the legislation, it seems that, if clause 3 were removed, that would keep extant in legislation section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act, which allows Members of the Senate to be Members of
      444
      the Assembly. We would have two pieces of legislation: the 1998 Act allowing Members of the Irish Senate to be Members of the Assembly; and, if it were passed, the Disqualifications Bill, which allows members of the legislature of Ireland to be Members of the Assembly.
      I cannot see anything inconsistent in that. I cannot see a potential judicial review case where learned judges will say that Parliament has passed obscure, contradictory legislation. I cannot see any Home Office lawyers advising that the House had introduced a fatal legal flaw because the new, inappropriately named Disqualifications Bill referred to the Irish legislature whereas the 1998 Act referred to the Irish Senate and they were incompatible. There would be no questions as to what to do, or calls for an amendment.
      That is the question with which I wish the Minister had dealt. That is the point that arose when I studied clause 3 in detail, referred back to clause 1, which refers to the legislature, and then section 36(5) of the 1998 Act, which was passed only 12 months ago and which we are being asked to repeal.
      12.15 pm
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: My right hon. Friend is now approaching the kernel of the issue. Does he agree that, if every piece of extant legislation that is compatible with and reinforces a new piece of legislation were consequentially to be repealed by new legislation, we should have to go through the entire statute book and repeal great acres of it?
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, specifically in relation to clause 3—which is what we are debating, as I should not wish to stray wider than the clause by giving more general examples. Nevertheless, it would be extraordinary for Government lawyers to advise Ministers that we must find every other bit of consistent legislation and repeal it.
      What is vital is to repeal inconsistent legislation. If clause 3 were attempting to repeal a part of the 1998 Act that, hypothetically, deliberately disqualified a Senator of the Irish Republic, and if Ministers were leaving that on the statute book, of course there would be an inconsistency. The 1998 Act would be saying, "In no circumstances could a Senator be a Member of the Assembly", whereas the Bill would be saying that Members of the legislature can serve in the Assembly. Clearly that would be inconsistent. However, that is not the situation that we are dealing with.
      We are dealing with what seems, prima facie, to be consistent and harmonious legislation. We do not need to repeal section 36(5) of the 1998 Act. I can see absolutely no necessity of repealing it. Technically and legally, it is not inconsistent with clause 1 of the Bill. Moreover, unfortunately, the Minister did not advise us otherwise. However, there is a good chance that we may receive better advice from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
      I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the way in which he handles the Committee and the patience that he has in sitting through lengthy debates—some of which he may find tedious, although they are nevertheless important. He responds with grace and courtesy and he tries help the House.

      445
      I am certain that we should not now be having this debate, and that—having heard my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—I would have been satisfied had we heard an explanation of the provision from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Even if he had read the same words—but at a decent speed—written by the Home Office, I might have been satisfied by his explanation. Unfortunately, I am not satisfied, because my concerns have been increased by the words in clause 3, by the recently passed words in the 1998 Act, and by the way in which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department handled the matter.
      We must therefore ask ourselves why, if section 36(5) is not inconsistent with clause 3, the Government wish to repeal the section? Is there something deeper to the matter? What message do Ministers wish to send by repealing a non-inconsistent clause dealing with Irish Senators and replacing it with clause 3, which deals with Members of the legislature—who could, of course, be Members of either the upper or lower House? Are the Government trying to send a signal on the type of people whom they should like to be elected in future? Are they making an arm's-length judgment that they do not really want senators?
      Mr. Ruffley: My right hon. Friend is developing an exceedingly powerful argument. May I draw his attention to the Minister's comments, on Second Reading, in which he refers to section 36(5) of the 1988 Act? Before explaining the need to repeal the section, he states that Members of both Houses of the Irish Parliament cannot become Members of this Parliament. However, he then states:
      "Section 36(5) of the 1998 Act was the unique exception: that provision can now be repealed by clause 3. The Bill does not single out Northern Ireland for special treatment".—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 27.]
      My right hon. Friend has argued that a message of some description was being passed, and I believe that it was contained in the Minister's next phrase, when he said—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made enough of that point in a very long intervention.
      Mr. Maclean: I think that my hon. Friend was coming to the nub of a very complex argument, although I accept that you, Mr. Lord, must keep the Committee in order.
      I cannot accept the words in the margin of the Bill, nor the Government's garbled explanation that clause 3 is no more than a consequential repeal. We have not heard the Government's argument, but it might be that, if clause 1 deals with the legislature of the Irish Republic, specific reference to the Senate is not needed.
      The Government could have chosen a different route. They could have retained a reference to the Senate and added the words "of the Dail" to the existing wording in section 3 of the 1998 Act. However, I cannot explore that fully without straying out of order.
      I believe that the Government's decision to omit either reference must mean something. I doubt that the House will ever know what sort of cosy agreement they have reached with the Irish Government, but it seems that the people from the southern Irish legislature who they want to stand for election, or to serve in both Dail and Senate,
      446
      or to come and serve here, are Members of the Dail. The Government must have spotted how awful it would be if Members of this House—elected, responsible to constituents, and who take an Oath of Allegiance to Queen and country—had to sit next to people appointed by the five old-boy networks that, with the university seats and some others, provide the membership of the Irish Senate.
      The possibility exists that most of the members of the Irish legislature who come to this House could be Senators, and not come from the Dail. Members of the Dail might be too busy with their constituents to participate in the Parliament of another sovereign nation. On the other hand, the Senate is composed of the products of the five appointed, specific interest groups. Senators have a lot of time on their hands and may regard themselves as the ideal candidates to get a proper job here and work alongside elected Members.
      Have the Government received any advice from the Government of the Republic of Ireland about permitting Members of either House of the Irish Parliament to stand for election to this House, or to the Northern Ireland Assembly? Senators are more likely than Members of the Dail to be interested in doing that. The Government may be trying to ensure that any Members of the Irish Parliament who end up on these green Benches making legislation for the United Kingdom are members of that lower House. They have greater respectability, because they at least have been elected to a Parliament. That is why the Government want to use clause 3 to repeal section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They wish to delete the part of an Act that they passed only 12 months ago which refers to the Senate.
      Mr. Swayne: Is that my right hon. Friend's estimate of what the Minister was telling us, at lightning, breakneck speed?
      Mr. Maclean: We do not know—we just do not know. I am sure that with the leave of the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for whom I have the highest regard, will be able to stand up and, using the same notes—I know how the system works—read the Minister's speech again. We will not complain if the Minister reads the speech in his normal voice, at normal speed, or even if he speaks as quickly as I do. I appreciate that I may sometimes speak too quickly.
      It would be better to hear the Government's view on this. I cannot accept that this is a straightforward attempt to tidy up the legislation using a consequential repeal. There is more to it than that. The legislation was initially rushed through at breakneck speed, yet throughout the night the Government have made no effort to advance the debate. Although I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the measure, it is not a solution. We need more time—another day, in fact—in which to deal with clause 3.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made a helpful intervention a few moments ago. Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is not merely a question of us tolerating hearing again what it is important for us to hear and understand—we are virtually in the position of kneeling and praying to hear it? The problem appears to be not merely that the

      447
      Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has absented himself from the Chamber—so, apparently, has his speech.
      Mr. Maclean: I hope that my hon. Friend's point was in order, Mr. Lord. The Minister has prolonged the debate by the way in which he has treated the House. That was the Government's fault. The Minister has prolonged the debate by making me suspicious, and I am generally not a suspicious chap. The Government have an opportunity to allay my fears and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is nothing more sinister in clause 3 than a simple repeal to tidy up the measure—something that lawyers might, in the normal course of events, advise Ministers to do. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Lord and, in his customary courteous way, reassure us about my concern. I am concerned that there is more to clause 3 than meets the eye.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely good point. He has highlighted the fact that it is the Government's fault that the Committee is not making faster progress on the Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not simply that we expect the Government to present their reason for tabling the clause, but it is custom and tradition that Ministers reply to a debate and then respond to the many issues that are raised in their winding-up speech?
      Mr. Maclean: I am sure that the Minister, as an honourable gentleman for whom I have the highest regard, has heard our comments and that, even now, he is champing at the bit to set my fears at rest.
      12.30 pm
      No doubt the Government will say that the Bill has been debated for many hours. That is not the point. There has been no gap between Second Reading and Committee, and between Committee and Report, for the Bill to be properly considered. That is my concern. Had there been sufficient time to consider the Bill, I might not have these fears about clause 3.
      The Government must tell us whether, when section 36(5) of the 1998 Act is repealed, they would prefer to have more Members entering this House from the Irish lower House or from the Senate. Why remove a clause that makes specific reference to Senators, if the Government do not want Senators to enter the House? Why insert the new generic word "legislator", if they do not want Senators? If they simply want to ensure that there is a fair number of Senators—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been doing quite well so far, but he is now in danger of straying from the clause. Will he return to it?
      Mr. Maclean: Thank you, Mr. Lord. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
      Mr. Fabricant: I have followed the arguments of my right hon. Friend with considerable interest, especially his view that there is a Machiavellian plot—he may be right.
      448
      However, because he was a Home Office Minister, running a Department with high standards, is he falling into the trap of ascribing the same high standards to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department? Might it not just be—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is not relevant to the clause.
      Mr. Maclean: I hear your ruling, Mr. Lord. My hon. Friend made an interesting point, but I shall not take that route. I do not want to make comparisons between Ministers and myself. Under all Governments, civil service staff are generally excellent.
      Will the Bill be rendered unworkable if clause 3 remains? That brings me to my next point, because, unless other points that are in order occur to me, I have finished exploring my concerns that the clause is slightly Machiavellian in that it implicitly excludes Senators of the Republic of Ireland, but not Members of the lower House, from sitting on the Benches in this place.
      Mr. Gray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong parallel between Members of the House of Lords, who legitimately sit in the European Parliament, and Members of the Irish Senate, who legitimately sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is a Second Reading point. I should be grateful if the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) would ignore it.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall certainly ignore it in this debate, Mr. Lord. Perhaps it will also be relevant on Third Reading.
      Are the Government saying that the Bill will be unworkable if clause 3 remains in it? We should delete inconsistent provisions in previous legislation and insert new clauses in the Bill to make it workable. I disagree with parts of the Bill, but I do not simply want to disagree with the clause. After we lost the argument on the other clauses and on the principle of the Bill—
      Mr. Bercow: We lost the vote.
      Mr. Maclean: Indeed. Having lost the vote on other parts of the Bill, I do not want to delete clause 3 if it would make the Bill unworkable. However, I have heard nothing from the Government to suggests that the legal advice to Ministers is that, if the Bill is to work, it is vital to pass the clause and thus to delete section 36(5) of the 1998 Act.
      I want to try to winkle out whether that would be so. If we do not do so during this relevant debate on clause 3, we can bet our bottom dollar that even the bowdlerised and purged other place will want to pay proper attention to whether the Bill is technically workable.
      The Minister must give us the information. Let us suppose that he is minded to accept the argument of my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that clause 3 should be deleted. I may be tempted to support my right hon. Friend on that.

      449
      If the Committee deleted clause 3 from the Bill, would the rest of the Bill be unworkable? Would anything in clause 1 be unenforceable or unworkable? The Minister's assertions that it would be untidy to delete clause 3, or that it is consequential and needs to stand part of the Bill, would not constitute an argument. However, if the Minister tells me that unless clause 3 is enacted, the Bill becomes unworkable, unenforceable or contradictory, or that he will again end up on judicial review before their Lordships, I shall accept his argument.
      Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Maclean: I give way to my increasingly erudite right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend should be grateful that I am on my feet and compos mentis—at least, I think I am. Will he hazard an explanation as to why Ministers, having listened to his questions, which are so germane to their Bill, are apparently prepared to sit, glued to their seats, with a smug, self-satisfied grin on their faces, and are apparently unprepared to offer the Committee any explanation to answer the questions that my right hon. Friend has posed? If they cannot respond at all, where can the Committee look for guidance?
      Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have no doubt that, in some quarters, in the next few hours or the next few days, Labour Members will complain that my speech was tedious. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] If either of the Under-Secretaries seek to catch your eye, Mr. Lord, to sum up the debate, and promise to take even five minutes explaining what is behind clause 3, reassuring my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that there is nothing sinister, or simply giving us the legal advice that the removal of clause 3 would not render the rest of the Bill unworkable, I shall sit down immediately. I am talking merely to give the Ministers a chance to grab their notes and make that intervention.
      Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?
      Mr. Maclean: Yes.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is saying in his own way that he is buying time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He is becoming increasingly repetitive. Unless he can move on to fresh ground, perhaps he should think about bringing his remarks to a close.
      Mr. Maclean: You anticipate me, Mr. Lord.
      Mr. William Ross: The problem is that some of us have very great difficulty in understanding the Bill, and we need it repeated from various points of view to get things absolutely clear in our minds. I fear that we are more obtuse than the Ministers.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. We are dealing not with the Bill but with a very simple clause.
      Mr. Maclean: I had anticipated your intervention, Mr. Lord, because I said a few minutes ago that I would conclude on this point. I was certainly not buying time.
      450
      I have given the Ministers a few opportunities to reassure me and I was trying to winkle out answers. If there was repetition, it was to try to make the point to the Government in different ways, and to give them opportunity after opportunity to reassure me that there is nothing Machiavellian in this—that there is nothing incompatible with the rest of the Bill if we delete the clause—and to give me the reassurances that I seek.
      Mr. Bercow: Has my right hon. Friend noticed, throughout the deliberations over the past 20 hours or so, that Ministers have intervened several times, entirely properly, in the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends in order to clarify or rebut a point? Therefore, is it not entirely reasonable now to expect that they will intervene in my right hon. Friend's speech to give the commitment that we seek, or simply to nod the head?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That point has been made ad nauseam.
      Mr. Maclean: I was concluding my remarks. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) has, indeed, intervened numerous times, usually to tell the Chair how to do its job. No Opposition Member would ever dream of doing so—especially not when you are in the Chair, Mr. Lord.
      I am tempted to join my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in challenging clause 3 standing part of the Bill and in voting against it, because I am no longer convinced that it is a simple consequential repeal. There is more to it than meets the eye, and I have been trying to find what lies behind it. Why is the deletion of the term "Irish Senate" done in this way, when it is not incompatible with keeping section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and this clause in the Bill?
      If the Minister can reassure me on that point, I may be persuaded to go into the Lobby with him. Otherwise, I shall have to conclude that my right hon. and hon. Friends have put their finger on the nub, that there is more to this than meets the eye and that we ought to reject clause 3.
      Mr. William Ross: I have been here constantly for nearly 21 hours—very rarely leaving the Chamber. I have followed the debate as closely as anyone, and I am as dissatisfied now as I was when I first came in to the debate. If we carry on tomorrow, tomorrow will see me still here. That is a part of the duties of a Member of this House: to attend this place, to argue the case for our constituents and to see that the laws that are passed are clear, simple and can be understood even by people such as myself—men of simple mind, and what used to be simple faith. That is no longer true after so long in this place.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: One reason why there should not be dual mandates is that folk should be here when proper debates are being held.
      Mr. Ross: Indeed, and given that, in some places, different languages are spoken, it is much better to be in a place where English is the mother tongue.
      Mr. Bercow: Is not it a matter of the utmost seriousness to us and to the people of this country that even with currently only a single mandate applying, only three Labour Back Benchers are present in the Chamber?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a sensible intervention at this stage.
      Mr. Ross: The House will have heard the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and I am sorry that there is so little interest among Government Members in this important Bill. Labour Members should have come to hear the criticism, and the impossibly poor defence that Ministers are making of the Bill. They describe new clause 3 as a consequential amendment.
      Mr. Letwin: I am conscious that we should not do a disservice to any hon. Member. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not in a position to judge whether the Under-Secretary's utterance was an impossibly poor defence or otherwise, as we did not know what was in it?
      Mr. Ross: That was the Under-Secretary's last but one defence. Earlier, he had been quite lucid. However, he has been up all night and has been under great strain, trying to think up excuses for what he is trying to ram down people's throats.
      The Bill applies more to Northern Ireland than to elsewhere. When I see the words "consequential repeal" in a Bill, I wonder. The allegedly "consequential repeal" is the only existing piece of legislation that is valid on this issue. Therefore, rather than being consequential, it should be treated as the root for the changes that the Government are now making. In those circumstances, clause 3 should have been clause 1 of the Bill, and the rest could have been tagged on to it. That was one way of doing it and it would have been acceptable to the Committee.
      12.45 pm
      Another aspect has been touched on several times in the debate, but it took me some time to realise the point that was being made. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) drew attention to the fact that the clause could be described as consequential—and it takes a fair stretch of the imagination to do that—only because of its strange construction. If the Bill had been written in another fashion, the clause, far from being consequential, would have been central to it.
      Last week, we discussed the complex provisions of the Representation of the People Bill. At the end of the debates on that, I asked the Minister in charge of the Bill whether it was intended to consolidate all the legislation that that Bill affected. There is no sign of that consolidation in a far more complex Bill than this small one. The Representation of the People Bill runs to book after book on electoral and representation matters.
      In those circumstances, why are the Government not consistent in the way that they deal with changes to legislation? For some reason, they want all the legislation governing the people from outwith the United Kingdom who are eligible to become legislators here to be governed by one small compass. That small, easily understood compass applies only to this Bill; it does not apply to the great mass of legislation by which we are governed.
      452
      That makes me exceedingly suspicious. Who is the Bill intended to impress? Who is it for? That question has been asked time and again and we have not had an answer. Instead, we have had careful, slippery evasion all the way through.
      I wish to refresh the memories of those present, of those who might be watching my words on the dedicated television channels and of those who might be moved to read or look them up them on the internet. We should remember that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 arose because our late colleague, Harold McCusker, took a case, when he was a Member of the House, against the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on whether he could be a Member of the Senate and of the House. The courts at that time held that that was illegal, so the Government subsequently introduced the 1998 Act. It was discussed in the House on 18 November 1998 and it received Royal Assent on 19 November 1998. In December 1999—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing issues that were dealt with under earlier clauses. He should refer specifically to the clause before us.
      Mr. Ross: May I say to you, Mr. Lord, that I thought that I was following the course that the Government have taken with the Bill? Many people outside the Committee are not fully aware of the background in the concise, clear manner that I am trying to put it on the record. It is important that people who examine the Bill, read the debates and are curious about our concerns should understand the background to why we are suspicious about the way in which the Government have behaved. The reason that I was rehearsing some of the history, as quickly and concisely as I could, is that people outwith the House should know the reasons for our attitude. In those circumstances, Mr. Lord, I beg your indulgence while I continue.
      It was only 13 months after the passage of the 1998 Act that we began the process of amending it—but at whose behest? We were told in earlier debates that the process began after the Government consulted, but we have not yet been told—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue to stray so wide of the clause. I should be grateful if he would return to the matter in hand.
      Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Lord. I shall try to come back inside the elastic fence that I always use in debates such as this. Sometimes a little push here and there at the fence that surrounds us reveals to the general public what they have a right to know. Along with Ministers and hon. Members, we are trying to inform the general public through our debates. We have a duty to tell them what the position is.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing not the general public, but a Committee of the whole House.
      Mr. Ross: Are these proceedings not being televised and recorded in Hansard? Is not Hansard available on the internet and for sale? Is it not available to the 659 Members of Parliament—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to listen to my rulings and address his remarks to clause 3, I shall have to ask him to terminate his speech. Perhaps he will now get to the point.
      Mr. Ross: Indeed, Mr. Lord, I am progressing toward the point. However, I have to confess that it remains some distance away, even within the narrow confines in which you want me to remain. However, bearing in mind your remarks, I shall try to make progress.
      I do not believe that the clause should be consequential. It should be at the heart of the Bill and all other provisions should be hung from it, so to speak, like a tree with pegs.
      Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that our suspicions are no less than those expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)? Ministers could relieve our suspicions by answering the questions put to them, so will my hon. Friend continue to press them to do so?
      Mr. Ross: I am always happy to take good advice from my hon. Friend—after all, he was a teacher in a previous incarnation, so he is well qualified to attempt to gain and impart knowledge. I shall press both the Ministers who have been involved in our debates so far, in the hope that they will take account of our remarks and answer our questions.
      To recap, the original legislative change was made to assist the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and for no other reason. However, other people have been appointed, including Dr. Robb, Brian Wilson, who tragically lost his daughter in the Enniskillen bombing, Sam McCaughtry and others. The Government of the day regarded the Mallon case as a hard case, but, as we know, hard cases generally make bad law.
      It is not necessary to repeal the provision in the 1998 Act. It might be necessary to rephrase certain other parts of the legislation, but the 30-odd words in section 36(5) could usefully remain where they are. We would do better to leave them there. Those who are interested will have no difficulty finding that short provision and will know that it refers only to the Irish Senate.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree with the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that the implication to be drawn from the explanatory notes is that the clause is redundant? However, if it is redundant it can be kept in the Bill without conflicting with the other clauses.
      Mr. Ross: It can only be redundant because of the extraordinarily bad drafting of the Bill. If it had been drafted following the same rules and procedures that applied to the Representation of the People Bill, which was considered last week, it would not have appeared
      454
      before us in its present form. The provision that the Government are attempting to repeal through clause 3 would have remained.
      Mr. Hayes: I am interested to hear those remarks. There seems to be a parallel with the debate that took place on the Government of Ireland Act 1920, when precisely these matters were dealt with. I shall be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman feels that this debate, in comparison with the debate in 1920, is redundant.
      Mr. Ross: The only part of the last part of the 1920 Act to be repealed was the preface, as it were, stating that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and so forth. As there was nothing in particular to bite on, it was reckoned to be redundant. I always thought that it should have remained as a simple declaration of principle. For that reason I was opposed to that repeal. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it was done purely as a sop to Irish republicanism.
      Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Hayes: I was referring specifically to qualification and disqualification in terms of the 1920 Act. The view was taken that the new constitution had implications for them. We should at least consider the clause consistently in respect of what was intended when that state was established.
      Mr. Ross: I understand now exactly where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. He knows that because of the limited time that was available to research all the implications of the Bill and the various roots from which it springs, it was not possible to go into those details. I hope that he will address the Committee when I resume my place, or at least at some stage before these debates come to an end. The 10 o'clock rule still applies and there is no real rush. We still have lots of time. We can easily address these matters today, tomorrow or whenever without any difficulty.
      It seems that the Bill is as confused as Government policy. I think that the words that offend the Government in the 1998 Act could remain. That might mean the Minister having to do a little redrafting elsewhere in the Bill, but that is all that would be necessary. We would then have legislation that would be on all fours with the rest of the body of relevant United Kingdom legislation.
      It has already been said that some Members of the Senate of the Irish Republic were appointed while some were elected by means of the university franchise, which we have long abandoned. Some regret that because they were a valuable group of Members. However, a new body is being created in Northern Ireland that has direct relevance to this measure: the civic forum. Its members will not be elected. Therefore it will be possible for people to be appointed to it from the Republic. I am wondering whether that is part and parcel of the Government's thinking. Is that part of the unspoken element—
      1 pm
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Those matters do not arise under the clause. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returned to considering the clause.
      Mr. Ross: I thought that the purpose of the debate was to explore whether those matters arose under the clause.

      455
      I believe that they do because the clause removes a section that refers to the Irish Senate. The civic forum is the nearest analogous body, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to that which I described earlier.
      Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend seeks an explanation for the allegedly consequential clause. The most unsatisfactory aspect of the debate is that the Under-Secretary's speech contains an explanation, but the only people who know its contents so far are Hansard reporters, who will have written it up from the draft that the Under-Secretary sent hours ago.
      Mr. Ross: Hope springs eternal in the human breast and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will repeat his words. He is not here, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will pass on the message that, if the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department speaks slowly, we will understand exactly what he is trying to say.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments. He knows that I have been an associate member of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body for several years. Those of us who have played any part in existing cross-border parliamentary bodies are interested in hearing a true explanation for the clause and its peculiar drafting. Unless the Government can provide that, the hon. Gentleman is right to continue to press them.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is an interesting point, but the clause is simple. It is a necessary tidying-up provision because a section of the earlier Act becomes obsolete. I am not sure how much extra explanation the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) requires.
      Mr. Ross: The Bill is superficially a simple measure. However, if it was that simple, how have we managed to spend 21 hours discussing it?
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the muddle, confusion and obfuscation could easily be cleared up by a series of simple categorical statements by the Government, which would enable us to hold Prime Minister's questions and the rest of Wednesday's business? However, we are witnessing the most inept handling of a measure in the 30 years that I have been a Member of Parliament.
      Mr. Ross: Would that I could agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government's handling of the Bill is not all that inept. The apparent ineptitude conceals a clever, devious piece of Government work. We have asked questions, which have not been answered. That is why we are still here. We are asking the same questions in different ways on every aspect of the Bill. After 21 hours of debate in Committee, we have not received an answer.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a good case for not repealing section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I have studied the explanatory notes,
      456
      which state that the section "is no longer needed", but provide no explanation for that. The Government have failed. Is not it therefore in order for him to make a case—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That was a long intervention and the hon. Gentleman has only repeated something that has been said many times.
      Mr. Ross: I admitted earlier that I need to have these complex matters explained to me time after time, so that I understand them. Unfortunately, I am getting no assistance from Ministers. All we get is confusion and attempts us blind us with smoke, to hide the reality. The Government could have spared themselves so much pain and difficulty if they had only listened to the reasonable points made yesterday and in more than 21 hours of debate today.
      If the Government had been forthcoming, all these problems would have long since disappeared. If they had let us know exactly what deal they had reached with IRA-Sinn Fein to produce this legislation and what was in the Bill for Sinn Fein-IRA, we would have known where we were. I dare say that in those circumstances, rather more people might have been prepared to vote against.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend recall that it took 15 hours of debate to get from the Government, like squeezing blood out of a stone, the information that they had negotiated with IRA-Sinn Fein to get this clause—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing whatsoever to do with clause 3. I counsel again the hon. Member for East Londonderry not to repeat himself, to come to the point and to arrive at a conclusion.
      Mr. Ross: I have been trying not to repeat myself. It is just that I get drawn down highways and byways by right hon. and hon. Members who clearly have great difficulty understanding what is going on and seek the truth.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Would it not have clarified the situation and avoided misunderstanding and suspicion that a deal had been done if the Minister had said that the provision was to keep alive the mythology of a separate body of legislation for Northern Ireland? The fact that that explanation was not given might have added to the suspicion that has been engendered in all our minds.
      Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is correct. The Northern Ireland statute book is to some extent a myth. We know from experience on various Committees in this House that it is maintained in some respects but ignored or overridden in others whenever that suits the Government of the day—especially in such matters as extending European law. The concept of a Northern Ireland statute book as a separate body of legislation has been greatly undermined by events over the past 25 years. My hon. Friend is correct to describe it as a myth because a myth it is.

      457
      I have tried to explore the issue for 20 minutes or so and I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have assisted me with their questions and interventions. It is always good to have friends in this place.
      Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend but, given that the suspense on these Benches is almost unbearable, would it not help the Committee if the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave a nod or shake of the head to show whether he will reply to the debate?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Ross: While I am grateful to the hon. Member for Buckingham, earlier there were nods and shakes to the extent that we had to get the Minister to tell us what they meant. Words are better than nodding or shaking heads. I hope that the Minister appreciates that we want words at some length and in some detail, so that we have a clear understanding of what is going on in regard both to repealing the 1998 Act and the Bill as a whole. We have not had that. Repeals usually appear in a table at the end of a Bill, but no such table appears in this Bill. The repeal appears as a clause, which is somewhat unusual. My experience may not be such that it ensures that I am correct, so I seek guidance. Why has that not been done? We deserve to be told.
      It is not good enough for the Minister to say, "The Bill represents tidy draftsmanship. We are good at tidying up and leaving things neat." For heaven's sake, if the Government are to do that let us start with the complex legislation. Rather than scatter the whole body of United Kingdom law over half a library, let us upgrade and consolidate it annually or biannually so that people know exactly where they stand. It does not matter what they are looking for—our legislation refers back to statutory instruments, various orders, Bills and God knows what and is impossible to disentangle. To do that, we would have to employ a good barrister every day in the House, which is probably why so many banisters and lawyers are Members. They can thread their way through the legislation.
      The legislation is simplistic according to the Government, but what have they done? They have simplified it even further, which does not make sense or fit into the general scheme of Government behaviour and the usual way of amending Bills. It does not fit in any way, shape or form and that has simply increased the suspicions of Opposition Members. In the light of that, we deserve a proper explanation.
      Mr. Gale: Was not my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) right to suggest that we have heard assertions from Ministers, but no evidence whatever? Is not that the fundamental problem? I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is on our Front Bench, but he said that the matter could be tidied up, given a ministerial statement or two. Those of us who have been here for many hours are well aware that a great many issues have to be dealt with—the future of Ministers in the House who might become Ministers in an Irish republican Government, for example. We have consistently tried to get answers from the Minister, but
      458
      clearly we shall be able to do so only by debating the new clauses and having a thorough debate on Third Reading. I cannot see how the matter could be tidied up quickly.
      Mr. Ross: I agree, but the hon. Gentleman used the word "assertions", which is not used in Northern Ireland or in Ireland generally. The word "allegations" is used, and they are usually made against the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Army. The Bloody Sunday inquiry is a case in point and the bill is almost £14 million, which has been spent for no good purpose. Allegations are made time and again until some foolish people actually believe them and hold inquiries. My view is that allegations and assertions, whether they relate to the events of 30 January 1972 or whatever, are only that until proof positive—proof beyond reasonable doubt—is produced. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is starting to react for the first time. We hear him, but that is not unusual because he always blows up when we touch a sore spot. Perhaps I should cool it a little because I do not want him to get out of order and raise your ire, Mr. Lord.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has got a reaction.
      Mr. Ross: That is a happy change, but unfortunately that Minister is not the man from whom we want a reaction. We want words, but he is apparently not in a position to give us the information that we on these Benches—both Ulster Unionist and Conservative—require. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats also raised questions, as did Labour Members.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that he was about to bring his remarks to a close. I think that would be a good idea.
      Mr. Ross: If the Minister of State had behaved himself, my remarks probably would have been terminated by now. He moved me to continue. But in the light of your strictures, Sir, I will bring my brief remarks—
      Mr. Hayes: Before the hon. Gentleman abbreviates his remarks to an unacceptable degree, could he return to the issue of representation? Since I last intervened I have had a chance to look at a copy of Hansard dated 31 March 1920, column 1288, which confirms my earlier suggestion that Ireland's representation in this Parliament was critical to that debate. Could he address that matter once and for all?
      1.15 pm
      Mr. Ross: I regret that I would have to go off and study that passage. If you, Mr. Lord, would give me permission to speak again before these debates finish I would be in a position to do that and then meet the hon. Gentleman's request. He was helpful to me a moment ago, but I confess that in 1920 I was not even a twinkle in my father's eye. I will deal with the matter if he does not.
      With those few words I must bring my brief remarks to an end. I hope to speak again and examine this matter in somewhat more detail before we finish.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I should like to make a few very brief points, partly to amplify my intervention of a few minutes ago and partly to answer the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
      There is one reason, and one reason only, why we are still debating this measure at this time. That reason sits on the Government Bench. It is the silence of the Treasury Bench that is responsible for the fact that my eloquent and hon. Friends have felt obliged to repeat points, to repeat questions—[Interruption.] It is not for hon. Members, from a sedentary position, to usurp the Chair. Where my hon. Friends have very occasionally strayed a little, they have been brought up and corrected, and they have apologised. But for the most part the speeches made by all my right hon. and hon. Friends have been apposite and absolutely within order. Successive occupants of the Chair of this Committee have acknowledged it. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Julian Brazier: Was not that a particularly tasteless sedentary intervention, coming from a side that will shortly table a motion, distantly connected with this matter, which has always in the past been left in the hands of the House authorities?
      Sir Patrick Cormack: It is always nice to have friends who parachute in fresh and full of vigour. Some of us have been here all through the night. I have been here for almost all the debate since it began yesterday afternoon—or earlier today, should I say, in parliamentary terms? All we are asking for is a series of answers from Ministers, answers which they steadfastly refuse to give.
      It has been like the dog that barked in the night, or did not, because right through the night we have had silence; we have had no speeches from Government Back Benchers. Such interventions as we had at the very early stages of the debate came from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), both of whom were extremely concerned. What we have had in this long debate on clause 3—[Interruption.] Sir Alan does not need the prompting of the silent Member—of the man who does not have the guts or gumption to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer the questions that have been put to him.
      I promised that my intervention would be brief and to the point. What we want are simple, clear answers that will clear away the fog of suspicion that hangs over this debate and will dispel the reasonable doubts put by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have never seen such a collective abdication. A thousand days? A thousand days of muddle and confusion, ending in this appalling charade.
      Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that clause 3 would probably be passed in due course. I suspect that he must be right, given the way in which the Government handle these matters. Whether the clause is passed yesterday, today or tomorrow remains to be seen, but parts of it will be passed.
      I came to the Chamber bright and early, as I always do, so that I can serve my constituents while other Members are still sleeping. I arrived at about 7.30 am, and noticed that the Committee was still sitting. I wondered why, and I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate. After
      460
      many years in the House of Commons, I found it inconceivable that even this Government could so mismanage the affairs of the House that what is, in general, a relatively straightforward measure—
      The Chairman: Order. After those many years in the House, the hon. Gentleman will know that what he is saying has no relevance to the clause 3 stand part debate, to which I advise him to direct his remarks.
      Mr. Nicholls: Thank you, Sir Alan. The point that I was trying to make was that this clause—
      The Chairman: Order. I have just said that it is not a point that the hon. Gentleman can validly make during a stand part debate relating to clause 3. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to continue his remarks, I invite him to direct them towards clause 3 stand part.
      Mr. Nicholls: The point that I am making on clause 3 is that, at first sight, it is a perfectly straightforward measure that might be expected to pass into law with some speed.
      We must bear in mind that when the measure does, in due course, pass into law, the lawyers will be looking at it. They will be asked by their clients to interpret the law that the House has passed. Surely, therefore, we as legislators—irrespective of party allegiance—have a duty to try to ensure that legislation leaves the House of Commons in a sensible and intelligible form.
      Lawyers—even humble country lawyers like me—must look at statutes of this sort, and interpret them for our constituents. One of the first things that any competent lawyer would do in examining a Bill such as this is look at the consequentials: it is necessary to see what the repeal measures are. Any lawyer looking at clause 3 and trying to work out why Parliament, in its assumed wisdom, would have let it become law would ask, "What is this all about?" He would then have read that section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—
      "which has the effect of allowing a member of
      the Irish Senate
      "to be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly"—
      is to be repealed.
      We must ask ourselves why. What does it mean? Taken at face value, it means nothing. Any client who, as a result of the deliberations on clause 3, asks a lawyer "What does this mean?" will find that the lawyer simply does not know. So what does the client do? He goes back to the 1998 Act.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Can my hon. Friend confirm my understanding that, in trying to determine what clause 3 actually means, lawyers will read our debates with the aim of discovering what was in the minds of legislators when they come to interpret the clause. Is this not at the heart of the difficulty that we are having with the Government? We are trying to understand what clause 3 is about.
      Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority, as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a long-standing Member of Parliament. I would only say to him that, in a sense—for reasons that

      461
      I entirely understand—he asks me a question that I am literally not qualified to answer. He asks for an answer that I am incapable of giving.
      My right hon. Friend wants to know what this is all about. There is an answer, which I will deal with in a moment; but it is not an answer that I have heard yet.
      Mr. Bercow: We are, after all, debating not an Opposition amendment, but a Government clause. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it is incumbent on the Minister to provide the cost-benefit calculus that we require to determine properly the merits of the clause's inclusion, or exclusion?
      Mr. Nicholls: Again, my hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. He points out, although I am not sure whether it was his intention, the distress that the clause will cause solicitors throughout the country, who, obviously, will want to advise their clients about what the clause might mean. They will start the process by trying to identify what the clause means and what its consequences are. If the debate goes no further, they will come up against a brick wall.
      The first thing any solicitor trying to construe the clause will say is, "Hang on a second. It does not repeal legislation that was passed 20, 10 or five years ago. The legislation is barely two years old."
      Mr. Bercow: I do not want my hon. Friend to misinterpret the purport of my intervention. What he says is entirely reasonable, but will he understand that compassion for lawyers was not uppermost in my mind?
      Mr. Nicholls: I am surprised that my hon. Friend makes that remark, knowing what lawyers bring to the House. His point may be more populist than any that I seek to deal with.
      In trying to work out what the clause means, one knows at once that the legislation that is being repealed is not elderly but barely two years old. One then goes to the original 1975 legislation. Again, that does not help us to unravel the mystery of what the clause is all about.
      To try to understand what the clause was all about and whether it truly was consequential, one would, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said, look at Hansard. There is a problem there because the leading case of Pepper v. Hart lays down strict conditions on the extent to which one can use Hansard to construe the effect of litigation. Having said that, any competent lawyer faced with the clause, even though he realised that he will not be able to argue Hansard in court, would at least go to Hansard, saying to his client, "I cannot quote it, but I will be able to find out for you what the Government were trying to do. "
      At that stage, it is straightforward. One goes to Hansard. One sees the many excellent contributions that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made and ignores them. One goes to the Minister's speech to find out what he said about the matter.
      We can all blink in the House. We should not, but it happens. Sometimes one even yawns, the moment passes and one can come back into the debate without missing much of it. Earlier today, those who of us who blinked, yawned or even drew breath found that the Minister had already delivered his speech and that was it. So far, I have
      462
      found no one in the debate who has been able to repeat anything that the Minister said, or been able even to criticise anything that he said, because we do not know what it was.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend knows that it is out of order—Sir Alan, I am sure, will agree—for someone to speak in a foreign language in the Chamber because speaking in a foreign language is unintelligible.
      The Chairman: Order. I see absolutely no connection between what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the matter that is before us. I have heard enough.
      Mr. Nicholls: I am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) because, from my acquaintance with the Minister, his grasp of English is such that I cannot imagine him lapsing into a foreign language, but the point is that we simply do not know.
      What is particularly unsatisfactory is that there are people who know what was in that speech: the Hansard reporters. They do not know from having written it down. They know because, a few moments later, there was the usual bustle of paper on the Back Benches. By now, the Minister's written speech will have been translated into Hansard
      1.30 pm
      Mr. Brady: Is it not possible that the note that was communicated to the Hansard reporters might not even be entirely the same as the words that were spoken? [Interruption.] Usually, we would be able to tell whether they were the same.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman, on reflection, might think it unwise to question the integrity of the Official Report.
      Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I would not question the integrity of the Hansard reporters. My only point is that they, like hon. Members, would have no way of knowing whether the Minister's gabbled comments were the same as the content of the note.
      The Chairman: Order. I should also advise the hon. Gentleman that it would be unwise to criticise the integrity of another hon. Member, as by implication he is doing.
      Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I have gone to the Vote Office and obtained a copy of Hansard for 25 January. You will be aware that Hansard is available also on the internet, but not until the afternoon. The written Hansard for 25 January ceases just after 1.15 am, which was before the statement in question was made by the Minister. Would it be in order to ask Hansard to send down a manuscript copy, so that hon. Members might see what was said?
      The Chairman: Order. So far as the proceedings of the Committee are concerned, hon. Members must be deemed to have been present to have heard all that was

      463
      said. That is the end of the matter. In any case, one would not usually expect a record to be available until some time after the event.
      Mr. Fabricant: But, Sir Alan—
      The Chairman: Order. I am on my feet, and the hon. Gentleman will not argue with me from a sedentary position. That is the end of the matter. When hon. Members are participating in a debate, they must be deemed to have heard all that has been said and to have reacted to it.
      As I am on my feet, I should also say that many hon. Members have a shared concern about a particular point. However, constant repetition of that point will shortly put them in breach of Standing Order No. 42.
      Mr. Nicholls: I trust, Sir Alan, that I have not repeated anything that I have said so far.
      The Chairman: Order. Let me make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that it is not only a matter of repeating himself; if he is repeating the self-same argument that has been used in the debate by other hon. Members, Standing Order No. 42 can be invoked if I believe that to be the appropriate course.
      Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful for that, Sir Alan, and I was mindful of the risk. I therefore abandoned almost every paragraph of my written speech, to concentrate on a matter that I thought would be of interest to colleagues on both sides of the Committee—the particular problems that solicitors and barristers will have in advising their clients about the purport of the legislation. If I failed in that, Sir Alan, I apologise—but it was the key point that I wanted to concentrate on. I realised that, if I had not done that, as it is late in the debate, I might have repeated points already made by other hon. Members.
      Sir Alan, as you know better than any of us, the problem is that, if one had missed the speech, gone up to Hansard and said, "May I, please, see a copy of a speech that you will have reported some 20 minutes ago?", the staff would have said, "You can see your own words, but you are not entitled to see the words of other hon. Members." Therefore, at this stage, if one wanted to know what was in the Minister's speech, unless one had been in the Chamber and could hear it, there is no way in which one could obtain a copy of it from Hansard.
      Mr. Brazier: There is of course a particular problem: even with the very high quality of our Hansard reporters, there is sometimes some divergence between the spoken word and the substance of the written text. It has always been the rule of the House that what matters subsequently is only the written text.
      Mr. Nicholls: As I said, eventually, we shall know what the written text was, and that may indicate what the spoken word may have been. However, certainly for
      464
      purposes of this debate and bringing it to a speedy conclusion, we do not know what the Government's case is.
      Mr. Hayes: Surely the point that my hon. Friend is making—
      The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman remember that he should be addressing the occupant of the Chair?
      Mr. Hayes: Surely the point—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Face the Chair."] Surely the point that my hon. Friend is making is that lawyers who interpret the clause will have to know precisely what the Minister said about it, to inform them in making a judgment. They will have the Hansard available to them. My hon. Friend may be right in saying that we do not have it now, to inform our debate, but the argument that he was making—
      The Chairman: Order. I do not think that that is getting us anywhere at all. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) have alluded is a universal handicap in the proceedings of the House. It is not unique to the discussion of clause 3 stand part, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Teignbridge now direct his remarks exclusively to whether clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Nicholls: The only honest answer to your question, Sir Alan, is that I cannot know whether the clause should stand part of the Bill without knowing what the Government's reaction would be if it did not. That worries me.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is a lawyer. Will he share with me why he believes that the Government have included the clause in the Bill? Why does he think that section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is no longer needed?
      Mr. Nicholls: I can try. In default of an explanation from the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that he could see no particular reason for its exclusion, or its inclusion. There is a principle in law that holds that legislation that is not consistent with earlier legislation is repealed impliedly. That straightforward concept is familiar to any competent lawyer construing statutes.
      Without that principle, the burden of legislation going through the House would be massive and terminal, as the House would always be having to repeal specifically provisions that are now repealed impliedly. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has uncovered another mystery. Why are the Government adopting this approach? If, as it appears, clause 3 is unnecessary and has been repealed impliedly by clause 1, the question of what is special about clause 3 arises.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am always anxious to help hon. Members who have not been able to attend the whole debate. I have indicated to the Committee what I said in

      465
      relation to clause 3 several times but, with your permission, Sir Alan, I should be happy to refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. According to my note, I said:
      "Clause 3 is a narrow, consequential clause that provides for the repeal of section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 36(5) has the effect of allowing a Member of the Irish Senate to be a Member of the Northern Irish Assembly. Clause 1 of this Bill has the same effect, so section 36(5) is no longer needed. We have in that sense already discussed these issues."
      I have repeated by and large the same sentences on a number of occasions. I hope that that assists the hon. Gentleman to conclude his remarks.
      Mr. Nicholls: The Minister says that that is what he said in the substance of his speech. I am sure that Hansard will bear that out, and that is fine. However, if he had said as much in an intelligible form at the time, the Committee would have been saved many hours—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. I do not want a disturbance from Government Members. The hon. Gentleman should he allowed to make his speech.
      Mr. Nicholls: Had the Minister done the Committee the courtesy of making that speech at an intelligible rate, we would have been able to probe what the clause means. What the Minister said is not proof that clause 3 is a consequential or necessary amendment. I have heard suggestions that the amendment is obsolete, or redundant, or otiose or tautologous. We simply do not know, because the Minister has advanced no argument for the clause. He has done no more than make an assertion on its behalf.
      It is clear to me that the clause is not necessary. As a lawyer and a legislator, I am not in favour of unnecessary legislation. I am in favour of relevant legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, either the Bill is an example of massive incompetence by Ministers who do not bother to read their briefs—and that is not my view of the Minister—or it cannot be taken at face value.
      The Chairman: Order. That has been said many times—I do not want to hear it again.
      Mr. Nicholls: I hope that even before the debate is finished, we will move beyond rhetoric, beyond assertion, and find out the Bill's hidden agenda. It is clear that the Bill has a hidden purpose which dare not speak its name.
      The Chairman: Has the hon. Gentleman now sat down? It saves me making a further point.
      Mr. Letwin: Some while ago, reference was made to the Johnny-come-lately type. Having been here for slightly less than three hours, I admit that I fall into that category. At a certain point in this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to the fog of confusion. Having listened to a large part of the debate on the clause, I agree that there is real confusion.
      The first issue—I shall not try your patience, Sir Alan, or that of the Committee, by devoting more than a moment to it—is whether a clause that amends something that is itself compatible with the purpose of the first clause
      466
      of the Bill can be regarded as consequential. It would be otiose to talk about that any more. However, the clause is not a consequential amendment in the normal sense.
      The second point, which has not come to the fore during this debate—indeed, to my astonishment, it has not been mentioned—is a serious constitutional issue. I draw the Committee's attention to the part of the clause in parenthesis, which has so far escaped the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The words in parenthesis, which refer to section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, are:
      "(which has the effect of allowing a member of Seanad Eireann to be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly)."
      That is a most remarkable piece of legislation. I have not had the opportunity to check whether it is literally unprecedented, although I suspect that it may be. It is very unusual for a measure to come before the House—other than the Interpretation Act 1978—that contains a clause seeking to interpret an existing Act.
      An oddity exists that would make it improper for the Committee to allow clause stand part, simply as a matter of legislative drafting. With the passage of time, should the Bill become an Act, it will contain a manifest falsehood. By virtue of the words "is repealed" it will make false the proposition, "which has the effect." It should instead read "which had the effect."
      I do not want to bore the Committee by dwelling on that piece of legislative misdrafting. It is interesting, however, that it should have occurred, because it illustrates how unusual for the parliamentary draftsmen such an interpretative clause must have been. How can they have made such an error if they were used to producing interpretative clauses of this kind in a Bill? We should tarry and worry before passing into law a clause which will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) lucidly said, have significance for lawyers in time to come and which may be used as a precedent for future legislation. The Bill seeks to give a particular interpretation to a previous piece of legislation. If we accepted the clause as a precedent for legislative drafting, there could be all sorts of strange consequences. Instead of Bills amending and replacing previous legislation directly, they could come before the House fashioned—as clause 3 is—to reinterpret existing legislation.
      Mr. Hawkins: I have been listening very carefully to my hon. Friend. Would he agree that the concern that he expresses is of particular importance since the House of Lords' judicial decision in the case of Pepper v. Hart that debates in the House and proceedings in Hansard can be used for purposes of interpretation? If we are to have debates on a Government attempt to reinterpret their own legislation, how will the courts possibly get to the bottom of that?
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Letwin: I agree with my hon. Friend. The precise way in which the clause is drafted, leaving aside the lacuna, or deficiency, to which I referred, is calculated—whether it were adopted as a general precedent—or indeed merely in itself—to cause maximum confusion of the type to which my hon. Friend alluded. It would fall to lawyers in court to try to decide whether, if there was a case in respect of

      467
      which it was relevant that, at a time before the passage of the Bill, the 1998 Act had a certain effect, they and the judge should take account of the Act as it was then interpreted according to precedent, or of Parliament's subsequent judgment, expressed in the clause, as an interpretation of what the Act had meant when it did apply.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Is my hon. Friend saying that clause 3 interprets the 1998 Act in the sense of giving an opinion on that Act, or is it interpretative in the sense that it makes a statement of fact? I believe the latter to be the case.
      Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is also my learned friend. I bow to him if I am in error, but if the statement in parenthesis is unnecessary—in the sense that it is merely a statement of uncontroversial fact—the legislative misdrafting is more astonishing than I had conceived. In that case, it would have been proper for the words in parenthesis to have been omitted and for the clause to have been a simple repeal provision. There is no need to state obvious facts in a Bill. If all the obvious facts could conceivably have been included in the clause, it would have been of infinite length.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right, but a bit severe. The problem that he illustrates could be dealt with in two ways. The first would be to replace the words "which has the effect" with the words "which had the effect". The second would be to follow the precedent set in clause 1 by leaving out the phrase with the verb. We could omit the words "which has the effect of" and replace them by "allowing a member of" and so on. Those suggestions would not deal with the major point made by my hon. Friend, but they would deal with the minor point.
      Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend may be correct as to the syntax of the phrase in parenthesis. I am not sure whether his suggestions would make a material improvement; they would certainly remove the infelicity of the reference to "has".
      I draw his attention to an interesting example of my general point: the great difference between what would then be the effect of the phrase in parenthesis and the effect of the phrase in parenthesis on the third line of clause 1—I am, of course, not debating clause 1—which refers to
      "disqualification of member of the legislature".
      The difference is that the parenthesis in the third line of clause 1 merely replicates the side heading of the Bill. It is an expansion, or as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough would say, a statement of fact. It is an expansion of the direct reference to the relevant section.
      However, I do not think that that is the purport of the phrase in parenthesis in clause 3. The draftsman has emphasised that fact by using the words
      "which has the effect of allowing".
      I take it that he used those words to draw the attention of the House and the Committee—alas, because he was not used to drafting such clauses, he used the wrong tense,
      468
      but he was making an honest search after truth—to the fact that the measure was most unusual. The measure is an attempt to interpret.
      Although I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their interventions, they have diverted me from the main line of the argument that I was pursuing. It is bizarre that at this late hour on a Tuesday—if it is Tuesday—or at an early hour on Wednesday, we should be debating a constitutional point of great significance, which my hon. Friends assure me has not been raised. It certainly has not been debated during the three hours during which I have been in this place. That significant constitutional point will ricochet through our legislation hereafter. If we begin to accept in the Bill the principle of such interpretative legislation outside the context of the Interpretation Act 1978, we shall put our courts in a position of terminal confusion. What my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham described as a fog of confusion will ensue.
      This situation is all the worse because of its connection with the point—which I promised I would not labour, and will not—which has been made by many of my hon. Friends, that this is, in the words of the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, a tidying-up clause, one that seeks to fit in with clause 1. Were clause 3 a consequential amendment in the strict sense—were it removing something that was inconsistent with clause 1 and the rest of the Bill—of course the courts, in looking at it, might say that we had not created a great precedent of interpretation here, but that we were merely trying to elucidate the effect of an absolutely necessary and genuinely consequential amendment. However, we are contemplating the prospect that a particular individual or group may be affected by a discrepancy between the interpretation now placed on the 1998 Act and the interpretation that was originally placed on that Act, and will look at the clause—which, admittedly, in the words of the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, no less, is only a tidying-up measure. Therefore, we would be accepting the proposition that it is tidying-up legislation to interpret legislation in subsequent legislation. That is a dreadful principle.
      Mr. Leigh: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend. Does he propose that we should delete the matters contained within the brackets, that we should delete the whole clause or that we should leave the clause as it is?
      Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring me up short and ask what the consequence of my argument is. There are various ways in which it could be handled. We are in a stand part debate, so I am precluded from suggesting an amendment to the clause. Had I been on the qui vive, which I regret to say that I was not, and had I attended more carefully to the clause some days before the debate, I could have tabled an amendment that would have taken care of the case and restricted the phrase in parenthesis so that it did not have this evil effect and, in particular, so that it avoided the problem of the tense. However, you will undoubtedly tell me, Sir Alan, that I cannot mention in any detail the possibility of amendment. So we are restricted, in a stand part debate, to the binary choice of allowing or not allowing the clause. I

      469
      am trying to draw my hon. Friends' attention—to the slight desperation of Labour Members, so many of whom have recently joined us—to serious reasons, of constitutional and legislative precedent, why we should at least consider refusing to accept clause 3 as part of the Bill.
      My hon. Friend was right to intervene, because he has moved me on to the final stage of my argument.
      Mr. Hawkins: Before my hon. Friend moves on, would he not say that, because of the complications that he has talked about and the confusion between past interpretations and what may happen if the Bill is passed in its present form, with this obviously weak clause, the matters that the Minister referred to earlier—the particular cases of distinguished Irish politicians who have sought election in Northern Ireland—may be confused by historians, because those politicians were elected under previous legislation in respect of which clause 3 can only muddy the waters?
      Mr. Letwin: I agree with my hon. Friend. In parenthesis, vis-a-vis the parenthetical clause, it should be added that it is particularly bizarre that the Government should be introducing legislation in the House to interpret their own legislation in the House.
      I have not sought to verify from the official record whether, when the Bill that became the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was being discussed, the then Minister—whoever it might have been—who was discussing that particular section of it in Committee made reference to a particular interpretation of its effects. Should it turn out on inspection—I use this as an example for the Committee's elucidation—that the official record shows that the Minister's interpretation at the time differed from the interpretation that is now being used in the clause before us, the courts would be in an even worse situation than I had envisaged. That would be the case because, under Pepper v. Hart, the court would need to interpret the Minister's interpretation of his then clause as meaning one thing, and now, presumably, the court would need to look also at clause 3 of the Bill before us and see that the same Minister, or a Minister from the same Government, in an Act of Parliament—one does not, I suppose, doubt that an Act of Parliament overrules a statement made in Committee in a previous discussion—had interpreted it differently. I suppose that this could throw into question the whole Pepper v. Hart doctrine. I say that tentatively, as I would not want to cause trouble irresponsibly for the courts.
      What is one to make of a situation in which the courts, of their own volition, have decided that Ministers' statements—and, I suppose, the statements of the movers of amendments and new clauses in Bills—should be read as having interpretive weight under circumstances where a novel device is introduced of bringing into Bills interpretations which may supersede or conflict with those earlier interpretations?
      I hope, Sir Alan, that that illustrates that there is a serious issue here, although one does not expect to find a serious constitutional issue embedded in such an ostensibly unimportant clause. I genuinely wonder whether the Minister, his legal advisers and the
      470
      parliamentary draftsmen seriously paused to think about what they were doing in introducing this parenthetical phrase.
      Mr. Hawkins: Earlier, the Minister was questioned by hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—about whether the Bill had its genesis in constitutional changes in Ireland. Is there an additional complication, in that we may have to look at the way in which the Irish courts interpret the corresponding Irish constitutional changes to which the Minister referred?
      Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend takes me into deep waters, and he may be right. I have no way of telling, as I do not understand the Irish legislative system or the Irish judicial system. That may be one of the points that my hon. Friends have been making in a tangential sense.
      If it is the case, and I think it is, that through the medium of this parenthetical clause, a serious constitutional conundrum, which may have profound and long-lasting effects on the way in which our courts interpret the actions of our House, and hence the meaning of our legislation, is being introduced into the Bill—I think by mistake, as I do not suggest that the Minister or his advisers intended it—we have to ask whether the necessity for the clause is so great as to overcome the deficiency of introducing legislation with such unintended and possibly harmful consequences.
      The odd thing is that I am now in a position to do what I could not do before, as I have heard what the Minister had to say. He was clear that the description of the clause, given in an amateur way by your predecessor Mr. Lord—if I can put it in that way, Sir Alan, without offending the dignity of the Chair—as a "tidying-up measure" has been reinforced by the professional statement of the Minister that it is not a consequential amendment in the direct sense. The new clause is not necessary. It is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, clearly a compatible but otherwise unobnoxious piece of legislation—that is, section 36(5) of the 1998 Act—that the clause repeals. There is no harm in that, except for the parenthetical clause and its ricocheting consequences. However, there is no gain either.
      So long have some of my hon. Friends been here that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) got himself into a deep fog of confusion when he told us that it neither matters nor does not matter. That is an impossibility, Sir Alan. Something either matters or it does not matter—and I know which is the case here. The clause does not matter at all. It could be torn up and thrown away without the slightest effect on humanity, except the beneficial effect of removing the parenthetical phrase that will cause serious problems for our courts and legislature hereafter. Therefore, we need to tarry long before we pass any such clause.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      The Chairman: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 318, Noes 16.

      Division No.48]

      [1.59pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Ainger, Nick

      Corbett, Robin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allan, Richard

      Corston, Jean

      Allen, Graham

      Cotter, Brian

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cranston, Ross

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Crausby, David

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cummings, John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Austin, John

      Ballard, Jackie

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Dalyell, Tam

      Battle, John

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Beard, Nigel

      Darvill, Keith

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Davidson, Ian

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Benton, Joe

      Denham, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dismore, Andrew

      Berry, Roger

      Dobbin, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Doran, Frank

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ennis,Jeff

      Breed, Colin

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      Browne, Desmond

      Flint, Caroline

      Burden, Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Burgon, Colin

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gardiner, Barry

      Canavan, Dennis

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gerrard, Neil

      Casale, Roger

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hanson, David

      Clelland, David

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Connarty, Michael

      Heppell, John

      472

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Hope, Phil

      Mountford, Kali

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mudie, George

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Oaten, Mark

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hurst, Alan

      Olner, Bill

      Hutton, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Illsley, Eric

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jamieson, David

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keetch, Paul

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kidney, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Laxton, Bob

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Lepper, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Rendel, David

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rogers, Allan

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Linton, Martin

      Rooney, Terry

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lock, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Love, Andrew

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCabe, Steve

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Salter, Martin

      Sanders, Adrian

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McDonnell, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McFall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McWilliam, John

      Singh, Marsha

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Maxton, John

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Meale, Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Merron, Gillian

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Stevenson, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moore, Michael

      Stunell, Andrew

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      473

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Webb, Steve

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      White, Brian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Todd, Mark

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Touhig, Don

      Willis, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Wilson, Brian

      Truswell, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Wood, Mike

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Worthington, Tony

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wray, James

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tyler, Paul

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Tynan, Bill

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Watts, David

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      NOES

      Beggs, Roy

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Cash, William

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gale, Roger

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Gray, James

      Thompson, William

      Hunter, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Leigh, Edward

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Maginnis, Ken

      Mr. David Maclean and

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. Peter Bottomley.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      SHORT TITLE
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      2.15 pm
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The clause is short, but it causes me confusion. In my 20 years in the House—
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there must be order in Committee so that he can be heard.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Thank you, Sir Alan.
      I have spent more than 20 years in the House, and I have been confused on several occasions. When confusion afflicts me, it is best to share it with the House in the hope that colleagues can clarify matters.
      The Bill is riddled with the word "disqualification". The clause states that the measure can be called the Disqualifications Bill. That is consistent with the title on the front page. The Home Secretary's contribution on the European convention on human rights states that
      "the provisions of the Disqualifications Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."
      474
      The Government acknowledge in the Bill's title that the measure is about disqualification.
      Mr. Leigh: The Bill is mistitled because it is not a Disqualifications Bill. It removes disqualifications and should be called the Qualification of Irish Members Bill.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which he presented with characteristic clarity. If he is so minded, he may take an opportunity to catch your eye, Sir Alan, to explore that matter further. However, I do not want to focus on that.
      The long title of the Bill contains the word "disqualification" once and "disqualify" once. As we have noted in earlier debates—though I shall not return to those matters, as you would not wish me to do that, Sir Alan, and it would be wrong to try—
      The Chairman: I do not want extraneous advice of that kind from the right hon. Gentleman. He must stick to the point of the clause, which is very narrow.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I accept your ruling without reservation, Sir Alan. I am establishing the point that the word "disqualification" in clause 4— [Interruption.]
      Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Most of us who have been listening to debate on the Bill for the whole night are trying to hear my right hon. Friend's speech. We cannot hear either your rulings, Sir Alan, or the speech because of the noise coming from Government Members—who should have been here all night making speeches themselves.
      The Chairman: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is quite the best person to make that comment. I most certainly have been here all night—and as I have listened with great care to the proceedings so far, so I wish to listen with great care to the completion of those proceedings.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Clause 4 states that the Bill can be referred to as the Disqualifications Bill, which is consistent with the Government's approach throughout. I am not reopening any of the issues, but pointing out that the word "disqualification" or "disqualified" regularly appears throughout the Bill.
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has already committed one repetition. I do not want to hear any more.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: "Disqualification" characterises the Government's attitude to this and previous legislation—all of which is referred to in the Bill.
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) suggested that a more accurate

      475
      title would be the Qualification of Irish Members Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a more accurate title would actually be the Removal of Disqualifications Bill?
      The Chairman: Order. Again, that repeats a point already made. I will not have constant repetition on a clause this narrow.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I will not pursue my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion.
      I was making the broader point that the Bill's title sits comfortably with the general attitude of Government legislation on Northern Ireland. The 1998 Act, which is central to our considerations, also talks about disqualification. The Bill refers to the 1975 Act from a Labour Government, which similarly refers to disqualification.
      The Government talk about social inclusion. They have a social inclusion unit at 10 Downing street and have spent two and a half years—right to this 1,000th day of the present Government, when they lost control of the House of Commons—lecturing us about social inclusion and not excluding or disqualifying people.
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is departing far from the topic before the Committee, which is a simple matter of determining the title of the Bill. He has great experience of the House and must direct his remarks precisely to that point.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: As always, I am grateful for your advice, Sir Alan, but my purpose is not to widen the debate beyond the clause. As you remarked, we are deciding whether it should stand part of the Bill.
      When the Minister replies to what I suspect will be a brief debate, will he explain why a Government who are focused on inclusion—so they tell us—have introduced a Bill that they discuss in terms of disqualification or exclusion?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the title Disqualifications Bill is insensitive, especially on the day on which we have been told that students from the south of Ireland will not have to pay fees at Scottish universities, although those from the north of Ireland will?
      The Chairman: Order. That is absolutely nothing to do with the matter before us.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I would not have dreamed of following my hon. Friend down that line, even before you, Sir Alan, had ruled that I should not do so.
      I am trying to put a serious point to the Government. They could have chosen a number of titles. The clause, on which we are focusing, did not have to refer to disqualification and could have used inclusive rather than exclusive terms. We see again that they say one thing but do another. As we continue Tuesday's business and Wednesday's is lost, and as we show that the Prime Minister has no control—
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of abusing his poison, as those are not matters to
      476
      which he may refer. I must tell the Committee that if he repeats his remarks, and if I believe under Standing Order No. 42 that a Member
      "persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition",
      I may require him to resume his seat. I am sure that he would not want me to invoke that provision against him.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I certainly would not, Sir Alan. I want the Minister to explain why the clause uses such terms, given Government policy.
      Mr. Maclean rose—
      Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can you help me and the Committee with the wording of the clause? Is it incorrect? It says:
      "This Act may be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000."
      Surely it should be—
      The Chairman: Order. That is common parlance in all Bills that come before the House. That is not a point of order. I call Mr. Maclean.
      Mr. Wells: May I seek your advice, Sir Alan?
      The Chairman: Order. I have ruled on the matter. Is this a fresh point of order?
      Mr. Wells: It is fresh, as I see it, and I hope that you will see it in the same light. A Bill cannot become an Act—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember his position. He is seeking to dispute my ruling. He should consider that he is not the most appropriate person to challenge the Chair in that way.
      Mr. Wells rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to persist.
      Mr. Wells: I am very sorry, Sir Alan, but I am not trying to challenge your ruling in any way—I do not understand it. Did you say that using such words is common practice?
      The Chairman: Absolutely. That is perfectly clear, as the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House for many years, well knows. That is the end of the matter. I again call Mr. Maclean.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I want to raise a small point on clause 4, on which I hope the Minister can advise us. The clause provides that the Act may be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000. [Interruption.] I hope and believe that I am right in saying that it is usual for the parliamentary draftsmen—[Interruption.]—
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I must have order in the Committee. If hon. Members are present to listen to the debate, they must do precisely that.
      Mr. Maclean: Thank you for your protection, Sir Alan.

      477
      I understand that it is usual for parliamentary draftsmen to select a short title to an Act that is entirely consistent with the long title. My concern is about a technical point, which I hope is in order. The long title of the Bill, soon to become an Act, includes the words
      "remove the disqualification for membership".
      However, the thrust of the Bill is about enabling people in another Parliament to sit in this Parliament, so it is about giving people a qualification.
      The long title refers to removing the disqualification, whereas the short title is the Disqualifications Act. Did the Government decide on the short title and overrule the parliamentary draftsmen? Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the short title was proposed by the legal advisers and parliamentary draftsmen, or whether, as it is inconsistent with the proper long title, it was a political decision taken by the Government to make a word mean what it does not mean?
      I think that I have made my point. I hope that it is clear. I have no wish to repeat it, but I urge the Minister to comment on it.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is there any way in which you, as Chairman of the Committee, could enable us to hear a statement, perhaps from the official Opposition, explaining why they chose to deprive their leader, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) of the opportunity to challenge the Prime Minister this afternoon?
      The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan.
      The Chairman: Order. I have just ruled that it was not a point of order.
      Mr. Maginnis: The interesting thing about the title of the Bill is that it reflects neither the pressures nor the purpose that motivated the Government to bring it before the House. As it deals with the qualification of Members of the Dail and the Seanad to be Members of this House or the House of Lords, I looked into the number of people who would be qualified to become Members of this Parliament. I discovered that there were 166 in the Dail and 60 in the Seanad.
      I know many of the people who would qualify under the Disqualifications Act 2000. I have dined and lunched with quite a few of them in the past fortnight, and I know no one who has any interest whatever in the Act. In fact, the opposite is the case.
      The Chairman: Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about the Bill as a whole. He must direct himself to the narrow point contained in clause 4.
      Mr. Maginnis: Indeed, Sir Alan, I want to stick with the title because it is seen as a misnomer. The Bill is seen as something designed exclusively to facilitate Sinn Fein-IRA. Whereas the House will give the Bill the imaginative name "Disqualifications Act 2000", in
      478
      Northern Ireland and among members of the press, the Bill has already been given a somewhat tasteless but, I reluctantly have to admit, appropriate acronym. That acronym is BITCH—Blair's Irish terrorist charter.
      The significance of the Disqualifications Act 2000, or BITCH, as it will no doubt be called in future—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may realise that he has probably overstepped the mark of order. There is no way in which that name could be a substitute in parliamentary language for what is in the clause. He must address his remarks to the clause and whether he believes that it should stand part of the Bill. There are no amendments to the clause on the amendment paper. The question is whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Maginnis: Thank you, Sir Alan. I agree that it is unfortunate that the Committee spends so long taking a Bill that is so objectionable to so many people—
      The Chairman: Order. I do not want to hear any circuitous arguments. The hon. Gentleman must direct himself to the clause or I will ask him to resume his place.
      Mr. Maginnis: Thank you, Sir Alan. The fact is that the Disqualifications Act 2000 will, whatever it is called, bring a degree—
      The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would take my advice. He may not talk about the Bill or its effects, or what people think about it. He may say only whether the Bill, or Act as it may become, should be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000. That is the only point before the Committee. I will not allow him to extend further than that.
      Mr. Maginnis: Sir Alan, you assist me in so far as you indicate in a reverse way the very point that I want to make. Whatever we call the Bill—I conclude with this point—it will invoke among hon. Members a huge amount of—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing his position. I call Mr. Ian Bruce.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: My remarks will be both in order and very brief, Sir Alan.
      We all understand that, when Bills are brought before us in Committee, they are considered line by line, with the exception of the long title and the trade description title that goes with the Bill. I ask the Minister to think carefully about how the Bill will be considered in the future. Lawyers and others will want to be able to find the relevant legislation. My colleagues have already said that the Bill is not a disqualification Bill but one that lifts disqualifications for people.
      It may have been sensible if we had tabled some amendments to the title. The dichotomy and the catch-22 that the Committee is in is that, once the Government

      479
      have decided to produce and publish a Bill with a name such as the Disqualifications Bill, it is difficult for someone to table an amendment that would be in order.
      The Chairman: Order. This is all very interesting, and the hon. Gentleman might like to find an opportunity for an Adjournment debate on the matter or to make a submission to the Procedure Committee, but it is not in order for him to discuss the matter in a clause 4 stand part debate. There was an opportunity to table amendments and none were tabled, so we are able to discuss only clause 4 as it stands.
      Mr. Bruce: I was simply trying to make the point that, had I tried to table an amendment, it would have been refused—
      The Chairman: Order. That may be an interesting procedural point, but it is not one that can be made at present. Does the hon. Gentleman have other points to make that are relevant?
      Mr. Bruce: In all humility, I ask the Minister whether, before the Bill goes to the other place, there is a device by which I would not fall foul of the rules of procedure on tabling amendments, which would enable the Bill's title to be changed to something more appropriate. That is my simple plea.
      Mr. Leigh: It is important that the short title of a Bill as important as this should adequately explain the Bill's purport to the general public. In some ways it does that. The word "disqualification" appears in the short title, so one would expect to find some reference to disqualification in the Bill and for the title adequately to reflect to a wider public what is contained in it. If we think in terms of a disqualification Bill, we presumably think of a Bill that disqualifies somebody.
      Clause 2 makes it clear that the Bill disqualifies some people. It states:
      "No person may—

      (a) stand for election as First Minister or as deputy First Minister, or be elected as such,

      (b) be nominated to hold a Ministerial office, or

      (c) be appointed as a junior Minister,

      if he is a Minister of the Government of Ireland."
      Therefore, the short title describes what is in clause 2.
      However, clause 2 is only part of the Bill. My complaint about the short title is that clause 2 is not the heart and guts of the Bill. It was inserted after representations were made to the Government, but it is not what the Bill is really about. The Bill is not about disqualifying a Minister in the Irish Government; it is about qualifying people who are Members of the Irish Parliament to sit in this Parliament. That is my argument with it.
      There is a political point to be made. The debate would have been much shorter if the Bill had simply been concerned with qualifying or disqualifying Members of the Irish Parliament. The Bill has aroused such passion because it is not about qualifying or disqualifying
      480
      Members of the Irish Parliament, but about qualifying known terrorists to use offices in this House of Commons. That is what infuriates people.
      The Chairman: Order. That is going far too wide of this stand part debate on clause 4.
      Mr. Leigh: It remains true, however, that a short title should adequately reflect to the general public what is in the Bill.
      It may be said in the Bill's defence that it amends previous legislation. Clause 1 says that the Bill amends
      "Section 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and section 1(1)(e) of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualification of member of the legislature of any country outside the Commonwealth)".
      It may be argued that the short title does not adequately convey the political purport, the guts and the sense of the Bill, but I must turn my argument on its head and approach the matter from a different direction. Because the Bill amends previous legislation, it is probably true that the Government had no choice but to call it the Disqualifications Act 2000.
      2.45 pm
      I understand the Government's dilemma, caused by their uncertainty about how to frame their proposals. In the context of the procedure of the House, it would be interesting to know whether, when they introduce a Bill such as this that repeals earlier legislation, they must use the language—in terms of the short title—that was contained in that earlier legislation. I am not sure that they must, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten me.
      Generally, Bills repeal or amend legislation in some way. It would be ridiculous for all of them to have the same titles as previous Bills, and I cannot believe that the Government are arguing for that. Why, then, are they calling this the Disqualifications Bill?
      Mr. Robathan: In referring to the short title, my hon. Friend has identified the confusion that lies at the heart of the Bill. The fact that we cannot tell from the short title whether the Bill is intended to disqualify people or to qualify them demonstrates the error of making constitutional change off the cuff, as the Government have been doing.
      The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members are in danger of repeating themselves. There is a limit to the number of words that can be devoted to this matter.
      Mr. Leigh: There is, indeed, a limit to the number of words that may be devoted to this matter, but, Sir Alan, there is no limit to the anger that Conservative Members feel. That is why we shall continue to try to show the British public exactly what this grubby little Bill is trying to achieve.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The title of the Bill is a matter for parliamentary draftsmen; Ministers have not been involved in decisions of that kind. The Bill amends

      481
      legislation relating to disqualifications and adds a new disqualification relating to Irish Ministers who cannot be Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive.
      Mr. Howard: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: No, I will not.
      Mr. Howard rose—
      The Chairman: Order. Both Members must now take their seats. It is not clear to me whether the Minister is giving way. He must indicate that he is, or indicate otherwise; but if he does not give way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am not going to give way, Sir Alan.
      I have made a genuine attempt to reply to the points that have been made, but it has sometimes been difficult for me to do so, because some hon. Members have not been able to get through their speeches without having to be brought to order. I have, however, tried to respond to points that seemed to me to penetrate the semantic discursiveness, bluster and other Tory games.
      Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Sir Alan. The Minister may have forgotten that he was brought to order twice in succession earlier.
      The Chairman: That is not a point of order. I have had to say that more than once to the hon. Gentleman today.
      Mr. Howard: Although I spoke on Second Reading, I did not intend to speak in this debate. However, I was astonished by what the Minister just said about clause 4. He told the Committee that clause 4 was a matter for the parliamentary draftsmen, and that Ministers had not been involved. Is he denying any ministerial responsibility for clause 4?
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not realise that new Labour is allergic to clause IV?
      Mr. Howard: That is a tempting suggestion, but I suspect that you, Sir Alan, would not look with approval on any attempt by me to respond to it.
      There is a serious point, which is of absolute and direct relevance to whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. I was astonished that he did not give way to me, but I hope that he will deal specifically with this fundamental point: is he standing at the Dispatch Box and denying ministerial responsibility for clause 4?
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, a former Home Secretary, puts his reputation on the line by making such silly points. We are clearly responsible for the Bill. The point that I was making was in reply to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who had asked me a specific question about whether Ministers had intervened to alter the view of the parliamentary draftsmen about the name on the Bill, to which I gave a clear indication that Ministers had not.
      482
      With his long experience in the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that Ministers are responsible for the Bill. He demeans himself by indulging in the sort of discursive tactics that have been deployed by the Tory party and in the games that Tory Members have visited on the Committee all night. We have seen bluster and discussions. The public will have seen the sort of Conservative party that has taken part in the debate.
      The Chairman: Order. That is well outside the debate on clause 4 stand part.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      DISQUALIFICATION FROM MINISTERIAL OFFICE IN UNITED KINGDOM
      "No person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland (the Oireachtas) may hold any Ministerial position, or be a Party Whip, or be a member of the Government of the United Kingdom.".—[Mr. William Ross.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 8—Minister of the Crown—
      "No person elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and also to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland may become a Minister of the Crown.".
      New clause 9—Disqualification from ministerial office in the United Kingdom—
      ".—(1) No person may be appointed to ministerial office in the government of the United Kingdom if he is a member of the government of Ireland.
      (2) A minister in the government of the United Kingdom ceases to hold office on becoming a minister of the government of Ireland.".
      Amendment No. 34, in title, line 4, after "Ireland", insert "or the United Kingdom".
      Mr. Ross: We are coming to the end of the Bill. We have heard it described as a modest little measure, but those who over the past 23 hours have examined it continuously, line by line—each crossed "t" and dotted "i"—know that, although the Bill seems modest, it has vast implications. We have looked at it carefully. Sadly, the only bluster has been from Ministers, because we have had no answers out of them. That remains the case.
      New clause 2 stands in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). New clause 8 is in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tabled other amendments. They all try to accomplish the same end. They try to ensure that no person who is a member of the legislature of Ireland may hold any ministerial position—be it as a Whip, or any other position—in the UK Government. That is in broad terms the gist of my

      483
      new clause, but the hon. Members who have tabled amendments will no doubt speak to them and explain their thinking.
      Yesterday, the Minister largely admitted the validity of the point at issue in the amendments, so the Government are in no position to resist the principle in the amendments. [Interruption.] I thought that I saw a faint smile starting to spread over the Minister's face and a half nod. I was beginning to hope that he was going to bounce to his feet and to explain that he was about to accept the amendments. Sadly, he is waiting to be convinced to the last fibre of his being that the principle that he supports is correctly set forth in the amendments.
      I am fairly easy about which amendment the Minister accepts. Naturally, I hope that he will accept the one that is in my name. The Minister may, however, decide to opt for new clause 8—which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, who has been quite active in our debates.
      Liberal Democrat Members have expressed clear concerns in new clause 9—which is perhaps only a probing amendment, although I hope it is not. I hope that they will press their new clause to a Division. We should have a Division on all three of the new clauses in this group, to determine which one the Committee favours. We have plenty of time to do so; the 10 o'clock motion still stands, and we could go right through the night again.
      Mr. Swayne: New clause 2, which was tabled by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), differs from the other new clauses and the amendment in this group in proposing to exclude members of the legislature of Ireland from serving as a party Whip in the United Kingdom. Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee as to why he has included that office as an exclusion in new clause 2? Does he extend the exclusion to the position of Opposition Whip, or does it apply only to the position of Government Whip?
      Mr. Ross: As you will know from your own experience in the House, Sir Alan, there is barely an hon. Member who does not bear on his or her back the deep and vivid marks of the Whips. The same is true in every legislature in the world. Time and again, Whips drive unwilling Members into the Lobby. The Government must have their business, but the duty of Opposition parties must be to oppose the Government and to explore what Ministers are trying to do, so that Opposition Members are able—for the benefit of our constituents and of citizens of the United Kingdom generally—to gain a clearer understanding of Government policy. So often, however, although we labour long and hard, ultimately, we have very little to show for it.
      The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) should therefore know why I want to include Whips in the new clause. People who have gained experience and learned their trade in a Whips office in a foreign state should in no circumstances be given a position of responsibility in, or be allowed anywhere near, the United Kingdom legislature. God knows we have so many problems with our home-grown variety of Whip that we do not want to import any.
      484
      I see the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) shaking in his shoes, and I appreciate the bad experiences that he must have had with Whips.
      Mr. Miller: My Whip is sitting right next to me.
      Mr. Ross: My Whip is sitting beside me too. Although I have served as a Whip, I have always believed that, if one wants to achieve good results and full co-operation, it is better to use kindness and purr like a cat than to use a cat-o'-nine-tails. I believe that a reasoned approach and careful explanation of the merits of the Government's and the party's position will always produce a far greater harvest of benefits than the thuggery in which, sadly, the major party's Whips occasionally indulge.
      In the years since I was first elected to the House and walked through the doors of the Chamber, I have known many Whips. To my cost, I have learned that they are people not to be trifled with in any circumstances.
      Mr. Fabricant: Mr. Martin, may I say how nice it is to see you in the Chamber, in your Chair?
      Does the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) agree that, earlier today, the Government conceded that there is an argument that there should not be a conflict of interest between those who are in positions of power in the Government and those who are Members of the Dail? Ministers also said that they were minded to accept amendment No. 7. Should not Ministers therefore think that there would be more continuity in their position if they also accepted new clause 2?
      Mr. Ross: That is the very point that I was making at the beginning of my speech. The plain truth is that the Government are duty bound—they are forced by their own admission, made earlier in our debates at about 4 am—to do so. That admission was made at about the same time as Ministers admitted that the Bill is a result of discussions that they had with Sinn Fein-IRA. These things are emblazoned on my mind. I am conscious that getting admissions from the Government was like squeezing blood from a rather dry stone.
      Mr. Martin Bell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to one who has no Whips' marks on his back what purpose is served by these extended and lamentable proceedings?
      3 pm
      Mr. Ross: The reason for the lengthy proceedings is to try and get answers from the Government. The hon. Gentleman bears on his body the marks of his previous occupation, in which he made assiduous efforts to get at the truth. We are merely carrying on the hon. Gentleman's assiduity in that respect.
      Mr. Swayne: Some of us are entering the 22nd hour scrutinising the Bill—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I will not tolerate any discussion of the length of our proceedings. I know as

      485
      well as anyone else how lengthy they have been. Hon. Members must confine their remarks to the new clause and amendments.
      Mr. Ross: I accept your strictures, Mr. Martin, but I hope that you can tell me whether it is in order for me to respond to an unjustified attack?
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the amendments and the new clause.
      Mr. Ross: In that case, I shall certainly try and stay in order.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: The difficulty for the hon. Gentleman is that he is used to giving straight answers to straight questions, unlike the right hon. Gentleman who normally answers questions on a Wednesday.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
      Mr. Ross: I agree that the hon. Gentleman was slightly wide of the mark with that remark. However, I understand his frustration that, because of the Government's delaying tactics, he has no opportunity to question the Prime Minister.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not talk about the Prime Minister. The House is in Committee, and hon. Members must confine themselves to consideration of the amendments.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is a point of order.
      Mr. Howarth: I believe that it is, Mr. Martin. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was trying to explain why he has moved his new clause. The intervention from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) was out of order, not the remarks of the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.
      Mr. Ross: As you say, Mr. Martin, we must get on. The Minister must be tired and may have work to attend to. I do not want to keep him from that.
      The Government earlier conceded the principle behind these important amendments. They should merely accept the amendments. New clause 8 states:
      "No person elected to the parliament of the United Kingdom and also to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland may become a Minister of the Crown."
      It is clear that the new clause recognises that a United Kingdom Cabinet Minister would be in a peculiar and impossible position. His duty would be to the people, the Crown and Parliament.
      Such a Minister would normally be a Privy Councillor, and certain information would be given to him in strict confidence. That was alluded to some 20 hours ago. It
      486
      would be difficult enough to keep such information from his friends and colleagues, but if he made the occasional slip it would be understood and the matter treated with due respect and confidence by his colleagues in the House. That would not necessarily be true if he made a mistake when dealing with a Minister who was a citizen of a foreign country with responsibilities to that nation, its constitution and its people. Such a person might use any information gleaned in that way to the benefit of that nation rather than that of the United Kingdom. I think that we should guard against that happening by making dead certain that the folk who make up the Government of the United Kingdom are citizens of this nation and no other.
      I have already explained why the party Whips are included in this proposal. In addition, new clause 2 refers to
      "a member of the Government of the United Kingdom.".
      As has been said time and again, the plain truth is that people find it difficult to get the right words on to the amendment paper. I put down this wording, not because I was confident that it was right but to try and ensure that I caught all those not covered who could be considered as Members of the Government.
      Mr. Levitt: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I do not know whether you noticed, but the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), entered the Chamber a few minutes ago, took one look around and left in disgust. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] Is it permissible to inquire of the Father of the House whether he has ever seen such blatant filibustering in all the 50-odd years he has been a Member of the House?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members, including the Father of the House, can come and go as they please. That is not a point of order.
      Mr. Ross: That is not the recollection that I had of the Father of the House, whom I have known for a long time.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not need any more references to the Father of the House. He does not deserve to be treated in this manner. We must get to the amendments before us—that is the duty of hon. Members.
      Mr. Ross: Perhaps the Father of the House was so enthralled with the strong defence that has been made—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means has commented on the Standing Orders. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House longer than I, and he knows that he must keep to the narrow amendments before us.
      Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. You told my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) that his point was not a point of order. If it is not, according to your ruling, that is the end of the matter—I would not dream of challenging your ruling. The speeches of Opposition Members are more or less in order—although I notice that you and your predecessors, Mr. Martin, have had to intervene to ensure that they are, certainly in the past few hours—but would you not agree that the proceedings are being unnecessarily prolonged?

      487
      [HON. MEMBERS: "By bogus points of order."] Although that may be in order, surely it is obvious that Conservative and Unionist Members are deliberately prolonging the proceedings as much as possible.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is for the Chair to give guidance to hon. Members if they stray from an amendment or a new clause. That sometimes happens to hon. Members, so I am giving the Committee guidance. No one, as far as I am concerned, has been involved in causing any undue delay. If they did, I would give a ruling. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), however, is straying from the amendments, and I appeal to him to return to them.
      Mr. Ross: The problem is that although I try to stick to the amendments, I am constantly interrupted and I have to respond.
      Mr. Fabricant rose—
      Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman want to—
      Mr. Fabricant: Interrupt?
      Mr. Ross: I thought that the correct word was "intervene". I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In discussing new clause 2, he mentioned the power of the Whip—[Interruption.] Mr. Martin, I ask for your protection to allow me to continue.
      Does the hon. Member for East Londonderry think that the power of the Whips was exemplified by their marked interventions in points of order earlier? [Interruption.]
      Mr. Ross rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The amendment and the new clauses do not refer to the power of the Whips; they refer to the positions held by hon. Members. We should be talking about the positions of Ministers, not about their power. I call Mr. Ross.
      Mr. Swayne rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene before the hon. Member for East Londonderry has even risen from his seat.
      Mr. Ross: We are concerned about the influence of the Whips, should they be appointed to positions of power. In those circumstances, we should bear my points in mind although, after all these hours in Committee, I am not putting them as concisely—
      Mr. Swayne: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. Will he give way?
      Mr. Ross: Of course.
      Mr. Swayne: You are entirely correct, Mr. Martin. The point relates to the position of the Whips, not to their
      488
      influence. My hon. Friend has begun to see sinister conspiracies and influences where there are none. Whatever the position of the Whips may have been, they have manifestly been unable to save Labour's 1,000th day.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are going far too wide. I plead with the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who is a long-serving Member, to remain within the scope of the amendments.
      Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I want to draw my remarks to a close, because several other Members want to speak.
      The intent of the new clauses is clear and the wording is reasonably good. In the light of that and of your strictures, Mr. Martin, and bearing in mind the fact that I am continually interrupted, I commend the new clauses to the Committee. I hope for support from Conservative Members and from my colleagues and for a happy and sensible response—for once—from the Minister.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: It falls to me to respond to this part of the debate. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) referred to the lamentable proceedings of the Committee. I do not want to distract attention from the debate, but we have arrived at new clause 2 after a sitting of the Committee that began yesterday. Although you keep good order, according to the House rules, Mr. Martin, I think that the public will judge that last night showed the House at its worst.
      The new clauses have been included because there is concern as to a conflict of interest—
      Mr. Brady rose—
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that it is a point of order.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. When I stand, the hon. Gentleman must be seated. I hope that his is a genuine point of order. There have been so many points of order that the flow of the Committee's proceedings has been somewhat delayed.
      Mr. Cash: New clause 8 is tabled in my name. Will you assure me, Mr. Martin, that it will be called? I have heard references to other provisions that are not in the group that we are discussing. I want to be sure that my new clause will be called.
      The First Deputy Chairman: It is quite clear from the selection list that new clause 8 is grouped with new clause 2. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to catch my eye if he wants to take part in the proceedings.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will no doubt find that his point of order—like many others that were made during the night—does not amount

      489
      to much. It is merely another attempt to delay proceedings. However, let us continue with the substance of what we are supposed to be here to deal with.
      3.15 pm
      A conflict of interests may arise where a Member of the Irish Parliament becomes a Minister in the House of Commons. I should like to set out why I believe that in some instances that may well be the case, but in other instances it may not. There are already ways in which that problem can be guarded against without necessitating some of the amendments before us.
      Some hon. Members in the Chamber may feel that the amendments are in line with clause 2, which prevents Members of the Irish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly from being Ministers in both places. However, I shall explain why that is not the case.
      When we began these debates on Monday, I set out at length why we felt that a conflict of interests did not necessarily arise from an individual being a member of one legislature and being a Minister in another legislature. That may well be a matter for the electorate of the various constituencies concerned to decide, in which case we can leave it to the people to decide. If a person becomes a Minister and decides that they have a particular responsibility to the electorate in the area, it will be up to the electorate in the other area to decide whether the ministerial role is appropriate for their representative.
      Mr. Gale: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I will not. I shall make progress and then, towards the end of my speech, I may give way to the hon. Gentleman and one or two others.
      However, hon. Members might hold views about the propriety of dual mandates in principle. This is not the right Bill to give rise to a discussion of whether current disqualification provisions need to be reviewed. The provisions as they stand enable members from distinct legislatures to take up seats in more than one legislature. For example, we know from previous debates on the Bill that members of the Commonwealth are at least permitted in principle, if not in practice—there are none—to be Members also of the House.
      The Bill fits with the established principles in our constitution at the moment. If hon. Members wish to change that part of our constitution, that is a matter for them. This is not the place to do it. They may find some suitable vehicle to do it. Some hon. Members who are present may well feel that they wish gratuitously to impose a ban on Commonwealth legislators, but I do not propose to go into the reasons for or against that.
      I can see how the holding of ministerial positions in more than one legislature, especially if they are in two different countries, could lead to complications and conflicts of interest. In that sense, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and I are not too far apart. We are far apart on the detail of these amendments, but on some of the principles, at least in terms of ministerial conflict, we are not too far apart. That is why clause 2 was included in the Bill. Indeed, the Scotland Act 1998 makes similar provision at section 44(3). That section prevents Members of the Scottish Executive from also being Ministers in the United Kingdom Government.
      490
      A Scottish Minister would be required to relinquish their position in the Scottish Executive before becoming a Minister at Westminster.
      Mr. Gale rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I have already said that I will, and I shall not give way to him now.
      Some may say that the provision in section 44(3) of the Scotland Act 1998 is similar to what is proposed by new clause 9. However, there are differences, which I shall explain. Clause 2 was included in the Bill because the procedures followed to select Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly differ from the procedures followed in other UK legislatures. That is an important distinction. In the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Westminster Parliament, the Prime Minister or First Minister has a discretion in choosing their Cabinet.
      Any Prime Minister or First Minister would seriously consider matters such as conflict of interest before choosing any person to serve in their Government—even more so if they were contemplating selecting a Cabinet Member who was already a Minister, or even a member of another legislature. It is difficult to envisage that that would happen for any prolonged period. Likewise, should a situation arise where the Prime Minister or First Minister felt that a member of the Cabinet was not able to fulfil their role adequately for whatever reason, he or she would see to it that that person was no longer a Minister.
      There is already a de facto protection against the sorts of problems that the hon. Member for East Londonderry has put before the House, and we discussed some of the principles behind those issues on Second Reading.
      That is not the case with the Northern Ireland Assembly. Here, Ministers are selected automatically by the d'Hondt mechanism, as set out in the Good Friday agreement. The First Minister does not have that sort of discretion in choosing the Cabinet and the Executive, and cannot therefore have the same sort of discretion in dismissing Ministers who may give rise to conflicts of interests.
      Under these circumstances, clause 2 was thought to be necessary to provide a legislative safeguard. I am not without sympathy for some of the points raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, but we have dealt with them in terms of the de facto practice within our constitutional arrangements. Methods are there to deal with such matters. We recognised that, in Northern Ireland, the situation is different and we needed special provision.
      Mr. Gale: At an early hour of this morning, when the Minister was not on the Front Bench—I do not chide him for that—we discussed this issue. It was conceded that while clause 2 was, as the Minister said, relevant to Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, it had no bearing on the matters under discussion in these clauses.
      Those clauses—as was conceded by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the small hours of the morning—relate to the right of a Minister to be a Minister of State or Secretary of State, even for Northern Ireland, and to be a Minister in a Government of the Irish republic. Patently, that would mean that a

      491
      Minister of the Crown would be a Minister of another sovereign Government, and there could be a direct conflict of interest. That is a matter of record and, with great respect, I do not think that praying clause 2 in aid counts a fig in this matter.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman will know that these matters have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. However, in cases where it is possible for there to be a decision by Prime Ministers or First Ministers—at least in legislatures in Scotland, Britain and Wales—the Executive has the ability to determine the issues. From what the hon. Gentleman says, I think that he accepts the constitutional situation.
      However, the hon. Gentleman is putting an entirely different matter to me—the issue of whether a Northern Irish Executive member who was also appointed to become a member of the Dublin Executive would be in a different position. We are seeking to work our way through the constitutional arrangements to ensure that we get those things right.
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that that is precisely the issue that the hon. Member wants to raise with me.
      Mr. Ross: I do want to ask about that. I am curious as to whether the term "Minister" always includes the term "junior Minister", as that is not in the Bill. Will the Minister take on board the fact that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, once elected, then become Ministers of the Government of Ireland. I am not sure if he is aware that if one has to resign, they both go.
      The problem that I see is that clause 2(2) does not mention the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister who are different from all the other Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. Will the Minister recognise that and carefully reconsider the position?
      Mr. O'Brien: I was not entirely able to pick up the essence of the hon. Gentleman's point. Will he encapsulate it for me again, so that I can deal with it?
      Mr. Ross: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are as one. If one falls, they both fall. Are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister looked upon as Ministers within the Northern Ireland Executive? That does not appear to be the case according to clause 2(2).
      Mr. O'Brien: I am advised that they are, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. I shall talk to those who advise me on the legal issues and perhaps I can then provide the hon. Gentleman with a definitive written answer.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister explained perfectly reasonably the difference between the way in which Ministers are chosen in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the way in which they are chosen in the UK Parliament. Does he not accept, however, that in one respect there is a similarity between them? One does not have to offer one's
      492
      services to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly just as one does not have to offer one's services in the UK Parliament. Although the First Minister does not control which parties receive the nominations and who comes forward, we could legislate to ensure that no one who is a Minister in the Government of Ireland shall allow himself to be nominated or appointed as a Minister in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. We could legislate for that and wrap up the different Northern Ireland and UK Parliaments in one amendment.
      Mr. O'Brien: I should like to consider the hon. Gentleman's point. On the face of it, it is reasonable. I shall think about the issues and, again, I might write to him.
      Let me make it clear that the word "Minister" includes the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister under section 7(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1988 and that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister follow the normal procedures for filling a vacancy. I make it clear, however, that I give no undertakings to accept the new clauses, but I shall consider in a reasonable way the points that have been made.
      It is not right for the legislature here, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament to seek to circumscribe the freedom of Prime Ministers and First Ministers in their choice of Government. To some extent, that would interfere with the way in which Governments operate. We took a view about how we set up devolution in Scotland and Wales and if those two resulting bodies attempted to create restrictions, I would prefer that the initiative came at least with consultation initiated by the devolved bodies.
      The proper way for the British, Scottish and Welsh legislatures to deal with these issues is for the First Ministers or the Prime Minister to deal with potential conflicts of interest. Consequently, I am not prepared to accept the new clauses, but I shall consider the issues and write to hon. Members in due course. We have not got entirely closed minds on the issues of conflicts of interest. In due course, some further opportunity might well present itself. If a conflict of interest were obvious, we might at that stage be able to take on board some of the points raised.
      3.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: When we began Committee stage at 5.30 pm on Tuesday, little did I think that the sole new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats would not be reached until 3.30 pm on Wednesday. I was advised that it would all be over by midnight, but that was not to be.
      Mr. Bermingham: So keep it short.
      Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that all of my speeches and those of other Liberal Democrat members have been short. We have been constructive and concise on each issue and we shall be so on this one.
      Mr. Bermingham rose—
      Mr. Hughes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman but once.
      Mr. Bermingham: But once I ask. Having set his own good example, the hon. Gentleman should follow it, ensure that the rest of his party does so as well, and say nothing.
      Mr. Hughes: If one tables new clauses—
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to assist the hon. Gentleman. I absolve him, unlike other Opposition Members, of prevarication, delay and discursion.
      Mr. Hughes: If benediction from a junior Home Office Minister helps me, I am grateful for it. To those who came this afternoon thinking that they were to watch play on centre court but who have instead ended up watching matches on courts Nos. 1 or 14, we apologise, even though the problem was not of our making. I hope that they feel that, to a certain extent, they got their money's worth.
      New clause 9 is similar to, but different from, new clause 2. It deals with an issue that has come up in several contexts, but is most properly addressed in this group of amendments. In our view, no one should be able to hold simultaneously ministerial office in the Irish Government and ministerial office in the British Government or in the Northern Ireland Government.
      I concur with the Minister's first point. We have always argued that there is no necessary incompatibility with being a member of two legislatures. We share that view with the Government. We have also accepted that someone might manage to be a Minister in one and a Back Bencher in another. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has argued, on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and other colleagues, that no one should be able to be a Minister in both. We agree.
      There is a strong conflict of interests. Someone who is a member of the Government in one country cannot simultaneously and without conflicts of interest arising be a member of the Government of another sovereign country—
      Mr. Duncan: Or in the legislature?
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has not been here much during our debate, so he might not realise that there is a difference. A Member of a legislature represents his or her constituents and expresses his or her views, but does not determine the policy of the Executive. Such influence is clearly wielded by any member of the Government. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that there is broad agreement on the fact that there is a difference of substance.
      The Minister suggested that there is a difference between Northern Ireland ministerial positions, which is why clause 2 contains specific provision in that respect, and other ministerial appointments. He said that there is, to some extent, less absolute control in the hands of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister of Northern
      494
      Ireland, simply because people are nominated and must then be accepted into the Cabinet. That is true, but I repeat, there are easy ways by which one could perfectly reasonably formulate the bar that applies when someone considers the invitation or puts him or herself forward. If a person is a member of the Government of Northern Ireland in the Assembly and a member of the Government of Ireland, there is a conflict. There is also conflict in respect of a Minister in the Westminster Government and in the Dublin Government.
      Mr. O'Brien: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is saying that in theory that could happen, but in practice it will not. We know it will not. Will he set out the circumstances that he can envisage in reality where such an aberration occurs? I very much doubt that a British Prime Minister of whatever party would be happy with such a situation, and accordingly would not appoint. I very much doubt also whether the electorate, who watch these proceedings, would tolerate it.
      Mr. Hughes: Although it would be unlikely that a British Prime Minister would choose somebody to go into his Government who was also in the Irish Government, or vice versa, it is less unlikely that in future in a coalition Government in Northern Ireland, the chief Minister, who in the present circumstances might not be a Unionist, might see it as perfectly possible to have someone in his Government who might also be able to be, and appointed to be, in the Government in Dublin. A member of the Social Democratic and Labour party could quite reasonably be in both Administrations.
      The Minister asked me whether what I described would be likely in the real world. The entire Bill is in large measure about things that do not happen in that world. The Bill is about whether Members of Commonwealth Parliaments will be Members of the Westminster Parliament. The Minister said that there are not any such Members in that position and that there never have been. I understand that no one has previously served in a Parliament in this country while simultaneously being a Member of a Commonwealth country Parliament, but I stand to be corrected.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. I made the point when I was contributing to the debate. I am not aware of such a situation. However, the hon. Gentleman said that that is what the Bill is about. That is not right. The Bill is about issues in relation to Ireland.
      Mr. Hughes: The Bill is principally about Irish issues, but one of the reasons that would be deployed for doing what the Government are asking us to agree to is that it would put the Irish Parliament and its Members in a similar relationship to that which exists between Members of the United Kingdom Parliament and Commonwealth parliamentarians.
      Many contributions have been made by Northern Ireland Members, Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members on the basis that there could be Commonwealth Members in Commonwealth Parliaments and the Westminster Parliament, but that has never happened. That is as much an unreality and an unlikelihood as the issue that we are debating.

      495
      I want to be brief because I always have been. Additionally, I promised the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) that I would be. The Minister was helpful in his response. I deduce that he was helpful both to the hon. Member for East Londonderry and to me. He said that Ministers in the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office would ascertain whether it was possible, without an undertaking, to accommodate our concern. I think that the Bill would be more acceptable within the limited remit of what it is intended to do if although it allowed dual legislature membership, whatever we think of that, and legislative membership in one parliament and Executive membership in the other, it did not allow ministerial positions in both. That would make this a much more logical and defensible Bill.
      The Minister knows that there is a dispute between us as to why we are having the Bill now and why we are having to have it so quickly. If that is to happen, I assume that the Bill will be going speedily to the House of Lords and that it will return to us speedily. If not, there is no logic in it being before us on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, so as to get it through the House, with the loss of Prime Minister's questions and a day's business. I hope that the circumstances will not preclude serious consideration of the new clause and those that are similar to it, so that if necessary we can amend the Bill and not suffer from one that was rushed through and therefore was a less good measure than it might have been.
      Mr. O'Brien: I will consider the issues that the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have raised. I bear in mind what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has said about time scales. I have given no undertaking to do anything in the Bill. I have said that if we find that there are issues, a further opportunity might become available to consider them.
      We have had lengthy discussions on the Bill for difficult and not entirely constructive reasons. However, given the length of time that we have spent on the measure, it is difficult to argue that it is being rushed. As I said earlier, I will examine the issues that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for East Londonderry raised.
      Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that. The postscript to my remarks is that, for reasons that I outlined earlier, Liberal Democrat Members cannot support new clause 8. It would rule out a constitutionally compatible provision, which would not create the same conflict of interest as dual ministerial office.
      Mr. Cash: It is highly appropriate that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned new clause 8, although he said that he could not support it. If he will be good enough to listen to my arguments, he may change his mind.
      New clause 8 simply proposes that:
      "No person elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and also to the legislature of the Republic of Ireland may become a Minister of the Crown."
      496
      We have had many debates about who may qualify for or be disqualified from membership of the House under the Bill. However, new clause 8 tackles the case of someone who has a dual mandate for the Dail and the House of Commons. Such a person could not be a Minister of the Crown if the new clause was accepted.
      Why have we tabled the new clause? We have established that the main purpose of disqualification apart from ensuring that hon. Members are fit and proper to sit in the House—there is no reason to suppose that Members of the Dail would not fall into that category—is to ensure that Members can carry out their duties and responsibilities free from undue pressures from other sources. A Member of another legislature—the Dail in the case of the Bill—would, through party arrangements, whipping systems, and the policies and underlying constitutional arrangements to which he would subscribe, be subjected to pressures from other sources. In many instances, there would be undue pressures.
      It is a clear principle that a Member of the House—a Minister of the Crown would be such a Member—should be free from possible conflicts of interest, which might distort his behaviour as an independent member of the legislature and his freedom to represent the best interests of his constituents. A Minister of the Crown could easily fall into difficulties. He would also invariably be a Privy Councillor and would have to take the Privy Council oath. That binds him to secrecy, a range of confidential matters, and various commitments, which I do not need to set out in detail.
      Mr. Bermingham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but, although the Conservative party currently has no Scottish or Welsh Members of Parliament, does he agree that there is a problem when people are both Members of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly and Members of this House? Why should there be a distinction between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dail?
      Mr. Cash: There is a simple answer: the United Kingdom and Ireland are different sovereign nations. It would be surprising if a Member of the Dail disputed that he was a Member of the legislature of a sovereign nation. Devolution confuses people, even the hon. Gentleman, with his forensic skills. People confuse constitutional principles and the basis on which the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly were established, and the Dail, which is the Parliament of a sovereign nation.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that his new clause sends a powerful message to those Ministers of the Crown from Scottish constituencies who litter the Treasury Bench? If Scotland became independent they, too, would be excluded from taking part in the operation and running of the remainder of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is right. In the middle of last night, I referred to what Charles Stewart Parnell himself thought about the relationship between the Irish Members and this legislature. It is perfectly clear from a

      497
      memorandum and other statements that when the home rule Bill was being drawn up in 1886 he concluded that it was in the interests of the Irish nation that the Irish Members be excluded from the House. It is extraordinary to have come full circle—for reasons as yet completely undisclosed—whereby we are encouraging the Irish Members to become Members of the House, without a full constitutional settlement of the kind arrived at in 1801.
      We are also taking the whole process in completely the opposite direction from the points and principles suggested by Charles Stewart Parnell, who had to go through every nut and bolt and every crevice and crack of the procedures of the House during the home rule saga to achieve his objective. Anybody who has visited the magnificent monument to Parnell in Dublin knows that the inscription specifically refers to national sovereignty. To paraphrase, no person should stand in the way of the march of a nation. If one recognises retrospectively that that was a legitimate aspiration for the Irish people, it is extraordinary, to say the least, that we have gone full circle and are contradicting the very principles on which his battle for home rule was established. That is a historical question.
      Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Cash: I am more than happy to take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but will he pause for a moment? I want to take another look at the Privy Council.
      The Minister—and, indeed, other Ministers right up to the Prime Minister—may envisage a person elected to the Republic of Ireland legislature becoming a Minister as well, but it would be perfectly obvious to any such person who intended to stand that he would have to swear the Oath of Allegiance, as membership of the House involves swearing allegiance to the Crown. In addition, the special and extremely tight Privy Council oath and the requirements of confidentiality would, I suggest, cause considerable difficulties for a person elected to another legislature—in this case, that of the Republic of Ireland.
      A substantial book, "The Irish Constitution" by Mr. J. M. Kelly, which has run to its third edition, provides ample scope for a filibuster should hon. Members want to engage in one, which I am sure they would not. It clearly states that there is no requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the Dail because it operates under a different constitutional arrangement. We must remember that Ireland has a written constitution, and there are requirements inherent in the Irish position.
      Many of us love Ireland and want it to succeed—it is doing extremely well now. It is second in the table of economic success in the European Union, and many congratulations to them on that. The fact remains that incredibly important obstacles arise from the proposition that a person elected to either House of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland and to the Parliament of the United Kingdom should be allowed to become a Minister of the Crown.
      As we have had a Privy Council for Northern Ireland since the separation of Ireland as a whole, the question is whether there should be an equivalent position if anyone were to seek to become a member of both legislatures and a Minister of the Crown. It is difficult to imagine how the Minister could answer such questions. Leaving aside the
      498
      interrelationship between the membership of the two legislatures, if we were to focus on the qualities and constitutional position of a Minister of the Crown, we would see that many other problems would arise in respect of a member of any legislature, especially a Member of the legislature of Ireland.
      I shall quote from the constitutional volume of "Halsbury's Laws of England", much of which will be obvious to Labour Members. It states:
      "Each Minister is responsible and must answer to Parliament for his or her own acts and policies and for all that is done in his or her department…In giving an account to Parliament a minister must not knowingly mislead Parliament…ministers are expected to give an account of their departments and answer questions in Parliament, they may refuse to answer questions."
      That is the basis on which they have to operate. These are constitutional duties.
      It would be difficult for the requirements of accountability to be fulfilled if a member of, for example, the legislature of the Republic of Ireland was properly conducting his duties to fulfil the requirements of his election to that legislature. For heaven's sake, it is our first responsibility, as it is in Ireland, to have regard to the manner in which we handle questions on behalf of our constituents. If a person was a Minister of the Crown in the United Kingdom and a member of the legislature in Ireland, it would be impossible for him to fulfil his obligations to the persons who had elected him in Ireland.
      I am sure that the Minister will recognise that this is a substantial point. It is a practical question. Issues also arise with regard to timetabling.
      Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, who did not give me the courtesy of giving way at the appropriate time, but these things happen. Must we listen to rubbish and criticism of Scottish Ministers and Welsh Assembly Ministers? They are being told that they cannot exercise their functions properly if they are also a Member of this House. Surely that has nothing to do with the Bill or with the new clause that I think stands in the hon. Gentleman's name.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman carefully, and he has kept in good order. I have absolutely no complaint about the way in which he has conducted himself.
      Mr. Cash: I am grateful, Mr. Martin. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for the point that he has just made, but this is an important question. The Bill has not been invented by us. It has been introduced in circumstances of great secrecy, or at any rate it arises out of meetings that we think were secret. We have not received answers. I am trying to point out some of the anomalies that inevitably arise. I am emphatically not engaging in a filibuster of any description.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's dissertation, and a learned dissertation it is. The point that I made in my speech was that, although many things can happen in theory, especially in unwritten constitutions—I do not want to debate the extent of our unwritten constitution now—in practice, they do not happen. There may be all sorts of theoretical issues that he could engender, as he has been trying to do in the past

      499
      16 minutes, but they will probably not arise because Prime Ministers in the various countries will be aware of the consequences of having someone in their Government who is a member of a legislature in a foreign country.
      Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the Minister, but what it clearly does—
      Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I ask the Minister to withdraw the word "foreign". We are all part of Europe.
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order. It is a matter for debate.
      Mr. Cash: Excuse me for laughing for a moment, Mr. Martin. Where is Europe?
      The Minister raises an interesting point. The points that I am making could be regarded as theoretical, but if they are, what is the purpose of the Bill? Over and over again, we have heard that the Bill raises situations that are thought to be unlikely to occur. Yet there must have been a reason behind it.
      Mr. O'Brien: What the hon. Gentleman is trying to put together is not really the argument. He is putting the theoretical case that someone could be a member of a Government in one country and a member of a legislature in another. I accept the issue about the European Union, and I hope that we do not need to go into that. The point here is that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) sat at one stage in the Irish Senate when he already had a seat in this House. We are not necessarily talking about plain theories. We are dealing with something that may well happen and we in the House may not wish to discourage it in his case. He is an extremely well respected Member. While in respect of the Commonwealth, the matter may be theoretical, in the context of Ireland and the United Kingdom, they may not necessarily be so.
      Mr. Cash: In that case, the argument that I am advancing becomes even more substantial. The Minister is helping to make my case. I need not pursue that point any further.
      The second point relating to the attributes of Ministers of the Crown is collective responsibility, the elements of which are unanimity, confidentiality and confidence. It would become apparent very quickly if someone came in from another country—with respect to this amendment, from the Irish legislature—that collective responsibility could be affected by the fact that the person who was a Minister of the Crown would not necessarily be present at any time and could not answer on behalf of the Crown as and when required, for example, to private notice questions? It does not take much imagination and I do not need to go through all the permutations to show the practical as well as constitutional difficulties that would inevitably arise if we created the situation that the Bill is in danger of creating.
      Mr. Hogg: Most important is the duty of confidentiality. If a Member of the Irish Parliament who happened to be a Minister in the Irish Government learned
      500
      some information, and, at the same time, he learned information in his capacity as a Minister of a Parliament or Assembly somewhere else in the United Kingdom, his duties of confidentiality would be torn and he could not perform the two roles.
      Mr. Cash: The only way in which that could be resolved, and the potentiality of conflict of a kind that we discussed earlier reduced, would be if there was one country, along the lines described by Norman Davies in "History of the Isles", to bring back one province within the EU which would then absorb and subsume all the constitutional difficulties which arose from the histories of the individual isles, but then to create a new province and reduce the conflict. Why these arrangements are being entered into remains a significant puzzle to many of us. No explanation has been given, and the principle on which they appear to be presented is in direct contradiction to the objectives of Parnell and the others when they sought home rule and said that they did not want to be members of this legislature. That I find difficult.
      I should be grateful if the Minister could answer that question. There must have been discussions. Did it not occur to anyone to ask about the origins of home rule and Eire? I have no problem with the idea of separate nations—quite the opposite—but where they exist it is incongruous to have Ministers directing policy in this Parliament while having potentially been elected in another country. I do not think for a minute that there are not vast numbers of people from Ireland, by origin, birth and so on, who are Members of this House. We know that, and what a good thing it is. The Minister's own name can perhaps be traced to an Irish connection. The Kings of Ireland were O'Briens.
      Mr. O'Brien: I will not go into my family history but deal with the constitution and the law. I do not intend to reply at length in rebuttal because I have dealt with most of the issues in my speech and in interventions.
      I have been trying to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument about the nation. I take it that he would not argue that the concept of the Irish nation put forward by Parnell is the same as that put forward by the Ulster Unionists today.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am interested in the history of Ireland, but not at the moment. We must keep within the confines of the new clause.
      Mr. Cash: I accept that, Mr. Martin.
      I come now to the question of legal accountability. All Ministers and servants of the Crown are accountable to the courts for the legality of their actions and can be held civilly and criminally liable. That raises a number of interesting questions about immunities, whether membership of another legislature would give privileges which would prevent a person from being accountable in the way that I have described, and whether people would be able, or would be required to, appear. Similar situations could arise with regard to membership of the Select Committees, the evidence that they give to such Committees as Ministers of the Crown, and so on.
      It is abundantly clear that there are a huge number of practical and constitutional reasons why these arrangements should not be entered into.

      501
      4 pm
      This is not merely an analysis of theoretical possibilities. The Bill has led us into a situation that requires us, as Members of Parliament, to ask the questions, to examine the evidence, to insist on answers, and to quantify the practicalities of the proposals. We have heard no answers from the Minister to any of those questions, although he has risen several times and claimed to be answering them. I could raise many other questions, but I do not want to engage in an unreasonable amount of discussion just for the sake of it.
      You will have noticed, Mr. Martin—I can tell things from the expression on your face occasionally—that I have here some substantial works of reference, to which I could refer at length without departing for a minute from your requirements and those of the Committee. I would not filibuster; I would not be repetitious; I would break no rules. But in deference to you, Mr. Martin, and to the Committee, I will eschew the attractions and temptations presented by one of the longest filibusters in history, and will confine myself to what I have already said.
      Mr. Gale: I do not intend to detain the Committee for long.
      This is a one-page Bill, but it is not the modest little measure that some have termed it. It is, in fact, a very bad Bill, and constitutionally dangerous. The new clauses go a small way towards mitigating some of the constitutional damage that would be done if the Bill were passed unamended. I hope that it will be thrown out in its entirety on Third Reading, but I want to concentrate on the new clauses that we are discussing.
      I am sorry that the Minister found it necessary to criticise Conservative Members for engaging in a prolonged debate. I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin, and to your fellow Chairmen—you have sat here throughout the night, and today—for confirming that, by and large, our deliberations have been in order.
      In the early hours of this morning, when we debated clause 2, we engaged in a discussion which, we were told, related more properly to the new clauses that we are debating now. The Minister dismissed my intervention then; let me rehearse the arguments yet again.
      In promoting clause 2, the Minister's colleague prayed in aid the necessity to draw a distinction between the Assembly of Northern Ireland and the Parliament of the Irish Republic, and explained—not in great detail, but fairly clearly—why it was appropriate for clause 2 to be enacted. He said, in a nutshell, that it was not proper for a Member to be a Minister both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic.
      I believe that Members of Parliament have a duty to scrutinise not just faulty street lights and cracked paving stones, but legislation. I believe that Ministers have a duty to explain to the House the legislation that they are presenting to it, and to justify that legislation. If they cannot do that, they deserve to be defeated.
      The Minister has repeatedly said at the Dispatch Box that he has already explained; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said many hours ago, what we have heard is a series of protestations and assertions, but no evidence whatever.
      Let me now deal directly with the new clauses.
      502
      Again, in the small hours of the morning, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has had to leave the Chamber, although I am sure that it is for good reasons—reached an agreement, incredibly, that his new clause No. 9 dealt with the other bit of the issue that is missing from clause 2. The bit that is missing relates to Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, to potential Members of the Parliament of the Irish Republic.
      If it is wrong for a Member of the Parliament of the Irish Republic to be a Minister also in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and for a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to be a Minister also in the Parliament of the Irish Republic, I cannot for the life of me see the logic in saying that it is not wrong for a Minister of the Crown in the UK Parliament to be a Minister in either of the other places. The Bill as drafted—the Minister is aware of it—means that it will be in order for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, while sitting in the UK Parliament, also to be a Minister in the Parliament of the Irish Republic.
      Mr. Hogg: Is there not a different way to put the same question: why should that be right? The Bill as drafted makes it possible for that situation to arise, so those who drafted it have to persuade the Committee that it is right that that consequence should be able to occur.
      Mr. Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. He will probably be astonished to know that, in the small hours of the morning, we confirmed that, as the Bill stands, it is in order—I am not saying that it is necessarily likely—for the Speaker of the House of Commons, an independent body by virtue of his or her office—to be a partisan Minister in the Parliament of the Irish Republic. That is possible. Nothing in the Bill stops it. However, that is not what is before the Committee.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have been listening with care, trying to discount some of the tone and listen to the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Many bizarre things may in theory happen but are not in practice likely to happen, with the result that we do not legislate against them. Why does he think that the bizarre points that he is putting to us should be part of the legislation?
      Mr. Gale: Forgive me. The Minister rises at the Dispatch Box and says that what I am suggesting is bizarre. I agree. It would be bizarre for the Speaker to be a Minister in another Parliament, but there is nothing to prevent it. However, that is not what I am seeking to discuss.
      The Minister intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke.
      Mr. Cash: Stone.
      Mr. Gale: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. It is late.
      In that intervention, the Minister virtually made the argument for us. He said that it was not beyond the bounds of possibility. He cited an hon. Member who had been a Member of both legislatures. Either we are legislating for reality or we are not. He said himself that it was not beyond the bounds of possibility. If it is not

      503
      beyond the bounds of possibility for an hon. Member to be a Member also of the Parliament of the Irish Republic, it is not, as things stand, beyond the bounds of possibility for the same Member to be a Minister in both legislatures.
      Mr. O'Brien: We are talking about two different propositions. One involves the situation where a person may be a Member of one House and also a member of another legislature. That is feasible. The position of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is a potential case in point. I do not think that it has happened on all fours, but we can see that the potential is there. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asks us to believe that a Prime Minister would go a step further and make a person in that position a Minister. That is a bizarre proposition. If the hon. Gentleman can show me that there is a realistic prospect of that, I might not think it so bizarre: I might believe that his argument has some validity. He must be careful not to suggest that the House should legislate against all sorts of theoretical possibilities which, in practice, will never occur.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Gale: I shall give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and then respond both to his point and to that of the Minister.
      Mr. Hogg: The Committee is being asked to uphold that my hon. Friend's suggestion is far-fetched and bizarre, but the suggestion has already been dealt with in clause 1, which provides that Ministers in the Government of Ireland shall not hold office as certain types of Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Such a situation is being contemplated as a real possibility; hence the need for legislation on the point. It is no more bizarre to address the issue in relation to the United Kingdom's other Parliament and Assemblies than it is to address it in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Ministers are making provision to deal with the latter occurrence.
      Mr. Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, except that I think he meant to refer to the provisions of clause 2, not of clause 1. Otherwise, he is absolutely right.
      In the early hours, in his absence, we referred—in no way disparagingly, as Mr. Martin would not have permitted it—to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is a Member of the European Parliament, of this House and of the Northern Ireland Assembly. There is nothing improper in his holding those positions. However, the point was made that only one of those three legislatures—this one—is a sovereign Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly is not sovereign, and the European Parliament is most certainly not sovereign. The Parliament of the Irish Republic is sovereign, as is the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
      The Minister cannot have it both ways. He might admit, "I got clause 2 wrong. There is no prospect of a Member being a Minister both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic"—although if he did, one might ask why
      504
      clause 2 was included in the Bill. Clause 2, which the Committee has passed, deals precisely with a situation in which a Member serves as a Minister in both legislatures.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in allowing interventions, and I do not want to abuse his generosity, but I thought I had dealt with that point. The situation in Northern Ireland is different because of the d'Hondt principle on selection of the Executive. The d'Hondt principle does not apply in the British Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, the Prime Minister, First Minister or First Secretary in those Executives have a choice about who is appointed as a Minister, and, in practice, would not choose someone who was a Member of the Executive of another country.
      Mr. Gale: What matters is not whether the principle belongs to Professor d'Hondt deceased, or to anyone else, but the principle itself. The Bill's principle maintains—entirely correctly, if we are to have the Bill at all—that it is wrong for a Member to be a Minister in both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Parliament of the Irish Republic. The Minister agrees with that—it is his Bill—and, to the extent that I agree with the Bill at all, I agree with that. All the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is saying in new clause 9, and all my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is saying in new clause 8, is that, if that is so, it is also wrong for a Member to be a Minister in this House and in the Parliament of the Irish Republic. Let us, therefore, state that clearly in the Bill.
      The Minister has spoken many times in our debates, and he has said that he is prepared to consider the issue. However, he is not prepared to give any undertakings. If he is not prepared to do that, I hope that either my hon. Friend the Member for Stone or the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will press his new clause to the vote. Patently, if clause 2 is correct, one of the new clauses also must be right. We have to deal with that.
      Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the past year, Ministers have created a problem by raising the issue of whether formulations and amendments arising from Bills may be thought to be purely theoretical?
      Secondly, the history of British constitutional development over the past 600 years contains many examples of people saying that something would never happen because it was merely a theoretical possibility. An example of that is the prediction that Britain would not lose the veto. Is it not unwise to rely on the Minister's protestations that what appears theoretical could not happen eventually, or even soon?
      Mr. Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I went to see the Minister in 1997 and were told that there would not be a problem with economic migrants. He was proved wrong about that, and I fear that he will be proved wrong again. The Minister pulls a face, but if he does not answer satisfactorily the points that have been raised, he must expect us to vote against the Bill.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Minister has said in his defence that our objections are theoretical, but

      505
      do not all the precedents show that laws made in haste tend to be bad laws? The Government have introduced the Bill in haste, and it is our duty to try to improve it, as the new clause proposes.
      Mr. Gale: If we are not here to legislate, I do not know what we are here for.
      Mr. Maginnis: The Minister claims that it is not possible to legislate for every eventuality, but the Government are promoting legislation in favour of creating an anomaly—that Ministers in this House theoretically could be also be Ministers in the Dail. Therein lies the difficulty with the Bill.
      Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the argument is becoming circular and I am getting bored with the sound of my own voice.
      In conclusion, if clause 2 is right, at least one of the new clauses must be right. The Minister has not convinced the Committee that if one is right, the other is not. If he cannot produce a convincing argument, he should produce an amendment encapsulating the single exclusion that we want. Failing that, he has to accept one of our proposals now or face a vote on one.
      I agree that legislation for its own sake is bad. The Bill cannot be described as that, but it is very bad and we are genuinely trying to mitigate it.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. How many times must I rise to catch your eye before I am called to speak?
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I arrived in the Chair only a few moments ago, and was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was rising to catch my eye. Had I been so aware, I should have called him, in the correct order, as I always do.
      Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful, Mr. Lord. I want to be brief. I have sought to intervene several times—sometimes I was allowed to, sometimes I was not. I recognise that I am an alien species in the Committee. According to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I am an alien because I was born and bred in Ireland. I have been called an alien and a foreigner. I have listened to the debate and I am appalled. The question of sovereignty arises, but the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) forgets, of course, that in 1984 his Government put through the House the Single European Act, which made this country subject to European law. That is a transfer of sovereignty.
      The Irish Republic, where I was born—and whose passport I held even after I came to the House because I was not an English citizen, but that is perfectly permissible—is also a member of the European Union and subject to European sovereignty. We have commonality of sovereignty, but that is ignored by those who seek to insult and denigrate those of us who were born abroad. That is sad. It is also why I appeared a little annoyed earlier, for which I apologise, Mr. Lord.
      506
      I have sat here for a day and a bit being consistently insulted, as have 5 million people with the same heritage. We do not have to take it: our forefathers and relatives fought and died for this land in two world wars. Some of my family fought against this country in various rebellions and wars; that is a part of history. But I thought that we had grown up—I thought that the Good Friday agreement would mean that we could bury the past and not carry the prejudices and hatred forward. We should not be carrying into the future that which had created the tragedies of Northern Ireland. Yet what have I seen for a day and a half; what have I heard? Hon. Members have sought to carry the tragedies of Northern Ireland into the future.
      I accept that I was rude to the Minister earlier, and I apologise unreservedly to him. He was right when he said that we should not play with theoretical issues that might not happen but should look at the realities of life. Why not? I know that one can be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the European Parliament and the House of Commons. Of course that happens and nobody criticises it. I think that three hon. Members currently combine those roles. When I first came to this place, many people were Members of both the European Parliament and the House. Now, many people are Members of the Scottish Parliament and of the Welsh Assembly. The Scottish Parliament is sovereign—at least, I think it is; I hope it is.
      Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us have Irish ancestry in various degrees? Far from insulting anybody who comes from Ireland, the reverse is true—many of us have enormous affection for the Irish people and wish them well. However, there is a simple point that I should like to put to the hon. Gentleman in response to his question. Why does the Bill provide for members of the Irish legislature to become Members of this House and the Northern Ireland Assembly but not vice versa?
      Mr. Bermingham: That is quite simple—we are dealing with the situation that we find today. Should the situation arise, I am sure that the necessary amendments could be passed. It is as simple as that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he has much sympathy and love for Ireland. Perhaps he might transfer that sympathy and love to certain of his right hon. and hon. Friends—including the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border—who are mentioned in early-day motion 315. That makes it clear that certain Conservative Members have no sympathy or love for the Irish; instead, they have an ingrained hatred, and it shows from time to time.
      Mr. Hogg: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the new clause before the Committee? I, too, have very strong Irish connections—my mother was born in County Galway—but we are not talking about that. Instead, we are asking whether it is right that a Minister of the Irish Government, with all the duties that such a Minister owes to Ireland and to the Government of Ireland, should be able to be a member of a Government of any part of this

      507
      country. The answer to that must surely be no, because of the conflicting arguments. It has nothing to do with antipathy between the countries.
      Mr. Bermingham: That intervention takes us back to a very simple point: how many legislatures we belong to is a matter for us. I should have thought that in a multicultural, multipolitical Europe, being a member of more than one legislature, if we can find the time to do it—[Interruption.] I gave way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and I shall answer his question step by step, if I may, because he, like me, is a logical man. If one wants to be a member of many legislatures and one's constituency will accept that, so be it. However, once one becomes a member of a Government—let us get real, in a real world—it matters not in which legislature one is a member of a Government, one acquires and retains certain responsibilities to that Government. There is no way in which a person can be a member of two Governments at the same time. That is wholly illogical. It will not, does not, and cannot happen.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Hogg: In that case, why cannot that provision be included in the Bill?
      Mr. Bermingham: I would have thought that common sense would tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he read the Bill, that that could not happen in any event. Do we need to legislate on every word when—bearing in mind Pepper v. Hart, with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is fully familiar—anyone reading the debates on the Bill would realise that it was never the intention of Parliament that anyone should be a Minister in two Governments? That is obvious.
      I return to my primary point—what on earth have we been doing for the past couple of hours? We have been going excitedly around in circles dealing with a theoretical situation that will never arise, simply because certain Opposition Members cannot get it through their thick heads that the time has come to settle the Irish question once and for all. This is yet another step on the road to the settlement of issues that have dogged and bedevilled our societies for the past 100 years.
      I have tried to be as brief as possible. I asked the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to be brief; he took 10 minutes. I shall take six or seven minutes. Is it not time to move on to what we are really in this place to do? That is to bring peace to Ireland.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Thank you for allowing me to speak for a second time, Mr. Lord. Earlier, I thought that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) had risen only to make a point of order. When you called me to speak, Mr. Lord, I, too, could have raised a point of order.
      I regret that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have respect because we have worked in varying degrees of friendship, has revealed an underlying current that keeps coming up. If I wanted to follow his example—although I do not—I could make the same complaint because I
      508
      happen to be from Northern Ireland, which was historically the old Ulidia and I am proud to be an Ulsterman. In this place, I am regularly called an Irishman, even though I have British citizenship, which I believe includes Scotland, Wales, Ireland historically, and certainly that north-east part that we call Ulster.
      In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I must make it abundantly plain that even Europe has its regulations. Unless I have been misled, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) would have been happy to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but European legislation would not allow one to be a Minister even in a subsidiary Parliament—never mind in the main Government—and serve in the European Parliament.
      My party has discouraged dual membership. If a person stands for a position in the Assembly or in Parliament, at the next election we would expect him to choose the body for which he plans to stand. We believe that such jobs are full-time, although I realise that people have different abilities and capacities for work. However, the Ulster Unionist party has maintained that principle for some time.
      In relation to the comments about Whips, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seemed to regret that I might have had to call him into line. I thought that I had done so graciously and courteously—
      Mr. William Ross: Always.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: We can sometimes be misunderstood. The purpose of any Whip is to try to ensure that the party's business, or the Government's business, is carried through, by fair means and sometimes foul—although I confess to my party that I have never held a little black book, never mind a red book.
      Mr. Hogg: I wanted to clarify one point in new clause 2, with regard to the party Whip. I notice that "a party Whip" is referred to in the second line of the new clause. That applies to the Whip of any party, including opposition parties, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman is restricting new clause 2 to a Whip of the Government party. Perhaps he would clarify that point.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: It would, on the face of it, be a Whip of a Government party, but one does recognise that a Whip, even of an opposition party, has particular responsibilities to ensure that his party's position carries through. The new clause could be read either way but, in light of the phrasing, I believe that it refers to a Government party.
      I return to the d'Hondt aspect. I happen to be one of those who was never terribly happy that an Executive could be formed by d'Hondt. I understand that it is an excellent way to deal with Committees where one wants to have a cross-section of opinion and balanced views, but it is important that we bear in mind that an Executive has a task to do: to give leadership and to see business through. Sooner or later, we shall have difficulties at that level within Northern Ireland or any other Assembly whose Executive is formed on a d'Hondt principle, whereby, if the Minister in the Executive is arguing for a party position, and stands by it, and faces a vote of no

      509
      confidence in that Assembly or Parliament, he has to resign, and the party whose policy the Minister was seeking to follow through has the right to fill that vacant position.
      Therefore, the Minister may be mistaken when he says that it would or could never happen. As the hon. Member for St. Helens, South was speaking, I reflected that we are living in another world—a changing world, for good or ill. We now have an Irish in Britain Movement, and it is possible that sometimes its members may be dissatisfied with either of the main parties in this place and may seek to advance their own position. They may even seek to get a well-known personality from Ireland to represent them and to be elected to the House.
      Speaking of theory, it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility, as we are all working together within Europe, for a Government of a particular hue in the United Kingdom to share with a Government in the Republic of Ireland—or, for that matter, any other Government—a Minister who may be elected by a constituency in both countries because he is capable of work and the people want him. It is possible that such a person may be asked to take part in another Government. Having said that, I still believe that it should be in the Bill that it should not be done. If Europe can do it, which is an Assembly view—
      Mr. Bermingham: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but would he consider this point? A company, owned and managed by English people, invests in Northern Ireland. The managing director becomes a resident and seeks to stand for the Assembly because he wants to represent the interests of his work force and so on. That is perfectly acceptable. The same happens in southern Ireland, and it is perfectly acceptable. What is wrong with that? Is that not us all becoming part of the family of Europe, and should that be criticised in any way? I hark back to the hon. Gentleman's comment about the Irish in England.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Anyone has a right to put himself forward and to be selected. I remember during the campaign of the late Enoch Powell in South Down, a member of the SDLP, Patrick O'Hanlon, said that South Down would never let in foreigners. I saw him the next day and asked him, "What was that nonsense about, Paddy? What about that Spanish-American—De Valera?" He said, "Martin, I am glad that no one else recognised that one."
      When we talk about using language and so on, we have to face reality. Sometimes there is a degree of pejorativism, but usually people are described as being part of our nation or of another nation. Those who espouse Ireland as a nation once again would never think that they were part of the English connection, and they find it difficult to recognise that British means more than English. It was an Episcopalian dean of St. Patrick's in Dublin who said, in a moment of anger,
      "Burn everything English except English coal."
      I happen to have a greater love for the coal miners of England than he had.
      The new clause would tighten up the legislation. The one thing that has come through the debate, and throughout the previous two years, has been a tendency to have shoddy parliamentary draftsmanship. That has
      510
      gone on for far too long, with far too many amendments tabled on Report or coming from the other place. It is time that we got legislation clear in this House before we send it elsewhere.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is absolutely right when he talks about the duty of this Committee to ensure that legislation is in as good a state as we can get it. That is a Committee's duty. Our purpose is to send the Bill to another place in as good a form as we can contrive.
      The Committee must address whether it is right in principle that a Minister of the Republic of Ireland should be capable of being a Minister in any of the Parliaments or Assemblies of the United Kingdom. To that question, one has no difficulty in giving the answer. It has to be no, it is not right in principle. The arguments have been well articulated by my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), and I need not expand upon them.
      There is a conflict of loyalty and duty that goes to the root of the argument and is conclusive. If one is fair to the Government—I seldom am, as they do not deserve it—one will find that they have accepted what I say, as clause 2 of the Bill makes a prohibition in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government say that that is more likely to happen in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK. If the Government are honest, they will accept that that is the only argument that they have advanced.
      The Government do not say that there are drafting difficulties. There is one slight difficulty with new clause 2 with regard to the identity of the party Whip, but that is a minor problem. Subject to that, new clause 2 is in a proper form. We are being asked to say that new clause 2 should be rejected not because it is wrong in form or principle, but because it addresses a situation that will never arise. That is the only argument being put to the Committee, and it is manifestly a bad argument.
      It may be true that this situation is more likely to arise in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. We are told that it is unlikely to arise—I accept that—but the point is that it can arise both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the UK. If the Bill is likely to serve as a precedent, and if there is pressure from France, Germany, Italy, Spain or wherever to enable the members of the Governments of those countries to sit in the Parliaments or Governments of this country, we have a right to make sure that bad precedents are not established.
      4.45 pm
      There is one way that Governments sometimes address the problem of what to do about eventualities that are unlikely to occur but are thoroughly undesirable: historically, Governments send a Minister to the Dispatch Box to undertake not to do this or that. However, that does not serve our purpose because, as the Minister said so fairly on Second Reading, on which I helped to divide the House, he cannot provide an undertaking that will bind future Governments. I have referred to precedents because I am concerned about future Governments.
      The principle is with those of us who support the new clauses. The Minister does not argue to the contrary; he cannot do so because of clause 2. He merely urges us not to press the proposal, because our fears are unlikely to

      511
      arise. We all know that that is a thoroughly bad argument. I very much hope that the Committee divides on the issue. I shall certainly support new clause 2 if we do.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I do not want to be discourteous to the Committee, but I have already covered most of the arguments. I know that some hon. Members will not agree with that, but that is as may be. How I decide to make my case is a matter for me.
      Clause 2 provides a special provision for Northern Ireland because of the d'Hondt principle. That is legitimate. However, there are already constitutional safeguards because of the political circumstances under which the Prime Minister or the First Minister of one of the Assemblies or the Scottish Parliament would appoint Members to an Executive. That would cover the eventualities that have been raised.
      Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: No, because the hon. Gentleman will return to the arguments that we have rehearsed before.
      The Government believe that such circumstances are covered. I know that hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), do not accept that, but we shall just have to agree to differ. I set out my arguments at greater length earlier in our proceedings and I stand by them.
      I have given some comfort to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—although perhaps not as much as he would like—and to the Liberal Democrats, and said that I shall consider the issues. I have made it clear that I cannot give undertakings. I am conscious of the Bill's time frame. However, if we conclude that issues have arisen, the opportunity to deal with them may present itself at a later stage.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I appreciate the way that the Minister has dealt with this group of amendments. It has been in refreshing contrast to the way in which others have been dealt with in our long proceedings. He has not been able to give an undertaking, but he has been honest about that, and we accept that. I had hoped that he would have said that he would meet the parties involved with a view to tabling amendments in another place if they still felt unhappy. Had he done that, I would have advised my hon. Friends that we need not press the new clause to a Division. If the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) wishes to divide the House, we shall support him.
      Mr. Cash: I am gravely disappointed by the Minister's curmudgeonly attitude. He is always courteous, but he has not always attempted to answer our questions. He and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland remind me of people who have been trussed and bound by commitments that were made in advance of the Bill by other Ministers. They are so deeply committed that they dare not and cannot move. They are prepared to sit in a state of paralysis, parroting the view that the proposition is merely theoretical.
      512
      Let me give an example from the 17th century of a possibility that people regarded as merely theoretical. At that time, the idea that we would end up with a Hanoverian monarch would have been thought quite extraordinary—it was a possibility on which people had only theorised. However, in practice, it happened. Our history provides us with thousands of cases of people who, on a question of principle—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs. It is extraordinary that he is incapable of taking the matter seriously.
      Given that Opposition Members have advanced some extremely cogent arguments, the responsibility and onus lie on the Government to respond by tabling amendments to the Bill. That is what amendments are all about. How many amendments that have been passed could have been dismissed on the grounds that they dealt with theoretical propositions?
      When we pass legislation, we make law. When contingencies have been properly argued and it has been demonstrated that failure to address them will result in law that is defective, the Minister, by refusing to deal with those matters, is in effect presenting the House with a defective Bill that will be defective in law.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated dissent.
      Mr. Cash: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He knows perfectly well that such issues arise again and again in legislation and in constitutional practice and history. Because the Bill is a constitutional measure, he should accept the constitutional consequences arising from it and deal with the issues that have been raised.
      Two of the new clauses cover similar ground. I, for my part, have no special need to press new clause 8 to a Division: as far as I am concerned, new clause 2, which takes precedence on the amendment paper, is capable of addressing the principle just as well. Therefore, although I am perfectly happy not to vote on the new clause that I tabled, I shall certainly vote in support of new clause 2.
      Mr. William Ross: This has been an interesting debate. I have listened to a fair bit of it, just as I have listened to a fair bit of all the debates that have occurred in the past 24 hours.
      At first, the Minister encouraged me. It is always fatal to be given encourage by a Minister in the early stages of a debate, because he will always say in the end that he cannot help. That said, he recognised the conflict of interest, even though he appears to think the risk is so small that it is not worth bothering about.
      The Minister fails to understand the consequences of STV elections in Northern Ireland, wherein lies the danger that an individual such as I described can and, I believe, will eventually be elected, because he will require only one seventh of the votes cast to be elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. D'Hondt is not a personal selection by the voter, but a party selection. We in Northern Ireland deal not with normal political parties, but with a criminal terrorist conspiracy. That is what distances the circumstances there from those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is the reason we have tabled amendments and asked questions over the past day or two.
      I am sorry that the Government have refused to listen to the careful and detailed case presented by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), my hon. Friend the

      513
      Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and others. In the light of that refusal, I regret that I am unable to ask the Committee's leave to withdraw new clause 2 and instead ask that it be put to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second Time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 309.

      Division No. 49]

      [4.54 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Greenway, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hammond, Philip

      Baldry, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ballard, Jackie

      Hayes, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Heald, Oliver

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bercow, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Horam, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Brady, Graham

      Brake, Tom

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Keetch, Paul

      Breed, Colin

      Key, Robert

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burnett, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burns, Simon

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burstow, Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lidington, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cash, William

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Chope, Christopher

      Loughton, Tim

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Luff, Peter

      Cotter, Brian

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Cran, James

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Day, Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Madel, Sir David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Maginnis, Ken

      Duncan, Alan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Maples, John

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Faber, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Fabricant, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Moore, Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Norman, Archie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Page, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paterson, Owen

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Prior, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Randall, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gray, James

      Rendel, David

      Green, Damian

      Robathan, Andrew

      514

      Robertson, Laurence

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Thompson, William

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Ruffley, David

      Trend, Michael

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tyler, Paul

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      Viggers, Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walter, Robert

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shepherd, Richard

      Webb, Steve

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Wells, Bowen

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

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Soames, Nicholas

      Whittingdale, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Willetts, David

      Spring, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Streeter, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Stunell, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Swayne, Desmond

      Syms, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Rev. Martin Smyth and

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Casale, Roger

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Ainger, Nick

      Chaytor, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Banks, Tony

      Clwyd, Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Coaker, Vernon

      Battle, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Coleman, Iain

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Connarty, Michael

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corbett, Robin

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corston, Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Cranston, Ross

      Betts, Clive

      Crausby, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Borrow, David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darvill, Keith

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Browne, Desmond

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burden, Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burgon, Colin

      Denham, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Dismore, Andrew

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dowd, Jim

      Canavan, Dennis

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Cann, Jamie

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Edwards, Huw

      515

      Efford, Clive

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lock, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Love, Andrew

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fisher, Mark

      McCabe, Steve

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McDonnell, John

      Galloway, George

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gardiner, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McNulty, Tony

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      MacShane, Denis

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Goggins, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hain, Peter

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hanson, David

      Maxton, John

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Meale, Alan

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Healey, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mitchell, Austin

      Heppell, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hill, Keith

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Hood, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hope, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jamieson, David

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pike, Peter L

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Plaskitt, James

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kidney, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Laxton, Bob

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Lepper, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rogers, Allan

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Linton, Martin

      Rooney, Terry

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 4

      SALARIES
      "Any person who is elected as a member of both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland shall be paid 50 per cent. of the salary of a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly".—[Mr. William Ross.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5— Office costs allowance—
      "Any person who is elected as a member of both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland shall receive no more than 50 per cent. of the office costs allowance payable to a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
      Mr. Ross: Anyone who has read the new clauses will know exactly what they entail. I do not propose to detain the Committee for long, unless others want to take part in the debate. New clause 4 relates to the salary paid to a person elected a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the legislature of Ireland. Such a person would be paid 50 per cent. of the salary of a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that he would be paid the same from the Dail, although I have no control over that.

      517
      Some might think new clause 4 to be rather harsh, but it is generous. I understand that those who are Members of the House and of the European Parliament receive a full salary from one place, but only a third of their salary from the other. In effect, they are no better off, but the real problem lies with new clause 5, which would cut the office costs allowance paid to a Member by 50 per cent. Members would receive half the full amount of salary and office costs allowance that they could claim. The trouble is that those who have a representative role in Europe can claim 100 per cent. of their allowances from the House and 100 per cent. of the office costs allowance from Europe. That is unreasonable, but it seems even less reasonable when we consider the situation in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      If a workman worked only two and a half days a week instead of five, one would not pay him for five days' work. This new clause is most reasonable, so I hope that the Minister will recognise the force of my argument and accept it. It is completely in line with the policy pursued by successive Governments. I hope that the Minister will apply this proposal or something close to it.
      Mr. George Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the two new clauses would abate by 50 per cent. the salaries and allowances of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who are also Members of the Irish legislature. They would apply the abatement to Members of the Dail and the Seanad.
      I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has examined section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but it requires that an Assembly Member's salary be abated if he is also a Member of the House of Commons. No such abatement is applied in respect of Members of the Irish Seanad, who may already sit as Members of the Assembly.
      Since devolution on 2 December 1999, the Assembly has had the power under section 47 of the 1998 Act to determine the salaries and allowances of its Members. It is already within the Assembly's powers under those provisions to abate salaries and allowances in the manner proposed in the new clause if it so chooses. Given that the Assembly already has that power, the Government see no need to make special provision in the Bill.
      I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in these matters. He will be aware that the Assembly has already chosen to use those powers. That being the case, the new clause is unnecessary, although it is important to express the principle. The Assembly has those powers, and that is the right place for them to be exercised.
      Mr. Ross: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Minister. I think that the place in which to put down the marker is this House. We are dealing with a subordinate legislature, and there is no guarantee that it will apply the principle that I have enunciated and that applies in Europe. I am setting out a general principle that should apply right across the board, which is that Members can draw a salary only for the amount of work they do, and they can draw only the secretarial allowances that apply to that work.
      In all truth, it was the thought of some hon. Members not carrying out all their duties but drawing their salaries and lifting £100,000 or thereabouts in allowances that sparked off this amendment in my mind. The principle
      518
      embodied in the new clause is sound. If the Minister is not prepared to be more reasonable than he has been hitherto, I shall press the new clause to a vote.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister has acknowledged the validity of the proposition tabled by my hon. Friend. The only difference between us is whether it should be enshrined in the Bill. We can see no good reason why it should not be, so we would advise right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 337.

      Division No. 49]

      [4.54 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Greenway, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hammond, Philip

      Baldry, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ballard, Jackie

      Hayes, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Heald, Oliver

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bercow, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Horam, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Brady, Graham

      Brake, Tom

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Keetch, Paul

      Breed, Colin

      Key, Robert

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burnett, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burns, Simon

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burstow, Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lidington, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cash, William

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Chope, Christopher

      Loughton, Tim

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Luff, Peter

      Cotter, Brian

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Cran, James

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Day, Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Madel, Sir David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Maginnis, Ken

      Duncan, Alan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Maples, John

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Faber, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Fabricant, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Moore, Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Norman, Archie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Page, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paterson, Owen

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Prior, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Randall, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gray, James

      Rendel, David

      Green, Damian

      Robathan, Andrew

      514

      Robertson, Laurence

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Thompson, William

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Ruffley, David

      Trend, Michael

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tyler, Paul

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      Viggers, Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walter, Robert

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shepherd, Richard

      Webb, Steve

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Wells, Bowen

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

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Soames, Nicholas

      Whittingdale, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Willetts, David

      Spring, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Streeter, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Stunell, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Swayne, Desmond

      Syms, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Rev. Martin Smyth and

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Casale, Roger

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Ainger, Nick

      Chaytor, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Banks, Tony

      Clwyd, Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Coaker, Vernon

      Battle, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Coleman, Iain

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Connarty, Michael

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corbett, Robin

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corston, Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Cranston, Ross

      Betts, Clive

      Crausby, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Borrow, David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darvill, Keith

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Browne, Desmond

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burden, Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burgon, Colin

      Denham, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Dismore, Andrew

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dowd, Jim

      Canavan, Dennis

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Cann, Jamie

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Edwards, Huw

      515

      Efford, Clive

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lock, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Love, Andrew

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fisher, Mark

      McCabe, Steve

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McDonnell, John

      Galloway, George

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gardiner, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McNulty, Tony

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      MacShane, Denis

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Goggins, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hain, Peter

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hanson, David

      Maxton, John

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Meale, Alan

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Healey, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mitchell, Austin

      Heppell, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hill, Keith

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Hood, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hope, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jamieson, David

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pike, Peter L

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Plaskitt, James

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kidney, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Laxton, Bob

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Lepper, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rogers, Allan

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Linton, Martin

      Rooney, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Roy, Frank

      Timms, Stephen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Todd, Mark

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Touhig, Don

      Salter, Martin

      Trickett, Jon

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Truswell, Paul

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tynan, Bill

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Singh, Marsha

      Wareing, Robert N

      Skinner, Dennis

      Watts, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, LJew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Snape, Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wilson, Brian

      Spellar, John

      Winnick, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wood, Mike

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Woolas, Phil

      Stevenson, George

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wray, James

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      Division No. 51]

      [7.19 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ainger, Nick

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Ashton, Joe

      Alexander, Douglas

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Allen, Graham

      Austin, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Ballard, Jackie

      549

      Banks, Tony

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Barnes, Harry

      Doran, Frank

      Battle, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Drew, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Efford, Clive

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Benton, Joe

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fisher, Mark

      Berry, Roger

      Follett, Barbara

      Best, Harold

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Blackman, Liz

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foulkes, George

      Borrow, David

      Galloway, George

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Gapes, Mike

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Breed, Colin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Browne, Desmond

      Goggins, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Burgon, Colin

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Burstow, Paul

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Grogan, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gunnell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hain, Peter

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Casale, Roger

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Chaytor, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clapham, Michael

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clelland, David

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hood, Jimmy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hope, Phil

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coleman, Iain

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Colman, Tony

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hurst, Alan

      Corston, Jean

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cotter, Brian

      Illsley, Eric

      Cranston, Ross

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Crausby, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jamieson, David

      Cummings, John

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Denham, John

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      550

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Laxton, Bob

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lepper, David

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rammell, Bill

      Levitt, Tom

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rendel, David

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rooney, Terry

      Linton, Martin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roy, Frank

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lock, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Love, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Salter, Martin

      Sanders, Adrian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Macdonald, Calum

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonnell, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McFall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McNulty, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Singh, Marsha

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mallaber, Judy

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

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Snape, Peter

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Spellar, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Martlew, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Maxton, John

      Stevenson, George

      Meale, Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Miller, Andrew

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Moore, Michael

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mountford, Kali

      Todd, Mark

      Mudie, George

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Mullin, Chris

      Trickett, Jon

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Truswell, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Norris, Dan

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Olner, Bill

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Tyler, Paul

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Tynan, Bill

      Pearson, Ian

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pendry, Tom

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watts, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Webb, Steve

      Pollard, Kerry

      Welsh, Andrew

      Pond, Chris

      White, Brian

      Pope, Greg

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Wicks, Malcolm

      551

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wray, James

      Willis, Phil

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wilson, Brian

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wise, Audrey

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Wood, Mike

      Mr. Don Touhig.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amess, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Faber, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bercow, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Body, Sir Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Boswell, Tim

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fraser, Christopher

      Brady, Graham

      Gale, Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      Gibb, Nick

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gill, Christopher

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Burns, Simon

      Gray, James

      Butterfill, John

      Green, Damian

      Cash, William

      Greenway, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hammond, Philip

      Collins, Tim

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hayes, John

      Cran, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Horam, John

      Day, Stephen

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Key, Robert

      552

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Btoxbourne)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Ruffley, David

      Leigh, Edward

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Letwin, Oliver

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Lidington, David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Loughton, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spring, Richard

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Syms, Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Madel, Sir David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Maples, John

      Thompson, William

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Tredinnick, David

      Mawhinnev Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Trend, Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Viggers, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Walter, Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Wells, Bowen

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Ottaway, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Page, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Pickles, Eric

      Yeo, Tim

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Randall, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robathan, Andrew

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Robertson. Laurence

      Mr. Peter Atkinson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

  Disqualifications Bill
  Not amended in the Committee, considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Having had a fairly friendly afternoon of it, I do not want to be too controversial now. Let me just say that I do not think that the last 24 hours have been very helpful to the situation in Northern Ireland, or shown the House of Commons at its best.
  The Conservative Front Bench did not oppose Second Reading. It seemed to me that it lost control of a number of its dissident Back Benchers, who then created an entirely new situation which took the Front Bench down the garden path. At various stages of the debate, I was not entirely clear about how Conservative Front Benchers were approaching the matter. At one point, they were saying that this was not a constitutional outrage; on other occasions, it seemed almost as though other Conservative spokespersons were suggesting that it was.
  Mr. MacKay: What unites Conservative Members—and, I believe, Liberal Democrats and Unionists—is our belief that it is an outrage to arrange a Second Reading debate on the Monday and then, after the Minister has said—in response to me—that the Bill constitutes neither emergency nor urgent legislation, to bulldoze the measure through, allowing a Committee stage and a Report stage with no time for reflection. That, I think, unites all the Opposition parties, and I believe that it also unites certain Labour Members who are disgusted with the way in which the Government bulldoze through legislation while ignoring the House of Commons.
  Mr. O'Brien: Given the unreasonableness of his intervention, I am sorry that I felt disposed to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. This is not emergency legislation; it is a Bill that was given broad support on Second Reading, by a vote of 300 to 17. The Conservative Front-Bench team did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. It is a short Bill of three clauses and has been available since just before Christmas. Many amendments to it were tabled.
  When the timing of the Bill was put before the usual channels, there was no protest from the Conservative Front-Bench team. It could have protested if it felt that it was a significant matter, but the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks on Northern Ireland for the Conservative Front-Bench team, said that he did not regard it as a major constitutional Bill. He has been clear in that view. Therefore, it seemed that, at that stage, Conservative Front Benchers did not object to the way in which the House was proceeding.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: No. I am dealing with a point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I hope to give way later to hon. Members, but I do not want to detain the House too long; in many ways, it has already been detained too long.

  523
  The Bill became a matter of principle at the late stages yesterday. It was only when a number of Conservative Back Benchers decided to deal with it in a certain way that others got dragged along.
  The Bill is essentially a small step in building a closer relationship between the Irish Republic and the UK as a whole. Whereas, under present law, Northern Ireland is treated uniquely—its citizens can have dual membership of the Irish Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly—under the Bill, it will be treated broadly as the rest of the UK is in its relationship with the Irish Republic. If we do not pass the Bill, the current law will remain and Northern Ireland will continue to be the only part of the UK with that special link.
  It is surprising, then, that an essentially fairly modest little Bill has produced so much controversy. It says more about the sensitivities of the situation in Northern Ireland than the Bill itself. It is not surprising that there are sensitivities in Northern Ireland, given the history of the past 30 years, but we must be aware that seeing threats in changes that are not really threatening is not helpful.
  I understand that lives have been blighted, murders committed, atrocities have taken place and rightful anger engendered. I understand the concern that each move must be carefully reciprocated. All those things make the whole Northern Irish process a painful journey away from violence and, I hope, towards a better future. Sometimes, the price for some can seem high. The so-called concessions sometimes appear great to some Members, until we consider that, if we do not continue the process, we will face the prospect of more lives blighted and more widows created. I think that the whole House would share that view.
  It is understandable that, sometimes, both sides say, "So far, but no further," and that there are suspicions. Sometimes, people in England may not understand some of those feelings, but if they remember the history and the families who have been directly affected, perhaps they will.
  We are engaged in a process of reconciling the two communities and two heritages in Northern Ireland within a wider institutional structure. Essentially, the Bill is a small step in ending the anomaly with regard to Northern Ireland and in recognising the need for closer links between the UK as a whole and the Irish Republic. It is not about unification, or even a step towards it. It is about two countries with many shared concerns working out, within the context of the British Isles and the European Union, a closer working relationship on a number of issues.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I promised to give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I shall then give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Then I shall move on.
  Mr. Hogg: It is kind of the Minister to give way to me.
  524
  I take the Minister back to the points that he was making about the nature of the Bill and opposition developing late last night. Perhaps he would remember that, in business questions last week, I said to the Leader of the House that what she was doing was wrong. The Bill raises questions of considerable constitutional importance and it was offensive in principle for the Committee stage to follow Second Reading so quickly. The hon. Gentleman will see that I said that to the Leader of the House last Thursday. It is wrong to suggest that that point was not anticipated by Conservative Members.
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of those who took a somewhat different view from that of Conservative Front Benchers on the importance of the constitutional issues raised by the Bill. My point was about Conservative Front Benchers. Although I entirely accept the point that he makes on his own views, which are shared by one or two other Opposition Members, that was not the view adopted by Conservative Front Benchers.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is right to say that Liberal Democrat Members agree that the Bill will iron out an anomaly in relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland. However, will he tell us who—we have not yet been told—last year, in 1999, proposed that the anomaly should be ironed out, and when—in which month—the matter was first put on the agenda? Did the initiative come from the United Kingdom Government, from Northern Ireland or from the Irish Government?
  Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I should explain the broader context to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot tell him the month that the issue was raised or even who raised it, as I did not see the initial representations on the matter. However, if I write to him on it, perhaps he will be better informed of the context. I am not able now to give him the precise information that he requests.
  The Bill is not a huge constitutional concession, but a minor development in line with the forging of the special relationship between us and the Republic—our European partner, which is also a part of these islands.
  No new principle is involved in the Bill. Dual membership is already possible between the Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Is it in order for the Minister continuously to say that the Bill raises no major constitutional issues, although it has been determined by the House—on the advice of the authorities of the House, and at the insistence of the Speaker—that it is a constitutional Bill and debate on it must be held on the Floor of the House? How can the Minister say that the Bill is minor and non-constitutional legislation?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order, but a matter for debate.
  Mr. O'Brien: The Bill is not a huge constitutional concession. That point was made by Opposition Front Benchers, who also took the view that the Bill does not entail major constitutional innovation. At least to some extent, Opposition Front Benchers and I share that view—which, unfortunately, is different from that held by the hon. Gentleman. Then again, it is not for him to have

  525
  different views from those of Conservative Front Benchers. However, many other Conservative Members seem to hold different views from those of their spokesmen.
  Dual membership is possible also between Common-wealth legislatures and our own. There are those who say that there should be no dual membership between sovereign states, but it has existed under our constitution for decades. Those who protest about it now did nothing about it when they were in government.
  The Republic of Ireland has unique geographic, historical, economic, family and cultural ties with Britain. It is a special relationship, closer in many ways than our relationship with any other country outside the Commonwealth. Under our constitution, Irish nationals other than TDs have long been in the same position as Commonwealth citizens and have been able to stand for and vote in elections to the House of Commons.
  In the previous century, there were constitutional issues to resolve, but the Good Friday agreement, and the British-Irish agreement, which came into effect on 2 December 1999, and our membership of the European Union make it clear that there is more that draws us closer than needs divide us.
  The Bill is a small move, and it is now timely to take that step. As part of a bigger picture, it reduces anomalies and clarifies relationships. It is a small step that will give perhaps a little help—I claim no more for it—in the broader context of the peace process. The British-Irish agreement enabled the change to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and changes to British constitutional legislation.
  With the new agreement between the Governments on some of the constitutional issues, it is more appropriate that treatment of the Irish Parliament should be on the same basis as the most favourable treatment accorded to some Commonwealth legislatures.
  Whether constituents want their MP to sit in two Parliaments and represent the views of two different constituencies is an issue on which many hon. Members have views. Some disapprove in principle; we believe that it is a matter for the electorate in each case to decide. We do not propose to bar Commonwealth legislators from standing for this House. We were also reluctant to leave section 36 of the 1998 Act unamended, and now we have decided to extend it to the UK as a whole.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me. Earlier in his speech he made clear the importance that he attaches to the taking of reciprocal steps. How can he then justify the stone wall of opposition erected by the Government against amendments that would have achieved exactly the reciprocity of which he spoke? There is an inconsistency between his behaviour and his remarks over the past 24 hours.
  Mr. O'Brien: I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman participated in the debate on reciprocity, although I know that he was in the Chamber at other times last night. However, it was pointed out that, when it came
  526
  to reciprocity, there was a bar against Members of the Irish legislature belonging to this legislature. I shall not go into the whole issue of citizenship: rehearsing that argument would not be useful.
  The 1998 Act recognises the special circumstances in Northern Ireland. The Government remain committed to working through the political process there, and to full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. That represents the best and only way for us to put the past behind us, to bring conflict to an end and to establish real partnership. We want local politicians in Northern Ireland to be in charge of their destiny.
  Our clear message must be that politics and violence do not go together. Devolution and decommissioning go hand in hand. The Government will not fail to act in the event of default on either decommissioning or devolution.
  The Bill is part of the broader political process, Government to Government, but it is not part of the Good Friday agreement. We should not seek to import into that sensitive and balanced agreement clauses that it did not contain before. If we did that, we would be treading into a dangerous political minefield. It is better to recognise that decommissioning belongs in the context of the Good Friday agreement. It is an integral part of that agreement, and is about the collateral strengthening of the special relationship.
  The Bill is not about unification, decommissioning or great constitutional innovation. It is not a huge or major constitutional Bill, as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman agreed. It is about building a closer special relationship between London and Dublin, in the light of shared interests. It is about ending the anomaly that means that Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the UK on the issue of dual membership.
  Most importantly, it is a small step on the longer journey towards creating the institutional structures that in the long term will help to create peace. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.44 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister made many remarks with which the Opposition are in sympathy, as we are totally committed to the peace process. It is very important that he registers that. If I may say so, his opening remarks were nothing short of disgraceful. He said—implied, certainly—that the peace process had in some way been jeopardised by what had gone on in the House over the past 24 hours. The Leader of the House, who was muttering from a sedentary position, said something similar, which has been reported in the news media.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I most certainly did not say that this situation had endangered the peace process. I said that it was unhelpful in the wider political process. That is different. The hon. Gentleman must not play with fire here—the situation in Northern Ireland is much too serious for party politics.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Member who has been playing party politics is hardly the one currently speaking at the Dispatch Box. The comments of the Minister and of the Leader of the House in her broadcast have cast aspersions on the wholehearted support that the

  527
  Conservative party has given, is giving, and wishes to continue to give the peace process. It is important to have that on the record.
  There is another matter on which I should like to take the hon. Gentleman to task. He said that the situation over the past 24 hours had shown the House of Commons at its worst. What patronising claptrap. I have been in the House somewhat longer than he has and can remember the Parliament of 1970, when, quite rightly, the Labour Opposition took the Conservative Government through the night time after time on the Committee stages of the Industrial Relations Act 1972 and the European Communities Act 1972.
  That has happened many times over the years—it is a perfectly legitimate use of parliamentary time by the Opposition. If the Opposition believe that what the Government are doing is inimical to the interests of the country or the constitution, they have a manifest duty to use every legitimate parliamentary weapon at their disposal to delay the progress of the legislation concerned and try to persuade the Government to think again. The tactic has been used with consummate brilliance by such people as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom we are so glad to see back in the House—not today, but this week. It was used with great brilliance by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) when he represented Ardwick. I remember past masters such as Michael Foot and John Mendelson, who kept the House up night after night. Their brilliant speeches were devastatingly disturbing for the Government of the day but they were, nevertheless, a proper use of parliamentary time by the Opposition.
  As I listened to my right hon. and hon. Friends—and I single out my right hon. and loquacious Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I thought of the late Bernard Braine, much-loved former Father of the House. [Interruption.] That was a most unworthy and disgusting remark for the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) to make from a sedentary position. Bernard Braine was a distinguished Father of the House and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did he say?"] He said that he was bonkers. Anyone who can utter such a remark is beneath contempt in the opinion of decent people.
  I can remember many others. Ivan Lawrence, thankfully, is not the late Ivan Lawrence, although he is sadly no longer a Member of the House. Such people used these weapons time and again, perfectly legitimately. What has been done? The past 24 hours have seen an exercise of parliamentary good manners—not bad manners—and an expression of parliamentary frustration. That frustration is shared by Liberal Democrat Members. They have not seen eye to eye with us on all the Bill's aspects but they believe, as we do, that for the Bill to be taken through all its stages in two consecutive days was wrong.
  It has been pointed out that Prime Minister's Question Time was lost today. The fault does not lie with the Opposition. At any moment during Committee, it would have been possible for the Government, with the cohorts at their command, to move that further consideration be adjourned, or not to have moved the 10 o'clock motion last night. If Government Members had wanted Prime
  528
  Minister's questions to be held, it could have been done. However, they were obviously afraid of the devastating ridicule that would have been heaped on the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is being barracked by Members sitting on the Treasury Bench. Is that because they are embarrassed by the fiasco they produced by moving the 10 o'clock motion and trying to force the business through because they believed that we had no stomach to pursue the matter?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am not one to be intimidated by the embarrassment of Government Members. One of the most notable features of the debates of the past 24 or more hours has been that, with one exception, no Labour Back Bencher has spoken in support of the measure. One or two Labour Members have expressed some disquiet—most notably, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—but Labour Members have not supported their Government.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department condemned himself when he admitted that this is not emergency legislation. Had it been, he would have received the unequivocal support of the Opposition. I have sat through the debates on every piece of emergency legislation introduced during the past 30 years; most of it was introduced by my party, although some was introduced by Labour.
  For example, we were summoned back to Parliament after the terrible bombing in Omagh a couple of years ago, to rush through legislation that has, I understand, never been used. Nevertheless, we accepted that there was a prima facie case for the legislation. We supported it, inconveniencing ourselves to do so; that was right. It was our duty.
  The Minister would not have had to ask the Opposition to support emergency legislation; support would have been given at every stage of the proceedings.
  Mr. Hogg: Although it is always right that the House should respond to an emergency, it should never deprive itself of the duty and obligation to scrutinise legislation. It is our business to ensure that Bills leave this place in a perfect state.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course it is. The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend is wholly compatible with mine. When we were summoned back to consider that emergency legislation, one of the best speeches that I have heard for many a long year was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He had grave reservations about the measure and said so, quite properly.
  In cases of true emergency legislation, we are happy to co-operate to ensure passage through the House. However, by any stretch of the imagination, the Bill is not an emergency provision. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department admitted as much and suggests his continued agreement.
  Throughout those long hours in Committee, we asked for whom the legislation was being introduced. What is it for? Who wants it? As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, who is it to

  529
  please? I do not blame hon. Members who did not want to sit up all night, but I want to make it plain to those who were not in the Chamber that real fear and concern were expressed that the legislation is being pushed through the House at the behest of two gentlemen. They were elected to the House, but have never chosen to take their seats. They want to enjoy the facilities of the House without taking the Oath or making the Affirmation, which we all do. There is fear that the measure is being introduced to accommodate those two, even though they have done nothing to signify their complete agreement to the peace process.
  We have had no decommissioning, and we have still not had General de Chastelain's first report. In the context of the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, it would at the very least have been politic to wait for that first report before introducing the Bill. We were told on Second Reading that the Bill would in some way facilitate the peace process—that although the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement and no one said that it was, nevertheless it is tangential and complementary to it, and will assist its development. The Under-Secretary is nodding at those comments. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office laughs. I do not consider it a laughing matter in any sense.
  We have had a Bill presented to us, but at no stage has either of the two principal Ministers, for both of whom we have a high regard, told us who asked for it, what precisely it is for, why it has to be enacted now and whether it is part of another series of suggestions by Senator Mitchell. If it is not, is it because it has been specifically requested by Messrs Adams and McGuinness? That is what is suspected by Opposition Members, especially Ulster Unionist Members.
  I remind everyone that we would not be talking about any peace process were it not for the bravery—some even think the foolhardy bravery, although I do not—of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party, because without Ulster Unionist co-operation there could be no peace process and no prospect of its success. So why upset the Unionist community by doing things that make them feel under pressure from those who have not yet properly subscribed to the democratic process?
  During these debates, we have talked much about the dual mandate. I am told that the Labour party has in its constitution a clause that says that no member shall have a dual mandate—that no member shall be, for instance, a Member of the European Parliament and a Member of this Parliament. I am also told that most of those who currently enjoy a dual mandate in either the Scottish Parliament and this House or the National Assembly for Wales and this House, are encouraged to make a choice as to which they would prefer. That is a perfectly proper thing for the Labour party to say to its members, but it is an extension of that that has been debated over the past two days. Many Opposition Members ask how someone can be a Minister in a Government in one country and a Back-Bench legislator in another. That is seen to be an anomaly in a Bill that is riddled with anomalies.
  Another thing that has caused great concern on the Opposition Benches has been the Government's unwillingness to contemplate any amendment that touches on reciprocity. Even amendments for which the Ministers
  530
  have expressed some sympathy—both hon. Gentlemen have done so for certain amendments—have not been accepted.
  Had we had a normal timetable for the Bill and a Report stage in a few days' time, there would have been an opportunity for amendments to be tabled on Report; and then, as frequently happens, Ministers could have said, "We do not quite like the way that you have phrased that amendment, but we shall table an amendment that will not only be sympathetic but will echo your wishes." We have had none of that, and nor have we even had a promise of amendments in another place.
  Therefore, what are we to think but that we have a Government who are totally obdurate on this issue, and who are not prepared to do more than pay lip-service to the deep and abiding concerns of those who know this problem inside out, many of whom have lived their lives and lost many of their friends in Ulster? The Government are not prepared to accept a single amendment here or in another place. That is most unfortunate, to put it mildly. It is small wonder that many Opposition Members fear that this is the thin end of the wedge.
  Many Opposition Members were less than happy about the Minister's perfectly sincere comment on Second Reading about the Oath. He was prepared to say that there were no current plans to change it, but he was unable to give the sort of categorical commitment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the Shadow Home Secretary, asked for, quite reasonably, in her opening speech.
  It is against that background that we must decide how to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote tonight. We did not vote officially against the Bill on Second Reading, as the Minister knows. We supported a number of amendments that we believe would have gone a long way towards allaying the legitimate fears and concerns of Opposition Members, particularly our friends in Ulster.
  Not a single one of those amendments has been accepted, and we have not even had a promise to table amendments along those lines in the other place. We are left with a Bill that is manifestly unsatisfactory and riddled with anomalies. We believe that the Bill will send out many wrong signals in Ulster.
  We do not wish to send out wrong signals on the issue of the peace process. Therefore, I want to end where I began. I want there to be no doubt in any quarter of this House as to the Opposition's full support for the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my noble Friend Lord Mayhew played a significant part in the peace process. That work has been generously and properly acknowledged by Labour Ministers, as I acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister.
  Let no one say that what has been said by the Opposition over the past 24 hours is in any way designed to undermine the peace process. Quite the contrary—we believe that the Bill is itself so full of anomalies and fears for the Ulster Unionist community that it could be a problem. We hope that it will not be a problem, and we know that it is not the intention of the Government that it should be.
  We underline our support for the peace process but, in view of the fact that we have had no satisfactory answers to the amendments, I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Winnick: I do not challenge the right of the Opposition to oppose, or their right to exploit every parliamentary opportunity. For me to say otherwise would be humbug and hypocrisy. I spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches, and I cannot now say that the Opposition should not do what they believe they should do.
  There is, however, the question whether the Conservatives' actions at a sensitive time in Northern Ireland are right and proper. I take the view that this has been a disastrous day for Parliament. I believe that what the Opposition have done today—I do not challenge their right to do it—was most inappropriate, and I will explain why.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—whom I greatly respect—said that his remarks should not in any way given the impression that the Conservative party is against the peace process. Those are very important words, and all of us on the Labour Benches appreciate the widespread support for the peace process, including among many Opposition Members.
  The hon. Gentleman was cheered on various occasions during his speech—but when he referred to the peace process, there were no cheers. That in itself is rather alarming.
  Opposition Members said that no Labour Back Bencher had spoken in favour during the debates. However, I know of no one on the Labour Benches, apart from one hon. Friend, who does not agree with the sentiments of the Bill. As Opposition Members know, it is not unusual for Government Back Benchers not to speak when Opposition Members take up so much time. We are not against the Bill, so why should we have spoken? The silence of Labour Members on Second Reading and in Committee should not be taken as a lack of support for the Bill.
  The Bill will end several anomalies. However, it is also important because it will further normalise relations between this country and the Irish Republic. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke about the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister. I am pleased that in the past 15 years—I do not say from when we were elected—there has been a substantial improvement in relations between this country and the Irish Republic. That is right and it is the way to proceed. I have always paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon for the way in which he initiated the peace process. I may have some criticisms, but what he did was in the national interest and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has consolidated the process in ways that the large majority in the House support.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is not the Irish Republic a sovereign independent state with its own Parliament and a constitutional court? Did it seek the Bill? No one has said that it did. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by normalising relations when that will involve opening up the House of Commons, with its responsibilities to the British electorate, to foreign citizens who are proud of who they are and whom we respect?
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend the Minister has explained that both on Second Reading and in his remarks just now.
  532
  I am suspicious of some of the opposition to the Bill. I excuse those on the Opposition Front Bench; I know that they are in favour of the peace process. We have differences of opinion and criticise each other, but I take their word that they are in favour of the peace process. However, four Unionist Members are in the Chamber, and three of them are against the peace process.
  Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Winnick: No, I shall be very brief. Three out of the four Unionists in the Chamber were against the peace process and the Good Friday agreement from the very beginning. As we all know, some Opposition Back Benchers are against the peace process and the agreement.
  Much of the opposition today and throughout the night came from hon. Members who have opposed the Good Friday agreement and from others who have a great deal of anti-Irish spite. They have used the opportunity to prolong our proceedings. The Bill is right. It will help the peace process and further normalise relations with the Irish Republic. I hope that it will receive a large majority on Third Reading.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Maginnis: There was a difference between the Minister's opening and his closing remarks. In his opening remarks, he emphasised the special relationship that existed between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom and suggested that the Bill was a necessary concession based on that relationship. The Minister need not go to the trouble of looking up the reference: I can tell him that the phrase "special relationship" occurs twice in the opening paragraphs. That should enable him to concentrate on my speech. On Third Reading, the Minister tells the House that the Bill represents a minimal constitutional and procedural change—one that is of no great import. How does he reconcile those two attitudes, struck within 24 hours of each other?
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: If I had made such diverse remarks, I would have to reconcile them. However, if the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks on Second Reading with care, he will see that they are on all fours with my remarks on Third Reading. The Bill represents a small step in the broader context of the creation of a stronger special relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. I said that on Second Reading and I have now repeated it. I have never suggested—indeed, I have denied throughout—that the Bill makes a big constitutional change.
  Mr. Maginnis: I have considerable sympathy for both Ministers who have borne the burden of taking the Bill through the House. However, their performance, while gutsy, has betrayed the fact that they do not in their hearts believe that it is a good thing, not only to divide the House down the middle, but to have in their party's ranks many Labour Members who have, in the past 24 hours, told me that they wonder what the Government are about.
  People are understandably confused by what we have heard, for the simple reason that we have not been given a clear exposition as to who was involved, not in consultations, but in creating the concept that Members of the Dail want to be patronised by the UK Government

  533
  acting as though they were old colonialists. People do not want to be so patronised. I have been in Dublin on numerous occasions over the past three weeks; I spent 48 hours there last week, during which time I spoke to journalists, to business men and professional people and to Back Benchers from all the political parties, as well as to political leaders. Not one person with whom I spoke expressed any desire for the Bill and most of them denied having any knowledge of it. The Government are being foolish, not only in terms of the Opposition parties, but in terms of their own Back Benchers.
  In the past 24 hours, the question has been asked several times why a Bill that is not emergency and urgent legislation has had to be rushed through in two consecutive days. Why could the normal processes whereby legislation passes through the House not be employed? I do not know whether the answer has anything to do with the fact that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and other old Labour Members were high on the list of questions to be put to the Prime Minister on his 1,000th day in office. Proceedings on the Bill gave Ministers a useful lesson in avoiding the scrutiny of dissidents on their own side.
  To sustain their position, the Government have had to be "misleading"—I cannot think of a better word. However, the Government have not clearly enunciated how we reached our present position. It is time that there was a little frankness about the part that was played by my party and my party leader. The Minister has suggested that consultation took place. When I pressed him on the issue and said that consultation after the event and after decisions had been made was not proper consultation—I tried to intervene but was not permitted to do so—he said that he was not really there so he did not know what was going on. The hon. Gentleman cannot say to the House, "There was consultation with the leader of the Ulster Unionist party but I am not terribly sure because I do not know what was going on and when that consultation took place." It is an issue that he might reasonably clarify. I hope that he does so with the sort of frankness that I would expect from him.
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall be entirely clear with the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to discover precisely what discussions the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had with Ministers, he should first approach his right hon. Friend rather than trying to get the information first hand from me. However, as I understand it, clause 2 is entirely the result of the consultation that took place with the right hon. Gentleman who is the leader of his party. The views of Ulster Unionists have been recognised within the context of the Bill, but that may not be all that the hon. Gentleman wanted. I do not know, because I did not hear all the representations that he made. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could alert him to the precise nature of the representations that were made.
  Mr. Maginnis: I think that there is a degree of frankness in what the Minister now says. When the proposal was put to my right hon. Friend, he expressed clearly his antipathy to it. He said that it was entirely unnecessary. I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland nods with some vigour. Not
  534
  being able to make the impression on Downing Street that he had hoped to, and to have the proposal withdrawn, my right hon. Friend pointed out there would be a conflict of interest and hence—
  Mr. George Howarth: To put the record straight, neither my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department nor I said at any stage that the First Minister, the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, wanted these measures. Nor did we say that as a result of consultation he wanted them. He was consulted and he expressed reservations. Some of those reservations were taken into account and embodied in clause 2.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful. My right hon. Friend voted against the Bill on Second Reading. The reality is that we were concerned not with recent events but with how we reached a situation in which an unnecessary and patronising piece of legislation came before the House and occupied us in the Chamber for more than two days, and almost three.
  We have heard also that there was consultation with the Irish Government. I have no knowledge—I stand to be corrected—that the Irish Government sought to initiate legislation that they could not reciprocate. Indeed, they had no desire to reciprocate and no ability to do so. These matters have been well and truly illustrated throughout our hours and days of debate.
  We now approach the nub of the issue: who negotiated with Her Majesty's Government? The answer is Sinn Fein, which is the only Irish political party that could have an interest in the Bill. Sinn Fein will be disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann and my colleagues managed to get clause 2 included in the measure, because that party's objective is to portray itself as the only all-Irish party with governmental responsibility in both jurisdictions. However, as I said on Second Reading, the Taoiseach—the political leader of the Irish Republic—has made it clear that he does not want unreconstructed terrorists in any coalition Government that he may lead.
  That lesson could be learned by those in this House who would smuggle members of Sinn Fein-IRA—unreconstructed terrorists, associated with terrorist organisations, who retain guns and bombs—around the protection that Madam Speaker gives the House, and provide them with offices, telephones and £50,000 a year each. I am pleased that common sense prevailed throughout the House and that the Government, whatever excuse they may proffer, have been persuaded not to usurp the power of the Chair, which protects us all and has traditionally done that, both during my time in the House and long before.
  Ministers claim that the Bill is not threatening, but that is a subjective view. It would be more objective to consider whether the Bill is a reconciling measure. Little reconciliation has occurred in the past few weeks at the Government's behest. I do not want to stray from the Bill, but the Government have taken the one action on policing that would alienate most people in Northern Ireland. As part of their decision-making process, the name of the

  535
  Royal Ulster Constabulary will disappear. That has achieved nothing. Ministers refused to comment on that. Perhaps we can—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to depart from the Bill but promptly did so. We are on Third Reading, and the hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to the Bill.
  Mr. Maginnis: I acknowledge that point. I said that I did not want to enter into a discussion on the RUC, but I should have liked to refer to the matter. However, I accepted your guidance, Sir Alan.
  I have shown the Government's carelessness of the sensitivities of ordinary, decent people, not only in Northern Ireland, but in the Irish Republic. The Government must abandon the notion that a majority of 170 heralds the return of colonial times.
  We have to ask ourselves whether any recent event, including the introduction of the Bill, is likely to help with the one issue that is important to all our striving to achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Everyone knows that I am referring to the dismantling and disarmament of terrorist organisations. The laziest member of the family who does the least work—whether at university or in his job—can lie in bed to dinner time knowing that the registered envelope will arrive on the doormat. By enamelling on to the periphery of the Belfast agreement concession after concession to the IRA, the Government have presented that registered envelope to the organisation so that such people do not have to work, as the rest of us have to, at moving things forward—often at our own inconvenience and soon to our own embarrassment.
  Mr. Donaldson: My hon. Friend talks about striving for peace in Northern Ireland and I welcome his comments. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made remarks, which he repeats at every opportunity in the House, about those of us who have concerns about aspects of the process—concerns that he has just expressed. We may have concerns, but does my hon. Friend agree that that does not mean that we are against peace in Northern Ireland? Many of us who voice them have suffered at the hands of terrorists and want to end terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is why we express our worries. The objective of my hon. Friend and I is the dismantling of terrorism in Northern Ireland, which is the only way to achieve real peace.
  Mr. Maginnis: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. Although we want the same thing for those whom we represent, we find it difficult to reconcile on a means by which to achieve it.
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. Maginnis: I shall not give way because I must end my speech.
  The Government must recognise the difficulty that ordinary people have in trying to move the process forward. By introducing such legislation, they do nothing—absolutely nothing—to help.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The way in which the Bill has been debated has shown the importance of the issues that it raises. It relates principally to Northern Ireland, but also to Ireland and to the United Kingdom, so we all have a duty to take it seriously. It is clearly part of a constitutional process and part of and related to a peace process. There can be no one of good will in the House who does not want the peace process to succeed and the constitutional relationship between this country and Ireland to be on the best and most secure footing. They therefore want a Bill that improves that constitutional link as well.
  The Bill could have been better explained, and would have been more welcome, had it been part of a parallel process in Ireland and the United Kingdom, particularly because Ireland is evaluating what constitutional changes it might want to make. A report is due this year. We have all had to judge the Bill on what has been presented to us, even though there is clearly a much bigger agenda all round. My hon. Friends and I voted for Second Reading and have been in the Chamber throughout the past day and a bit, tabling a new clause and supporting or opposing amendments on their merits. We regret that we have not managed to amend the Bill.
  On Third Reading, the question that we must ask ourselves is whether the Bill contains two proposals of merit. Irrespective of the way in which the Bill has been presented and handled, should we support it on Third Reading, given the words that are on the Order Paper? The answer is that we will vote for the Bill on Third Reading, because the two specific proposals that it contains seem to us, on balance, to have merit. Those two proposals are, first, that the relationship between people in the Irish Parliament and people in this Parliament should be at least on the same footing as the relationship between people in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and people of this Parliament; and secondly, that the anomaly which allows people to be in the Irish Seanad and the Northern Ireland Assembly should be corrected to allow people to be in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in either House of the Irish Parliament. We shall therefore support the Bill.
  The approach of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), the Minister and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was entirely reasonable. I cannot say the same for the approach of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). He unjustifiably criticised people who have a perfectly valid point of view, and attributed to them motives that he could not justify given their activities over many years.
  The Bill has not had better support because it tries to gain the confidence of the republican minority in Northern Ireland without at the same time seeking to gain the confidence of the Unionist majority. The peace process and the constitutional process require both communities to be more confident as a result of the Bill.
  Ministers know our position. We do not blame the two Ministers for the way in which the Bill has been handled. They have been assiduous and, like us, have served their time during the many days and hours that we have considered this measure. However, the Government are in charge of the timetable, as you and your colleagues have often told us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They decided that the

  537
  Bill would be brought before the House for Second Reading on one day, for Committee stage the following day, and for Report and Third Reading on the third day—at least in chronological time—without interruption and against all the usual conventions of the House.
  When considering constitutional Bills, it is especially important that we follow the usual constitutional timetable and give time for proper consideration. We need to be particularly careful with short Bills to ensure that they are not hiding a multitude of future difficulties. We have been down that road before during my years in the House.
  The Bill was not in the manifesto or the Queen's Speech. It was not in the Good Friday agreement. It was conceived in mystery sometime before December, published without explanation in December, presented on the day the House rose— for the recess, introduced without justification in January, and pushed through the House without agreement on three consecutive days, during the last of which we have sat for 24 hours. We have still not been given an explanation for or justification of why this measure had to be handled in that way.
  As the Minister and I had cause to reflect in the middle of this afternoon, it is a bizarre outcome that on the 1,000th day of the first Labour Government for almost two decades, instead of the Prime Minister putting his record to Parliament for the scrutiny of the House, we had to have a Committee stage of a Bill that two months ago no one envisaged we would be debating.
  I repeat the question. We can guess, but we have never had an answer: why this Bill? The Minister said—I took careful note—that it was a small step to improve the constitutional relationship. I accept that, but why was the measure not introduced in the Northern Ireland Act 1998? Why was it not introduced in 1999? Why was the Bill not in the Queen's Speech, the Good Friday agreement or the manifesto? Why now and in a way that requires us to drop all other business, defer all other activity, eliminate Prime Minister's questions and Department for International Development questions and to delay other legislation? What is the urgency? No one has answered the question. No one has ever told us the facts.
  I have tabled a set of questions to the Home Secretary and a set of questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today to try to obtain the answer to those questions. Before the House rises, I will table similar questions to the Prime Minister. If the two Secretaries of State do not know the answer, perhaps the Prime Minister knows it.
  I believe that, although the Bill is clearly not formally linked to decommissioning—it should not be—it is probably informally linked. That may not be a bad thing, but we ought to have been told. I say to my colleagues on the Ulster Unionist Benches that if the truth of the matter was that the measure was an initiative of Sinn Fein, we might still have supported it, but we would rather have been told. Our Ulster Unionist and other colleagues would have rather known where the measure came from than have to speculate and never receive an answer.
  Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that the measure is linked to decommissioning, would he not be wise to defer voting in favour of it until we see whether decommissioning takes place?
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks a good question. We had a debate earlier about whether the Bill and decommissioning should be formally linked, and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) made it clear that we did not think that they should. We said that the Bill was about the rights and liberties of people and that that ought not to be linked to an on-going, part-public, part-private process.
  Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I hope that decommissioning works. The Bill may be the trigger to make it work better. We do not know, but we do not believe that we ought to withhold our support on the ground that only if decommissioning happens will it be right to implement the Bill. If the Bill is right on the face of it—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and he understands the point—we believe that we ought to vote for the Bill, even if some reasons for it have not been shared with the House.
  In my almost 17 years in this place, it has often been the short Bills and those introduced with least warning that have been the most controversial and the least satisfactory.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Dogs.
  Mr. Hughes: On a minor matter, the legislation to deal with dangerous dogs was unsatisfactory. On a more severe matter, the emergency legislation introduced the summer before last was unsatisfactory. I was not here at the time, but I understand that the Bill dealing with the Official Secrets Act 1911 was a two-clauser. It was certainly a one-page Bill.
  Dan Norris: It was introduced by a Liberal Government.
  Mr. Hughes: Indeed, it was. It was pushed through the House in one day without the scrutiny that it should have had. We believe that the shorter the Bill, the more the House needs the explanation and justification for it and the more the Government need to carry their colleagues with them. That is why I say to the hon. Member for Walsall, North and the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) that, when the Government control the timetable, to suggest that it is wrong for hon. Members to question, argue, and, if necessary, vote and delay progress, is to undermine the only basis that we have in this place for making sure that when the Government propose something, Parliament has a chance to do at least a half-decent job.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman should be careful. I started my remarks by saying that the Opposition have every right to explore and use every opportunity to exploit the parliamentary situation. I then went on to say why, on this occasion, they were wrong. I in no way included the Liberal Democrats. Therefore, please let it not be said that

  539
  I in any way deny the Opposition's right at any given time to use whatever parliamentary opportunities there are. In my judgment, they were wrong on this occasion.
  Mr. Hughes: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and if that is his position I accept it.
  We have had an extended debate because the Bill has never been explained and the proper procedures of the House have not been followed. If we have taken more than 24 hours on the Bill, approaching a record sitting since the war, it is because the Government should not behave in the way in which they have, whatever the legislation's merits. When we are talking about peace in Northern Ireland, they should be more sensitive and have greater respect for all hon. Members.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Forth: Unfortunately, this is a bad Bill which has been badly handled by the Government. The Government have only themselves to blame for the mess that they have got themselves into, if that is the way in which they see it.
  If the Bill illustrates nothing else, it is that yet again even a Government with a gigantic majority cannot treat the House with contempt and arrogance, that they must respect the traditions and procedures of the House, and that they must expect that their Bills, long or short, large or small, will and should be properly scrutinised by due process in the House.
  That has not been the case with the Bill because the Government thought that they could slip a bad and controversial Bill through without proper scrutiny and, as a result, they have received a bloody nose. I hope that the House will be able to demonstrate again and again that, if the Government are not prepared to allow their Bills to be scrutinised in the proper way, that, or something similar, is likely to be the result.
  I opposed the Bill on Second Reading and I will oppose it on Third Reading because it does something that is unnecessary and dangerous, which undermines my concept of nationhood, of national identity and of the role of a legislature in an independent sovereign nation state. It may be a small Bill, but it manages to do all that in just two substantive clauses.
  Worse than that is that after more than 24 hours of debate we have failed to get to the bottom of the Government's motives in bringing the Bill to the House at this time. On the one hand, on 24 January the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has played a distinguished and responsible role in our proceedings, said:
  "The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) should not labour under the delusion that the Bill is the product of some arrangement between Ministers and Sinn Fein."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 72.]
  Yet towards the end of our Committee proceedings, we dragged from the Government the admission that the real motive behind the Bill was that the Government had felt compelled to do a deal with the Irish Government and Sinn Fein.
  Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend consider the proposition that one reason why the Government have put
  540
  forward two Under-Secretaries to advance the Bill through the House is that they do not know the deal that lies behind the Bill, and that had the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland been on the Front Bench, he might have found it embarrassing to answer the kind of questions that my right hon. Friend and I have asked.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is typically more generous than I am prepared to be on this occasion. I cannot contemplate or conceive of two Ministers, be they Under-Secretaries, Ministers of State or whatever, taking a Bill through the House without properly knowing its background and provenance. If my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, we can partially exonerate the Ministers who have taken the Bill through. I am not prepared to believe that. It is a sad day when Ministers in a Government who profess to believe in open government, honesty, accountability, transparency—call it what one will—are prepared to sit through this length of proceedings without telling the House why they have introduced the Bill, its provenance and why it has to be pushed through in such a hurry.
  Those are the reasons why I am angry about the Bill, why I have been against it, and why I still believe that, although we have been able to give it some degree of scrutiny, the Government have been less than honest with the House and the people of this country, and will live to regret it.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Cash: I will, of course, vote against Third Reading. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and I am glad to note the change of heart by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who, I understand, are now going to vote with us on Third Reading.
  It is a pity that my amendment did not receive the support that I expected. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said from a sedentary position, but perhaps that is just as well. In any event, I strongly believe that the Committee should have supported my amendment, which would have required anyone, before taking a seat in this place or, indeed, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to disavow terrorism. I remain firmly of that opinion.
  As a number of speakers have eloquently pointed out, we have been given no answers, and we do not know who is behind the measure. I personally believe that the Secretary of State is not present because he would have found it impossible to answer some of the questions that have been posed—not because he could not have answered them, but because he would not have wanted to do so. To be pressed continuously would, I think, have been a source of considerable embarrassment.
  I suggest that the appropriate Select Committee—the Home Affairs Committee or, indeed, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—summon the Secretary of State and, in the course of formal proceedings, put questions to him that these junior Ministers have neglected to answer during the past 24 hours. I trust that the members of those Select Committees will take up my suggestion with the appropriate Chairmen, and put it on the agenda.
  The passing of the Bill to the House of Lords will give that House, in its present form, an opportunity to prove its worth. The question of whether the House of Lords is prepared to act on behalf of the country as a whole—

  541
  given the electoral dictatorship that we have witnessed during today's proceedings—provides that House with an ample opportunity to prove whether it really has constitutional spine. If it is prepared at short notice, following all the arguments that we have rehearsed, to improve on those arguments, to examine the Bill's implications and to demonstrate that, as a second Chamber, it is worthy of the opportunities offered to it, I for one will give it my full support.
  Much as I like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I disagree with his reasons for supporting the Bill. The hon. Gentleman represents a great party—a party which, with some leapfrogging and some diversionary tactics, goes back to the origins of this home rule question. It was, after all, Gladstone himself who, in November 1886, defeated the Conservative Government and introduced a Bill whose object was to exclude Irish Members. I found it ironic, to say the least, that the hon. Gentleman argued exactly the opposite case.
  Having said that, I must add that the real questions that lie at the heart of the Bill have not been answered. Whether the Bill can be linked to decommissioning is, in my view, a bit of a red herring; I think that the real issue is the substantive question whether it would be right and proper for us to pass a Bill of this kind, on this notice, with this apparent urgency, without being given any explanation. There are means open to the House to ensure that those questions are put and to insist that they are answered.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Robathan: I shall not detain the House for long, not least because I have sat through more than half the 25 hours of the sitting, although I have not served the House and the country as well as some of my hon. Friends. I have been privy to a unique sight today: the House managed to sit in two places in the same building at the same time, but, theoretically, on different days. The House needs to deal with that.
  Having listened to so much of the debate in what has been a long sitting, I have been convinced that I need to vote against the Bill. I am delighted that we will do so with the support of our Front-Bench team.
  I did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because I wanted to see what it was actually about and was advised that we could improve it, but, sadly, notwithstanding the valiant efforts of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), we have not been able to do so. The more one has heard in the past 25 hours, the worse it has become. Hon. Members who have not attended the sitting should have come to discover what the Government want to do in their name because it is shabby legislation.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a very good speech. To correct my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the Liberal Democrats belong to a once great party; it no longer is. Having made a good speech, the hon. Gentleman drew completely the wrong conclusions as to what he should do. [Interruption.] I hear a little barracking from hon. Members who have recently arrived at the sitting.
  542
  I shall give an example of the grubbiness of the measure. We in the Conservative party have heard a lot about our treasurer, Mr. Ashcroft, who we are told cannot serve two masters, yet that is exactly what the Bill wishes someone in Ireland to do. That is completely illogical, but I will not stray down that road.
  The Minister said that it is not an important constitutional Bill. It is an important constitutional precedent. That must be obvious to even the dimmest person on the Treasury Bench. As with so much other legislation, the Government have tried with the Bill to have constitutional change off-the-cuff. It may have two substantive clauses, but it is off-the-cuff, not thought through and confused.
  In the Second Reading debate, we heard that the Bill was part of the complementary business to the Belfast agreement. Indeed, clauses 2 and 3 refer to the agreement, or the Northern Ireland Act 1998, yet we now know that it is entirely linked to the agreement through deals behind closed doors, in smoke-filled rooms, in underground bunkers in Armagh, or wherever the deals may have been made. The Bill is entirely linked to the 1998 Act and the agreement.
  Those of us who genuinely want peace in Northern Ireland find it appalling that we should be asked, as a proud House that is respected throughout the world, to pass such dreadful legislation at the behest of two former, or possibly still practising, terrorists who happen to have been elected to the House.
  From the long title to the end of the Bill, it is badly written, badly thought out and a hopeless piece of legislation. If I were a Minister presenting it, I would be embarrassed. At the beginning, there is a misprint. It states: "To to". Then it says "remove the disqualification". That is a double negative. Even I know, therefore, that it should be cited as the qualification Bill in the last clause. From the beginning to the end, it is a rotten bit of legislating. We are legislating in haste—although not as hastily as the Government would have wanted—but the Government will repent at leisure.
  Excellent points have been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not want to labour those points. We need to know whose idea the Bill was and what its genesis is. What is the motivation? All Opposition Members know that the Bill is yet another deal, yet another sop, yet another bribe to Sinn Fein following the emasculation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  Does the Minister know about clause 63 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which will exempt Noraid funding from north America to a political party in the United Kingdom? If he does not know about it, he should: the provision is an absolute disgrace. If we do not want foreign funding for political parties, why will that clause exempt Noraid?
  If we want genuine peace, we have to realise that it cannot be built on sand. If we want it, we shall have to have genuinely firm foundations, and be willing to be firm and to stand up and make tough decisions. Furthermore, peace must be built on trust. The Disqualifications Bill demonstrates that we cannot have trust when we do not even know, for heaven's sake, whose idea it was to introduce this shabby little piece of legislation.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Thompson: On Second Reading, I said that this was a squalid little Bill. After all we have been through, I say that it is still a squalid little Bill.
  There are those who said that this type of Bill would help the peace process. I can only say that it will harm the peace process by undermining the Unionist people's confidence in the peace process. All they see in the Bill is another concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. Therefore, rather than helping the peace process, the Bill will greatly harm it.
  After all our proceedings, the Government have made no changes to the Bill, although Ministers said that they would re-examine some of its provisions. I ask Ministers to re-examine one of the Bill's aspects in which I am particularly interested—its wording on the "legislature of Ireland", the "Government of Ireland" and "other than Ireland". Hon. Members should describe Ireland by its correct name—the Republic of Ireland—so that there is no disagreement on what we are talking about.
  It is a bad Bill, and I shall vote against it.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Fabricant: I remind the House that, if we carry through constitutional change without examining it in considerable detail, we frequently find that once the legislation is on the statute book, we end up with wording that may not be exactly be what we foresaw. Those are not my words, but comments on the Bill made yesterday by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  This is a constitutional Bill, which is why its Committee stage was taken on the Floor of the House. Throughout the night, however, we heard nothing but misleading statements from Ministers. At one point, when we were asking for reciprocity, we were told that it is not needed, as there is not the equivalent in the Dail of the House of Commons Disqualifications Act 1975. Subsequently, however, we were told by Ministers—we had to drag it out of them—that one has to be a citizen of the Republic of Ireland to sit in the Dail.
  Time and again, Opposition Members asked why we need reciprocity. The answer was that we need it because of the breach of trust. Why has there been a breach of trust? It occurred because the Government have made concession after concession to Sinn Fein-IRA, with no reciprocity from them.
  This is a bad Bill, which has been handled unconstitutionally in the House. I shall vote against it.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Hogg: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—who introduced the debate on Third Reading, but is no longer in the Chamber—started his speech by saying that the past day's events have shown the House in a bad light. I do not agree with that at all. What was wrong was the Government's decision to schedule Second Reading for Monday, and to push forward consideration in Committee. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, the Committee was right to exercise its powers to scrutinise legislation.
  This is an important Bill, and it is untruthful to suggest otherwise. To make that clear, one has merely to state what it will do—it will enable a Member of the Irish
  544
  Parliament to sit in this House. That is an important proposition, but it is one with which I disagree. It raises inherent problems of conflict with regard to duty and confidentiality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made clear.
  Precedents have been cited. The House was told that similar provisions apply to Commonwealth legislatures. That is true, but if we were to start again, we would not give the Commonwealth Parliament the sort of power that is being given to the Ireland Parliament.
  Moreover, we are creating a precedent for the future. If these provisions are to apply to Members of the Irish Parliament, how can we deny a similar dispensation for their equivalents in France, Spain or Italy? I doubt that a majority of hon. Members would consider that right at all.
  Another problem is the lack of reason. Conservative Members have pressed Ministers to explain the reason for the Bill, but no proper explanation was given. It was put to us that the Bill tidies up a constitutional anomaly, but I do not believe that. I believe that a deal has been done. One reason for the Secretary of State's absence from the Front Bench is that he would have been constrained to reveal the nature of the deal. I do not believe that we should make concessions to Sinn Fein—not now, and probably not at all.
  Finally, I must tell the hon. Member for Walsall, North that I come from a family, both sides of which have been deeply concerned with Ireland for many years. My mother was born in county Galway. I have supported the peace process to the extent that I have voted in the Labour Lobby against my own party. However, I do not believe that this concession—if that is what it is—should be made.
  The Bill does not normalise relations; rather, it makes abnormal relations. We are departing from the principles that should govern our relationships with sovereign states, and the constitution of the House.
  I am glad that there will be a Division on Third Reading, and that my colleagues on the Front Bench will vote against it. I shall do the same.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Government have sought the authority of the House for what has proved to be a controversial Bill. I cannot remember when a Secretary of State has not taken a constitutional measure at least through Second Reading. The absence of the Secretary of State characterises this Government's insolent disregard for the proprieties of proper constitutional consultation, which call for consent across the House for a constitutional measure.
  I bless the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who first brought the problem into my consciousness. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I am grateful, too, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his monumental work in examining the propositions contained in the Bill.

  545
  The House's only purpose is to give consent—to raising money and to legislation. The Government are indifferent to the propriety that requires a Secretary of State to come to the House to advance this remarkable piece of legislation.
  In a curious way, I am grateful to the Government. They have exposed what was unknown before Monday's Second Reading debate to the House, to my constituents and, I regret to admit, to me. The Government propose that Members of another sovereign nation's legislature could become Members of this legislature. Some people have asked who the master is, and others have wondered to whom we owe our responsibility and allegiance.
  The Bill is not a shallow or trivial matter. It touches on the most profound questions of citizenship, which involve who we are, to whom we have duties and responsibilities, and why we demand obedience to the law from everyone in this country. As elected representatives, we are responsible to British citizens and accountable to them at elections. We make laws on their authority, but the Government are introducing—through the back door and in a quiet and surreptitious way—a Bill that they say amounts to nothing other than a couple of substantive clauses.
  The Minister suggested that the Bill was merely making good an anomaly. I am grateful for that, because it allowed me to discover an anomaly. I was unaware—as, I think, are most people in this country—that, theoretically, Members of other legislatures across the Commonwealth can stand and represent this country through this Parliament. That is the anomaly—a post-colonial anomaly. It should be dealt with, yet this supposed reforming Government of spin doctors try to maintain that the anomaly should extend, dilute and reduce the function of an elected Chamber and its responsibilities and accountabilities. I share the pleasure expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that we shall be voting against Third Reading. This must resonate further than the Chamber.
  I noticed on the news on the wireless that no one is giving the reason for people's agitation that Members of a foreign power—a good and dignified friend of ours, honourable and proud in their associations and nationality—can represent this country, even though they do not claim to seek membership of the House. No one has adduced that Members of the Irish Dail or the Irish Government are asking to become Members of this House, yet we—off on a trip, this new Government of ours—ask why should they not, because it merely tidies up an anomaly.
  I am grateful to the Government for telling us that they are trying to impose this diluted measure for the benefit of the constituents of places such as Walsall, North and Aldridge-Brownhills. I shall joyously vote against Third Reading. I hope that the House of Lords takes note and rejects the Bill as well.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. MacKay: I think it important, as we conclude the Third Reading debate, that I make it clear from the Dispatch Box why we are voting against Third Reading and why we have taken some twenty-five and a half hours
  546
  to see through the Bill's Committee stage and Third Reading. It is, quite simply, because the Government have behaved very shabbily.
  It is normal practice to have a Second Reading debate on a Bill and, after a weekend has elapsed, to consider the Bill in Committee.
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. MacKay: No, I am not giving way. There are two perfectly good reasons for this. First, it is an opportunity for the Minister and other Members to reflect on what has been said on Second Reading. Secondly, it gives ample opportunity to table amendments for us to consider and take soundings on before reaching a final decision. There is, and should be, only one exception to this practice—when the Government believe it necessary to bring urgent emergency legislation before the House. I asked and asked whether the Bill was either urgent or emergency legislation. Finally, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department admitted that it was neither urgent nor emergency legislation. Therefore, there was no excuse for bouncing the Bill through so quickly.
  As a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House said, legislation that is rushed through is bad and incomplete, particularly when it is rushed through for no good reason in a very small and narrow Bill. I regret that that is all too typical of the Government, who behave in an arrogant and cavalier way towards the House. The Government have had a bloody nose because of their actions. I hope that, in future, the Deputy Chief Whip will think twice before behaving in this way again. Had he behaved correctly, he would not have lost his business.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: First, let me say a brief word about the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I think that he knows from previous encounters that I hold him in high regard. On this occasion, however, there was an element of hyperbole in his comments. He described certain things that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I said. I hope that he will read our words in Hansard and reflect on some of the points that he made. I do not take issue with him, but hope that he may feel that he misrepresented some of the positions that we took. I accept that, if he did so, it would have been inadvertent.
  The Ulster Unionists have contributed throughout the proceedings. I have been in the Chamber for the whole time-25 hours or whatever it is—I was away only briefly, as was everyone who took part in the Committee proceedings. Ulster Unionist Members have genuine concerns about the measure; they have repeated them throughout our consideration of the clauses and amendments.
  Since he became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has bent over backwards to accommodate the Ulster Unionists, whenever he could—[Interruption.] Hon. Members say that I am off-message. It is not a question of being off-message—it was rather a ticklish moment.

  547
  On this occasion, I realise, as does my right hon. Friend, that Ulster Unionist Members disagree with him; they do not accept the motives behind the Bill. However, I ask them to accept—as I think the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has accepted—that between us we have put the record straight. Although the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), was consulted on the measure, we did not imply that he agreed with it. However, as a result of the consultations, clause 2 was added to the Bill. That was the result of direct representations made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Many contributions have been made by Opposition Back-Bench Members. Not for one moment would I suggest that any of the Back-Bench Members who contributed were out of order in any way. Mr. Deputy Speaker would be quick to correct me if I made such a suggestion. Nothing that is on the record, apart from those remarks for which the hon. Members were pulled up by the Chair, was not appropriate for them to say. As individual Members of the House—as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) agreed—they have a right to say what they feel is appropriate. I do not criticise them for that.
  However, Opposition Front-Bench Members must answer a slightly different point. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, opened the debate on Second Reading for the Opposition. She made it plain that they would not oppose the Bill's Second Reading, and they did not. She said that they were not opposed to the principle behind the Bill and that they hoped to be able to support it through its remaining stages. I paraphrase the right hon. Lady's remarks, but not, I think, inaccurately. The right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), Opposition Members and the Opposition Chief Whip knew last week what this week's business would be. They had every opportunity to make representations through the usual channels, if they felt that the business was being handled inappropriately. That is why the usual channels exist. They made no such representations.
  Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that there is no co-ordination between what takes place on the Opposition Front Benches and what has been happening on their Back Benches. To make that point absolutely clear, let Conservative Members hear what their leader had to say. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today, saying that the Government should have used our huge majority in the House to push this legislation through. Seemingly, he attaches much greater urgency to the measure than do those on the Opposition Front Bench or Back Benches. That shows not only that Opposition Front-Bench Members have lost touch with Back Benchers, but that they have lost touch with the Leader of the Opposition.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in a mischievous prank. He knows very well that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that in the context of the lost business, and was
  548
  saying that there was no need for Prime Minister's questions to be lost, and that it was the Government's mishandling that led to that fiasco.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is very gallant in the defence that he mounts of the Leader of the Opposition. What I have said about the content of the letter is true, and the hon. Gentleman needs to explain why the Leader of the Opposition has to rely on us to get business through the House, while his Front-Bench team and his Back Benchers are willing to sit through the night to ensure that it is opposed. It simply does not add up.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No; I will not. I think that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would accept that, throughout the night, I have been willing to give way repeatedly. I am losing my voice now, and I do not intend to prolong this matter much further.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will say that I recognise that he raised some sensible points throughout and has been constructive throughout the Bill's progress so far. I am grateful for the support that he has now agreed to give us on Third Reading.
  I have a final point to make, and it is a very serious one. The right hon. Member for Bracknell has said that the official Opposition still support the Good Friday agreement and the peace process. I accept that. I accept also that the Liberal Democrats supported—and that some Ulster Unionist Members, in slightly different ways, accept—that peace process. I accept also that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not set out to damage that peace process in any way over the past 24 hours.
  However, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to reflect on the fact that, whatever their intentions are, during the next few days—as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well—some very serious matters will be discussed. General de Chastelain, whom he and I have praised, will be presenting his report on progress on decommissioning. I believe that what has happened in the House over the past 24 hours, instead of helping to lower the temperature in Northern Ireland, has succeeded, albeit unwittingly, in raising the temperature. For that reason, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have reason to regret what he has been involved in over the past 24 hours.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 141
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Business of the House
  7.30 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
  The business for tomorrow will now be progress on remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which will be brought to a conclusion next week. I will give the normal, full business statement tomorrow.
  Sir George Young: The Leader of the House has announced that the Government have lost one of the days that they had earmarked for their legislative programme. They have lost it because they did not respond sensitively to legitimate issues raised over the past two days.
  Today's Bill, which has provoked the statement, was not in the Queen's Speech. The mode of trial Bill, which will have to be reintroduced following its defeat in another place, will put additional pressure on the Government's programme. Does not all that show that the Government are mismanaging the business of the House trying to get 28 Bills through, and that they should now drop some of their ill-considered and unpopular measures?
  Mrs. Beckett: I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that his remarks are in no way borne out by the events of the past couple of days. On Second Reading of the Disqualifications Bill, the Conservatives said that they were not opposed to it and did not vote against it. The shadow Home Secretary said that the Opposition would give the Bill a fair wind. If the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a fair wind is almost two full days' debate, I have to tell him that it is not mine.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will agree that I raised that issue at an early stage, because I saw no reason why the Bill should be rushed. When minority parties express an opinion, it should be taken into consideration. Instead, the Bill was rushed through, like a steamroller trying to get ahead of business. Plenty of time could have been taken, rather than wasted, as it has been today.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that he raised that point, in a way that Conservative Members did not. However, I believe that I am right in saying that, like them, he complained about the two days' proceedings being so close together, not about the amount of time given. I do not recall anyone complaining about the amount of time offered at any business statement in which the business was announced.
  As I told the hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion, I understand his concerns and we considered the matter. However, as I am sure he is well aware, it is not at all unprecedented for a Bill to be taken through the House in one day, or, indeed, two.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: In emergencies.
  Mrs. Beckett: Not necessarily. The Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1996 was taken through the
  554
  House in one day, in May 1996. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996 was also taken through in one day, in October 1996. I shall not bore Opposition Members by listing their sins, but one further example will be regarded as relevant by those hon. Members who have enjoyed the past two days: the last occasion on which a Bill was taken on two consecutive days, as was the Disqualifications Bill, it became the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Member in charge of the Bill was the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the way in which business has been handled today, the 1,000th day of the Government's term in office, is symbolic of the way in which business has generally been handled over the past two and a half years? That is, with a lack of respect for our traditions, incompetence and overweening arrogance.
  Mrs. Beckett: I completely agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is that it has been quite characteristic of the past two years. It has been gross misjudgment and mishandling on behalf of the Conservative party which has been successful beyond our wildest dreams in talking at considerable length on a Bill that it said it did not oppose. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a three-clause Bill. As a result, the Conservative party succeeded in losing its opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time. It lost also an opportunity to make progress on a Bill that its few remaining supporters in the City want to see on the statute book. I call that three whammys in a row.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady make time for a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so that he can explain to the House and the country—there will be general concern—the answer to the question that we have been posing for the past 26 hours: has a grubby deal been done with Sinn Fein, known terrorists, to pass the Bill that we have just debated?
  Mrs. Beckett: I will simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I am sure he heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State say that most of us in the House do not wish to do or say anything that in any way jeopardises the peace process. I hope that he shares that view.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I say to my right hon. Friend that I think that we handled the Disqualifications Bill excellently? Last night we called the Tories' bluff and won the legislation.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The sad fact is that the Conservative party has lost control of its Back Benchers, and it shows.
  Mr. David Maclean: The right hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to the highly successful Protection from Harassment Bill, which the previous Government put through the House with the full agreement of all the Opposition parties. I do not think that anyone suggests that that was an important constitutional measure which deserved to be treated in a different way from the way in which the right hon. Lady has abused the

  555
  House over the past 24 hours. It was the Government who lost control; it was the Government who did not bother to move closures; and it was the Government who failed to expedite the Bill in as sensible a fashion as they could. The Government could have simply given sufficient time between Second Reading and remaining stages, including consideration in Committee. The Bill could then have proceeded in a more sensible fashion. That is the right hon. Lady's fault.
  Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman was not here on any of the occasions when we discussed timing and the amount of time given to the Bill. On no occasion were the Government pressed to give more time for the Bill until yesterday.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Surely there are two possibilities regarding the loss of Prime Minister's questions. One is that the Leader of the Opposition wished to avoid them today. The other is that the right hon. Gentleman has lost control of his party.
  Mrs. Beckett: There is much in what my hon. Friend says. Either the Leader of the Opposition consented and was happy to see Prime Minister's Question Time lost because he knew for several hours before the deadline fell that that would be the effect of his party's behaviour, or he had lost control of it. He has another characteristic that has been evident over the past two and a half years, which is that he is inclined to make short-termist judgments, such as the letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which I can assure the Conservative party will come back to haunt it on many occasions. As so many of the right hon. Gentleman's gestures come back to haunt him, I think that he should be known as Boomerang Bill.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am not going to play the game of blaming either side. However, I emphasise that the way in which we dealt with the Disqualifications Bill does no credit to the Government or the main Opposition party. I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the unanimity on several occasions in the Select Committee of which she is a distinguished Chair, on seeking more programme motions so that we can deal with business in a business-like fashion. The games that have been played recently do no credit to the House, the Government's business managers or the official Opposition.
  I ask the right hon. Lady again to ensure that, when we approach measures in future, efforts will be made to distinguish issues about which there is a clear difference of opinion—between the Front Benches or with the minority parties—and that proper time will be given to debate them. Having done that, we should try to ascertain whether we can determine an agreed programme to tackle them in a business-like way. Having done that—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I hope that this will be the hon. Gentleman's last point.
  Mr. Tyler: I could hardly hear what you were saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the noise that Conservative Members made.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that I hoped that this was the hon. Gentleman's last point.
  Mr. Tyler: It is. The precedents that the Leader of the House cited for moving immediately from one stage of a Bill to another were not similar to the measure that has just been discussed. Having to move so fast did not help hon. Members.
  Mrs. Beckett: May I first say to the hon. Gentleman that all hon. Members share the support that he voiced for a sensible programme motion. However, it is not always fashionable for Conservative Members to admit that.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should identify measures that will cause problems and may consequently need more time, and agree about the way in which to handle them. We were in that position when we began to debate the Disqualifications Bill. The shadow Home Secretary made that clear. She said that the Opposition did not oppose the Bill, and that they would give it a fair wind. There was an opportunity to return to the debate on the Bill after 10 o'clock on Monday, but it was not taken. I understand that, because the Opposition had a reasonable time and were right to believe that the issues had been aired. They did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Under those circumstances, when agreement appears to have been reached, but the agreement is subsequently torn up, difficulties arise. I personally take the Leader of the Opposition's extraordinary and ill-judged letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as support for programme motions.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Last week, the right hon. Lady made a statement to which I responded when business was changed following consideration of the Representation of the People Bill. There was anxiety among Conservative Members and some Labour Members because two Second Readings took place after consideration of the measure. Again, anxiety has been caused because of the treatment of the Disqualifications Bill. The right hon. Lady should appreciate the concern among hon. Members of all parties. Will she assure us that she will talk to business managers to ensure that proposed legislation will be given due regard, that hon. Members will be able to scrutinise and debate it properly, and that it will not be rushed through the House in the same manner as the Disqualifications Bill?
  Mrs. Beckett: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that, on more mature reflection, he might be sorry that he made that point. He is entirely correct that there is a strong parallel between what happened last week and what happened this week. Last week there was an acceptance and an understanding on both sides of the House, including between Front-Bench Members, that there was little of contention to air, but that there were issues that should be aired and that they would be dealt with in proper time. Then what happened was that a group of Conservative Members used the opportunity to try to talk out the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. He knows that that is what happened, because he was here, and we know that that is what happened. Those are precisely the tactics that have often been adopted—I accept, on different grounds—by the same usual suspects.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has a duty to represent the interests of the

  557
  House and all Back Benchers. Does she accept that Ministers have a duty to reply to matters raised during debate sensitively, positively and rationally? Does she regret that that has not been the case, and that she and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland have intentionally misled the House as to the content—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. When I get to my feet, he should sit down. Did I hear him say that the right hon. Lady misled the House?
  Mr. Winterton: Yes, I most certainly did. The letter to which the right hon. Lady and the Minister referred—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that statement. He knows the rules of the House, perhaps better than I. I want him to get to his feet only if he will withdraw that statement. No one has misled the House.
  Mr. Winterton: The House has been misled because the implication—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement? I advise him to do so. I implore him to withdraw that statement.
  Mr. Winterton: If the right hon. Lady—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are no ifs and buts. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that statement.
  Mr. Winterton: I will apologise to the House and to the right hon. Lady, but she has misused—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has apologised and has resumed his seat. I shall call only one more hon. Member.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The right hon. Lady will have witnessed the disciplined and successful tactics of her own Back Benchers on Monday evening during the discussion of private business. She will not be surprised that the Opposition have learned from those tactics over the past 24 hours. Will she confirm that she could have used Labour's majority at any stage during the proceedings up till Two o'clock this afternoon to bring the Committee to a close, but she did not do so because she did not want to expose the Prime Minister to questioning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) or from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)?
  Mrs. Beckett: Opposition Members have spent a good deal of time talking about the importance of what they regard as the constitutional implications of the legislation, and then have called on me to curtail it, guillotine it, propose closure of the debate or not move the Ten o'clock motion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken most careful heed of all those injunctions, and I shall bear them very much in mind.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What we have just seen was
  558
  predicted three months ago—you, from the Chair, in conflict with someone who may refer to himself as an Assistant Speaker in the other Chamber. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) knows the rules, as we do. If we cannot get an Assistant Speaker from the other Chamber unconditionally to withdraw an allegation of deliberately misleading the House, what hope is there for the proper policing of our proceedings under the new arrangements?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I received an apology and when an apology is given, as far as the Chair is concerned, the matter is finished.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is a very important question that I want to ask the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can wait until the Business statement tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  CENSUS
  Ordered,
  That:—
  (1) the draft Census Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation; and
  (2) if, after the Committee has reported the Instrument to the House, the Motion in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the draft Order is made, the Speaker shall put forthwith—

  (i) the Questions on any amendments to the Motion which she has selected and which may then be moved, and

  (ii) the Question on the Motion, or on the Motion as amended;

  and such Questions may be decided at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  Adjournment
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has withdrawn.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

European Asylum Seekers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss a subject that is highly topical at the present time. Indeed, when I asked questions in the Council of Europe last September about the matter, I did not realise how topical it would become. Hon. Members will have seen the figures published in the press this weekend, which show that the number of people seeking asylum in this country has increased by 50 per cent. or more over the past year.
Since coming to power, Labour has repeatedly announced measures to reduce the number of asylum applications made in the United Kingdom, but, after nearly three years of Labour government, the number of applications has reached an all-time high. During October, a spate of headlines appeared in the national press. One stated: "Immigrants enter Britain 'sewn into sides of trains'".
The article continued:
"Bogus asylum-seekers are being sewn into the canvas sides of Channel Tunnel freight trains and smuggled into Britain by Italian gangsters."
That appeared on 3 October. The following day, another headline appeared: "Gipsy immigrants taking cheap flights to Britain".
According to the article:
"Gipsy immigrants are taking cheap flights to Britain as part of a big rise in asylum seekers from Eastern Europe, says the Home Office."
Later that month, the headline appeared: "Record numbers seeking asylum". The article explained:
"Record numbers of refugees are seeking asylum in Britain, the Home Office said yesterday."
At the end of that month, another headline appeared: "Czech gipsies threaten exodus". According to the report:
"A wave of gipsies will head for Britain and other European Union countries seeking political asylum".
The statistics that the Government published just before Christmas show that in 1996, under the Conservative Government, the number of asylum seekers from Europe totalled 6,475. The following year, part of which was under the new Labour Administration, the number had risen to 9,145—by almost 50 per cent. By 1998, that figure had almost doubled again, to 17,745. The reports in this weekend's press, to which I alluded a moment ago, suggest that the total number of asylum seekers from the entire world—the figures that I gave previously related to Europe—in 1999 is estimated to be 89,700, which is 50 per cent. more than the 58,000 announced for 1998.
2WH
That vast increase in the number of asylum seekers places unreasonable demands on social services, police and other departments and creates unsustainable pressures on communities at the major ports of entry and the surrounding areas. The behaviour of some migrants is unacceptable. Hon. Members will be conscious of the number of people begging on the London Underground and importuning passers-by in the street. Not least of my anxieties is the cost to society in general at a time when Government funding to police, health and local authorities is totally inadequate to satisfy the legitimate demands of the indigenous population. In my home county of Shropshire, we are aggrieved because the money that we receive is quite inadequate for the services that our local authorities, health authorities and police authorities have to provide.
I emphasise that the debate that I have initiated relates only to asylum seekers from Europe. It has such a specific focus because there is an easy, cost-free solution to the issue of European asylum seekers. Some 41 countries now belong to the Council of Europe, membership of which is conditional on the acceptance of the European convention on human rights. In other words, no country can join the Council of Europe without first agreeing to comply with the conditions of the convention.
I should explain that the Council of Europe began with a congregation of western European nations in 1949 to ensure that as far as possible, there was never again such a flagrant abuse of human rights as had occurred in the second world war. On 4 November 1950 in Rome, the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights—not to be confused with the European Court of Justice—were set up under the auspices of the Council of Europe which to this day is vitally involved in all matters relating to human rights.
It therefore follows that the human rights of any national of any one of the 41 countries with membership of the Council of Europe is protected by the European convention and, by default, that individuals or groups of individuals can and should seek redress through the European Court of Human Rights. The fact that many thousands of people from countries such as Albania, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Turkey, the former USSR and the former Yugoslavia choose not to do so is the reason that I have initiated today's debate. Coincidentally, this afternoon the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg will debate restrictions on asylum in the member states of the Council of Europe and the European Union. I very much hope that my parliamentary colleagues will pursue the motion for a resolution that I sponsored in this forum last September. The text of my motion states:
"The Assembly:

i. Recognising that membership of the Council of Europe is conditional upon acceptance of the European Convention on Human Rights;

ii. Given that the human rights of all citizens of Council of Europe member states are protected by the right of individual petition to the Court of Human Rights whose findings are obliged to be responded to by Governments;

3WH

iii. Given that all 41 member states of the Council of Europe have pledged to support the principle of human rights within their own borders;

iv. Mindful of the fact that human rights are a fundamental tenet of the constitution of the Council of Europe;

v. Having regard to the not insignificant number of citizens of Council of Europe member states who continue to seek political asylum in other Council of Europe countries;

vi. Conscious of the possibility that some of those seeking political asylum are either economic migrants or fugitives from justice;

1. Believes that the situation in which citizens of member states of the Council of Europe continue to claim political asylum in other Council of Europe countries controverts the fundamental responsibility of member states to respect the European Convention on Human Rights;

2. Calls for the appropriate committee to report on this situation."

The motion was supported by 69 parliamentarians, including 11 members of the United Kingdom Socialist delegation. Signatories come from 24 countries and represent no fewer than four of the five recognised party groupings in the Council of Europe Assembly. I might further add that the signatures were collected in 24 hours. There were signatories not just from delegations from countries in western Europe, but from Turkey and eight central and eastern European countries, including Croatia, Poland and the Slovak Republic.
Right hon. and hon. Members might be interested to hear the response that I obtained from the Council of Europe's chairman-in-office when I asked whether, having regard to the fact that each member country of the Council of Europe is bound by the European convention on human rights, he could explain how citizens of COE member states continue to seek asylum in the United Kingdom, Mr. Asgrimsson replied:
"Let me admit that compliance unfortunately is not uniform".
He went on to say that
"nationals of all member states are of course free to avail themselves of the European Convention on Human Rights."
That is precisely my point. I asked the chairman-in-office a supplementary question:
"Does the Minister accept that, if all Council of Europe member states honour their terms of the European Convention on Human Rights there would be no need for political asylum in Europe, but if individual states do not, or will not, discharge their obligations under the convention, does that not challenge the fundamental raison d'etre of the Assembly? Why should the failure of some member states to honour their commitments impose additional burdens upon those that do? Does he share my concern that, included amongst those seeking political asylum, there are those who are fugitives from justice in their own countries?"
Mr. Asgrimsson replied:
"We are all aware of that situation, but we also know that our countries have different living conditions",
which makes my second point—that many of these people are not genuine asylum seekers at all but simply, as many of us have long suspected, economic migrants.
I come now to the Government's record. They published in Cmnd. 4431 the figures to which I referred—proof, if it were needed, that the situation has worsened dramatically since Labour came to power.
4WH
However, guidance notes issued to the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe state that
"the UK Government is firmly committed to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights"
and, to their credit, that
"the UK Government considers it important, however, that member states should be entitled to impose conditions on persons seeking to travel to their territory; detain asylum seekers in appropriate cases; and return asylum seekers to safe third countries without giving substantive considerations to their claims."
In other words, in this area of policy as in so many others, the Government are strong on rhetoric but weak on action, as the figures, published last weekend, prove.
On 21 August last year, I wrote to the Home Secretary stating that,
"in advance of next month's meeting of the Council of Europe, I should be grateful if you would provide me with a synopsis of your Department's policy regarding immigrants and asylum seekers from other parts of the European Continent. My question is prompted by news reports of gypsies from the Czech Republic and other CEE countries seeking asylum in this country … maybe you would agree that the question of asylum seekers from any of these countries is a matter of concern which should be raised as a business item in that forum".
Leaving aside the fact that it took the Minister of State five weeks to respond—her reply awaited me on my return from Strasbourg—she said in that belated reply that I had specifically referred to
"the immigration of large numbers of Roma from the Czech Republic and other CEE countries."
That is not so. I specifically referred in my letter of 21 August to gypsies—a description that my constituents in Shropshire, where we call a spade a spade, would readily understand. The Chamber will appreciate that I have not yet converted to political correctness; nor do I intend to.
The Minister also stated in her letter that
"the number of asylum seekers from Central Europe has risen sharply in recent months."
That being so, and given that, according to the Minister's letter,
"the vast majority of applicants from Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics are Roma and those from Croatia are mainly ethnic Serbs"
that does not in any way alter the fact that either those countries are in clear breach of their obligations under the European convention or that the migrants themselves are at fault in not having sought redress through the European Court of Human Rights—as is their right—and are probably bogus? Either way, I fail to understand why the problem should be dumped in the lap of the British taxpayer.
In fairness, I should say that in her letter the Minister states that
"in the case of Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics, since January 1998, on initial consideration, all applications for asylum have been refused".
Unfortunately, that assurance is at odds with newspaper reports that appeared last Saturday, which reported the UN High Commissioner for Refugees as estimating the total number of refugees in 1999 at 89,700, compared with 46,000 applications for asylum received in the United Kingdom in 1998. In fairness to the Minister,

5WH
once again, I concede that the 46,000 becomes 58,000 if dependants are added. Nevertheless, we have a direct comparison of 58,000 in 1998 with 89,700 in 1999—in other words, half as many again as in the previous year. That figure represents asylum seekers from all parts of the world, but it includes a substantial increase in applicants from Europe. Clearly, something is wrong when countries that have entered into solemn and binding agreements do not honour them. From our point of view, their failure to do so becomes a burden on the countries that do honour them.
Before I move on from the Minister's letter, I wish to draw attention to another sentence, which states that
"candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe who wish to joint the European Union must meet the Copenhagen criteria."
I had not asked about the European charter of fundamental rights. Prompted by that gratuitous comment, however, I do so now. Is not the European Union's proposal to establish its own charter of human rights in parallel with, or as an alternative to, the European convention on human rights of a piece with the EU's plans to establish corpus juris as an alternative to national jurisprudence—just as its determination to create its own European defence force as an alternative to NATO and to create the euro as an alternative to national currencies, is the clearest indication that the EU is hellbent on creating the European superstate, which, almost alone in Europe today, British politicians continue to deny?
I appreciate that the issue of asylum seekers is fraught, but it is likely to become even more so unless the Government take tougher action. This matter is important and of great interest to many of our constituents, so why did it take the Home Office five weeks to respond to my letter, effectively preventing me from having the benefit of its advice in time for the Council of Europe meeting in September? Do the Government agree that it is unacceptable for nationals whose countries are signatories to the European convention to seek asylum in other countries?
What steps will the Government take to ensure that all Council of Europe countries honour their obligations under the European convention on human rights? Will the Government take steps to remove the ambiguity—evidenced by the Court of Appeal's judgment of 23 July 1999—regarding the UK's interpretation of the 1951 convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees, as compared with the interpretation of other European countries such as France and Germany? Will the Government recognise that bogus asylum seekers are anathema to the majority of law-abiding British citizens and that the Government have no mandate from the British people to stretch a point beyond that which we are honour bound to accept by dint of our international treaty obligations? Is it reasonable for the British taxpayer to pick up the tab for the failure of other countries to honour their human rights obligations?
Mr. Julian Brazier: Before my hon. Friend concludes his excellent contribution, may I add two points to his list? Ratepayers and council tax payers in Kent are, this year alone, £4.5 million short in compensation from the centre. Should the European Union consider as candidates countries from which large numbers of people apply for asylum and which are, incidentally, members of the Council of Europe?
6WH
Mr. Gill: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. One of the points that I hope will emerge from our debate today is that 41 countries currently belong to the Council of Europe and they have all signed up to the European convention on human rights. Clearly, not all of them are honouring their obligations. My fear is that we will create an alternative body within the EU and a blind eye will be turned to some of the things that go on in those countries. Far from solving the problem, it will simply compound it, and Governments who should act in respect of countries that are in default will not do so but will focus on the new body.
I am pleased to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber this morning because I am very conscious of the fact that counties such as Kent are taking the brunt of the numbers seeking asylum in this country. You may wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why the Member for Ludlow in Shropshire is initiating this debate when, as yet, we are not too burdened with the problem of asylum seekers. The Government's policy is not to take a strong line with other countries and tell them to honour their obligations under the European convention but to say that we must disperse the problem. Tens of thousands of people are coming in, but, rather than take stronger action to cut off the supply, so to speak, the Government are threatening to disperse people to other parts of the country. It will become a problem for me.
Thanks to information received from the Local Government Association only yesterday evening, I became aware that Dudley and Wolverhampton—Wolverhampton is only six miles from my constituency—are scheduled to take some of these people. Instead of solving the problem and sending bogus asylum seekers home, the Government propose to decamp them from Kent to other parts of the country. It will then become a problem for me and other hon. Members who represent parts of the country that are, as yet, unaffected.
Mr. Stephen Day: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government are not fulfilling their responsibilities to local authorities, not just on the south coast but throughout the country? Stockport borough council, for instance, is owed hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Government in relation to Kosovar refugees who, quite rightly, were taken into this country. The Government are not honouring their obligations.
Mr. Gill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I cannot claim to be conscious of the detail, although I am aware of the system that is supposed to recompense his and other authorities for shouldering part of the burden. I have every sympathy with him, his constituents and his local council, but the point that I want to stress this morning is that the Government must do far more to stop this flood of asylum seekers—and it has become a flood. As the figures demonstrate, over the past four years the total number of asylum seekers of all nationalities to this country has increased from 30,000 to 32,500 to 58,000 and now to 89,700. That is the problem. I would far rather the Government, instead of indulging in palliatives, dealt with the problem at source. What action will they take to persuade the world that the United Kingdom is not the soft touch that asylum seekers clearly think it is?

7WH
I said at the beginning of my remarks that there was an easy, cost-free solution to the problem of asylum seekers from Europe, and there is. Will the Government now make it plain to the other signatories of the European convention that if we are to stick to our side of the bargain, they must stick to theirs? Do they not recognise that merely absorbing the consequences of other countries' failure to abide by the rules simply makes it easier for those other countries to go on ignoring the rules? It is time for the Government to put their foot down. The question is: will they now do so?
10.25 am
Jackie Ballard: There is no point in my rehearsing the reasons why Liberal Democrats opposed the recent Immigration and Asylum Bill, but we strongly support the rights of refugees under international conventions to seek asylum. We also believe that we have a duty to ensure that their claims are dealt with speedily and fairly and that, while they are waiting for their claims to be processed, they should be treated with dignity and respect.
It is to our shame as Europeans that major conflicts in the past few years in Europe have led to an increasing number of people fleeing their countries, leaving behind their families, homes and jobs. Therefore, it is not surprising to me—although it seems to be to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—that there are record numbers of asylum seekers. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been disintegrating and Europe has not seen such numbers of displaced people for 50 years, but the increase is clearly not our Government's fault. Perhaps, instead, we should be proud that people seek refuge in what is still seen as a liberal and tolerant country. There is an international emergency and we as a nation must do our bit, not just under international conventions but morally, to share the burden. This international problem demands an international response and international responsibility.
My party has long argued for a common European framework on asylum, and we were told during the British presidency of the European Union that the Prime Minister intended to make progress on the issue. What progress has been made on establishing such a framework?
I want to take the opportunity of this debate to draw the Minister's attention to some of the problems associated with the dispersal of asylum seekers. I have spoken in the past couple of days to my local councils and I know that local authorities across the country have worked well together to produce an agreed framework.
My area has been designated a cluster area, and I have no complaints about that. There is a duty on the county council to provide care and accommodation for asylum seekers, but there is no duty on the district council, as the housing authority, to provide accommodation. Indeed, if there were, it could not meet it: my local authority has about 10 void properties a month, which does not meet the housing needs of more than 1,000 people on the local waiting list, far less the accommodation needs of asylum seekers. I know that some areas of the country have many voids and are not in the same position as we in the
8WH
south-west. My county council has a serious problem in finding appropriate accommodation in a short-time, but it will do its best, and hopes not to have to resort to bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Local authorities around the country will have difficulties in caring for and accommodating asylum seekers, and in doing so on the fixed sum allocated by the Government. Health and education costs will not be recoverable. We do not blame asylum seekers for those problems. Having fled repression and intimidation, they should not face a punitive or dehumanising reception on arriving in this country.
What are asylum seekers expected to do while their applications are being processed? It is probably reasonable that they are not allowed to do paid work, but they are not allowed to do voluntary work either. Such work would allow them to spend their time usefully and purposefully by participating willingly in communities in which they have been dispersed. If asylum seekers were to make such contributions, communities would accept them more readily.
The hon. Member for Ludlow said that the Government could solve those problems by sending hom bogus asylum seekers rather than dispersing them—
Mr. Gill: My point was that if the Government sent a stronger signal that they do not intend to accept bogus asylum seekers, such people would be dissuaded from setting out in the first place. Given the increasing numbers that are coming to this country, word has clearly got round that we are a soft touch.
Jackie Ballard: Those of a liberal disposition would say that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 sent a strong signal that Britain is far from a soft touch for asylum seekers; in fact, it treats them quite punitively. As I have said, the number of asylum seekers has increased simply because the number of conflicts in Europe and the number of people who have been displaced from their countries have increased.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about sending home bogus asylum seekers rather than dispersing them, those who are known on arrival to be bogus are sent home, but it often takes time to ascertain the validity of claims. He also spoke of the bill that taxpayers in Britain will have to pay. It is true that we pay a price for accommodating and caring for asylum seekers, but it is insignificant compared to the price that those who flee repression or intimidation have to pay. What price can one put on compassion and dignity? We should not assume that all asylum seekers are economic migrants and bogus seekers of some form of nirvana. In fact, the life that they live while waiting for their claims to be processed is difficult. We as a country should do our bit, not merely in respect of international conventions but from a moral standpoint, by showing willingness to accommodate people far less fortunate than ourselves.
10.32 am
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on securing a debate on a matter with which he has been concerned for some months, and which raises important

9WH
issues. I also congratulate him on what I suspect is his characteristic persistence in seeking the opportunity to secure it.
My hon. Friend made the very important point that many of the asylum seekers in this country who try to take advantage of the 1951 convention are themselves citizens of countries that have subscribed to the European convention on human rights. He asked the significant question why we and other European co-signatories to the convention should simply accept that little can be done about that. I remind him that the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 attempted to deal with the issue of asylum seekers who come to the United Kingdom from countries that are renowned for their reputations for safeguarding human rights. The Act provided for a list of safe third countries, whereby asylum seekers from those countries would be put on a special fast track process on the assumption that, save only in the most exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, a claim from a person who was a citizen of such a country would be regarded as manifestly unfounded. One of several policy errors that the Government have made since taking office was their decision to scrap that so-called white list of safe countries. That sent a signal to people overseas that immigration and asylum policy in the United Kingdom was being softened as a result of the new Government coming into office.
I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) that we live in an age in which vast numbers of people seek to migrate from the developing world to the developed world, and mass movements of people take place on a greater scale than at any time since the immediate aftermath of the second world war. However, I take issue with her conclusion that the majority—or anything remotely approaching the majority—of such people are in genuine fear of persecution and qualify to be treated as refugees under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention.
During the debates in the House on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Government and Opposition Front Benchers agreed that it was clear from the evidence—from determinations by the Home Office and results of appeal hearings—that the overwhelming majority of people who seek asylum in the United Kingdom are bogus asylum seekers who are trying to use a claim of asylum as a means of evading our normal immigration controls. It is hard to blame them; mass communication through television and radio makes large numbers of people in poor and unstable countries aware that they have the chance of a better life if they manage to get into one of the western industrialised nations. Furthermore, racketeers are prepared to exort a lifetime's savings from such unfortunate people on the promise of being able successfully to smuggle them into, say, Britain, Germany, Norway or Switzerland.
The evidence demonstrates that most applications for asylum in this country—as in most western European countries—are unfounded, and that there is a significant connection between unfounded asylum applications and criminal or near-criminal activity by people who seek to profit from a trade in human beings.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. This is my first opportunity to take part in a debate in Westminster Hall. I apologise,
10WH
Madam Deputy Speaker, for arriving late and having to leave early—I have to attend a sitting of the Home Affairs Committee. However, I wanted to be able to listen to at least part of the debate.
My hon. Friend has dealt with the question of bogus asylum seekers and economic migrants. I put it to him that the logical consequence of the argument that was advanced by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) is that this country has a responsibility to absorb people who are suffering persecution elsewhere, wherever that may be. Given that disputes are taking place all over the world, it is simply not possible to accept within these crowded islands even those people who may be the subjects of persecution. It is not fair to the population of the United Kingdom to have to absorb that quantity of people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. Even on the basis of arriving late and going early, the hon. Gentleman's interventions should be reasonably brief.
Mr. Lidington: My hon Friend puts his point with characteristic clarity and forthrightness, and I agree with him.
In my constituency, some of those vigorous in their support for firm policies to deter unfounded asylum applications are British citizens from ethnic minority groups. They can see that, if the large-scale evasion of immigration control is allowed to continue, race relations within the United Kingdom—and the position of British people who have come to this country lawfully and in accordance with the rules—will be under threat and become insecure.
I want to make a number of points relating to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. However, I must first say that this debate is perhaps more timely than he might realise. At 11 am, the Home Office is to release to the media the figures for asylum applications in December 1999. I hope that the Minister will not feel constrained by embargo times when she gives her reply, and will be able to share with the House of Commons the information that is to be shared with the media in less than 20 minutes.
Those figures should give further details not only of the number of applications in December, but of the progress or otherwise that the Home Office has made in increasing the number of decisions. We should also learn the latest figure for the backlog of asylum applications piling up undertermined at the Croydon headquarters of the immigration and nationality directorate.
Before I discuss the Home Office's handling of those matters, I will allude briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow said about the broader European policy. I shall put two points to the Minister. The first concerns the impact of enlargement. When I was last in Brussels, discussing these issues with Members of the European Parliament, I found considerable disquiet that discussions on enlargement were proceeding on the fantastic basis that applicant countries would sign up to the acquis of the Community entire, and that that would include allowing full rights of freedom of movement for persons within the enlarged Union and would also include firm, well-policed external frontiers along the Union's new borders.

11WH
The Members of the European Parliament who took an interest in those issues did not believe that it would be practicable for Poland, Slovakia and some other central European countries effectively to police their eastern borders with the successor republics to the former Soviet Union. There would, therefore, have to be either derogations of quite long duration over the free movement of persons from the new member states, or a rethink by the Community over its approach to the enlargement negotiations. I would welcome a view from the Government as to the realism of expecting the central European states to police their eastern borders in the way in which existing EU member states would expect.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow put his finger on a matter of great concern when he drew attention to the ambitions of some on the continent—and the avowed ambitions of the European Commission—to develop a fully integrated Community policy on asylum and immigration. If my hon. Friend has not yet had the opportunity to read it, I commend to him a study of the remarks of Commissioner Vitorino, the man responsible for this area of policy in the European Commission, when he was questioned by Members of the European Parliament as part of the confirmation process. Mr. Vitorino made no bones about what he wanted to happen. He said that
"a Community strategy on asylum … needs to be drawn up as a matter of urgency"
and that
"the Commission should strive to ensure that persons denied refugee status within the meaning of the Geneva Convention can enjoy alternative protection in terms of 'non-explusion"'.
It would be interesting to know whether Commissioner Vitorino is acting beyond the policy objectives of the British and other European Union Governments or whether he has a body of support within the Council of Ministers that will turn that ambition of alternative protection for those who are denied refugee status into reality.
Commissioner Vitorino went on to say that
"once Community instruments"
on asylum
"have entered into force, the Commission will employ the powers conferred on it by the Treaty and the procedures provided for therein to ensure that member states comply fully with their provisions."
He was enthusiastic about the treaty of Amsterdam and the new objective which that treaty set for the European Union of developing an area of freedom, security and justice. There is no doubt that Mr. Vitorino believes that the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice will provide tremendous opportunities for European institutions to develop further their competence over areas of policy which, until now, have been determined largely on an intergovernmental basis. He was explicit in his analogy—perhaps a stronger word than analogy should be used—between the creation of the area of freedom, security and justice and the operation of the single European market. He argued that the single market must be seen to encompass the common policies, social policies, the policy of non-discrimination, the customs union, rules of competition and, of course, all
12WH
the new provisions introduced by the treaty of Amsterdam on free movement of persons, asylum and immigration. One of the characteristics of the single market, in institutional terms, is that decisions are taken on the basis of qualified majority voting with no right of veto. It is significant that the Commissioner charged with responsibility for immigration and asylum policy should be so determined to take those areas of responsibility into the remit of single market arrangements that effectively transfer competence for those policy arrangements—I am convinced that that is his long-term ambition—from member states to the supranational institutions of the Community with the Commission having sole right of initiative.
Important long-term questions remain and I am not convinced that the Government have grappled adequately with them or given a clear account to Parliament of what is happening in Brussels. People such as Mr. Vitorino openly and unashamedly wish to proceed in that direction. The Minister should tell us when she replies to the debate whether the Government will resist that from the start because it threatens British interests or whether, as with the withholding tax, they will go with the flow, try to tinker at the edges with a fundamentally unacceptable proposal and end up embarrassing themselves and threatening to damage the interests of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Gill: Is it not perverse for Governments to turn their backs on established systems, albeit that they are not working, and, instead of using their best efforts to make them work smoothly and effectively, gallop over the horizon and create another body that will probably run into the same problems?
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend puts the point well.
I want to say a little about local authorities because some councils have made points that deserve ministerial attention and a response. Then I shall make some points about the operations of the Home Office and the immigration and nationality directorate.
I shall deal first with local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and the hon. Member for Taunton said, the number of asylum seekers coming to the United Kingdom in the last couple of years has placed an enormous strain on local authorities' resources, especially, but not exclusively, on those that have important seaports or airports within their boundaries. Will the Minister tell us something about the progress made on dispersal arrangements? The Opposition have supported the dispersal plans, but I am told by Kent county council that, although there has been encouraging progress in some respects, it continues to bear an unacceptably heavy burden. Progress on dispersal is not as swift as that county would wish. I have seen press reports that there have been particular difficulties in Scotland, with Scottish local authorities proving resistant to participation in the dispersal scheme and strong opposition from both Scottish Nationalist and Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament to Scottish local authorities being required by the Home Secretary to provide centres for asylum seekers north of the border.
The leader of Hillingdon council has also raised a particular concern with me about the position of unaccompanied children, many of whom will come

13WH
from the former Yugoslavia and some from countries outside Europe. There have apparently been rumours from within Whitehall that the special grant arrangements that reimburse local authorities for the very expensive task of looking after unaccompanied children will be withdrawn. If that report is true, that would place an enormous burden on Hillingdon and other local authorities. It would be good news for those councils if the Minister could deny that rumour this morning.
My main point relates to Home Office Ministers' record in handling the difficulties that have landed on their desks as a result of the large number of applications. The hon. Member for Taunton, having criticised the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, hastened to reassure the Government that it was not really their fault. There could not have been a more characteristic demonstration of the Liberal Democrats' approach to the Government.
Jackie Ballard: Clearly I need to help the hon. Gentleman with a point of personal information. I said that it was not the Government's fault that there is an increasing number of asylum seekers from Europe. The Government did not create the conflicts in Europe that have caused people to flee from their homes.
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Lady is right to say that the Government did not create the conditions of conflict. Where she is wrong, and I believe that the figures published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees support my case, is in saying that the Government bear no responsibility for the particularly difficult position in which the United Kingdom now finds itself. It is not just the United Kingdom that has had to cope with a large additional number of asylum seekers as a consequence of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the ensuing ethnic conflicts; Germany, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries and the low countries have also had to deal with that problem. I fear that the evidence from the UNHCR is that the United Kingdom has had to cope with a greater share than previously of the total number of asylum seekers coming into western Europe. That must be due both to the message that the Government sent out in their early months in office—that they were softening immigration and asylum policy—and to the incompetence of Home Office Ministers in presiding over a system in Croydon that has allowed record backlogs of applications to pile up. People know that if they can get into this country it will be a very long time before their case is looked at in any detail, so they have the chance of either going to ground or establishing special compassionate reasons why they should not be required to leave.
Let us consider the United Nations figures in a little more detail. The UNHCR compared the number of asylum applications in western European countries made by people from the former Yugoslavia in the first three quarters of 1999 with that for a comparable period in 1998. The number of applications in the United Kingdom rose by 82 per cent. in the first three quarters of 1999 compared with the same period in the previous year. The comparable rise for Germany was 24 per cent. and for the Netherlands it was just 6 per cent. The discrepancy cannot be attributed simply to the fact that the UK took in a certain number of refugees from
14WH
Kosovo as part of a planned evacuation and relocation programme which was sponsored by the UNHCR; in the third quarter of 1999, after the UNHCR had brought its programme to an end in July of that year, the UK share of Yugoslav asylum seekers had risen to 18 per cent. of the total—a larger figure than in either the first or second quarters of 1999.
The same pattern is apparent in non-Yugoslav applications. There were big rises in the asylum applications in the UK and Belgium in 1999 compared with 1998, but actual falls in the number of asylum seekers from outside Yugoslavia in Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland—all areas where large numbers of people have traditionally sought to claim asylum.
The statistical evidence, therefore, makes it clear that we have a worse record than other European countries in coping effectively with the challenge of large numbers of unfounded asylum applications. It is no good the Government wringing their hands, grinning goofily and saying, as they do so often, "Well, it's all the fault of the last Government. We've only been in office for two and a half years." Let us consider the sequence of events.
In July 1998, more than a year after the Government took office, they published a White Paper on asylum and immigration setting out clear targets for the current financial year regarding the number of decisions to be taken and appeals to be handled and the costs of immigration, nationality and asylum business. In March 1999, the Home Office annual report stated that the position at Croydon following the introduction of the new computer system and working arrangements had
"now settled and the majority of problems have been resolved."
The Home Secretary boasted that a
"step change in efficiency was made in late 1998 to early 1999".
Moreover, in last autumn's annual report of the immigration and nationality directorate, the White Paper targets for the current financial year were reaffirmed.
Both the White Paper and the IND's annual report said that the key target for 1999–2000 was for 59,000 decisions to be made on asylum applications. However, in the first eight months of the current financial year 25,885 decisions were taken. If one calculates the annualised figure, one finds that the Government must now expect about 39,000 decisions to be taken during the current financial year, which is no fewer than 20,000 decisions below the target that they set themselves in the middle of 1998 and which they reaffirmed in a report published as recently as last autumn.
The consequence of such incompetence is borne by our constituents as taxpayers. The Government White Paper estimated the cost of supporting asylum seekers for the current financial year at £350 million. In a written answer of 2 November, the Minister told me that that had now risen to an estimated £450 million to £490 million. I wonder whether her reply to this debate will reveal that that estimate has risen yet again. Our constituents must find more than £100 million extra towards the cost of asylum seekers in the current year alone because of the Government's mishandling of affairs.

15WH
I am not confident that the Government have got to grips with after-entry controls. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot tabled a question early in December last year about what had happened to Kosovar asylum seekers who had come to this country as part of the United Nations plan. In a written answer of 14 December, the Minister revealed that only a quarter of Kosovars who had entered the country under the auspices of the UNHCR had returned home. Why so few? Have these people gone to ground or is there a good reason why three-quarters of those who came here temporarily until Kosovo was freed have decided to remain within the United Kingdom?
Does the Government's analysis bear out the Daily Mail report of December last year that many asylum seekers whose claims had been rejected by the Home Office had simply disappeared into the community rather than return home? Islington council's statistics were taken as a sample: of 94 asylum seekers whose cases had been rejected, 44 had vanished. According to the Daily Mail, if one extrapolated from those figures, thousands of asylum seekers had gone to ground in the latter months of 1999. Do the Government intend to invest more resources into after-entry controls and deportation? Do they still believe that they are on target—set in the White Paper and in the IND annual report—for the removal of 8,000 failed asylum seekers?
The Minister set herself one target that was so ambitious that I blinked several times when I first read it. In a letter to the Public Accounts Committee in October 1999, the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office said that the Department's aim was to clear all current asylum applications by October 2000. I tabled a written question to the Minister about that and she reaffirmed that that was indeed the Government's target. She claimed that clearing them all by that date was a staging post towards the aim of ensuring that, by April 2001, all determinations and appeals take place within six months. If that truly is the Government's target, between now and October this year, they will have to clear the backlog of more than 100,000 asylum cases that have piled up at Croydon. On the basis of the Government's record thus far, that target is unrealistic.
Recent legislation has led us to believe that the Government have at last begun to grasp the gravity of the challenge posed by large numbers of unfounded asylum applications in the United Kingdom. However, their own words, policies, incompetence and complacency have landed not just them, but our constituents, in this mess. We need much greater evidence of effective activity from Ministers before we can have confidence that they are up to dealing with the challenge.
11.5 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have been so intrigued by the debate that I thought that it was important to stay to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I hope that I will also be able to stay to hear the Minister who, I imagine, would like to start her remarks in about five or 10 minutes' time. I shall therefore be brief. I put on record my appreciation of the way in which the Minister
16WH
has handled one or two tricky cases in my constituency. She does not have an easy job and it would be wrong not to thank her personally for a couple of individual cases, notwithstanding my overall criticism of the Government's handling of the policy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, severe impositions have been placed on local authorities. The impact has fallen disproportionately. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) told us of the difficulties in Kent. We are all familiar with the severe problems in Kent and the inadequate support that the Government are giving to councils that are particularly burdened by the problem.
I met a lady this morning in a London borough who is a neighbour of mine. She told me that recently she had had to evict her married daughter and grandchild because they were overcrowded. Even though the daughter had been on the council waiting list for seven years, no council accommodation was available. She was told that, as she was not a refugee, she was a low priority. My neighbour had the unhappy task of evicting her daughter and grandchild because precedence is being given to asylum seekers. People in this country are extremely concerned about that.
My second point is that there has been a lack of vigour in dealing with the backlog. People are going to ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury referred to my recent question to the Minister, which graphically illustrated that point. This is a failure of Government—probably not assisted by the courts, it must be said, which seek to provide every opportunity to gainsay the will of Parliament, which wants action to be taken. It is essential for the confidence of the British people in the system that those who are given every opportunity to claim asylum, but whose applications are rejected, leave the country and that the means are found to achieve that, unpleasant though it sometimes may be.
My third point was drawn to my attention by a constituent whose son, a former soldier in the Army, is now a long-distance lorry driver. He wrote to tell me that his son is extremely concerned at the consequences of the fines that come into effect on 1 February. If he is found to have an illegal immigrant in his lorry, he and his company will each be fined £2,000. The real issue is that this man takes great care to ensure that such people are not in his vehicle, but his father described what happens when he arrives in Calais. All sorts of ruses are undertaken by asylum seekers to gain access to the lorry and to any areas where a person can be concealed such as in packaging, boxes or whatever. There is then the rather revolting task of clearing up the consequences of human occupation. The one thing that he was overwhelmingly worried about was the fact that the French police stand there, see what is going on and do absolutely nothing about it. That confirms what I was told one night when I was in my consituency and my mobile phone rang. At the other end were two reporters from the Daily Mail, who said, "We are in Calais, and you will not believe what we are seeing here. There are all these fancy security arrangements for asylum seekers, all state-of-the-art stuff, but they are basically just nipping over the wall and climbing on to the lorries, and the French police are doing nothing about it."
The French police are not the Minister's responsibility, and I shall not hold her to account for them. However, it is the Government's responsibility to

17WH
ensure that our continental partners take much more vigorous action to prevent the abuse that is occurring. If our partners consider the matter a European issue, they should show a bit more communautaire spirit and try to help the British Government to solve the problem.
I shall refer only briefly to the general issue, because I shall return to it at a later date. As a nation, we have no reason to be ashamed of our record in receiving victims of oppression in other parts of the world. The people of this country have shown extraordinary tolerance and great magnanimity in trying to accommodate people. However, as I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, and having listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), conflicts are taking place throughout the world. The country deserves to know whether, even if large numbers of people are genuinely victims of oppression, given the crowded nature of these islands and the pressure on our infrastructure, we have an unlimited obligation to accept them.
I merely ask the question. Many of our constituents are asking us to answer it. It especially grieves me when I am urged by bleeding-heart liberals—I am not necessarily referring to the hon. Member for Taunton—that we should do more for countries that oppress their people. The same people told us that we had no business being the colonial Government in those countries, which were then well run, prosperous and democratic, and people enjoyed the security that the stability of British administration provided. We are dealing with big questions, but I shall not deal with them as I realise that the Minister has a lot of information to deal with and impart to us.
11.12 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Last year, record numbers of people claimed asylum in the UK. The official Home Office figure, released for the first time this morning, is that 71,160 asylum applications were made during 1999. Understandably, and rightly, many people will be worried by that figure and by the increasing number of asylum seekers coming to the UK in recent years.
The UK is not alone in experiencing substantial increases. In one recent month alone, in the Republic of Ireland, with a much smaller population, 1,000 people sought asylum. The problem must be examined in its European context.
Experience has shown that the majority of people seeking asylum are economic migrants, rather than those in need of international protection under the conventions. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that we must maintain the integrity of our asylum system. The concept of seeking refuge and protection and becoming a refugee is historic, and deeply rooted in the very best of human principles, but that means that we must protect what it stands for: providing protection to those in genuine need. However, it also means deterring would-be economic migrants from making unfounded asylum applications here as a means of avoiding normal immigration rules. Why?—Because that devalues the concept of seeking asylum and is seen as a means of evading immigration control. Allowing such avoidance would be an affront to people who have lawfully settled here, using the appropriate methods and often waiting patiently to do so.
18WH
I will say a little about the system that we inherited. It was to restore integrity to a failing system that the Government undertook the most fundamental review of immigration and asylum rules for more than 25 years. Our aim was to make the system fairer, faster and firmer than the dreadful system that we inherited.
Our international obligations as signatories to the 1951 refugee convention mean that we have to consider all claims for asylum made at the ports, or within the United Kingdom. We are not alone in that. We cannot turn our back on those in genuine need of protection. This country has a proud tradition of giving shelter to those fleeing from persecution in other parts of the world, and that will continue. I am one of its beneficiaries. Long may it do so!
The key to ensuring that the asylum system is not manipulated by those who merely seek economic betterment is to process claims quickly. That is why the 1998 White Paper committed us to a target of two months for most initial decisions and to a further four months to deal with most appeals by April 2001. We are taking measures to achieve that and putting in place new procedures—especially in view of other countries' procedures. We are recruiting more staff to process applications. Of course, that means spending more: in the coming three years, we shall spend an additional £120 million on speeding up decisions and on increasing the number of asylum case workers. That is important.
A substantial number of asylum applications have been made at our ports and in-country following clandestine entry. To respond to those pressures, and to help speed up the system, we are setting up a new reception centre at Oakington, near Cambridge. Oakington's purpose is to help deal with claims on which a rapid decision appears possible. Applicants will be required to stay at the centre for about seven days while their claim is being decided. There will be a relaxed regime, with minimal physical security. If a case has to take longer than others, or if an appeal is pending, applicants will be granted temporary admission or, if necessary, removed to an ordinary detention centre.
Mr. Lidington: Bearing in mind all the things that the Government take pride in, has the backlog of asylum applications passed the 100,000 mark? When does the Minister expect it to begin falling?
Mrs. Roche: The backlog has increased beyond the 100,000 mark, although the hon. Gentleman of course knows that the Government whom he supported contributed to more than 50,000 of those applications. Given the current pattern of decision making, we expect a consistent falling of the figures in line with the targets that we have announced. Oakington is likely to open in the spring.
Too many of those seeking clandestine entry reach the UK by concealing themselves in lorries. That is unacceptable. I shall comment on the principal responsibility. I shall deal with the comments made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) in due course. He made some kind remarks, and I attribute them to the esprit de corps that extends to the Home Affairs Committee, of which I was a member. However, I should pay tribute to the excellent contribution made by my private office.

19WH
Too many of those seeking clandestine entry reach the UK by concealing themselves in lorries. The principal responsibility for remedying the problem must lie with drivers, owners or operators of vehicles that are being targeted. That is why we are introducing a new civil penalty, to which high priority will be given. When it is implemented, the owner, operator or driver of any vehicle that transports clandestine entrants to the UK will be subject to a £2,000 penalty per clandestine entrant. The new civil penalty will complement the criminal offence that applies to those who deliberately facilitate illegal entry. We are increasing the maximum sentence for facilitation from seven to 10 years' imprisonment.
Much mention has been made of asylum support, and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) seemed to become somewhat muddled. At the moment, we are discussing interim arrangements—the voluntary dispersal scheme that is co-ordinated by the Local Government Association. As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said, the new support scheme will start from 1 April, and I can assure her that no local authority will have the power of veto. The Home Office will take responsibility and contract directly with accommodation providers. We are consulting widely with local authorities, so that we can make use of their understanding of local circumstances.
I want to deal with some of the issues that were raised in respect of the Government's actions and record. What was our inheritance on taking office? As hon. Members will know, in 1996, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is now shadow Home Secretary, piloted an Act that achieved something quite remarkable. Where it allowed some who claim asylum in the UK at Dover, Heathrow, or any of our ports and airports, to continue to claim social security cash benefits, others—this is the interesting point—were told that they would receive nothing. A number of court cases resulted, and the view was taken that, under the Children Act 1989 and the National Assistance Act 1948, local authorities must pick up the tab. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Canterbury, and local authorities in Kent and London saw that the burden lay with them. Of those who sought asylum, 80 per cent. reside in London and Kent. The problems that local authorities face should be laid at the door of the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
The Opposition tried to undermine our proposals on the civil penalty. In Committee, they spoke through the night—in fact for 20 hours—and sought to delay dispersal. With the support of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald tabled an amendment that would have wrecked the Bill and cost the people of this country £500 million. In a letter, she described the amendment as a sensible, common-sense provision. That is the same right hon. Lady who, when she held my post, approved budget cuts to the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office that would have cut staffing levels at Croydon by 1,200, were it not for action that this Government took after the general election. That is the same right hon. Lady who negotiated the
20WH
Siemens contract for the new information technology system at Croydon, and who is responsible for many of the difficulties that we face.
It is little wonder that it has been said of the previous Tory Government that they left our immigration and asylum system in a complete shambles. Who was the author of that remark? It was David Mellor, in August 1999. The hon. Member for Aylesbury smiles, but having been a Minister of State at the Home Office, David Mellor was in a good position to assess the matter.
I shall deal with some other matters that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned our position in relation to the French. I assure him that there is very good co-operation between our immigration officials and those of France. I know that not merely because I have seen it on paper, but because I go to ports and speak to those concerned. As a result of the recent actions in France, more than 60 facilitators were charged, and many imprisoned.
Asylum seekers from central Europe, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, have been mentioned, and my written comments on that have been accurately described in this debate. Overwhelmingly, the claims of people who come from those countries have been unfounded, and we have moved as swiftly as we can to deal with those cases.
A question was asked about the removals target. I assure hon. Members that we are absolutely on target in respect of removals. A proper removals target is essential if we are to maintain the integrity of our policy.
In Amsterdam, the Prime Minister secured a protocol to the treaty to ensure that the UK will be able to retain control of its own borders. That will remain the case.
Mr. Gill: As the Minister will be aware, I initiated the debate. So far, however, she has not addressed her reply to any of the points that I made. I recognise that time is short, but will she undertake, before she sits down, to reply to me in writing?
Mrs. Roche: Without wishing to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, if he had not made that intervention, I would have had an extra minute to reply to his points.
The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood our responsibilities under the 1951 United Nations convention. We still have an obligation under that convention—regardless of the European convention on human rights—to look in detail at each asylum application that is made to us. That is not only our responsibility, but that of every other signatory of the 1951 convention.
I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's Euro-sceptic views, but I should like to be able to convince him that the United Kingdom has much to gain from close involvement with Europe in this context, as in many others. For example, we are applying to join the non-borders elements of the Schengen agreement, including the information system and other measures to tackle illegal immigration. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that organised crime is involved in the smuggling and trafficking of human beings, but we can defeat that only by working with our partners internationally.

21WH
We expect to derive significant benefits from opting into measures on common standards for dealing with asylum seekers. Common standards across the EU will mean that there is much less incentive for asylum seekers to go asylum shopping for the best deal. That is why I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who seeks an isolationist position for the UK. Ensuring that we have common standards will encourage claimants to stay in the first member state that they reach. Meanwhile, the 1999 Act contains provisions that will strengthen our ability to return asylum seekers to other member states under the Dublin convention.
Therefore, I totally reject any assertion that the Government are soft on those who try to exploit our asylum system. We want a system that is firm, fair and fast and offers protection to those most in need and in genuine fear, but which ensures that those who make unfounded claims will be swiftly returned to the countries from which they have come.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The time is up and we must now move on to the next debate.

Football Safety
11.30 am
Mr. Bob Blizzard: First, I should say a word about the title of this debate. The aspect of safety that I wish to talk about concerns goalposts. I should make it clear that I am talking not about professional football, but about football played locally on sports fields and recreation grounds, in or out of school, by organised clubs or by groups of people informally.
It is an unfortunate and tragic fact that at least nine children have been killed in such circumstances in the past 13 years. Some may be surprised that children are being killed by something as inert as a set of goalposts. The most recent incident occurred last summer. A seven-year-old boy in Dewsbury was killed when free-standing goalposts toppled over, causing a fatal blow to his head, after children had been swinging on the crossbar. That case is being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). That tragedy was made all the more appalling by the fact that a fatal goalpost accident was first recorded as long ago as 1986, when a seven-year-old boy was killed. In 1990 an eight-year-old boy was killed and then a 12-year-old girl, when a ball kicked with some force again caused a frame to topple over. In 1991 an 11-year-old boy was killed at Witham in Essex. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), whose constituency contains that town, wishes to say a word about that.
Mr. Alan Hurst: My hon. Friend mentioned the tragic death of the son of my constituent, Mrs. Brenda Smith of Witham. Mrs. Smith has campaigned for many years to draw public attention to the continuing deaths and injuries from dangerous goalposts. Indeed, late last year Mrs. Smith and I met my hon. Friend the Minister, and we were encouraged by her positive response. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way forward is a combination of safe equipment and greater public awareness?
Mr. Blizzard: I agree with those points, but other steps can be taken. One important feature of that incident was the fact that the goalposts were not factory made by a reliable manufacturer—a point that I shall develop later.
In 1994, a six-year-old boy was killed on holiday. Again the crossbar, which was a piece of scaffold pole, toppled over. In 1995, a 13-year-old boy was killed and in 1996 a two-year-old girl. Again in 1996, a 10-year-old girl was killed when posts toppled over: one set had been leaning against a wall. It is possible that there were a couple more deaths in 1996, but I do not have details of them. Each of those deaths was a tragedy, but collectively they are a disgrace, because they were all preventable.
I should explain my constituency interest in this matter. A firm in Lowestoft in my constituency, Harrod UK, is the country's leading goalpost manufacturer. It has nothing to do with Harrods, the Knightsbridge version. Harrod UK supplies nearly all the premier league clubs, including Manchester United. It supplied goalposts for Euro 96 and for the new Cardiff stadium, and will probably do so for the new Wembley stadium, too.

23WH
The chairman of the company, Mr. Ron Harrod, has campaigned on goalpost safety since 1991. He is a recognised technical expert. He represents this country on the CEN—the European Committee for Standardisation—and has done so for the past seven years. He took his campaign to the "That's Life" programme in 1991 and made representations to lain Sproat, the Minister in the previous Government, but received little response.
If we analyse this sad list of fatal accidents, we find that they almost all involve free-standing, movable goalposts, particularly the smaller 6 ft size used for five, six and seven-aside games. The goalposts topple forward when someone swings on or applies pressure to the crossbar. Almost all are home made or adapted from factory models by well-meaning people, but with disastrous consequences. That is exemplified by the police report into the Dewsbury case and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury for showing that to me. The goalposts were originally full-sized posts and had concreted into the ground, but they had been taken down and adapted. They were heavy—it took three adults to move them—but they were not anchored and of the 21 strong steel spikes that were supplied originally, only one was left and the remainder had been substituted with 10 camping-type pegs, which were not up to the job.
An expert witmess from the Health and Safety Executive stated that, because of the design, only a small amount of force was required to make the posts fall forward under their own weight. Design is the key, and it is important to maximise stability to minimise weight. Harrod UK has developed technical solutions to make the posts safe, particularly with the use of anchors, but also with prominent labels on the equipment and bold instruction leaflets. As a result of the campaigning and committee work of people such as Ron Harrod, a European standard—BSEN 748— now exists for full-sized goalposts. Guidelines and safety warnings have been issued by various organisations, including the HSE, the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education, the Institute of Sport and Recreation Managers and the National Playing Fields Association. The Football Association, through the county associations, advises referees to check them before use. Indeed, the laws of association football require that frames
"must be anchored securely to the ground".
Many games, kickabouts and training sessions all over the country do not take place under FA rules and the guidelines have not stopped accidents and deaths. Above all, there is not yet a standard for small, free-standing goal posts.
At the inquiry into the Dewsbury tragedy, the coroner recommended that such a standard be developed. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has taken a close interest in that. She kindly met me and Harrod UK in December and progress has been made. The British Standards Institution has agreed to draw up a standard, but that takes two years to develop, so it will introduce a publicly available specification—a PAS—which can be developed more quickly. We hope that that
24WH
will be done this year. The FA has agreed to fund the development of that and is sending out new safety guidelines, of which I have already seen a draft.
Vital issues remain outstanding. Although a British standard and FA guidelines will make a valuable contribution, they will not alone solve the problem or stop the deaths. The standard will not cover existing goalposts. A standard in this country is voluntary and a manufacturer does not have to adopt it. Most important, we do not have a law making it illegal to make, sell or use non-standard equipment. The new standard will not overcome the main problem, which is the use of homemade or adapted goalposts. By their nature, the pieces of equipment are not made by recognised manufacturers, most of whom would follow the recommended standard. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of legislation, so that when safety is involved only equipment that meets the recognised standard is allowed to be sold and used in this country? Will she consider the position in France, where the standard is incorporated into legislation? I understand that it is now illegal in France to make, distribute or use non-standard goalposts. In Germany, a standard is not incorporated in legislation, but I understand that insurance is invalid if non-standard equipment is used, leaving providers and users open to civil proceedings by the injured party. That concentrates the mind and introduces a safety culture.
The standard may give us a safe product, but how do we ensure that goalposts are used properly and safely? How do we ensure that the anchors, which are the answer to the problem, are utilised routinely? The police inquiry into the Dewsbury incident made an interesting point in its conclusion. It said:
"There is some concern amongst staff about the role of the HSE and its relationship to Local Authority Environmentally Health for these issues. It is not clear who has responsibility for enforcement. This needs clarifying so that it is clear who has responsibility for enforcement and any future cases."
The HSE wrote to my constituent, Ron Harrod, in 1996, and made the important point that:
"sports equipment does not usually fall into the category of work equipment. This means that the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 concerning the design and manufacture of equipment will not apply. The HSE therefore has no remit in this respect, and all matters of design of sports and play equipment fall to the Department of National Heritage"—
now the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
I wrote to the HSE at the end of last year, and was told that only two of those nine incidents occurred in circumstances in which the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act applied, and in which the HSE was the enforcing authority. In the other cases, which often involved children playing with home-made goalposts during their own free time, there was no legal duty on anyone under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. The activities of voluntary football clubs or of children playing on their own would not be covered by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act.
Which is the responsible enforcement authority in these cases? The questions of enforcement, inspection and responsibility need to be clarified so that they can be comprehensive in their coverage. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree that we need a high-profile campaign to get across to people playing in

25WH
these circumstances what they have to do, and the importance of carrying out the safety checks and procedures.
In conclusion, I emphasise the following points. A British standard for small free-standing goalposts, which we are now going to have, is an important step forward, as are more guidelines from the Football Association. However, if we are to take safety truly seriously, and to ensure that our children do not continue to be put at risk of being killed by goalposts, we must ensure that only safe goalposts can be made, sold and used in this country. We must do that if we seriously want to avoid more children being added to the tragic list that has accumulated over the past 13 years.
11.43 am
The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing a debate on such an important subject. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and thank him for his short contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney outlined a difficult problem, which concerns all of us involved with the safety of young children, especially when they are involved in sporting activities. Many other hon. Members share that concern, and have expressed their regret at not being able to be here for the debate.
All those playing sport, especially children, should be able to do so in safety. As my hon. Friend pointed out, nine children have been killed in accidents involving goalposts since 1986. That is nine too many. It is worrying that of the nine, five children aged between two and 13 have lost their lives since 1994. It is important that the coroners noted that the accidents were not just the result of kids being kids. Many of the mobile goals collapsed during normal use in the course of matches. Many adults have also been injured in this way.
Figures from the Department of Trade and Industry's consumer safety unit show that 1,943 people suffered injuries in accidents involving goalposts between 1990 and 1997. However, that figure includes full-size, permanent equipment as well as mobile goalposts, and by no means all those incidents were caused by faulty equipment.
I became Minister for Sport shortly after the tragic death last July of Jack Sheerin, who died after being hit by the falling crossbar of a mobile goal. That tragedy led to much publicity, and Jack's parents—together with parents of other children recently killed or injured—are determined that such a tragedy should never happen again. Mrs. Sheerin rightly drew the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) who, in turn, raised it with me. This week, I received a petition signed by 1,071 people from Jack's home town of Thornhill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree came to see me last October with Mrs. Brenda Smith, the mother of Jonathan Smith, who was tragically killed in 1991. I pay tribute to her work over the years in bringing the issue to the attention of those in authority and to everyone in the sport. I gained much valuable information from her and I was struck by her determination to raise awareness of the issue.
26WH
I regard it as a priority to make progress on minimum standards for mobile goalposts. Mobile goals designed for use in five-a-side are different from permanent, full-sized goals, which are secured to concrete or other mountings. Permanent goalposts are subject to the British standard BSEN 748, which was introduced in 1996. Mobile goals serve a different purpose, often enabling children to play competitive matches on appropriately sized pitches. They are designed to be dismantled and stored easily, particularly at the end of the match or training session when there is often little room for storage.
A range of mobile goals manufactured by reputable firms in a variety of sizes and specifications has been available to clubs for many years. They are either lightweight constructions of plastic or aluminium or are made of heavier steel pipes, which are designed to be securely anchored in the ground. If fitted and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, this equipment is safe to use. However, many of the goals in children's matches are adapted from full-size goals or are constructed on a do-it-yourself basis—often by well-meaning parents who are anxious to help out their sons' or daughters' clubs. The goal that killed Jack Sheerin was cut down from a full-sized one and it was not secured to the ground. The collapse of home-made equipment contructed from scaffolding poles led to the deaths of Jonathan Smith in 1991 and David O'Neill in 1994. I am sure that those goals were built with the best of intentions, but there is no place for dangerously unsafe equipment in sport and there is a clear need for an effective safety standard.
The variety of mobile goals in use makes it difficult to impose standards, which are the responsibility of individual clubs rather than of local government or the football authority. Local authorities are responsible for the design and maintenance of their own facilities, including goalposts and other sports equipment. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, requires those who control football pitches used by others to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of the equipment that they provide. However, the Act does not apply to equipment provided by the users themselves. Most mobile goals owned and used by adult and children's amateur football clubs throughout the country are the responsibility of the clubs themselves, even when club matches are played on local authority pitches.
I have been asked to consider introducing legislation to set minimum standards or to hold local authorities and other sports ground owners responsible for all equipment used on their property. I understand those calls and why people feel so strongly that that is necessary. I am prepared to reflect further. However, we must consider whether such legislation could make a difference. I am prepared to take into account what is happening in France and Germany. We could learn from what they have achieved in France using a combination of legislation and standards.
I have been holding discussions with goalpost manufacturers since the autumn. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, I have had a meeting with Harrod UK, a leading company in the field based in his constituency. It is clear from those discussions that all the manufacturers are concerned to do as much as they

27WH
can to ensure that the 3,500-odd sets of fixed and mobile goalposts that they produce each year are safe. Problems with mobile equipment arise when clubs use home-made or unsuitable goalposts. While I can see how people immediately assume that legislation would help, we must consider carefully how it would work. However, I undertake to look into the matter again.
An important way forward is to ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree said, that all clubs and coaches are aware of the dangers of inadequate equipment and of best practice in the design, use and maintenance of mobile goalposts. I have encouraged the Football Association and the British Standards Institution to consider a British standard for mobile goals as a matter of urgency.
The FA issued a guidance note on the design and use of mobile goalposts back in 1991, which it has regularly updated. It is a good, clear document and I am anxious that all amateur football clubs and coaches working with young people have access to it. The FA has circulated a note to all affiliated football coaches since the last tragic death in July, and reprinted it prominently in an issue of its magazine, Insight. I have been in touch with the FA to ensure that, having done that, it does not forget about the issue for the next six months; it must continue regularly to bring it to people's attention.
To ensure that the guidance note reaches a wider audience, including ground staff working for bodies that are not affiliated to the FA, I wrote to several leisure and local government bodies last November asking them to ensure that the guidance note receives as much publicity as possible. So far, I have had an encouraging response. The Chief Leisure Officers Association has circulated the note to all its members and including it on its website, and the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management has ensured that its members are fully aware of best practice.
Raising awareness of this issue with the people who run junior teams is vital. Many demands are placed on those who take on the task of coaching junior teams and arranging matches. I was recently contacted by the manager of an under-eights team in Cheshire, who listed the many stressful duties it is necessary to carry out before a competitive match or training session involving children can kick off. Transport has to be organised, subscriptions collected and playing areas checked for sharp and other dangerous or unpleasant objects. It is a demanding routine, which must often be carried out while supervising excited children. However, my correspondent stressed—I am sure that this view is shared by all those who are involved with young players—that safety must be the primary consideration, and that there must be no compromise on the standards of equipment. I hope that, in time, everyone involved in children's sport will demonstrate a similar awareness of safety issues.
As well as ensuring that those running local football clubs are fully aware of the need to make sure that all equipment is in good condition and that it is used
28WH
correctly, I am also anxious to encourage the setting of a minimum standard. Following my meetings with manufacturers, I was pleased when many of them—including the firm that is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—attended a meeting with the FA and the British Standards Institution, where much progress was made.
Setting a British standard is a lengthy process involving much research and consultation. As my hon. Friend said, it can take up to two years. While manufacturers of mobile goalposts are working towards that standard, I am glad to say that they have agreed as a matter of urgency to develop, with the BSI, a publicly available specification. That will be a much quicker process. The institution has agreed in principle that when the publicly available specification is published, it will be given fast-track consideration with a view to its forming the basis of a full British standard.
Mr. Blizzard: I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend has said about how much activity is being concentrated on trying to deal with the problem. Could not the authorities include in the circulars that they send out a strong recommendation that every club or organisation checks to see whether goalposts are from a reliable manufacturer or are of the do-it-yourself variety, and couple that with an equally strong recommendation that they cease using the latter type immediately? Dangerous goalposts could still be in use as we sit here now.
Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is quite right. Even if we get the standard and make things better for the future, dangerous goalposts could still be in use all around the country. I will suggest strongly that it could be put in that light rather than as just a simple piece of information. The FA and the institution are contributing to the costs of the research work and will issue a joint document shortly, covering the design, use and maintenance of existing mobile equipment. I am pleased that the organisations are working together on this, as it is very important.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government and I as Minister for Sport take this issue very seriously. Sports safety is becoming more of an issue because increasingly in this country people go to legislation if something happens. Sports, particularly at the voluntary level, will find it difficult if they are involved in costly legislation. It is crucial that they act to avoid the terrible tragedies that can happen to families.
I will continue to meet many of the people involved in manufacturing, regulating and using mobile goals, and to talk to my hon. Friends who have taken an interest. I am sorry that I cannot promise instant legislation. I will look to how we might combine the best efforts of everyone to ensure that the safety aspect is balanced by people themselves being responsible for the measures that they take when they are working with children. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue today and for helping to promote the awareness that is so necessary to ensure the safety of our children.

Rural Magistrates Courts
11.57 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise this important issue today and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for being here to reply.
There is no doubt that courthouse closures have exercised many hon. Members over a number of years. Closures have occurred up and down the country. The evidence is not only anecdotal but factual. I consulted the Library to establish how many courthouses had closed in the past 10 years. The number of courthouses has diminished by 28 per cent. in that time, and now each serving courthouse looks after, on average, half as many people again.
There has therefore been a significant change. For rural communities, closure of rural courthouses, has a special resonance because their impact on local communities is particularly acute. In 1998, five courthouses were closed in Suffolk. In the Suffolk magistrates courts committee annual report of 1997–98, the chairman of the committee described the situation as follows:
"It was found that five court houses were either under utilised or did not meet security standards or both. We have decided to close these five courts at Felixstowe, Haverhill, Newmarket, Saxmundham, and Stowmarket… We consulted widely before making our decision which is now the subject of an appeal by the County Council to the Lord Chancellor."
That appeal was not successful. The truth of the matter, and I must be blunt, is that no budgetary reason whatever was given for the closure of those courthouses. The cross-party county council objected to their closure, as did every district council and every Member of Parliament of both political parties in the county. The Law Society objected, and to be frank, the consultation was, at best, minimal. Defending solicitors were not consulted at all. Members of Parliament posed the chairman of the courts committee a series of important questions about the impact, cost and implications of the closures, but those points were left unanswered. It is beyond belief that when Members of Parliament tried to meet the courts committee to discuss the court closures, the committee refused to meet the democratically elected representatives of the people of Suffolk. So much for the consultation process.
Less than 18 months on, two smaller courthouses that are left, at Sudbury and Mildenhall, appear to be under threat. I salute the campaign undertaken by the East Anglian Daily Times to preserve them. In a letter to the editor of the paper, Mr. Terry Hunt, the chairman of Suffolk magistrates' courts committee, Mrs. Anne Dunford, wrote:
"May I put the record straight with regard to Sudbury and Mildenhall magistrates courts? Suffolk Magistrates' Courts Committee has no plans at the present time to close either courthouse."
Later, it stated:
"If the new arrangements were possible at Bury St. Edmunds, we would expect to review the situation, but I can assure your readers that courthouse closures are not presently under discussion."
What the lady meant by that is that they intend ultimately to construct a purpose-built courthouse in
30WH
Bury St. Edmunds, which would bring the total number of courthouses in the county to three. Mrs. Dunford did not flatly reject the idea that those two smaller courthouses should close. She declined the opportunity to close them. Knowing what happened two years ago because of a lack of consultation, I fear what might be in the pipeline.
Our reason for raising this important matter is not merely to talk about Suffolk alone because the situation is replicated across the country. The point at issue is the relationship between magistrates courts committees and central Government, and whether the Government have issued guidance to the committees on the closure of courts. It has been brought to my attention and to that of my hon. Friends, the Law Society and others, as the House of Commons Library can confirm. The answer is that none has been given. Even county councils, which in Suffolk have provided 20 per cent. of the courts committees' budget, are unable to bring effective pressure to bear.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend press on with his campaign, not only for East Anglia but for the whole country? Devon has 17 magistrates courts, but it is estimated that 10 will be closed. Some are a great distance apart. If, say, the Lord Chancellor decided to close a court in Ealing, and told people that they had to go to Reading for magistrates proceedings, they would think that the Lord Chancellor was mad. Closing the court in Axminster and making people go to Exeter is just as bad: it is madness. My hon. Friend must press on with the campaign, which I am sure many hon. Members will support in order to deal with this national rather local problem.
Mr. Spring: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comment. The situation developing in Devon is replicated in many other parts of the country.
Mr. John Burnett: I should like to add to the comments of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Peter Emery). Not only Devon will be affected, although that is important enough, but Devon and Cornwall. The magistrates courts committee of Devon and Cornwall is considering proposals to close 13 courts in both counties. Does the right hon. Member for East Devon agree that justice should be done, and be seen to be done locally? Those courts are a vital part of our rural infrastructure and should not be undermined. Furthermore, for the reasons that the right hon. Member for East Devon gave, the savings will be marginal at best, and by closing most of the courts the magistrates courts committee will probably add to the cost of justice.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. This is a short debate, and interventions must be brief.
Mr. Spring: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, who made his point powerfully, has my absolute assurance that the bit is between my teeth. I hope that the Minister will feel the sincere passion that those of us who represent rural constituencies feel about this most important subject and the threat to our way of life in our local communities.

31WH
That is the heart of the matter. I know of no comparable circumstances in which money is supplied from the public purse and the relationship is not arm's length but no length at all. It is an infinitesimal sort of relationship, involving neither guidance nor control. As the Minister will know, a funding formula is used for the NHS, education and the police, which takes into account elements such as rurality, sparsity and capitation in dividing up the public purse. Such elements do not seem to be considered by magistrates courts committees. Two years ago, the entire community of Suffolk, including magistrates and those affected by the court closures, objected to what happened. No budgetary reason was given, and the magistrates courts committee went ahead and closed the courts. Throughout the country, magistrates courts committees seem to have a dose of incurable and rampant "centralisationitis". They seem to want to immortalise themselves by erecting edifices that no one in the rural communities, other than themselves, wants.
I return to the circumstances that prompted me to request a debate this morning—the threat to the two courts at Mildenhall and Sudbury. Mildenhall, in my constituency, has a population of 13,500, but serves the entire area covered by Forest Heath district council—approximately 55,000 people. It has been suggested that it is only a 20-minute drive to Bury St. Edmunds. However, the Mildenhall court serves not only the people of Mildenhall and the immediately surrounding hamlets and villages, but the nearby town of Newmarket, which is substantially larger, the villages and hamlets of the fens nearby, Lakenheath, with a population of more than 5,000, and Brandon, with a population of more than 8,000.
Those communities are not especially affluent: 23 per cent. of households in the area covered by Forest Heath district council do not have access to a motor car. If Mildenhall court is closed, what will happen to my constituents who must go to Bury St. Edmunds from Brandon? In Brandon, 26 per cent. of households do not have access to a car. I have examined the bus timetables for all those areas, going to Bury St. Edmunds. The court starts at 10 o'clock. Someone who lives in Brandon and must reach Bury St. Edmunds for the start of a court session would have to catch a bus at 7.52 am. The journey would last for more than an hour, and the bus would arrive in Bury St. Edmunds at 8.56 am—
Sir Peter Emery: They are lucky to have a bus.
Mr. Spring: That is the point. The number of bus services in rural areas is limited, and it is something else for people to make judgments about the future of those courthouses based on the assumption that people automatically have access to a motor car.
I have spoken to many local journalists who cover proceedings in the courthouses, and have asked them what effect previous closures have had on delays and difficulties in reaching courthouses for my constituents in places such as Newmarket and Haverhill, where the courthouses were closed. They have told me that those closures have resulted in delays and difficulties for defendants, witnessess, solicitors and everyone else
32WH
involved. What will be the end result if smaller courthouses are closed? There will be more traffic and higher car usage as friends, family and solicitors work together to provide transport. Clearly, as the Liberal Democrat Lord Phillips of Sudbury pointed out, the environmental impact will be negative. Lord Phillips has spoken about the importance of local justice as enshrined in magna carta. On 14 January, he stated in the East Anglian Daily Times that
"We are now abolishing it 800 years later without any thought to the impact on local communities, who are seeing the erosion of much-loved, long-standing institutions."
Local magistrates understand their communities and know the families who are involved in community life. Often, magistrates are small business people who were born and bred in their communities. They can spot troublemakers, and are familiar with families and communities with special problems. That is the essence of the local criminal justice system. All that knowledge, wisdom and experience are being thrown out willy-nilly up and down the country as courthouses are closed down. That is lamentable.
In a politically ecumenical spirit, I shall refer to a letter published in the East Anglian Daily Times from a former magistrate, Councillor Sue Thomas, who is a member of the South Suffolk Labour party. She points out that there are only five courthouses in Suffolk, and if two more were abolished, Suffolk would have fewer courthouses than any other county. In respect of counties with populations of between 600,000 and 700,000, Suffolk already has the fewest courthouses. For example, Lincolnshire has 12 courthouses and Devon—which, as we have heard, is also under threat—has 14. The criminal justice system is being sliced like a salami. That is deeply damaging, and offensive to people of all political persuasions.
As a result, travel time and environmental damage will increase, and the existing problem of recruiting magistrates will be exacerbated. The difficulties experienced by defendants and witnesses will increase enormously. As Jonathan Ripman of the Law Society for Suffolk and North East Essex has said in respect of Suffolk, "Here we go again!" As I pointed out to the Minister, the county council is speaking out, but, as before, to no avail. Councillors are worried that, no matter what they do, their influence will be minimal. Susan Sida-Lockett, the Conservative group leader of Suffolk county council, has turned to her local government association for guidance. She has asked for a more clearly defined national policy and a set of criteria to prevent the consequences that we are discussing from arising.
I am sorry to say that, during the past few years, the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), who had to deal with closures in Suffolk, approved without exception closures up and down the country. I invest no particular blame in him, because the closures have been going on for some time; however, the problem is now becoming much worse. Therefore, we must consider new guidelines and a framework—for instance, an ideal ratio of courts to population, taking into account elements such as sparsity, transport, environmental effects and cost to the public purse. Of course the courts are not run for the convenience of court officials: they are run for the convenience of our local communities, who feel devastated by the loss.

33WH
I want to quote from the Magistrates Association itself. I have had a strong letter from John James of Dorset, who is its deputy chairman. He says:
"The Magistrates' Association believes that lay magistrates, supported by justices' clerks, are best placed to provide local justice in courts throughout England and Wales. The Magistrates' Association is extremely concerned that judicial functions are increasingly compromised for reasons of administrative expediency. This cannot be acceptable to the public or to court users. The Association recognises the need to balance good management and good quality justice but believes that the service is now close to the point where there are no more efficiency savings to be made without seriously harming its essential nature.
Magistrates' Courts Committees are required by statute to consult magistrates in the MCC area about matters which affect the provision of local justice and MCCs are required to appoint bench liaison representatives to assist in this process. The Association recognises that, in some instances, effective consultation is not taking place and would advocate the introduction of good practice guidance on the consultative process."
Finally, Mr James says:
"Local justice requires that all magistrates' courts are accessible both in terms of opening hours and travelling time for court users. Where it can be demonstrated that courts do provide an accessible and valuable service to the local community, the association will resist court closures which are solely on the grounds of administrative expediency."
Therefore, on many levels, rural England is under considerable pressure. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to observe what is going on in our communities and to make sure that, as we have the privilege of sitting here as Members of Parliament, we pass on to the generation ahead a viable, successful and workable criminal justice system in touch with the communities that we represent. I fear that if what is happening in magistrates courts continues, we as parliamentarians will rue the day that we allowed it to happen.
In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister. The present situation is serious and alarming and continues to deteriorate. We must seriously consider creating a proper framework to carry out the responsibility of MCCs, particularly in rural areas. There must be more accountability than there is at present and some responsibility to the future of local communities that are increasingly under threat as their institutions are closed down. The criminal justice system, going back to the magna carta, is part and parcel of the viability of those communities. I appeal to the Minister to find ways of reversing the present trend and restoring the magistrates' courts system to its proper place.
12.19 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): On the first occasion that I spoke in a Standing Committee under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, you suggested—in a way in which only you can, sotto voce—that I speak up. I am struggling this morning, and I hope that the parliamentary broadcasting unit will be able to pick up my failing voice as I respond to this important debate. I am delighted to see you in the Chair, because I know that you take an interest in these issues.
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing a debate on the important issue of the development of magistrates court services in rural
34WH
districts. He made a most eloquent and interesting speech expressing the fears, genuinely felt in his constituency, that more changes to magistrates courts are in the pipeline there.
As the hon. Gentleman knows from earlier debates on the issue, magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees, which comprise local magistrates selected by a selection panel also made up of local magistrates. They conduct their business under the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, some of which have now been overtaken by the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. The Suffolk magistrates courts committee is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the courts in its area. That committee, in consultation with the relevant paying authority—in this case, Suffolk county council—determines how many courthouses, and other accommodation, urban or rural, are needed locally.
It is sensible and rational that these reviews are taking place, and we expect no less of the magistrates courts committees in fulfilling their responsibilities. They must decide the most efficient way in which to discharge their statutory duty. However, it is not true to say that no guidance is issued to those committees. The central council of magistrates courts committees issues good practice guidance on courthouse closures. The Government encourage magistrates courts committees to follow that guidance. As the hon. Gentleman said, the magistrates courts committee has no plans to close further courthouses in Suffolk, so he can be reassured on that point.
Since the hon. Gentleman secured a debate on this subject in 1998, five courthouses have been allowed to close, as he has described. At that time, he warned the House that that would be the end of judicial life as we knew it in Suffolk. That has not happened. The performance in the Suffolk magistrates courts committee's area has improved. The average time for first listing to completion of a case has improved from 33 days in June 1998 to 32 days in June 1999. The published figures for monitoring the prosecution of persistent young offenders covering the first six months of 1999 show that the average time from the arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in Suffolk was 130 days. That compares favourably with 154 days for Suffolk in 1997.
Furthermore, there have not been the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman predicted in recruiting suitable magistrates after the courthouse closures in 1998. There have been no adverse comments from court users resulting from the closures. Cases have not had to be relisted as a result of prosecution or defence witnesses failing to turn up at the new venues. This further points to the fact that the magistrates courts committee behaved responsibly in determining its courtroom needs.
I will say a few words about local justice. The essential feature of local justice is that magistrates live or work in the locality. It is not simply a question of the location of the delivery of justice. It is not an essential feature of local justice that each community will have its own courthouse. Magistrates courts committees need to balance the need for a locally delivered service with the need to improve the quality of that service within the resources that are available to them. They are also,

35WH
mindful of the Government's aim of reducing delay, providing the optimum number of courtrooms in their area, permitting the flexible listing of cases.
Mr. David Taylor: I declare an interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is difficult to provide that level of service, given that magistrates courts committees are so unevenly funded? That puts pressure on the committees, including my own in Leicestershire.
Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes a point about the funding formula. That is currently being reviewed; a new formula is being prepared in consultation with the magistrates courts committees. We expect that that will deal with some of the problems that are being experienced in some localities.
It is important to reduce delays and focus on the needs of court users. The pressure to reduce delays in court comes from victims, witnesses and defendants—that is, the most important court users. Court users are primarily concerned about their case being heard on the day that it is listed.
I understand the attachment that many people have to the court system as it has grown up over the centuries. However, we must consider how the service can be modernised in line with the way in which people live now and the power and potential of information technology and modern communications. Nowadays, much of the business of the criminal courts does not have to be conducted face to face. For example, there is no technical—as opposed to legal—reason why fines have to be paid locally in person. They could be paid by post, by telephone or, eventually, electronically. Preliminary and administrative hearings could be conducted using video and audio conferencing methods, which are currently being developed.
Even the trial, the core of criminal proceedings, is changing. Children and other vulnerable witnesses can give evidence by video link, and information technology is transforming the way in which evidence can be presented to courts. Lord Justice Auld's review, which
36WH
has recently been announced, will address many of those questions and offer ideas as to how we might change the criminal court system to make it fit for the 21st century.
Information technology can also improve the efficiency of the courts and the justice system. For example, we are aiming to reduce the incidence of adjournments, and the time wasted by court users, that is caused by the lack of information available to the court. The strategic IT plans of the major criminal justice agencies include the electronic transfer of information between agencies—for example, the provision of case information from the police to the court in time for the hearing, or the fast and efficient communication of results from the court to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. That will provide more timely and complete information for the courts. We intend to introduce a new system for the magistrates court that will include such inter-agency links. The hon. Member for West Suffolk will be pleased to learn that when implementation of the system begins in the summer of next year, Suffolk will be the first magistrates courts committee to take the new system.
Let us not forget that magistrates are an essential and valuable part of the service. If they are to gain much more full and varied experience, and fulfil their sitting hours, it is better for work to be concentrated in larger, more efficient courts.
As I said, court users want to be sure that their case will be heard on the date it is listed, without too much waiting on the day. Larger courts with good facilities are more likely to be able to provide that level of service, because there is much more flexibility in using the courtroom accommodation. Transferring the workload of magistrates courts committees to better equipped centres is one way to modernise and improve the overall service that they provide. Their local knowledge means that they are best placed to make judgments on the best use of their resources.
I can only repeat that the Government are committed to providing a modern system of justice with well-equipped and secure courtrooms. We are committed to reducing delay in the time taken for cases to proceed through the courts and so to achieve our aim of reducing delay in the criminal justice system. We must all look to the future and the different ways of working that the new century will bring.

Confectionery Safety
12.30 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important issue and to reflect the concerns of medical and safety experts and, not least, the families whose children have suffered because of the intrinsic dangers of sweets containing toys or small objects in component form. In so doing, I pay tribute to all who have campaigned for so long to bring the matter to the attention of the Government, the industry and the general public. In particular, I should like to mention the activities of constituents and others who have drawn the subject to my attention and taken the time and effort to brief me so carefully.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), who have raised concerns about the implication of the sale of those products. Some of them have direct knowledge of the sad events surrounding the death of their constituents' children. Recently, Lord Colwyn, an eminent physician, has made known his concern. I hope that he will not mind my quoting from his letter to the Secretary of State for Health in which he stated:
"Professional colleagues have recently alerted me to their concerns over the risk to young children's health posed by small chocolate eggs which contain toys in component form. I am aware of three fatalities and of other serious incidents and am concerned that the Government has not alerted consumers to the risks associated with these products.
I am even more surprised that last Autumn's DTI report on choking—based on A&E data, claims"
not to have identified as many incidents as would seem to be the case. He continued:
"Do we not owe it to the parents who have suffered so much, and to all those children who could be tempted to put these small objects in their mouths"
to take up the issue and
"to encourage or require manufacturers to produce safer products with enclosures which cannot be swallowed or inhaled."
I wish to bring to your attention today, Madam Deputy Speaker, the history of choking incidents in this country and elsewhere in Europe, which are well documented and some of which have resulted in fatalities. Feeling is now so strong that some countries in Europe have introduced restrictions on the sale of the sweets and others are considering doing so. They have been banned in the United States on safety grounds for many years. I ask whether we are doing enough in this country to draw attention to the dangers of the sweets, whether we should seek a tougher regulatory framework based on more explicit knowledge of what has transpired, and how we should monitor and record incidents of children who are taken to accident and emergency departments after swallowing embedded objects.
What we are discussing can best be demonstrated by holding up an example of the Kinder Surprise egg, which is on sale in almost every sweet shop, supermarket and garage. Each egg contains a small toy inside a plastic capsule. They are, understandably, very popular
38WH
with young children. Not only is there the natural attraction of the chocolate, but the object within it is equally responsible for their popularity with children and makes the products more attractive than ever. That may not be a problem with older children, but the products are also aimed at very young children who do not know that they should not put the objects in their mouths. Retailers have seen children open the eggs with their teeth. The toy inside most of the products is in very small pieces and easy to swallow and, in the view of the country's leading experts, can easily cause a child to choke. Is this not, both in theory and in practice, very dangerous? If, as I believe, it is dangerous, we as adults should, by adopting a precautionary principle, draw attention to these products and seek to regulate them more carefully, in the hope that they are withdrawn from sale or that much improved alternatives are introduced to replace them.
I am particulary keen, as I said, to highlight the role of the accident and emergency units, as they handled all the heart-rending stories that I want to refer to. I in no way criticise their fine work, but the Department of Trade and Industry has always claimed that the home accident surveillance system, which depends on returns by A and E departments, is as accurate as possible. However, many campaigners feel that cases sometimes go unreported.
The three cases where fatalities occurred have now been well documented and reported. Jennifer Ashton from Birmingham choked on part of a Kinder egg. She was three, and I know her mother is here today. Roddy Breslin from Omagh died after putting the capsule from a Kinder egg in his mouth. He was three. Caren Day from Sheffield died choking on parts of a Chupa Chups egg. She was four. So that you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, how strongly these families feel about the issue, I shall quote from the letter sent to me by Mrs. Ashton. She said:
"We are so grateful that someone in parliament is finally trying to do something about the killer sweets that are available everywhere you look.
As you know our little girl, Jenny, choked to death on a little bit of a plastic toy in a Kinder Surprise egg. It was a long time ago, but in all these years nobody has taken any notice until now. Three children have died in this country and all we hear is that millions and millions of eggs are eaten without anyone coming to harm. If another child dies this won't be much consolation to the parents. Please do your best to make sure that no other family loses a little one."
That is the clearest and starkest evidence of the problems that can be caused by these sweets. Unfortunately, they and similar sweets are still on sale today. To its credit, Nestlé withdrew its product following safety concerns, and other manufacturers have either refused to sell such items or have produced better alternatives, as I hope to explain. Clearly, there has been a sustained and vigorous campaign to draw attention to what is wrong by, among others, the Consumers Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
Manufacturers who continue to sell such sweets react by claiming that they warn children by printing safety warnings on the wrapper. However, children as young as two or three will not be able to read, let alone understand, what the wrappers are saying. Indeed, there is an argument that such wrappers fail the Department of Trade and Industry's 1990 guidelines on safety

39WH
labelling. It is claimed that millions of eggs are sold each year, yet there have been only three "incidents" in recent times. I call a death something more than an incident: one is one too many if we can avoid this risk.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on raising this issue again before the House. He refers to RoSPA's interest in the case. I understand that RoSPA believes that the Department of Trade and Industry accident reporting system significantly under-reports such incidents. Will my hon. Friend also comment on the views of Professor David Jenkins, the product safety consultant to RoSPA? He says:
"For example, high consequence risks (e.g. death) associated with exposure to hazards for purely frivolous purposes, even of low probability, should normally indicate that the product be abandoned."
Would my hon. Friend therefore not consider it a matter for disquiet if Government officials were to drag their feet on support for European Union directives to improve product safety in this respect and did not take into account the severe and tragic cases to which he refers?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, Interventions must be brief.
Mr. Drew: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I build the case, I shall concur with his arguments, perhaps using evidence from different people.
I shall go through each of my four arguments quickly, because of the time. First, I want to look at what has been happening in Europe and consider the implications for us in the United Kingdom. It is fair to say that there has been a flurry of activity in recent times. As I have said, such products have long been banned in the United States, where any adulterated food is unacceptable. An interesting aside is the way in which the American authorities reacted to the Nestlé product, which was introduced in the early 1990s in the form of a chocolate magic ball with a toy inside it. After the threat of legal action, Nestlé withdrew the product from the marketplace in 1997 and subsequently removed it from all European countries, including the UK. Comparisons identify the marked difference in attitude between the United States and Europe, but, as a result of new investigation and re-examination of incident levels, there is now a shift in emphasis here.
Research from Professor Petridou of Athens university suggested that there could be as many as 2,000 choking accidents annually in Europe. I am not alleging that all are serious, let alone fatal. However, that is a staggering and worrying figure. Subsequent research by the Humboldt university in Berlin suggested that the problem was significant. Of 34 serious cases of choking reported in German hospitals or children's clinics, 31 were from these types of egg.
As a result of unease, other European Governments have started to take action. In Greece, the Ministry of Commerce produced a law protecting children as consumers with an article 10, which prevents the placing of an inedible item within foodstuffs. Portugal and
40WH
Belgium are following in train. The French have also launched a major investigation into the safety of foods containing inedibles.
There is a move towards increased control at EU level. I speak in glowing terms of the work of the MEP, Phillip Whitehead, who presented a petition to the European Parliament on behalf of the parents of the children who died. The Commission has now drawn attention to the dangers of these products and invited member states to take appropriate action to restrict their circulation in the interests of safety. There is an obligation under directive 92/59/EEC to take all necessary measures to guarantee that all products put on the market are safe, and there is also directive 88/378/EEC on the safety of toys, including the proscription of certain unsuitable ones for under-threes. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be aware of the strong press campaign in this country and abroad to highlight the dangers from these products and to urge Governments to take appropriate action.
May I deal briefly with the accusation that I am over-reacting and advocating a nanny state approach. My response is simple. All the statistics demonstrate that children have choked on coins, pen tops, keys and ring pulls as well as a variety of other objects over recent times, but the difference is that those are accidents, whereas these sweets knowingly encourage children to place the object in their mouth. Obviously I do not allege that manufaturers want children to choke—that would be irresponsible and unfair—but it is pernicious to take risks with children which can and should be avoided. The issue is black and white, and the case for safety is irrefutable.
I wish to deal with the manufacturers' response. In a nutshell, those who continue to sell these items have taken two approaches. First, they refute the dangers, arguing that out of billions of eggs sold over the years, only an infinitesimal number of incidents have occurred. Secondly, where problems did arise, without accepting liability they changed the design and posted clearer warnings. They have nevertheless been rather impervious to the criticisms of those campaigning against the products.
I do not want to dwell on it, but, rather than admitting responsibility, there has been a marked reluctance to accept any blame by some manufacturers. Worse, I have evidence that Ferrero Ltd., the owner of Kinder Surprise eggs, have sought to avoid taking blame by refusing to acknowledge the rights of families, campaigners—and perhaps even the Government—to bring the issues into the public domain. I hope that today's debate will help to overcome that.
A press conference that was to have taken place at the House of Commons in March 1998, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston—it is good to see her here—and by the hon. Member for West Tyrone was cancelled at the instigation of the Biscuit, Cake, Confectionary and Chocolate Alliance on the promise of objective research being undertaken. Unfortunately, nothing has transpired since that cancellation.
On the positive side, it is pleasing to say that Nestlé was not the only manufacturer which chose not to continue with similar products. I have with me a Cadbury's Yowie egg and hon. Members will immediately see the difference: it is a much bigger egg

41WH
and it contains embedded materials in a much safer way—proof that other firms such as Cadbury's, which produces the Yowie egg, can deal with the issue and still keep a market share.
Lastly, there is the role of Government. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I briefly present what I take to be the Department's current position. I am sure that he will come back to me if I am wrong or if I parody it in any way. The DTI claims that product safety regulations offer adequate protection despite the fact that the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, whose members wanted to get these products suspended after the death of Jennifer Ashton, said that the law is unenforceable. It believes that there is insufficient evidence. Referring to the survey on the home accident surveillance system data, it saw more of a threat from other items that children choke upon, as has already been mentioned, some of which may be passed on by older siblings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said in an answer to Phillip Whitehead:
"I would of course be very concerned if there was conclusive evidence that toys sold inside chocolate eggs posed a greater danger to young children because of the way they are sold than other small toys. However, the information currently available to DTI does not suggest that this is the case. This is very much in line with the consensus of views expressed by the European Commission and member States in mid-1998 when this issue was discussed. The conclusion then was that there was no need for controls, additional to those provided by the toys safety Directive and the General Product Safety Directive, on non-food items sold with food products where they were clearly separated—as is the case with products of the Kinder Surprise type."
I take issue with that because clearly there is a need to reinvestigate the matter even if we do not take precipitate action at this time.
I have read the report commissioned by the DTI entitled "Choking Risks to Children". This undertakes a study not just of HASS, but of the leisure accidents surveillance system, and includes evidence from the home accidents deaths database. In downgrading the threat there was none the less recognition that redesigning the cylinders and extending the present regulations would reduce the number of accidents. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my saying that there was concern at exactly what was being recorded and analysed. I ask him together with his Department of Health colleagues to re-examine the mechanism for recording to make sure that all results are obtained and in sufficient detail to ensure that we get an accurate picture. I am aware that that puts additional responsibilities on accident and emergency departments, but this is such an important issue that it must be got right.
In conclusion, I ask for five issues to be addressed by the Minister of Trade today. First, will the Government launch a campaign to warn parents about the intrinsic dangers in buying small eggs and similar confectionery products? Larger capsules and one-piece toys are much safer. Secondly, will they require manufacturers to increase the size of the capsule so that it cannot be swallowed? Small parts that fail to meet that requirement should be banned. Thirdly, will they recognise that the precedent was set with the action to deal with the problem of pen tops? This issue requires similar urgent action. Fourthly, will they consider making manufacturers package toys separately so that
42WH
their container does not entice children to put them in their mouths because of the smell of chocolate? Lastly, will they work with EU partners to ensure that action taken can be enforced across the Community, building on existing directives? If that is achieved, further lives will not be lost and we will at least have proved that lessons have been learnt.
12.48 pm
The Minister of State for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on being selected for this short, private Member's debate. As usual, he has made a thought-provoking speech. I listened carefully to the many important points he made and there were more than I can hope to address in the relatively short period remaining. I therefore want to invite my hon. Friend and those who have campaigned with him to come and sit down with my officials so that the issues can receive proper attention. Quite a lot of information that has been given to the House today deserves further attention.
My hon. Friend also referred to concerns in the European Union and to action proposed and taken by other European countries. These issues have been raised in Europe recently, although the Commission concluded that, on current evidence, there was no concern about the safety of those types of products. Therefore, I would greatly welcome any evidence and statistics that the group could bring to the meeting that I have proposed. I hope that my suggestion will be taken up. After our Department's review of any evidence, we shall ensure that it is passed on to the European Commission.
Before coming to the specific issue of the safety of toys and small objects in confectionery, I will say a few words about toy safety in general. Obviously we are considering the safety of extremely vulnerable consumers—children. What is less obvious and less easy to assess is how best to ensure their safety. Children develop and learn through exploration, and their age and lack of experience makes them fearless when a little fear could do some good. It is the responsibility of adults to ensure that children's environment is such that exploration is as hazard-free as possible, because childhood is not a risk-free experience. It is not easy to draw the line to ensure that children are as safe as possible without putting undue restrictions on their opportunities to explore, learn and have fun. Views on how that line should be drawn differ among parents and carers alike.
We need to consider the issues against the background of small toys in confectionery. As my hon. Friend said, chocolate eggs sometimes contain toys. Indeed they are probably the most well-known example in the United Kingdom of confectionery containing toys. The eggs generally contain a plastic capsule, although in one instance the capsule itself was chocolate-coated. In fact, the capsule is wholly separate—detached—from the chocolate egg. The capsule holds various small plastic pieces which, when assembled, make up the toy. The toy, like all toys sold in the UK, must comply with the stringent requirements of the Toy Safety Regulations 1995. Such toys have small parts, so, in accordance with the regulations, the product is labelled to indicate that is unsuitable for children under three.

43WH
I will give a little more of the background to the regulating of safety in this area. The toy regulations state that toys and their component parts, and any detachable parts of them, must, if intended for use by children under 36 months, be of such dimensions as to prevent their being swallowed or inhaled. Toys and their parts and packaging must not contain a risk of suffocation or strangulation. Toys that might be dangerous to children under the age of 36 months must, unless manifestly unsuitable for small children, bear a warning that they are not suitable for them.
The European toy standard EN71, which is published in the UK as a British standard, contains a cylinder test, as my hon. Friend said. Any toy or detachable part that is in the cylinder could pose a choking hazard for young children, and must not be included in toys for children under three.
In considering the issue during the long time that it has been under discussion, it has struck me that people often begin from the assumption that the way in which the toy is supplied—that is to say, with chocolate—increases the risk to children. Is this so? I question that assumption and suggest that a better approach would be to consider it on a case-by-case basis.
In the United Kingdom, three children have died in the past 15 years in incidents involving chocolate eggs: two two-year-olds choked on small parts in the toy and a four-year-old suffocated on the capsule—three too many deaths. They rightly prompted a searching look at the policy on such toys. In addressing that, we must examine how these tragic events occurred, to enable us to prevent such deaths in future. We must consider to what extent the presence, or absence, of the confectionery was material to the accidents, and whether they would have been avoided if the original packaging had been more conventional.
Some might argue that a child could inadvertently swallow the contents of the egg while eating the edible parts, unaware of the presence of the contents. However, in the case of products such as chocolate eggs, that would be highly unlikely. The popularity of those products lies precisely in the toy surprise content. The cost of the product reflects the additional value over a simple chocolate egg, highlighting the dual purpose of the product at the point of purchase. Children will be aware of, and actively looking for, the contents. And there is no evidence to support the assertion that the smell of chocolate migrates to the toy, so that the child believes that it, too, is chocolate and so puts it in his mouth.
Choking hazards are an important safety consideration and the DTI has undertaken research on choking incidents involving small children. That research provides no evidence to suggest that toys marketed in this way pose a greater risk to children than other toys, a view shared by the European Commission, which looks at the adequacy of safety measures in Europe.
If, as the evidence suggests, safety risks arise from the nature of the toy itself, we must treat the toy—whether
44WH
it comes from a chocolate egg, a cracker or from conventional wrapping—in the same manner. Children will not make the distinction and nor should we. If a toy sold in a chocolate egg presents no greater choking hazard than toys of a similar size sold by toy manufacturers, it should be subject to the same requirements. If there is a problem, it needs to be addressed for all small toys, not just those sold with confectionery.
The younger the child, the greater the risk from choking. Children under three are at greatest risk since their coughing and swallowing reflexes are less well developed. Indeed, the statistics show that choking incidents diminish significantly for the over-threes. The vulnerability of a child under three is exacerbated by the fact that small children are most likely to put things in their mouth. In particular, children under 12 months, when sight and touch is not so well developed, will learn about objects in their environment by "feeling" them in their mouths.
Many small objects, of which small toys are only a tiny category, present a potential choking hazard to small children. Young children will put or attempt to put anything and everything in their mouth. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned, these young children are least able to deal with any items that they may accidentally inhale. Parents and carers in this country are well aware—not least because of the reinforced message required by our regulations—that small children should not be left alone with small objects, whether toys or other items, nearby. Of course, it must be recognised that once small toys and toys with small parts are brought into the home for older children, there is a possibility that they might get into the hands of younger siblings, which must be guarded against.
The brand leader in the UK toy confectionery market has been on the market since 1973. Since 1972, it has sold 19 billion eggs worldwide. In the year to the end of August 1999, total sales in Europe were 1.3 billion. In the UK, 51 million were sold that year. There is no doubt that such products are in demand and are extremely popular. They bring pleasure to many children each year.
The DTI has been aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and has kept the issue under review for some time. It has looked at the circumstances of choking injuries and deaths involving toys and children under four and has considered information published in various papers. Most recently, it has commissioned research on accident data collected by the United Kingdom's home accident surveillance and home accident death databases. The outcome of that research on choking hazards establishes that the main causes of choking in under-threes are sweets, coins and food. The most recent statistics available indicate that around 6 per cent. of non-fatal choking incidents and around 4 per cent. of fatal incidents involve toys. The most common toys that cause choking are small parts from construction kits, games, soft toys and marbles. The European Commission has considered the issue on several occasions and also concluded that there are few data to suggest a problem.

45WH
Although it has been stated in some quarters that such toys sold with confectionery have been involved in seven deaths, inquiries by the DTI have not been able to confirm that figure and it is aware of three deaths. It has been suggested in the past that information on choking incidents had not been collected accurately. I want to be certain about the statistics. We shall go through them again at the meeting. If a responsible organisation such as RoSPA challenges them, I want to ensure that the data are accepted by all parties to the discussion.
46WH
I know that I have not been able to cover all the ground in the short time available. I should like to invite my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and people in the campaign to the Department to sit round the table with my officials, who are more than willing to share all the evidence. We do not want another death, but we must also ensure that we do not inhibit young people from learning and developing their character.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the precepting councils in England and Wales in order of the average council tax payable in that area; [105180]

  (2) if he will list the police authorities of England and Wales in order of the average council tax payable in that area. [105182]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The information requested on Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The table shows the notional average Council Tax per dwelling for each of the major precepting authorities in England. The more common measure for comparison is the Band D Council Tax from which all bills are derived and on the basis of which all taxpayers in the same band within an authority pay the same amount. This is also given. It has a closer relation to how Council Tax bills are derived and hence what taxpayers will be paying.

  Council Tax by English precepting authorities in 1999–2000

  Precepting authority1

  Average Council Tax per dwelling2 (£)

  Band D Council tax (£)

  County Councils

  Buckinghamshire

  645

  601

  Surrey

  640

  585

  Cheshire

  617

  697

  Bedfordshire

  615

  694

  Dorset

  596

  652

  Hampshire

  575

  610

  Oxfordshire

  574

  601

  Hertfordshire

  574

  581

  Nottinghamshire

  567

  749

  Warwickshire

  561

  642

  Wiltshire

  560

  594

  Lancashire

  558

  731

  West Sussex

  549

  586

  East Sussex

  543

  622

  Essex

  540

  599

  Northumberland

  538

  716

  Kent

  537

  602

  Derbyshire

  526

  689

  Leicestershire

  526

  629

  Devon

  525

  616

  North Yorkshire

  519

  589

  Shropshire

  516

  609

  Somerset

  504

  594

  Cambridgeshire

  502

  570

  Gloucestershire

  498

  577

  Cumbria

  495

  662

  Worcestershire

  489

  561

  Suffolk

  476

  585

  Norfolk

  471

  612

  Staffordshire

  466

  577

  142W

  Council Tax by English precepting authorities in 1999–2000

  Precepting authority 1

  Average Council Tax per dwelling 2 (£)

  Band D Council tax (£)

  Northamptonshire

  463

  586

  Lincolnshire

  451

  600

  Durham

  448

  662

  Cornwall

  446

  565

  Police Authorities

  Surrey

  86

  75

  Metropolitan

  77

  83

  Dorset

  69

  77

  Wiltshire

  63

  69

  Staffordshire

  62

  79

  Warwickshire

  62

  71

  Hertfordshire

  62

  64

  Lincolnshire

  61

  82

  Northamptonshire

  60

  76

  Gloucestershire

  60

  69

  Essex

  59

  65

  Cumbria

  58

  78

  Thames Valley

  55

  57

  Merseyside

  55

  77

  Leicestershire

  53

  64

  Bedfordshire

  52

  61

  West Mercia

  50

  59

  Avon and Somerset

  50

  61

  Derbyshire

  50

  66

  Norfolk

  50

  64

  Hampshire

  49

  54

  Cheshire

  48

  56

  Sussex

  47

  53

  Kent

  47

  52

  Suffolk

  46

  56

  North Yorkshire

  46

  52

  Nottinghamshire

  46

  62

  Devon and Cornwall

  45

  54

  Cambridgeshire

  44

  52

  Cleveland

  44

  63

  Lancashire

  44

  58

  Greater Manchester

  43

  60

  Humberside

  38

  55

  South Yorkshire

  38

  57

  West Midlands

  37

  51

  Durham

  35

  50

  Northumbria

  34

  50

  West Yorkshire

  34

  55

  Fire Authorities

  Merseyside

  27

  38

  Tyne and Wear

  26

  40

  London

  25

  28

  West Midlands

  21

  28

  Greater Manchester

  21

  29

  South Yorkshire

  20

  29

  West Yorkshire

  18

  24

  1 Precepting authorities include County Councils, Police and Fire authorities.

  2 Tax requirement divided by number of chargeable dwellings.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to make a decision on the mixed oxide fuel plant in advance of the publication of the Green Paper on the management of radioactive waste; and if he will make a statement. [105573]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

  143W
  Food are in the process of considering all relevant issues concerning the Sellafield Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) Plant. Decisions will be announced as soon as they have been made. The timing of these decisions is unrelated to the publication of the Consultation Document on the management of radioactive waste. We aim to publish the Consultation Document in the spring.

  GM Grain
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on the labelling of imported genetically modified grain. [105580]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The Government's policy is that genetically modified grain imported into the UK should be clearly labelled. All such products currently imported into the UK must be labelled.

  European Directive 90/220/EEC governs the release and marketing of GMOs. The Common Position reached in December 1999 on an amendment to the Directive strengthens the requirement to label clearly all products containing genetically modified organisms.

  Index of Multiple Deprivation
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what peer review by academics the methods devised by the consultants employed by his Department to compile the proposed new index of multiple deprivation will be subjected before it is used as the basis for distributing regeneration resources. [106284]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The 1999 Review of the Index of Local Deprivation is being carried out by the University of Oxford. In addition to the review being overseen by an inter-department steering committee, the University of Oxford have consulted an advisory panel (with over 40 members) throughout the review. The advisory panel has consisted of a large number of peer academics both in and outside of the University of Oxford, as well as local authority officials, research professionals and others.

  The University of Oxford have also facilitated extensive consultation throughout the 1999 Review. Respondents to the consultation have included other Government Departments, local authorities, research organisations, academics and other organisations.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the money allocated annually to London boroughs through SRB and European grants will be lost if the new proposed index of multiple deprivation is used as the basis for allocating regeneration resources; and if he will make a statement. [106283]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The 2000 Spending Review, currently underway, will determine funding levels from 2001–02 to 2003–04 for all domestic regeneration programmes. It will take into account the new Index of Local Deprivation as well as other factors.
  144W
  The SRB 6 Bidding Guidance, issued in December 1999, made it clear that the 65 most deprived authorities in the 1998 Index are eligible to bid for funding for comprehensive schemes even if they do not rank as highly when the 1999 Index is issued.

  Resources from European Structural Funds have been allocated for the period 2000 to 2006 on the basis of the 1998 Index. London is expected to receive £160 million.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what criteria the new indicators of deprivation were used as the basis for the proposed index of multiple deprivation; and if he will make a statement. [106282]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The 1999 Review of the Index of Local Deprivation is being carried out by the University of Oxford. A consultation on the domains and indicators for inclusion in the 1999 index took place from 2 July 1999 and 16 August 1999. Over 125 responses were received and were carefully considered and reported on in a further paper 'Methodology for an Index of Multiple Deprivation' released by the University for consultation on 2 December 1999. This paper outlined the final list of domains and indicators for inclusion in the 1999 index.

  Domains for inclusion in the 1999 Index;

  Income deprivation

  Employment deprivation

  Health deprivation and disability

  Housing deprivation

  Education, skills and training deprivation

  Geographical access to services.

  In the report 'Measuring Deprivation at the Local Level' which was published by The University of Oxford in spring 1999, the criteria for the indicators which will make up the 1999 index were set out.

  The criteria for the indicators were that they should be:
  'domain specific' and appropriate for the purpose (that is being a direct measure for that form of deprivation)
  measure major features of that deprivation (not conditions just experienced by a very small number of people or areas)
  as up-to-date possible
  capable of being updated on a regular basis
  statistically robust
  nationally available at a small area level.

  The responses to the final consultation of the 1999 Review of the Index of Local Deprivation are currently being analysed and a new index will be published in the spring.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the data underlying the new proposed index of multiple deprivation. [106285]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The 1999 review of the Index of Local Deprivation is being carried out by the University of Oxford. The University has carried out a consultation exercise on the methodology of the 1999 Index. The consultation closed on Monday 17 January having run for a period of six weeks.
  145W
  The consultation paper "Methodology for an Index of Multiple Deprivation" set out the methodological techniques the University of Oxford propose to employ in constructing the 1999 Index. The responses to the consultation are currently being analysed by the University in close conjunction with DETR.

  The final 1999 Index (due to be published in spring 2000) along with a summary report will include local authorities scores and ranks. This data will be presented for the whole of England at the ward and district level. The scores and ranks at the ward level will be available for each domain (income, work, health and disability, education, skills and training, housing and geographical access to services) and also be presented in a final composite Index.

  The final published report will contain details about where to obtain the raw data used to construct the 33 indicators.

  Local Government
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities which have decided they wish to have a directly elected mayor. [106320]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government Bill, which if enacted would allow local authorities to have a directly elected mayor, is currently before the Other Place. Information about councils' current intentions should the Bill be enacted is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those councils which have decided they do not wish to introduce an executive structure as set out in the Local Government Bill. [106319]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government Bill, which if enacted would require local authorities to draw up proposals for an executive structure, is currently before the Other Place. Information about councils' current intentions is not collected centrally.

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106301]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the level of public awareness on Merseyside of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [106421]
  146W
  Mr. Mullin
  It is the role of the Government office for the North West to promote environment issues in the Merseyside region. The Government office are currently actively working with others to raise awareness in the North West about biodiversity issues. The Government office is a member of the North West Biodiversity Forum whose aims are to support, encourage and positively influence the conservation of biological diversity in the North West. Other members of the Forum include Lancashire County Council, the Environment Agency, English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Joint Countryside Advisory Service, County Wildlife Trusts and North West Water.

  The Government office is currently promoting the production of a biodiversity booklet via the Forum to raise awareness among decision makers about biodiversity in the region to highlight, particularly, those species and habitats deemed to be under threat from development.

  It is not a policy of the Government to carry out research into public awareness of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 anywhere in the United Kingdom, although they aim to make as much information available as possible through the Department's website.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of aircraft using UK airports use depleted uranium as ballast; and what assessment he has made of the potential risk to health in the event of a crash. [106307]

  Mr. Mullin
  Data are not collected in the form requested. However, it is known that early Boeing 747s, of which about 550 were constructed up until 1981, used depleted uranium counterbalance weights in their control surfaces.

  A risk to health could arise only in the unlikely event that a crash, followed by a sufficiently severe and long lasting fire, were to cause aerosolisation and dispersal of the material. It has been established from the condition of the recovered counterweights and the evidence of fire damage following the recent Korean B747 aircraft crash that there has been no airborne dispersal of uranium from the crash site. Sixteen of the 20 counterweights used in the aircraft have so far been recovered.

  Commercial Leases
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the outcome of his Department's review of the operation of the Commercial Leases Code of Practice. [106860]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning hopes to make an announcement in the spring.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to place in the Library a copy of notes taken at meetings between Ministers of his Department and officials from non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department after each such meeting. [106693]
  147W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Ministers meet NDPB chairmen and others to discuss a range of strategic issues, including confidential matters. Implementing this proposal would constrain the full and frank discussion that makes such meetings useful. It will therefore not be policy to place in the Library a copy of notes taken at such meetings.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the meetings he or his ministerial colleagues have had in the last 12 months with the local government network, listing who was present at such meetings and the topics discussed. [106818]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Over the last 12 months, Ministers have met many involved with local government. A wide range of topics have been discussed, including the Government's modernisation agenda and other issues which cross departmental boundaries. Such meetings will continue.

  District Councils (Funding)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by how much the financial settlement for district councils would change if the calculations based on enhanced population figures were removed from the provisional standing spending assessments for 2000–01; and if he will rank these figures in descending order. [106411]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The provisional standard spending assessments for 2000–01 were updated on 16 December 1999. These have been compared with figures obtained by removing (i) section(a) from the formula in paragraph 4.41 of "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 2000–01" and (ii) sections (a) (i) and (b) (i) in paragraph 4.47. The differences have been ranked in descending order and the information has been placed in the Library.

  SARP (UK) Ltd
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the Health and Safety Audit of operations at the SARP (UK) Ltd. plant at Killamarsh, Derbyshire, and the reports of the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency into incidents of the escape of acid vapour at the plant on 14 and 30 May 1998; and if he will make a statement. [106458]

  Mr. Meacher
  The investigations into the two incidents involving chemical releases at SARP UK were carried out by the Health and Safety Executive as a joint exercise with the Environment Agency. SARP UK was prosecuted in relation to those incidents and the penalties and costs awarded against the company were £120,000 and £150,000 respectively—a measure of how seriously the Court viewed these offences. In addition a detailed inspection of activities on the site was subsequently carried out resulting in a large number of recommendations for improvement of health and safety. The report of the investigation and of the findings of the inspection are being made public in a report published by the HSE so that the lessons can be understood by other companies. The report will be available from 3 February at the HSE Information Centres in London,148W
  Bootle and Sheffield. It will also be available at the Environment Agency Library in Bristol. I am placing copies in the Library of both Houses.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 245W, on genetically modified organisms, if he will estimate the proportion of genetically modified organisms which will come within the scope of the Advanced Informed Agreement. [106963]

  Mr. Meacher
  The scope of the Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA) procedure within the Biosafety Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity is one of the issues currently under negotiation in Montreal. Therefore it is not possible to estimate the proportion of living modified organisms (LMOs) that will come within its scope. The position of the United Kingdom and its European Union partners is that an effective and workable AIA procedure is necessary for the Protocol to contribute to biosafety, and that LMOs for food, feed or processing (commodities) should be included within the scope of the Protocol. At the negotiations, informal contact groups have been set up to look specifically at issues of transboundary movements of commodity LMOs and the scope of the Protocol.

PRIME MINISTER

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from other heads of Government concerning the proposed extradition of General Pinochet. [106020]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The President of Chile has made representations to me on a number of occasions over the last 15 months.

  Minister for Youth
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to appoint a Minister for Young People. [106452]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) on 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 353W.

  Referendums
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his oral statement on 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 841, if he will list the limits which will apply to each political party in relation to their spending on a referendum on the single European currency; [106790]

  (2) what is his policy on equalisation of spending limits on money raised by political parties on either side of the argument in future referenda. [106791]
  149W
  The Prime Minister
  We do not think it is practicable to regulate spending by political parties in such a way as to ensure that exactly equal amounts are spent by those on either side of a referendum argument. We do, however, think it is desirable to place a limit on what each party individually can spend.

  Accordingly, schedule 13 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill provides that in any referendum held throughout the United Kingdom the expenditure limits for a registered political party should be based on the percentage of the vote secured by the party at the previous general election, namely:

  £ million

  Percentage of vote

  Permitted limit

  More than 30

  5

  20–30

  4

  10–20

  3

  5–10

  2

  Less than 5

  0.5

  Arms Sales (Zimbabwe)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many defence manufacturers have made representations to(a) him, (b) his advisers and (c) officials about arms sales to Zimbabwe over the last 17 months; and if he will list the individuals and companies concerned, indicating the dates on which representations were made; [106937]

  (2) how many representatives of arms manufacturers have made representations to (a) him, (b) his advisers and (c) officials about arms sales to Zimbabwe over the last 17 months; and if he will list the individuals and companies concerned, indicating the dates on which representations were made. [106938]

  The Prime Minister
  Neither I nor my Office has received any representations from defence manufacturers or their representatives about the sale of arms to Zimbabwe.

  Communications (Interception)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances interception by the United States of communications initiated by UK citizens is permitted from UK territory. [106654]

  The Prime Minister
  It is long-standing policy not to comment on such matters.

DEFENCE

  Future Carrier-borne Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Future Carrier-borne Aircraft programme; and if he will make a statement. [106311]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 December 1999,Official Report, column 453W, sub-para 14 to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106303]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Our largest public consultation exercise on policy matters in the last five years was that conducted to inform the strategic defence review which was launched on 28 May 1997. The then Secretary of State invited everyone who wished to contribute to the review to put forward their ideas and over 570 submissions were received. Each submission was analysed to record the subjects of concern, and circulated to the appropriate Working Groups for consideration. 486 authors consented to having their submissions made public. These were placed in the Libraries of the House and provided on microfiche to 12 public libraries across the United Kingdom.

  In addition, in July and November 1997, the then Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary jointly hosted three seminars to contribute to the strategic defence review to which a wide range of academics, journalists, Opposition Members and members of non-Governmental organisations were invited. Summaries of each seminar were placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the Ministry of Defence website.

  The assessment of the submissions and the seminars formed part of the strategic defence review, the recommendations of which were published as the Strategic Defence Review White Paper (Cm3999) and the Strategic Defence Review Supporting Essays. Both documents were also published on the Ministry of Defence website.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Army Technical Support Agency. [107038]

  Mr. Spellar
  The strategic defence review (SDR) announced that the Army Equipment Support Organisation was being re-structured and that ATSA would be absorbed into the new organisation. Director General Equipment Support (Land) DG ES (Land) is being formed on 1 April 2000 as part of the Defence Logistics Organisation, incorporating the staff and functions of ATSA. ATSA is therefore to be disestablished formally as an agency with effect from 1 April 2000. The agency's final set of accounts will be laid before the House in the normal way.

  British Garrisons (Germany)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he or his officials have held with the German Government about the deployment of additional troops from(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain to British garrisons in Germany. [105647]
  151W
  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: There have been no such discussions.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he had with(a) the Prime Minister and (b) the Foreign Secretary about the remit of the visit of the Chief of the Defence Staff to Pakistan; [106171]

  (2) what issues he asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to discuss during his visit to Pakistan. [106172]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and I agreed that the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, should visit Pakistan to deliver tough messages to General Musharraf, as one military man to another, on the imperative for a transition to democracy and regional security.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Access Funds and Hardship Loans
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of his review of Access Funds and Hardship Loans. [105977]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have today announced a package of extra measures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 to widen access to higher education and tackle student hardship in England and Wales. The full year cost of the package has been estimated at £68 million. This honours the commitment I gave to Parliament on 13 July 1998 to monitor the new student support arrangements introduced after the Dearing Report. It also builds on the findings of the Review of Access Funds and Hardship Loans carried out last autumn.

  The system of student support is working well: full-time entrants to higher education have increased by nearly 5,000 this year and more money is now going into universities and colleges. The system is fair and equitable to students, families, and the taxpayer. But our Review highlighted the specific financial concerns of older students, notably the costs of child care, especially for lone parents, school meals, and travel. The Review also found that mature students, in particular, need guarantees of financial support if they are to undertake and complete courses of higher education. These new measures target extra help at full-time mature students, disadvantaged young people and parents on low incomes with children in higher education.

  In 2000–01, £17 million will be set aside for non-repayable Access Funds Bursaries for mature students of up to £1,000 per student, according to need, available at the start of the academic year. Further support, depending on circumstances, will also be available from a Hardship Fund of £57 million, for students who run into financial difficulties during the course. Hardship Loans will remain available to mature students but they will no longer have to take out a Hardship Loan before receiving support from the Hardship Fund. We will additionally provide an
  152W
  income-assessed grant to meet the cost of school meals for students with dependant children aged 4 to 16. We have also decided to ease substantially the income assessment for mature students who will now be able to have £7,500 of their income disregarded without losing entitlement to student support, instead of a minimum of £820.

  In 2001–02, three further measures will be introduced to widen access and tackle hardship. We will raise the parental contribution threshold from £17,370 (at 1999–2000 rates) to £20,000, which will mean around 50,000 more families on modest incomes will no longer have to contribute towards their children's higher education. I shall also review the other contribution thresholds. Up to £10 million will be available for non-repayable Bursaries through Access Funds of up to £1,000 for young students from disadvantaged backgrounds, building on schemes already developing at a number of universities. Both these measures will help students from families on low incomes with no history of entry to higher education. We will provide further help for mature students by introducing a means-tested child care grant, based on the actual costs of child care of up to £100 a week per child, for those with dependant children, which will be fully disregarded by the Department of Social Security for benefits purposes.

  Where necessary, we will make amendments to the Education (Student Support) Regulations 1999 and the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1999 to give effect to these changes for 2000–01. Amendments to Regulations to give effect to the changes for 2001–02 will also be made in due course. Changes to the guidance on the use of the Access and Hardship Funds will be given to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, and individual Higher Education Institutions, shortly.

  Schools Adjudicators
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the persons appointed as schools adjudicators, indicating in each case whether they have served as members of local education authorities and to which political group in the authority they belonged. [105642]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The list of adjudicators appointed is as follows:

  Sir Peter Newsam

  Dr. Alan Billings

  June Brown

  John Clark

  Andrew Collier CBE

  Peter Downes OBE

  John Evans

  Gordon Hainsworth

  Ann Holt

  Louise Kidd

  Robert Lanwarne

  Peter Neafsey

  Professor David Newton

  Dr. Hilary Nicolle

  Anthony Webster

  Robin Squire (resigned).

  153W
  No adjudicator has been a member of a local education authority within the last five years. We do not hold full information on membership before that period.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the names of the adjudicators he has appointed under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and their political affiliation. [106565]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The list of adjudicators appointed is as follows:

  Sir Peter Newsam

  Dr. Alan Billings

  June Brown

  John Clark

  Andrew Collier CBE

  Peter Downes OBE

  John Evans

  Gordon Hainsworth

  Ann Holt

  Louise Kidd

  Robert Lanwarne

  Peter Neafsey

  Professor David Newton

  Dr. Hilary Nicolle

  Anthony Webster

  Robin Squire (resigned).

  We hold no information about the present political affiliation of adjudicators. As a matter of public record, Peter Downes declared at the time of his application that he had undertaken significant political activity in the last five years as a member of the Liberal Democrats and an elected member of Huntingdonshire District Council. No other adjudicator at present in post declared an engagement in significant political activities during the previous five years.

  Summer Camps
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has had from uniformed youth organisations following his announcement about proposals for summer activity camps for 16-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [106469]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have received expressions of interest in summer activities from two uniformed youth organisations: the Scout Association and the Boys' Brigade.

  Special Needs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the percentage of special needs statements issued within 18 weeks by each London local education authority in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [106756]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Audit Commission publishes information on the percentage of draft statements of special educational needs produced by local education authorities within 18 weeks. Data for 1998–99 will not be available until the end of March and will be placed on the Audit Commission's internet website. The 1997–98 percentages for the London authorities given below do not 154W
  include statements for which allowable exceptions from the relevant time limits, as set out in Part 3 of my Department's "Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs", have been made. In 1998 officials in my Department provided good-practice guidance to those LEAs whose performance was weakest. When the data for 1998–99 are available my officials will consider the need for further action to help LEAs improve their performance in this area.

  LEA

  Percentage

  Inner London:

  Camden

  49

  Greenwich

  6

  Hackney

  56

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  98

  Islington

  88

  Kensington and Chelsea

  85

  Lambeth

  52

  Lewisham

  92

  Southwark

  92

  Tower Hamlets

  43

  Wandsworth

  99

  Westminster

  82

  (no figure is available for the City of London)

  Outer London:

  Barking and Dagenham

  12

  Barnet

  50

  Bexley

  97

  Brent

  90

  Bromley

  98

  Croydon

  78

  Ealing

  20

  Enfield

  30

  Haringey

  20

  Harrow

  33

  Havering

  94

  Hillingdon

  22

  Hounslow

  79

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  100

  Merton

  98

  Newham

  65

  Redbridge

  47

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  30

  Sutton

  29

  Waltham Forest

  32

  Children in Care
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent guidance his Department has issued on educational provision for children looked after by local authorities. [106753]

  Jacqui Smith
  In June last year, my Department and the Department of Health jointly consulted on draft guidance on the education of children looked after by local authorities. Some 205 consultees replied by the mid-October deadline, and officials have since discussed some of the key issues arising from the consultation with partners in local government and the voluntary sector. Officials are now revising the guidance, and I expect the final guidance to issue before the end of March.

  We believe that this guidance, backed up by support for local authorities during the implementation period, should enable them to fulfil better their role as corporate parents

  155W
  and raise the level of educational attainment of this group of young people. Higher educational attainment should in turn improve their general life chances.

  Ethical Trading
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations his Department has had with the Department for International Development to promote awareness of ethical trading among school children. [106127]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: My officials, and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, are currently working with the Department for International Development to develop a guidance document for schools on the opportunities and benefits of bringing a global perspective into different subjects and the wider life of school. This will draw attention to the many opportunities that the revised National Curriculum offers for raising children's awareness of a range of issues including ethical trading. It will also let teachers know where they can find advice, support and high quality resources which will support teaching and learning about these issues.

  The programmes of study for Geography and Citizenship in the National Curriculum provide ample opportunities for pupils to learn about ethical trading since they include specific provision for teaching about the world as a global community, global interdependence and sustainable development. The emphasis is on explanatory discussion of contemporary issues and ethical trading would fall into that category.

  School Buses
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment the School Travel Advisory Group has made of the contribution that the use of school buses can make to reducing traffic congestion. [106163]

  Jacqui Smith
  The School Travel Advisory Group (STAG), which presented its report to Ministers on 13 January, has made a number of recommendations in relation to school travel. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. In particular, STAG has commissioned research into best practice on increasing bus use for journeys to school, to report in June 2000.

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106302]

  Mr. Wicks
  Full information in the form requested is not available. Details of the public exercises listed on our consultations calendar for 1999 are as follows. I will write to my hon. Friend giving as full a reply as possible by the 156W
  end of February. My Department has now set up a central Consultation Unit to advise on best practice in public policy consultations.

  Access Funds: Proposed Changes to Guidance

  Admission Arrangements for September 2001

  Adult Basic Skills Standards

  Adventure Activities Licensing Scheme

  Allocation Method for the Careers Service Budget

  Annual Capital Round 2000–2001

  Arrangements for Revised Criteria and Re-Recognition of National Training Organisations

  Assessment Orders—Key State 1–3

  Asset Management Plans

  Asset Management Plans—Section 4

  Asset Management Plans—Sufficiency

  Asset Management Plans—Options Appraisals

  Bringing Young People Back to School

  Budget Statements and Guidance

  Capacity Assessment Methods

  Categories of Fees

  Considering School Organisation Proposals—Changes in Arrangements

  Control of Premises

  Development of Value Added Measures for Performance Tables

  Devolution of Surplus Places—Draft Regulations

  DfEE/Employment Service Annual Performance Agreement

  Disability Rights Task Force Recommendations on Schools—Implementation

  Education (Adjudicators Procedure) Regulations 1999

  Education (GM and GM Special Schools) Capital Grants Regulations 1999

  Education (Non-Maintained Special School—England) Regulations 1999

  Education (Schedule 32 of the School Standards Framework) Regulations 1999

  Education (School Government England) Regulations 1999

  Education (Student Fees) (Exceptions) Regulations 1999 and accompanying guidance

  Education Act 1996: Local decision making on school organisations

  Education of Children Looked After by Local Authorities—Draft Guidance

  Education National Curriculum Attainment Targets and Programme of Study in England 1999

  Employment Zones

  Equal Opportunities (Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Act)—Green Paper

  European Social Fund 2000–2006 Objective 3 Community Support Framework

  Exclusions Panels—LEA Guidance

  Extending the Widening Participation Factor for 1999–2000

  Financing of Maintained Schools—Regulations

  Foundation Body Regulations under s21 of the School Standards and Framework Act

  General Teaching Council for England, The—A Register of Teachers

  General Teaching Council Regulations 1999—Draft Composition

  Hardship Loans and Access Funds to Determine Optimum Use of Funding to Increase Access for HE Students and to Support Students Facing Financial Hardships

  Harmonised Framework for Inspection, Quality Assurance and Performance Indicators Across Schools, FE and Private Training Providers

  157W

  Individualised Student Record: Consultation on Proposed Changes to 2000–01 Specification

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers—Draft Regulations

  Information for Parents About Home Education

  Investors in People

  Learning Information Networks

  Learning to Succeed School Sixth Form Funding

  Learning to Succeed: A New Framework for Post 16 Learning—White Paper

  LEAs—Electronic Version of the Standard Fund Grant Application Form

  LEAs—Good Practice in Relation to Resolving Disputes with Parents—Draft Guidance

  LEA Responsibility Towards Pupils Being Educated at Home by Their Parents

  Local Assisted Places Scheme

  Local Information, Advice and Guidance for Adults in England—Towards a National Framework

  Local and National Arrangements for Lifelong Learning, Skills and Workforce Development

  Local Publication of 1999 Primary School (Key Stage 2) Performance Tables

  Mandatory Awards Regulations (Education Act 1962)

  Nanny Agencies—Draft Code of Practice

  National Curriculum in England

  National Curriculum—Legal Language in Orders

  National Curriculum—Draft Proposals for New Orders

  National Professional Qualification for Head Teachers

  Networking Lifelong Learning: An Information and Learning Technology Development Strategy for Further Education

  New Arrangements Governing the Basis on Which Governing Bodies and LEAs Meet Specified Costs of Building Work at Voluntary Aided Schools

  New Opportunities Fund: Community Access to Lifelong Learning

  New Opportunities Fund: Funding for Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities

  New Schools (England)—Draft Regulations

  Nursery Education: Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning on Entering Compulsory Education

  Nutritional Standards—Draft Regulations

  Organisation of School Places—Guidance

  Parent Governor Representation on Local Education Committees

  Policy Action Teams for Jobs

  Post 16 Structures for Learning and Workforce Development—Requests for Oral Evidence

  Pupil Restraint in Special Education Needs Settings—Draft Guidance

  Qualifying for Success: Changes to the Post 16 Curriculum: A Guide for Parents

  Registration and Monitoring Arrangements for Independent Schools

  Report of Research by National Children's Bureau on Good Practice in Special Educational Needs Parent Partnership and Research Brief

  School Admission Appeals Code of Practice

  School Governance (Terms of Reference) Regulations 1999—Draft Guidance

  School Lunches for Primary School Pupils

  School Lunches for Secondary School Pupils

  School Lunches for Under Fives

  School Meals Staff Regulations—The Next Steps

  School Organisation Committees and Draft Education (School Organisation Committees) Regulations 1999

  158W

  School Organisation Plans

  School Organisation Proposals (Transition to New Framework) Regulations 1999

  School Reorganisation—Transitional Regulations 1998

  School Target Setting in 1999 and Beyond

  Schools Admission Appeals Code of Practice

  School Capital Strategy

  Schools Capital: Discussion on the Possible Shape of Allocation Arrangements for 2000–2001

  Schools Causing Concerns

  Secondary Schools and Colleges Performance Tables

  Special Educational Needs Code of Practice

  Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations

  Sex Equality Green Paper

  Social Exclusion Unit Report Bridging the Gap—Youth Support Service

  Social Inclusion—Pupil Support

  Special Schools—Draft Circular

  Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Teaching and Further Education Act 1998—Implications for Colleges in the Further Education Sector

  Staff Individualised Record: Proposed Changes to the 1999–2000 Specification

  Standards Fund

  Strategic Planning 2000 and Beyond

  Student Loans Repayment Regulations 1999

  Student Support Regulations 1999/2000

  Suitability and Sufficiency Assessment

  Supported Employment Programme, The—Employment Service

  Tackling Truancy Together (Strategy Document)

  Teachers and Headteacher Appraisal Regulations 1999—Draft

  Teachers Meeting the Challenge of Change

  Teachers Pension Scheme and Additional Voluntary Contributions Arrangements

  Teachers Pensions Regulations—Compensation for Redundancy and Early Retirement

  Teachers Research Scholarship Programme—Round 1 and 2

  Teachers: Taking Forward the Challenge of Change

  Test Dates for 2002

  Transitional Grants 1999–2000

  Welsh Language Scheme.

  Thalassaemia
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to raise awareness in schools of the problems facing sickle cell anaemia and thalassaemia sufferers. [106197]

  Jacqui Smith
  Schools will have their own health policies reflecting the needs of their pupils. Clearly where pupils suffer from particular conditions schools should include these in their policy where it is appropriate, taking advice from the local medical service and specialist organisations as necessary.

  We have made available to schools advice and information on sickle cell anaemia and thalassaemia via the Government's Wired for Health website which has links to the Sickle Cell Society and UK Thalassaemia Society. The Wired for Health site is part of the Healthy Schools Programme, run jointly by the Department for Education and Employment and Department of Health (www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk).

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will require teachers in receipt of salaries in excess of point 9 on the Standard Pay Scale to submit themselves for assessment for threshold payments as a requirement of maintaining their existing salary levels. [106154]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have no plans to compel teachers to apply for the threshold—teachers will be able to choose to apply on a voluntary basis. We said in the Technical Consultation Document on teachers' pay reform that no serving teacher would lose out on existing salary entitlements as a result of our proposals. We have proposed to the School Teachers' Review Body that teachers who are successful at the threshold should receive a salary increase of up to £2,000.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers are in the salary bands(a) less than £10,000, (b) £10,000 to £12,500, (c) £12,500 to £15,000, (d) £15,000 to £17,500, (e) £17,500 to £20,000, (f) £20,000 to £22,500, (g) £22,500 to £25,000, (h) £25,000 to £30,000, (i) £30,000 to £35,000, (j) £35,000 to £40,000, (k) £40,000 to £45,000, (l) £45,000 to £50,000, (m) £50,000 to £55,000, (n) £55,000 to £60,000 and (o) more than £60,000. [106048]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows full and part-time teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in England and Wales for whom data have been provided to the Teachers' Pension Scheme, by salary bands at 31 March 19981.

  Salary bands

  Full-time

  Part-time 2

  £l2,500–14,999

  15,100

  1,000

  £15,000–17,499

  40,600

  2,500

  £17,500–19,999

  24,100

  2,700

  £20,000–22,499

  68,300

  30,800

  £22,500–24,999

  95,100

  11,300

  £25,000–29,999

  85,100

  2,400

  £30,000–34,999

  25,300

  100

  £35,000–39,999

  5,400

  3—

  £40,000–44,999

  2,000

  0

  £45,000–49,999

  1,000

  0

  £50,000–54,999

  600

  0

  £55,000–59,999

  200

  0

  £60,000 and over

  3—

  0

  Total

  362,700

  50,800

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest 100

  2 Salaries for part-time teachers are shown as the full-time equivalent

  3 = less than 50 teachers

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub-post offices. [105852]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 387W.

  Disability Discrimination (Employment)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve 160W
  the services available to help people with disabilities to obtain employment and retain jobs; and if he will make a statement. [104582]

  Ms Hodge
  Better employment services for people with disabilities are an important element of our commitment to comprehensive civil rights and an intrinsic part of our Welfare to Work policy. That is why we have devoted an additional £30 million for the Employment Service's specialist disability programmes over the three years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, with more resources for Access to Work, Supported Employment and the Job Introduction Scheme. Significant improvements to services to support disabled people have been a feature of all New Deals. Through New Deal for Disabled People we are testing new ways of helping people on incapacity benefits to return to work. We are considering how the main lessons from the pilots should be built into the next stage of this New Deal. We hope to make an announcement in the near future.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Nursery
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Council to ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when he expects a review to take place of the provision of child care facilities in the Palace of Westminster. [104972]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 December 1999,Official Report, column 122W. We have no plans for any further review.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Council if it is her policy that hon. Members should be able(a) to have written questions answered and (b) to table and have published early-day motions during parliamentary adjournments; and if she will make a statement. [104980]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is currently examining whether written questions might be tabled and answered during adjournments of the House. No proposal has been put to the Committee for the publication of early-day motions.

  Millennium Bug
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the benefits resulting from the preventive measures in respect of the millennium bug. [104981]

  Mr. Tipping
  The huge effort the UK's public and private sectors invested in tackling the Millennium Bug will yield real benefits. There are also many useful lessons to be learned. We are currently undertaking a cross-governmental review to ensure these lessons and benefits are captured. I will submit a report to Parliament on this issue later in the year.

  House of Lords (Reform)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Council what progress has been made in reforming the House of Lords; and when that reform is expected to be completed. [104982]

  Mr. Tipping
  The House of Lords Act 1999 has removed the right of anyone to be a member of the House of Lords solely by virtue of a hereditary peerage. The Royal Commission under Lord Wakeham published its recommendations for further reform last week. The Government are now considering those recommendations and encouraging others to do the same. It is too early to estimate when the whole process might be completed.

  Modernisation
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress in modernising the House since May 1997. [104983]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark), Official Report columns 143–44.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the President of the Council what progress there has been in the modernising of the House since May 1997. [104977]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Since the Modernisation Committee began its work, the House has had greater opportunities for scrutiny of the Government through the provision of extra time for debate in Westminster Hall; Thursday sittings have been introduced on an experimental basis to help Members balance constituency and Parliamentary duties; legislation has increasingly been published in draft and given Select Committee scrutiny; and better explanatory material has been provided with Bills.

  Electronic Voting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she intends to put forward for electronic voting in the House. [104984]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons examined this matter in Session 1997–98. It is for the Committee to decide whether or not to come forward with proposals for change in future.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Conservation Projects
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the impact of conservation projects funded or partly funded by her Department on indigenous local peoples living within the area of the projects. [105289]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: In my reply to the hon. Member of 12 January 2000, Official Report, column 183W, I mentioned the major global evaluation study commissioned by DFID of British bilateral and joint-funded project support for environmental improvement and protection, and made specific reference to projects in Kenya and Tanzania.
  162W
  The study also assessed DFID-funded projects for environmental protection and management in India, China and Brazil, including their impact on local people. The study reviewed 19 projects in India and found that all except two will have positive environmental impacts. Social impact has been varied. While many achieved environmental improvements benefiting local people, negative social impacts associated with resettlement and environmental health were noted in two projects.

  In China, 16 projects were reviewed. It has been difficult to address social issues and identify social impacts in these projects given the reluctance of the Chinese authorities to support inputs which could be confused with political interference. Local people have benefited from the environmental improvements achieved by several of the projects but involuntary resettlement posed 'a potentially serious problem' in at least one project.

  In Brazil, the key focus has been on environmental protection in Amazonia. All projects reviewed were found to have been at least moderately effective, with objectives complete or largely achieved in three projects out of the sample of six. Three of the projects were environmental research projects and two aimed to strengthen scientific capacity. As a result, immediate social impacts, positive or negative, were limited.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's contribution to the formulation of the negotiating position adopted by the United Kingdom and the EU at the Biosafety Protocol talks taking place in Montreal. [106961]

  Clare Short
  My Department has played an active role in developing the position adopted by the UK and the EU throughout the negotiations of the Biosafety Protocol to ensure that it takes account of developing country concerns. One of the main benefits of the Protocol for developing countries would be to provide channels for financial and technical assistance to help them build capacity for the safe use and development of genetically modified organisms.

CABINET OFFICE

  Drug Dealers (Bank Accounts)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals she has put forward to the Treasury, the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to deal with the problem of anonymous numbered bank accounts held by drug dealers in(a) Great Cayman, (b) the Virgin Islands, (c) the Bahamas, (d) Bermuda, (e) Luxembourg, (f) Switzerland, (g) Belize and (h) the City of London. [106581]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government actively support international initiatives to improve anti-money laundering standards worldwide, including measures to prevent the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking. In particular,
  163W
  we support and contribute to the work of the Financial Action Task Force on money laundering, the leading international body responsible for setting and enforcing effective international standards. The prohibition of anonymous accounts is an important element of these standards.

  UK financial institutions are required by the Money Laundering Regulations 1993 to establish the identity of their customers and, under the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Government are significantly enhancing the UK's efforts to enforce anti-money laundering standards.

  Magistrates (Appointments)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to transfer responsibility for the appointment of magistrates in the County Palatine to the Lord Chancellor. [104957]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  As my hon. Friend knows, I am consulting widely within the Duchy on a proposal that these responsibilities should transfer to the Lord Chancellor. The final decision, as with all such machinery of government matters, will be for the Prime Minister.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Television
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for a public information campaign to advise consumers about the choices available in the digital television market. [106353]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Government's objectives are to encourage the take-up of digital services by ensuring that consumers have clear and objective information about the benefits of digital television, the choice between free-to-air and pay services, the availability of various packages and platforms and the equipment needed to receive digital services. The Government also want to reassure consumers about the timetable and process for digital switch-over. With these objectives in mind, I had an initial meeting with leading figures in the broadcasting industry last November to discuss a prospective public information campaign. My officials are currently taking this process forward with the aim of launching an industry-wide campaign in the next few months.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if all seats in the stadium at Wembley as proposed by Wembley Stadium Ltd. under the athletics mode accommodating 80,000 people meet the C60 minimum sightlines specification of the Green Guide and the Football Stadiums Advisory Design Council. [104330]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 January 2000]: Based on the ideal focal point at ground level on the outside edge of the running track, the independent report submitted by DLA Ellerbe Beckett confirms that the proposals put forward by Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to provide
  164W
  80,000 seats in athletics mode, would reduce the C value of the first eight rows of seating in the lower bowl, and some seats at the end of the stadium, to below C60.

  Farmers (Tourism)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice and assistance his Department offers to farmers who wish to diversify into the tourism business. [104920]

  Janet Anderson
  At a national level, as well as working closely with those with an interest in farm diversification, in particular, MAFF and the Countryside Agency, Tomorrow's Tourism highlights the need to maintain the economic viability of rural businesses through diversification such as farm tourism. Regional Tourist Boards, funded in part by the English Tourism Council (ETC), have primary responsibility for encouraging farm tourism by giving advice, support and guidance to new and existing tourism businesses, as well as those wishing to enter the sector. The Department's officials working in the Government Offices for the Regions also provide advice and support where appropriate. The ETC is currently considering a number of bids for funding from Regional Tourist Boards, including proposals to promote farm tourism more effectively. We will ensure this work is closely co-ordinated with the existing new proposals for farm diversification announced by right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the end of 1999.

  Tourism Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much per head of population was spent on the promotion of tourism in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) the UK in the last year for which figures are available. [105051]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: In 1999–2000, the National Tourist Boards are receiving grant-in-aid as follows:

  Board

  Grant-in-aid (£ million)

  Population (million)

  Grant-in-aid per head of population (£)

  ETB (now ETC)

  11.8

  49.59

  0.24

  STB

  19.3

  5.11

  3.78

  WTB

  15.4

  2.94

  5.24

  BTA

  36.0

  57.64

  0.62

  Note:

  The population figures used to calculate the BTA's grant-in-aid per head exclude Northern Ireland

  In addition, the industry is this year contributing over £16 million to the BTA's work. But support for tourism is not limited to Government support for tourist boards. This year DCMS will spend around £1 billion on the arts, museums, galleries and sport, much of which directly benefits tourism. Moreover, in 1998–99, the latest available figures suggest that English local authorities spend some £75 million and Welsh local authorities nearly £5 million on tourism promotion, while Scottish local authorities provided £7.4 million in grants to area tourist boards.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 16 February 1999, stating in each case the amount

  The FCO receipts from sale of assets from 16 February 1999 to date

  Country

  Number of sales

  Proceeds (£)

  Property/description:

  Staff accommodation

  Botswana, Gaborone

  1

  155,000

  Staff accommodation

  Chile, Santiago

  1

  103,000

  Staff accommodation

  Denmark, Copenhagen

  2

  190,000

  Residence

  France, Lille

  1

  289,000

  Staff accommodation

  France, Paris

  1

  134,000

  Office

  Germany, Bonn

  1

  6,388,000

  Staff accommodation

  Germany, Bonn

  1

  364,000

  Residence

  Ireland, Dublin

  1

  19,900,000

  Staff accommodation

  Ireland, Dublin

  1

  297,000

  Staff accommodation

  Israel, Tel Aviv

  1

  159,000

  Staff accommodation

  Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur

  1

  31,000

  Staff accommodation

  New Zealand, Wellington

  1

  206,000

  Staff accommodation

  Spain, Madrid

  1

  262,000

  Staff accommodation

  Swaziland, Mbabane

  1

  23,000

  Staff accommodation

  Sweden, Stockholm

  2

  126,000

  Staff accommodation

  Switzerland, Geneva

  2

  194,000

  Office

  UK, London

  1

  8,500,000

  Wireless Station

  UK, Gawcott

  1

  355,000

  Wireless Station

  UK, Poundon

  1

  477,000

  Residence

  USA, Cleveland

  1

  353,000

  28,506,000

  Vehicles:

  Heavy commercial

  3

  576,000

  Light commercial

  17

  Motor cars

  121

  Total Proceeds

  29,182,000

  1 A further £10.0 million will be received from this sale in March 2000. and a further £3.6 million will be received in 2001–02

  Iran
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make representations to the Government of Iran concerning their support for groups opposed to the Middle East peace process; [106541]

  (2) if he will make representations to the Foreign Minister of Iran concerning Iran's supervision of training for Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon. [106542]

  Mr. Hain
  Iranian opposition to the Middle East peace process and support for groups that oppose the peace process featured prominently in the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his Iranian counterpart during the latter's visit from 10–12 January. The Iranian authorities are fully aware of the importance that we and our EU partners attach to the Middle East peace process.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the comments in Amnesty International's 1999 Annual report on violations of basic human rights in Iran. [106543]

  Mr. Hain
  We welcome Amnesty International's latest report covering the human rights situation in Iran in 1998. Given Iran's continued failure to invite the United Nations
  166W
  of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104488]

  Mr. Hain
  Since 16 February 1999 the FCO has sold 23 estate assets and 141 vehicles. Details are as listed. Total proceeds to date from completed sales amount to £29 million. Property sales are expected to realise a further £12 million in 1999–2000. Figures for this financial year are estimates.

  Commission for Human Rights Special Representative, Maurice Copithorne, to visit, Amnesty's reports represent an important source of information on human rights issues in Iran.

  Palestinian Jihad
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the sources of funds for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. [106540]

  Mr. Battle
  Any assessment by HMG of the sources of funds could only come from intelligence and would, therefore, be exempted from disclosure under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of his Department's staff were(a) registered disabled, (b) women, (c) from ethnic minorities and (d) from (i) independent, (ii) grammar and (iii) other schools in (1) 1970, (2) 1979, (3) 1989 and (4) 1999. [106761]
  167W
  Mr. Hain
  As at 1 April 1999, the percentages were:

  Percentage

  (a) Registered disabled

  2

  (b) Women

  37

  (c) From ethnic minority backgrounds

  4

  It is not possible to provide the information for the earlier years. To provide information on types of schools staff attended would involve disproportionate costs.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to formulation of the United Kingdom and EU negotiating position being adopted at the Biosafety Protocol talks taking place in Montreal. [106959]

  Mr. Hain
  The FCO has worked closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other Government Departments in preparing, with EU partners, for the resumption of negotiations on the Protocol. Two FCO officials are attending the talks in Montreal this week in the team led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. Along with our EU partners, we are firmly committed to achieving a Biosafety Protocol that secures worldwide protection from any adverse effects on the environment or human health from the transboundary movement of living or genetically modified organisms.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Review Procedures
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit review procedures; and if he will make a statement. [107149]

  Angela Eagle
  From April 2001, we propose to modernise the review procedures in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit by bringing them into line with the arrangements for decision-making and appeals in child support and Social Security introduced under the Social Security Act 1998. Those arrangements have now been successfully implemented in other Social Security benefits. The Appeals Service has made—and is continuing to make—improvements to the level of service provided to appellants. We are proposing to extend that service to people who wish to appeal against local authority decisions on their Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit claims.

  The changes will mean that, as now, people will be able to ask their local authority to look again at any disputed decision, but if the differences cannot be resolved they will have a right of appeal to a tribunal administered by the Appeals Service. People claiming Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit will also be expected to provide prompt evidence and information in support of their claims, in the same way as for other Social Security benefits.
  168W
  These arrangements will ensure a consistent approach to decision-making and appeals across the benefits. Satisfactory decision-making procedures are an important element in the rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Retirement Pension
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what benefit arrangements exist for retired people awaiting assessment of retirement pension; [105909]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timescale for the assessment and payment of pension on retirement. [105936]

  Mr. Rooker
  Prospective pensioners are invited to claim Retirement Pension four months prior to attaining minimum State pension age. This period allows time for the customer to make a claim and the Benefit's Agency to obtain the information needed to put the correct Retirement Pension entitlement into payment.

  There are times, particularly at the beginning of a new tax year, when the contribution information needed to confirm Retirement Pension entitlement is not available. In this circumstance, the Benefit Agency makes an award based on the contribution information available and makes arrangements for payments to be made at an interim rate until a full assessment can be made. When the contribution information is available a revised award is made. The customer will receive revised notification of their entitlement and payment of any arrears due.

  The Benefits Agency aims to clear 95 per cent. of Retirement Pension claims in 60 days. This is measured from the date of receipt of a claim form to the date an award is recorded on the Pensions Strategy Computer System.

  If my hon. Friend has any particular problems regarding pension assessments, I will be happy to look into them if she provides details.

  Benefits (Under-25s)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of bringing benefit levels for people under 25 years in line with benefit levels for people aged over 25 years in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [106576]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  We are unable to estimate with any accuracy the cost of bringing Housing Benefit levels for the under-25s up to the 25 years and over levels. There is insufficient quantitative information on how this group responded to the change introduced in 1996, and without this information we cannot estimate the behavioural effects of reversing the change.

  Costs for Great Britain

  £ million

  Age group

  New entitlement

  Existing case load

  Total

  16–17

  25

  45

  70

  18–24

  10

  180

  190

  Total

  35

  225

  260

  169W

  Costs for Scotland included in the figures for Great Britain

  Age group

  New entitlement

  Existing case load

  Total

  16–17

  0

  5

  5

  18–24

  0

  45

  45

  Total

  5

  50

  50

  Notes:

  1. Data are for Great Britain not the UK, as the Secretary of State for Social Security is not responsible for Social Security in Northern Ireland.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  3. There are costs of less than £5 million for new entitlement Scotland. Totals do not match due to rounding.

  Sources:

  1. Estimates from the Family Resources Survey of 1996–97, uprated to 1999–2000.

  2. Data from the Quarterly Statistical Enquiry of August 1999.

  Minimum Pension Guarantee
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the review of the minimum funding requirement for the minimum pension guarantee to reach a conclusion. [106736]

  Mr. Rooker
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many additional pensioners would qualify for the minimum pension guarantee if the saving limits were lowered by(a) £1,000, (b) £2,000, (c) £3,000, (d) £4,000 and (e) £5,000. [106707]

  Mr. Rooker
  No additional pensioners would benefit, if the savings limits in the Minimum Income Guarantee were reduced by the amounts proposed; in fact some pensioners would lose benefit entitlement completely.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the population are pensioners in(a) each county in the United Kingdom and (b) each constituency in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [104759]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The information has been placed in the Library.

  Pensions Uprating (Overseas Residents)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will respond to the Third Report of the Social Security Select Committee 1996–97, Uprating of State Retirement Pensions Payable to People Resident Abroad. [106422]

  Mr. Rooker
  The previous Government responded to the Third Report of the Social Security Select Committee 1996–97, Uprating of State Retirement Pensions Payable to People Resident Abroad on 19 March 1997, recorded in the Official Report, 19 March 1997, column 680W. There is no requirement for the present Government to respond.

  Thalassaemia
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve financial and respite support for carers of sickle cell and thalassaemia sufferers. [106198]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have introduced the Carers Special Grant, amounting to £140 million over three years for English local authorities. The Grant must be spent on improving short term breaks for carers and on consulting them on the type of services they would value.

  In addition, the National Carers strategy committed the Government to keeping financial support for carers under review, which we are doing.

  Tariff Incomes Schedule
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the tariff incomes schedule of attributed income from savings of pensioners; and if he will estimate how many additional pensioners would qualify for the minimum pensions guarantee if it were lowered to a national yield of 6 per cent. [106657]

  Mr. Rooker
  An estimated 10,000 pensioners would become newly entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee if a 6 per cent. rate of return is applied to savings over £3,000. Overall, 70,000 pensioners would gain from the change.

  However, it should be noted that around 50,000 pensioners with savings at the lower end of the tariff scale would lose benefit, with a small number losing entitlement completely.

  Rent Restriction
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of abolishing the single room rent restriction for under 25s in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland. [106575]

  Angela Eagle
  We are unable to estimate with any accuracy the cost of abolishing the Single Room Rent restriction. There is insufficient quantitative information on how this group responded to the change, and without this information we cannot estimate the behavioural effects of reversing the change.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the additional annual cost of the minimum income guarantee if annual increases are in line with earnings rather than prices in(a) 2005, (b) 2010, (c) 2020 and (d) 2050; and what would be the further cost in each of those years of paying the basic state pension at the same rate as the minimum income guarantee. [105474]

  Mr. Rooker
  Estimates for the cost of the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) for the years shown are not available. This is because it is extremely difficult to obtain accurate projections of the future level and distribution of income and assets.

  The cost of paying the basic State pension, including linked benefits, at the same rate as the MIG is shown in the table. The net cost takes into account savings made in means-tested benefits.
  171W

  £ billion

  Gross cost

  Net cost

  2005–06

  10.8

  8.7

  2010–11

  15.7

  13.5

  2020–21

  28.3

  24.6

  2050–51

  87.3

  —

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in £ billion and are in 2000–01 price terms.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  3. Gross costs are estimates provided by the Government Actuary's Department. Costs net of means-tested benefits have been calculated using the 1999–2000 Policy Simulation Model based on the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey, and by PENSIM, a dynamic microsimulation model used to project pensioners' incomes to 2025. Net cost estimates for 2050–51 are not available.

HEALTH

  Care Standards Bill
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the formal and informal consultation exercises conducted by(i) his Department and (ii) the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions which are (a) current and (b) recently completed and which are relevant to the matters covered by the Care Standards Bill [Lords]. [104177]

  Mr. Hutton
  The matters covered by the Care Standards Bill (Lords) have been subject to extensive consultation over a long period. Many of the measures were set out in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services" (Cm 4169—copies of which are available in the Library), which followed various consultation exercises. The matters relating to private and voluntary healthcare were subject to consultation following the publication of "Regulating Private and Voluntary Healthcare: A Consultation Document", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Since the Bill's publication, I and my Ministerial colleagues, and officials in the Department have held a number of discussions about the provisions of the Bill with representatives of provider interests, service user groups and professional interests. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has held no consultations specific to the Care Standards Bill.

  Methadone
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current annual cost to the National Health Service of methadone; and what is the latest estimate of the number of patients in each health authority area being prescribed methadone. [105257]

  Ms Stuart
  The net ingredient cost of prescription items dispensed in the community for methadone hydrochloride in England in 1998 was £10.8 million. Information on methadone dispensed in hospitals or drug treatment clinics and the number of patients receiving prescribed methadone in each health authority is not available.

  Section 64 Grants
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require health authorities 172W
  which make Section 64 grants to charities to include a term in their contracts requiring them to be notified of changes in the charities' objects. [104821]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Health authorities have wide discretion over the terms and conditions they apply in the use by recipient voluntary organisations of Section 64 grants. This is appropriate given the wide variety of circumstances that may arise. In all their financial transactions, health authorities are required to exercise the standards of financial management and control specified in their standing orders and standing financial instructions—which follow the normal conventions for public bodies—and are audited on their performance. Making a specific requirement to be notified of changes in the objects of the organisation would not necessarily provide an additional safeguard, since changes may not necessarily have any bearing on the purpose for which the grant was made.

  Foster Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to regulate the independent foster care home sector in respect of(a) quality of care provided and (b) charges to local authorities; [105911]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the independent foster care home sector with regard to quality of care and cost to local authorities; [105912]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the levels of charges made for the provision of foster care by (a) the independent foster care home sector and (b) local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [105910]

  Mr. Hutton
  We announced in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services" that independent fostering agencies will, in future, be regulated. The intention is that they will have to register with and be inspected by the new National Care Standards Commission. The changes are being introduced in the Care Standards Bill. As an interim measure, we are planning to introduce a voluntary accreditation scheme for independent fostering agencies.

  If a local authority decides to place a child with a foster carer operating in the independent sector, it is a matter for that authority to satisfy itself that they are getting quality and value for money from the agency. This requirement is set out at Standard 24 of the recently launched National Standards for Foster Care, which seeks to underpin the provision of high quality foster care for children and young people throughout the United Kingdom.

  We are aware that local authorities tend to pay considerably higher weekly rates for foster care when that care is through independent foster agencies, rather than directly through local authority foster carers. At least to some extent, this results from the extra functions provided by agencies and the particular needs of the individual children. We have no control over the rates paid by local authorities to independent fostering agencies or to their own carers. This is, however, an issue that we are looking at in the context of the Quality Protects programme, and in particular in relation to our plans to improve the number and quality of placement options for looked after children.
  173W
  We are unable to provide a breakdown between local authority and independent sector foster care charges, as such figures are not collected centrally. We do, however, have information on the overall amount spent on local authority foster placements and for 1997–98 (the latest year we have available) the gross expenditure figure for England was £339 million. £15 million was also spent on children in other community placements.

  There is also a Social Services Performance Indicator that showed the reported unit cost of foster care (gross weekly expenditure per child looked after in foster care) as £199 for 1998–99 and £211 for 1997–98.

  Officials in the Department have had some discussion with representatives of the independent foster care sector about ensuring good quality standards, and these will be continued in the context of the voluntary accreditation scheme.

  Road Traffic Charges
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount of charges collected in 1999 under the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. [106192]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 came into force on 5 April 1999. In the initial three months no payments were made to trusts. In the second quarter £2,671,409 was collected and paid to National Health Service trusts in England, Scotland and Wales. In the third quarter this figure rose to £13,823,013, making the total paid to NHS trusts by the end of December 1999 £16,494,422.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the allocations he proposes to make to each health authority in 2000–01 in respect of additional funding for generic drugs. [106665]

  Ms Stuart
  £90 million has been made available to help meet the additional costs of generic drugs in 1999–2000. The table shows the additional allocations made to health authorities on 11 January 2000.

  Health authority

  £000

  Bradford

  1,009

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1,143

  County Durham

  1,418

  East Riding

  1,062

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  905

  Leeds

  1,491

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1,167

  North Cumbria

  606

  North Yorkshire

  1,432

  Northumberland

  666

  Sunderland

  647

  Tees

  1,167

  Wakefield

  743

  Northern and Yorkshire Region total

  13,457

  Barnsley

  503

  Doncaster

  693

  Leicestershire

  1,425

  Lincolnshire

  1,151

  North Derbyshire

  737

  North Nottinghamshire

  788

  Nottingham

  1,066

  174W

  Health authority

  £000

  Rotherham

  496

  Sheffield

  1,240

  South Derbyshire

  974

  South Humber

  630

  Trent Region total

  9,703

  Bedfordshire

  870

  Cambridgeshire

  1,166

  East and North Hertfordshire

  831

  Norfolk

  1,457

  North Essex

  1,504

  South Essex

  1,094

  Suffolk

  1,153

  West Hertfordshire

  808

  Eastern Region total

  8,883

  Barking and Havering

  636

  Barnet

  493

  Bexley and Greenwich

  652

  Brent and Harrow

  699

  Bromley

  459

  Camden and Islington

  550

  Croydon

  466

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  1,012

  East London and the City

  1,071

  Enfield and Haringey

  741

  Hillingdon

  377

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  423

  Kingston and Richmond

  479

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,150

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  804

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  674

  London Region total

  10,684

  Berkshire

  1,189

  Buckinghamshire

  974

  East Kent

  1,057

  East Surrey

  585

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  1,358

  Isle of Wight

  259

  North and Mid Hampshire

  757

  Northamptonshire

  1,002

  Oxfordshire

  903

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  966

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  987

  West Kent

  1,533

  West Surrey

  880

  West Sussex

  1,346

  South East Region total

  13,795

  Avon

  1,675

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  986

  Dorset

  1,404

  Gloucestershire

  899

  North and East Devon

  938

  Somerset

  884

  South and West Devon

  1,205

  Wiltshire

  978

  South West Region total

  8,969

  Birmingham

  2,076

  Coventry

  594

  Dudley

  542

  Herefordshire

  272

  North Staffordshire

  961

  Sandwell

  597

  Shropshire

  686

  Solihull

  390

  South Staffordshire

  999

  Walsall

  484

  175W

  Health authority

  £000

  Warwickshire

  812

  Wolverhampton

  459

  Worcestershire

  842

  West Midlands Region total

  9,714

  Bury and Rochdale

  878

  East Lancashire

  1,214

  Liverpool

  1,050

  Manchester

  1,052

  Morecambe Bay

  654

  North Cheshire

  665

  North West Lancashire

  1,122

  Salford and Trafford

  1,043

  Sefton

  613

  South Cheshire

  1,259

  South Lancashire

  617

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  918

  Stockport

  649

  West Pennine

  1,000

  Wigan and Bolton

  1,303

  Wirral

  758

  North West Region total

  14,795

  England Total

  90,000

SCOTLAND

  Student Finance
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations his Department made to the Scottish independent inquiry into student finance. [104931]

  Dr. Reid
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State met the Chairman and Secretary of the committee in his capacity as a former education Minister at the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding the Scottish independent inquiry into student finance. [104934]

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister of the Scottish Executive about reserved matters referred to in the Cubie report on education. [104936]

  Dr. Reid
  I meet the First Minister regularly and we discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding the implications of the report from the independent inquiry into student finance. [104935]

  Dr. Reid
  I have had no such discussions.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the submissions made by the UK Government to the Scottish independent inquiry into student finance. [104939]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department for Education and Employment made a submission to the Cubie Committee on 18 October. I also met the Chairman and Secretary of the Committee in my capacity as a former education Minister at the Scottish Office.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about proposals to require special country-of-origin labelling for UK meat products originating in Scotland. [104932]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. Product labelling is an issue for the Scottish Executive devolved under Section 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.

  Post Office
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the Government's plans for the Post Office in Scotland. [104933]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry over a range of issues including post offices. This Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices, and to enabling the Post Office to develop to its full business potential.

  Public Safety
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Health and Safety Executive to discuss public safety in Scotland. [104937]

  Dr. Reid
  I shall meet the Director General and Director Scotland of the Health and Safety Executive on 14 February to update myself on health and safety matters generally in Scotland.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effects of air passenger duty in the highlands and islands. [104938]

  Dr. Reid
  I welcome the announcement by the Chancellor to consult on changes to Air Passenger Duty that recognise the particular dependence of the Highlands and Islands' on air transport. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have encouraged a wide response to the consultation exercise. I know that the Chancellor will consider carefully the responses he receives and the effect of any changes he may make.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the consultation exercise on the future of air passenger duty; and if he will make a statement. [104946]

  Dr. Reid
  I am in regular contact with the Chancellor on a range of issues. I welcome the consultation that has taken place on changes to Air Passenger Duty that recognise the particular dependence of the Highlands and Islands on air services.

  Defence-related Employment
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister on the level of defence-related employment in Scotland. [104940]
  177W
  Dr. Reid
  I am in regular contact with the First Minister on a range of issues including defence-related matters. Total defence-related employment in Scotland, on the most recently available figures, stands at 61,000. Clearly Scotland benefits greatly from defence-related employment.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to establish the Strategic Rail Authority; and what its impact will be in Scotland. [104941]

  Dr. Reid
  The Transport Bill makes provision for the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority. In Scotland it will administer all passenger rail franchises including the making of franchise payments to the relevant train operating companies. The Authority will also receive directions and guidance for Scottish passenger rail services from the Scottish Ministers together with financial provision from the Scottish Consolidated Fund to help meet the costs of these services.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on low pay in Scotland. [104942]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are committed to tackling low pay through the national minimum wage. The Low Pay Commission found, in their First Report, that low pay occurs throughout the country and there is often much variation within different parts of the country as there is between one part of the country and another. Latest figures indicate that some 40,000 low paid workers in Scotland had already benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage at the time of implementation (March-May 1999). The second report of the Low Pay Commission will be published soon, and we expect this to give more detail about low pay by region.

  Coastguard (Oban)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to discuss with the Deputy Prime Minister the proposed closure of the Oban coastguard station and matters relating to maritime safety in the area. [104945]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend is in regular contact with the Deputy Prime Minister on a wide range of issues including matters relating to maritime safety and coastguard stations. Substantial investment in new digital technology will allow a more responsive service to be provided from fewer centres. Oban will not close until October 2000 and Pentland will not close until December 2000 when the new equipment will be installed and the staff trained. There will be no compulsory redundancies.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the(a) Home Secretary and (b) Scottish Executive on the number of asylum seekers and refugees placed in Scotland. [104947]
  178W
  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has been fully involved in the development of the Government's policies relating to asylum seekers and refugees, and recently discussed the implementations of these policies in Scotland with the First Minister.

  Rail Bridge (Forth)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in relation to health and safety and repairs to the rail bridge across the Forth. [104948]

  Dr. Reid
  On this matter I have received representations only from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding the impact on the Scottish economy of the European single currency. [104949]

  Dr. Reid
  I have had no such discussions recently.

  Poverty
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in tackling poverty among children and pensioners in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [104950]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK Government have a range of initiatives to alleviate poverty among children and pensioners in Scotland: the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in child benefit, the restoration of free eye tests for pensioners, the Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners, cutting VAT on domestic fuel and increasing the winter fuel allowance. In addition, the Joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty met last month and will ensure that the UK Government and the devolved administrations work effectively in partnership to alleviate poverty.

  Shipbuilding (Clyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the STUC; and if they discussed matters relating to the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. [104943]

  Dr. Reid
  I last met representatives of the STUC on 1 November and discussed a broad range of industrial issues. I very much welcome the recent positive development for the Govan shipyard following its sale by Kvaerner.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Scottish Bills
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Advocate-General what powers she has to refer Bills of the Scottish Parliament to the judicial committee of the Privy Council before they are finally enacted. [104952]
  179W
  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I have the power to refer Bills of the Scottish Parliament, before they are finally enacted, to the Judicial Committee so that they can decide whether the Bill, or any provision of it, would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Advocate-General what representations she has received from the Prison Officers Association on matters pertaining to the European convention on human rights. [104953]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I have not received any representations from the Prison Officers Association on such matters.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Advocate-General what steps she is taking to monitor the impact of the European convention on human rights on the Scottish legal system. [104955]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  The Scottish legal system is a devolved matter. It is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive to administer it and to take account of the impact of the Convention on it. Under the Scotland Act 1998 I receive notices of all devolution issues raised in the Scottish courts, including all those which raise human rights questions, and seek more information where appropriate.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Advocate-General what assessment she has made of the scope of her duties in relation to(a) the UK Government and (b) the Scottish Executive; and if she will make a statement. [104956]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I am a Law Officer in the UK Government. I advise them on legal matters affecting Scotland (including matters of common interest to the whole UK, such as European Law and human rights). I exercise statutory functions as a Law Officer, particularly functions under the Scotland Act 1998. I have no duties directly in relation to the Scottish Executive. However, I may have to advise the UK Government on questions whether actings of the Executive, or Bills promoted by them, are within devolved competence. I can intervene in court proceedings raising such questions or raise such proceedings myself.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Advocate-General what recent representations she has received concerning the implementation of sections 101 and 102 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [104954]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I have not received any representations concerning the implementation of these sections.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Trials (Timetabling)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how often the 180W
  Lord Chancellor meets the officers of the Council of Circuit Judges to discuss the timetabling of trials. [104966]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Permanent Secretary and the Chief Executive of the Court Service usually meet with the Council of Circuit Judges twice a year. The most recent meeting with the Chief Executive was on 2 December 1999. Although a wide range of policy and operational issues are discussed, the topic of the timetabling of trials was not raised, but if the hon. Member means listing, that is a judicial function and would not be discussed between the executive and the judiciary.

  Youth Justice System
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what assessment he has made of the impact of measures to reform the youth justice system on local magistrates courts. [104968]

  Jane Kennedy
  The impact of measures to reform the youth justice system, including measures aimed at reducing delay, is closely monitored. Piloted measures are the subject of separate evaluation.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the report of Sir Len Peach on judicial and Queen's Counsel appointments. [104969]

  Jane Kennedy
  Following publication of Sir Leonard Peach's report, the Lord Chancellor has embarked on an action programme to introduce developments in the selection procedures for judges and Queen's Counsel reflecting its recommendations. The Lord Chancellor has accepted the recommendation for the appointment of a Commissioner for Judicial Appointments and hopes that a Commissioner will be appointed during the first half of this year.

  Sheriffs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to increase the accountability of sheriffs. [104970]

  Mr. Lock
  It remains our intention to examine the role of the various organisations involved in enforcement, including sheriffs, in the course of the review of enforcement. Work on this element of the review will begin later in the year. The accountability of sheriffs will be among the issues examined.

  County Courts (Closure)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the proposals to close county courts in England and Wales. [104971]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service constantly monitors and reviews the viability of its court network in the light of changing business needs and workload trends. This in turn will lead us to consider new ways of delivering civil justice which are not dependent on our present structure
  181W
  of civil courts. In addition, it is necessary to ensure that the civil courts and their locations continue to meet local user needs.

  The following criteria form part of the consideration given to potential county court closures: workload trends, the condition and availability of accommodation and facilities in the local area, judicial sittings and waiting times, together with analysis of court users' needs. Before consideration can be given to closure, at least one survey of court users is carried out. Proposals for closure are always subject to public consultation, authorised by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor has authorised public consultation on closure proposals for the following courts: Aberdare, Caerphilly, Chepstow, Gravesend, Lichfield, Monmouth and Workington; and has approved closure of Grays Thurrock and Great Yarmouth to take effect from 31 January 2000.

  Rural Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the service provided by rural magistrates courts. [104967]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government's policy is that magistrates courts are best managed locally by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the service provided at magistrates courts in their area, irrespective of location, are for the relevant magistrates courts committee to determine.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries which are presently refusing to permit the import of British beef. [104872]

  Ms Quin
  Among the EU member states, only France and Germany still ban British beef. Outside the EU, there are a variety of import bans, some of which are UK-specific, some are EU-wide and some apply to countries which have registered BSE cases among their cattle. British beef can, however, be exported to those non-EU countries with which we have so far agreed the necessary export health certification, i.e. Cyprus, the Falkland Islands, Hong Kong and Mauritius.

  Over-30-Months-Scheme
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the total tonnage of meat and bone meal forecast to be incinerated each year for the duration of the over-30-months-scheme; [104240]

  (2) what is the total tonnage of meat and bonemeal resulting from the over-30-months-scheme forecast to be incinerated each year by each of the companies awarded contracts under the scheme. [104239]
  182W
  Ms Quin
  In the period to 31 December 1999, some 35,600 tonnes of meat and bonemeal (MBM) produced under the over-30-months-scheme (OTMS) was incinerated in the high temperature waste incinerator operated by Shanks at Fawley. This contract is due to expire on 31 March 2000. The Intervention Board's current forecast of future MBM incineration by the three companies awarded large scale incineration contracts is given in the following table.

  Tonnes

  Period

  Shanks

  Fibrogen

  PDM

  Total

  1 January-31 March 2000

  4,400

  17,000

  0

  21,400

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  0

  85,000

  27,600

  112,600

  1 April 2001–31 March 2002

  60,000

  85,000

  55,850

  200,850

  1 April 2002–31 March 2003

  60,000

  78,000

  60,400

  198,400

  1 April 2003–31 March 2004

  60,000

  0

  51,150

  111,150

  1 April 2004–31 March 2005

  10,000

  0

  0

  10,000

  Totals

  194,400

  265,000

  195,000

  654,400

  Note:

  For the purpose of this exercise the forecast assumes that the OTMS will continue in its current form until at least the end of 2002–03, and that the contracted companies will obtain the necessary consents and commence incineration in line with their autumn 1999 programmes. The forecast will be updated in January/February 2000 to reflect the latest position.

  Slaughter Premium
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement setting out the(a) policy and (b) economic reasons for paying a slaughter premium for cull cows. [105298]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The EU Slaughter Premiums for adult cattle and calves are paid in partial compensation for the cuts in support prices which will be made on 1 July in each of the years 2000 to 2002. Those price cuts will affect the price of most animals sold on the EU market, including cull animals. While the price paid for animals slaughtered under the Over Thirty Months Scheme in the UK is set by Commission Regulation rather than by market forces, the Agriculture Council decided not to exclude such animals from Slaughter Premium, because to do so would be to discriminate against UK producers.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of beef have been imported into the UK in each year since 1990 from(a) Argentina, (b) Uruguay, (c) Paraguay, (d) Brazil, (e) USA and w Canada. [105652]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The table shows the volume of beef and veal, beef offal and beef preparations (i.e. corned beef, canned meats, etc.) imported into the UK from (a) Argentina, (b) Uruguay, (c) Paraguay, (d) Brazil, (e) USA and (f) Canada between 1990 and 1998 and January and November 1999 as recorded in the Official Overseas Trade Statistics.
  183W

  UK imports of beef 1990–991

  Tonnes

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19992

  Imports of beef from Brazil

  39,629

  54,330

  76,114

  58,211

  41,072

  45,342

  36,226

  41,632

  43,062

  53,644

  of which:

  Beef preparations3

  36,505

  50,327

  69,249

  52,916

  37,991

  42,181

  32,235

  36,893

  38,146

  43,330

  Beef and veal

  2,985

  4,002

  6,758

  5,181

  3,041

  3,049

  3,809

  4,575

  4,794

  10,156

  Beef offal

  139

  —

  107

  114

  39

  112

  183

  164

  123

  159

  Imports of beef from Argentina

  31,476

  18,036

  15,565

  14,285

  14,917

  28,289

  22,754

  23,121

  10,636

  9,387

  of which:

  Beef preparations3

  24,485

  15,375

  13,932

  12,672

  12,279

  20,043

  14,756

  15,201

  9,228

  7,159

  Beef and veal

  6,815

  2,398

  1,486

  1,425

  2,286

  7,154

  7,455

  7,659

  1,253

  2,000

  Beef offal

  177

  262

  148

  188

  352

  1,092

  543

  260

  155

  228

  Imports of beef from Uruguay

  11,633

  8,985

  8,381

  7,708

  7,575

  13,219

  12,127

  18,165

  12,616

  9,303

  of which:

  Beef preparations3

  3,720

  3,409

  3,566

  2,980

  3,419

  4,410

  3,851

  4,741

  4,906

  4,780

  Beef and veal

  7,827

  5,503

  4,698

  4,628

  3,780

  8,535

  8,115

  13,364

  7,677

  4,419

  Beef offal

  86

  73

  117

  99

  376

  274

  162

  61

  32

  104

  Imports of beef from U.S.A.

  742

  607

  1,827

  2,260

  2,768

  4,281

  3,992

  1,958

  1,636

  939

  of which:

  Beef preparations3

  104

  194

  329

  49

  374

  866

  394

  489

  40

  19

  Beef and veal

  151

  163

  566

  493

  696

  1,901

  2,847

  1,394

  1,580

  920

  Beef offal

  487

  250

  932

  1,718

  1,698

  1,515

  752

  75

  16

  0

  Imports of beef from Canada

  230

  20

  514

  138

  115

  103

  5

  3

  20

  —

  of which:

  Beef preparations3

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Beef and veal

  24

  —

  —

  6

  9

  8

  5

  3

  17

  —

  Beef offal

  199

  20

  514

  132

  106

  96

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Imports of beef from Paraguay

  82

  34

  133

  34

  12

  150

  115

  64

  13

  12

  of which:

  Beef and veal

  82

  34

  133

  34

  12

  150

  115

  64

  13

  12

  1 Overseas trade statistics are subject to a degree of error. Although the overall level of errors is low, small values are affected disproportionately. Care should therefore be taken when interpreting such data.

  2 January to November

  3 Principally corned beef

  Hedges
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which European laws set out the dimensions of field margins of cultivation adjacent to hedges. [103132]

  Ms Quin
  The European Community legislation which is relevant to this issue is that governing the farm-based arable and livestock aid schemes introduced as part of the 1992 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Under the rules of Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS), farmers in the United Kingdom are allowed to use the full field areas which are shown on Ordnance Survey maps as the basis of their claims, provided that their fields are fully utilised. If this condition is not fulfilled, then only that part of the total area which is actually cropped can be claimed. The use of total field areas is of considerable benefit to our farmers but it can only be justified if the extent of uncropped areas around field margins, including the area occupied by any hedges which may be present, is kept within reasonable limits. AAPS applicants have recently been notified about new guidance from the European Commission about the maximum width of field margins that is consistent with the use of full Ordnance Survey areas in aid applications. They have also been urged to seek advice about minimising the environmental impact of any action they may need to take in order to comply with the new guidance.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what weighting was given to the journey time of livestock in recent award of contracts to abattoirs by the Intervention Board under the over 30 month scheme. [102359]

  Ms Quin
  The Intervention Board, which is responsible for the administration of the over thirty month scheme (OTMS), attaches considerable importance to ensuring that sufficient slaughtering capacity is available in the right areas to minimise the travelling time for animals entering the scheme, consistent with the need to protect the public purse and ensure a good quality service. Tenders were grouped and evaluated by region to ensure that all areas received a reasonable level of service. East Anglia and South East England were grouped as a single region in view of the relatively small number of cattle coming forward from these areas for slaughter. As a result of the changes being introduced following the tender, some journey times will, inevitably, increase, but in no case will journey times exceed those laid down in animal welfare guidelines. Some journey times will decrease. Farmers will continue to be able to access the scheme through the network of 170 markets registered to collect OTMS cattle.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will rank in order of importance the criteria(a) past trade record, (b) location, (c) quality of service, (d) ability to offer a dedicated service, (e) ease

  185W
  of supervision, (f) throughput and (g) price used for evaluating bids in the recent award of contracts to abattoirs by the Intervention Board under the over 30 month scheme. [102356]

  Ms Quin
  Tenders were considered on a regional basis to ensure that sufficient capacity was contracted for the number of animals coming forward for slaughter in the region. Within this regional approach, under which East Anglia and South East England were grouped as a single region, the ranking (highest to lowest) of the criteria for evaluating bids received for OTMS slaughter services were: quality of service, price, ability to offer a dedicated service, ease of supervision and throughput (equal ranking), location.

  BSE
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the incidence of new cases of BSE for each of the last five years. [102352]

  Ms Quin
  Numbers of cattle notified as BSE suspects to Agriculture Departments in Great Britain for each of the last five complete years are given in the table. Figures for those subsequently confirmed as BSE cases are also shown.

  Year

  Suspects restricted

  Suspects in which BSE confirmed

  1994

  30,259

  23,943

  1995

  17,945

  14,301

  1996

  10,697

  8,013

  1997

  5,604

  4,309

  1998

  4,291

  3,178

  For 1999, the latest figures up to 3 December show that 2,824 cattle have been restricted as BSE suspects. Of these, 1,904 have been confirmed as BSE cases and 247 results are still pending. No confirmed cases have been found in animals born after August 1996.

  Farming (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people were employed in the farming sector in Leicestershire in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; and how many he projects will be employed in 2000–01. [101060]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is as follows:

  People employed in the farming sector in Leicestershire

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses working on the holding

  Salaried managers and all other workers 1

  Total workforce 2

  (a) June 1996

  3,884

  3,003

  6,887

  (b) June 1997

  3,833

  3,003

  6,836

  (c) June 1998

  3,837

  2,974

  6,811

  June 1999

  3,805

  2,725

  6,530

  1 Including hired, family and casual workers working on 1 June

  2 Excludes youth training

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been taken from the annual June Agricultural and Horticultural Census. These data relate to main holdings only.
  186W
  2. In 1998 fundamental changes were introduced to the labour questions. It appears that this change may have led to the recording of additional labour who were not previously included in the returns. The change in questions has also led to a redistribution of labour between the various categories, most notably for salaried managers. Caution is therefore advised when comparing the 1998 and 1999 results with previous years.

  MAFF does not have any projections for the year 2000–01.

  Anaphylaxis
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of recent reports that sesame seed and oil in foods intended for young children can produce serious anaphylactic attacks; and what discussions his Department has had with Nestle on the matter. [103363]

  Ms Quin
  It has been known for some time that sesame seeds can produce potentially severe reactions in individuals who have a pre-existing sesame allergy. Sesame oil could in theory also produce reactions depending on how much of the allergenic sesame protein is present.

  It would seem sensible to advise that certain infants should avoid sesame seeds and food containing sesame, in case the consumption of sesame increases the risk of the infant developing sesame allergy. This advice is by analogy with the Committee on Toxicity's (COT) advice on peanuts. In its report on Peanut Allergy, the COT advised that during weaning, and until at least three years of age, the diets of infants with a parent or sibling with atopic disease (i.e. liable to develop allergic conditions) should not include peanuts and foods containing peanuts. This is because these foods may increase the risk of sensitisation and should be avoided. Further expert advice is being sought on this and the situation will be kept under review in the light of developing knowledge.

  There have been no discussions with Nestle on this specific issue.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the level of charges for Meat Hygiene Service veterinary surgeons in independent abattoirs. [105472]

  Ms Quin
  On 1 December the Government announced that Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) hygiene inspection charges for this financial year (1999–2000) would be frozen at the levels set for 1998–99. This will result in a saving to the meat industry of some £7 million in charges in 1999–2000.

  The Government have also given a commitment that the rates of MHS hygiene inspection charges in 2000–01 should not rise by more than the level of inflation above the levels charged in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the review of the operations of the Meat Hygiene Service. [103351]

  Ms Quin
  The results of the efficiency review of the Meat Hygiene Service have been published as an annex to the report of the regulatory review of the meat industry,
  187W
  the "Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group", which was issued on 13 December 1999, Official Report, column 89W. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The results of the efficiency review will be considered in the context of the recommendations made by the Red Tape Working Group. The Government expects to respond shortly.

  Abattoirs and Meat Processing Plants
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs and meat processing plants have failed to pay inspection charges for completed inspections in the last year. [103352]

  Ms Quin
  A total of 89 licensed slaughterhouses have failed to pay meat inspection charges in the last year for completed inspections. Meat processing plants are not subject to inspection charges.

  Failure to pay has been defined as a slaughterhouse with an outstanding invoice dated October 1999 or earlier.

  All 89 are subject to full debt recovery procedures within the terms of the new Civil Procedure Rules that came into force as of April 1999. At present these debts are regarded as civil cases and, where necessary, recovery will be pursued through the courts.

  To address the problem of unpaid meat inspection charges, the Government has formally consulted on a proposal to amend the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) Regulations 1998. The proposed amendment would provide powers for the withdrawal by the Meat Hygiene Service of inspection services from individual licensed meat premises as a matter of last resort and in clearly defined circumstances.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Commission concerning the levels of veterinary supervision in abattoirs and meat processing plants; and what response he has received. [103354]

  Ms Quin
  In 1997 the European Commission initiated legal proceedings against the United Kingdom for the under-implementation of the veterinary supervision requirements of EU meat hygiene legislation. Since then the Government have made a number of representations to the Commission about the level of veterinary supervision in licensed premises (abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores) in Great Britain producing or handling fresh (red) meat. The Government have accepted the need to bring the UK's veterinary supervision levels into line with the EU requirements in as short a time as possible, but pointed to the shortage of veterinarians willing to undertake meat hygiene work in the UK as a key obstacle to immediate compliance. The Government therefore set out a plan for achieving full and complete compliance by stages, over a number of years, as additional veterinary resource became available to the Meat Hygiene Service.

  The Commission has noted the UK's programme and has made clear that it expects all the relevant controls and supervisory measures to be in place in the UK, in accordance with EU legislation, by the middle of 2001.
  188W
  Separately, the Government also sought the European Commission's views earlier this year on the level and frequency of veterinary supervision required by the Fresh Meat Directive (64/433/EEC, as amended) for those low throughput (permanently derogated) slaughterhouses and cutting plants approved under Article 4 of the Directive. In summary, the Commission's advice was that the official veterinarian must carry out ante mortem inspections in red meat slaughterhouses, although post mortem inspections may be performed by either the official veterinarian or by an auxiliary. In addition, the hygiene rules must be monitored in all low throughput premises by either an official veterinarian or an auxiliary acting under his/her responsibility. Copies of the Commission's advice were placed in the Library of the House on 13 October 1999.

  The Government are actively considering the veterinary supervision requirements for low throughput abattoirs and cutting plants in the light of the Commission's advice and will make an announcement on this in due course.

  River Medway
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if his Department controls the rights to(a) fishing and (b) fishing sea bass from Garrison Point to Allington Locks on the River Medway; [105900]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the relationship of the jurisdiction vested in (a) his Department and (b) Rochester Oyster and Floating Fishery over who can fish from Garrison Point to Allington Lock on the River Medway. [105901]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The English common law recognises a public right of fishing in territorial tidal waters. However, that common law right can have been abrogated or limited (including in relation to the methods by which it may be exercised) in a number of ways in the past, including by domestic or European legislation, by private Act of Parliament, by Charter or by ancient usage.

  As far as is known, there is no exhaustive list of instances where the common law right has been abrogated or limited in the ways described. Therefore, only the courts are in a position to be able to rule on whether the fishery referred to by my hon. Friend between Garrison Point and Allington Lock is a public fishery or a private fishery owned by or granted to the Rochester Oyster and Floating Fishery and, if the latter, the extent of that private fishery.

  However, the private rights, if any, in this fishery have been limited by various elements of EC legislation, including restrictions on minimum landing size and mesh size as well as by the establishment of the bass nursery area at the Isle of Grain Power Station Outfall.

  Common Agricultural Policy Payments (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 99W, if he will list by value the CAP payments including agri-environment schemes, broken down by individual category which were paid to farmers in Worcestershire in the calendar year 1998. [105589]
  189W
  Ms Quin
  Provisional figures for CAP payments made to farmers in Hereford and Worcester in 1998 were as follows.

  £

  Schemes

  Payments

  Arable area payments

  25,553,526

  Environmentally sensitive area1

  29,839

  Sheep annual premium

  8,288,360

  Suckler cow premium

  6,452,000

  Farm woodland premium1

  216,811

  Farm woodland1

  250,990

  Organic aid1

  34,559

  Nitrate sensitive area1

  31,657

  Countryside stewardship1

  497,908

  Habitat1

  6,838

  Beef special premium

  6,757,687

  Total

  48,120,175

  1 These amounts include national as well as EU funding

  Note:

  Data is not available separately for Worcester because our administration operates on the combined county of Hereford and Worcester. We estimate that Worcester totals are broadly 40 per cent. of the combined total.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total value was of CAP payments made to Worcestershire farmers in the calendar years 1990 to 1997. [105497]

  Ms Quin
  The total value of CAP payments to farmers in Hereford and Worcester for the years 1994–97 were as follows:

  £

  1994

  41,755,007

  1995

  49,161,871

  1996

  54,819,063

  1997

  49,498,031

  Finalised data are not available separately for Worcestershire because our administration operates on the combined county of Hereford and Worcester.

  These totals include national as well as EU funding.

  Data for 1990–93 are unavailable as computer systems were not in place at that time.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answers of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 99W, if he will list the 10 largest recipients of CAP payments made to farms in Worcestershire in the calendar year 1998. [105512]

  Ms Quin
  Such a list is commercially sensitive, and as such the rules of confidentiality preclude disclosure and publication.

  Pig Sector
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the estimated cost to the pig sector is of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's requirement to remove and dispose of offal. [105138]

  Ms Quin:
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Sponigform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) has no such requirement for the pig sector. The
  190W
  cost to the pig sector of the legal ban on using mammalian meat and bone meat in farm animal feed has been estimated by the Meat and Livestock Commission as £5.26 per pig.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants and other assistance his Department(a) gives and (b) plans to give to pig farmers outside assisted areas. [105109]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Formal and informal pig farming co-operatives were eligible to apply for a marketing grant under the Agriculture Development Scheme 1999. The scheme closed for applications on 30 November 1999 and successful applications will be announced in a few weeks. My right hon. Friend the Minister has also announced his intention that pig producers will benefit significantly from an extra £5 million earmarked to help farmers improve their marketing, collaboration and competitiveness. Discussions with the industry are presently taking place on ways of making best use of the money. In addition, pig producers may be eligible for grants under the Business Link and Small Business Schemes administered by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his initiative to increase the level of procurement of pork and pigmeat products by Government Departments and public authorities. [105140]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Following my right hon. Friend the Minister's letter to public authorities in October 1999, a number of the authorities have expressed an interest in developing a sourcing specification which would result in the purchase of product which conforms to British standards. This is being followed up by the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Minister's Meat Trade Adviser. The industry and some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, have also become involved with the initiative.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support is provided by his Department for the export of bull semen. [105031]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Department does not provide direct financial support to farmers wishing to export cattle semen. We do, however, work closely with other interested organisations, including the Meat and Livestock Commission, to try and open up new markets for United Kingdom cattle semen and to promote exports via trade fairs and other events both here and abroad.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live sheep were exported from the United Kingdom in 1999 for(a) slaughter and (b) further fattening. [105208]

  Ms Quin
  The provisional number of live sheep exported from the UK to other member states in 1999 for slaughter was 9,033 and 1,125,460 for further fattening.

  EU Surplus Food Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total available sum available under the EU surplus food scheme; what was his Department's budget in advertising the scheme; and how much grant was finally used. [105661]

  Ms Quin
  The last year that the UK participated in the EU surplus food scheme was 1998 when the sum made available to the UK for the distribution of surplus beef was £20.3 million. No separate Departmental budget allocation was made for advertising the scheme; expenditure for advertising the scheme was made available from overall Intervention Board funds. The funds allocated to the UK by the EU for the surplus food scheme were fully utilised.

  Sugar
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of ensuring that changes in the Sugar Protocol and Lome Convention do not create further competitive advantages for beet at the expense of cane. [105492]

  Ms Quin
  EU/ACP trade talks are due to conclude next month. They are expected to roll forward the Sugar Protocol for a further eight years, and to provide for its review by 2008. In any review a major UK policy consideration will be the need for an equitable outcome for the cane refining sector to maintain its competitive position relative to the beet sugar sector.

  Common Agricultural Policy Payments (South-West)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total value to farmers in Dorset of CAP payments for(a) the 1998 calendar year and (b) the 1998–99 financial year. [105260]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is not yet available. Figures for the calendar year 1998 are expected to become available in the near future.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms in(a) Cornwall, (b) Devon, (c) Somerset and (d) Dorset received CAP payments in 1998. [105259]

  Ms Quin
  CAP payments in 1998 were paid to the following number of farms:

  Number of farms

  Cornwall1

  3,796

  Devon

  6,807

  Somerset

  3,524

  Dorset

  1,648

  1 Includes holdings on the Isles of Scilly.

  These figures may exclude some farms which made small claims under agri-environment schemes. Precise figures on those farms could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  EU Flax Regime
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure 192W
  that the implementation of reform proposals of the EU flax regime will not take effect until after the 2000 harvest. [105609]

  Ms Quin
  The proposed implementation in 2000 of the reform depends on political agreement being reached by the Council of Ministers. Negotiations are underway at official level where the UK has already made clear the difficulties for industry and for enforcement authorities that early implementation would cause.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the labelling of British meat products. [105110]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Rules on labelling of food products are harmonised at EU level. These are implemented in the UK by the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (as amended) and the Food Safety Act 1990. There are additional national rules in the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulation 1984. All British meat products must comply with the rules laid down in both these sets of Regulations. Enforcement of these rules is carried out by local authorities through their trading standards or environmental health departments.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of a new labelling regime for food products. [105134]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Government are committed to giving consumers clear, easily understood information so they can make informed choices about the food they buy. We have already taken a number of steps for labelling ingredients derived from genetically modified crops and for labelling the quantities of key ingredients. We are encouraging the development of voluntary industry guidelines aimed at providing better, more consistent information to those consumers with specific allergies and will continue to press for appropriate changes to European and international rules.

  We are also launching a new initiative to stimulate public debate on food labelling and find out what information ordinary consumers want to be given about the food they buy. We will also be considering different ways of making information available, including the use of modern technology, and whether new approaches are called for to deal with internet shopping. We are funding consumer research into these questions. We shall be holding open meetings and inviting consumers to write or e-mail us with their views.

  The results of this exercise will feed into the work of the Food Standards Agency to whom the Government have given responsibility for developing food labelling policy. The aim is to improve the clarity of information for consumers, and help establish appropriate labelling regimes at national and international level.

  Rats
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the findings were of the 1996 English House Condition Survey on the relationship between rat infestations in and around dwellings and(a) unfitness and (b) poor living conditions. [105483]
  193W
  Mr. Morley
  The results of the 1996 survey were published in the recent MAFF report "Rodent infestations in domestic properties in England". Figure 3.2 in the report relating to the fitness of dwellings shows that 1.3 per cent. of satisfactory and acceptable dwellings have rats outside, compared to around 3 per cent. of defective and unfit dwellings. Less than 1 per cent. of fit and unfit dwellings have rats inside the dwelling. Figure 3.4 relating to problems in the area shows that rat infestations were higher in areas with the most problems.

  A copy of the report is in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105809]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a Smoking at Work Policy which has been in place since 1994. Smoking is only allowed on Ministry premises in suitably equipped and ventilated rooms. In the few premises where it is not feasible to provide dedicated facilities, a total ban on smoking has been introduced. The Policy applies to all staff and visitors—it is made known to job applicants, forming part of the recruitment and advertising literature.

  Support for smokers who would like to stop smoking is available for staff within the Ministry.

  Farm Subsidies (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown of subsidy payments to farmers in Shropshire in the last year for which data are available; and if he will make a statement. [105528]

  Ms Quin
  Subsidy payments to farmers in Shropshire for 1998 were as follows:

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Annual payments (£)

  81,320,242

  101,908,237

  112,923,171

  108,482,281

  101,157,691

  Average payment per farmer (£)

  1,888.02

  2,412.43

  2,693.46

  2,697.29

  2,654.57

  Number of claims made

  114,599

  123,221

  135,877

  134,373

  117,311

  Number of claims rejected

  2,023

  1,994

  2,263

  2,108

  1,349

  Rejected claims as a percentage of the total claims made

  1.77

  1.62

  1.67

  1.57

  1.15

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insolvency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his position regarding the draft regulation on insolvency proceedings, indicating the ways in which the regulation differs from the 1995 Convention in terms of financial impact through cost compliance. [106387]

  Dr. Howells
  The draft Regulation on insolvency proceedings was considered by the Council of Ministers on 2 December 1999 and will be further considered later this year.

  A Compliance Cost Assessment was prepared as part of an Explanatory Memorandum dated 10 July 1996 on the draft Convention on insolvency proceedings. A
  194W

  £

  CAP Schemes

  Beef Special Premium

  5,756,340

  Environmentally Sensitive Area

  1,506,008

  Arable Area

  22,562,468

  Suckler Cow Premium

  4,712,063

  Sheep Annual Premium

  6,842,521

  Other Payments1

  784,446

  Guidance Schemes

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance

  1,416,414

  Farm and Conservation Grants (1989 Scheme)

  5,488

  Farm and Conservation Grants (1991 Scheme)

  1,997

  1 A small proportion of this total relates to non CAP schemes funded by the EU.

  In some cases amounts include an element of national as well as EU funding.

  Beef Special Premium Scheme
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the(a) total value of payments made annually under the beef special premium scheme and (b) average payment per farmer, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [105207]

  (2) how much money was received from the European Union for funding the beef special premium scheme, and how much was paid to British farmers, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [105205]

  (3) how many claims were made under the beef special premium scheme, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; how many of these were rejected; and what percentage this figure represents, of the total number of claims. [105206]

  Ms Quin
  The information given refers to England only. All payments made were 100 per cent. funded by the EU.

  Regulatory Impact Assessment was also prepared as part of an Explanatory Memorandum dated 23 September 1999 on the draft EC Council Regulation on insolvency proceedings. Copies of both documents were placed in the Library of the House.

  Parental Leave
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the scope of the parental leave regulations; and if he will make a statement. [106830]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Department received over 300 responses to the consultation on the draft Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations. Since the publication of the final regulations it has received a wide range of views
  195W
  on various aspects of the legislation from both employers' and employees' representatives, individuals and other interested parties.

  We are of the view that the regulations fully meet the requirements of the Parental Leave Directive and fairly balance the needs of employees and the concerns of employers.

  Ice Cream Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from ice cream manufacturers on(a) competition within and (b) barriers to entry to the ice cream industry. [106140]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has received a number of representations from ice cream manufacturers about the ice cream market.

  MOX Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when BNFL first informed the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of a problem with MOX fuel that had been dispatched to Japan. [105723]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NH) was first notified by BNFL on 10 September 1999 of a problem concerning the possible falsification of quality assurance data for MOX fuel manufactured at the MOX Demonstration Facility. I understand BNFL told NII they were investigating the possibility that the problem affected both fuel still in the plant and already dispatched to Japan.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department was first informed of a quality control problem at the BNFL MOX Demonstration Facility involving Japanese fuel. [105724]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: My Department was first notified by BNFL on 10 September 1999 of a problem concerning falsification of quality assurance data for MOX fuel manufactured at the MOX Demonstration Facility.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the supply of MOX fuel by BNFL to Switzerland and Japan. [105725]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: BNFL will continue to pursue Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel business in overseas markets. In Japan, in particular, the company is making major efforts to rebuild confidence.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when BNFL first informed the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of a problem with MOX fuel that had been supplied to a Swiss utility; [105721]

  (2) when his Department were first informed of a problem with MOX fuel supplied by BNFL to a Swiss utility; [105722]

  (3) by what methods the damaged MOX fuel supplied by BNFL to a Swiss utility was returned to the UK for examination; when the fuel was returned; and if he will place copies of the assessments made in the Library; [105727]
  196W
  (4) what action was taken by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate regarding the problem with BNFL MOX fuel supplied to a Swiss utility. [105726]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: A batch of 12 MOX fuel assemblies each containing 179 individual fuel pins supplied by BNFL were delivered to NOK's Beznau 1 reactor in November 1995. During a routine shutdown of the reactor in September 1997, it was confirmed that fuel pins in three of these assemblies had failed. The suspect fuel pins were removed from the affected assemblies and returned to BNFL by road and sea in March 1998 using the approved nuclear materials transport flasks which are routinely used in the transport of irradiated nuclear fuel. Post irradiation examination was undertaken by BNFL and the results provided to NOK. The assessments made on the fuel pins in question contain commercially confidential data which are a matter for BNFL and NOK. The matter is referred to in the annual reports for 1997 and 1998 published by the Swiss nuclear safety regulator, HSK. I have asked the Company Secretary of BNFL to write to my hon. Friend enclosing copies of the relevant extracts from those reports. A copy of that letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  I understand that, as this is a matter for the Swiss nuclear safety regulator rather than the UK's nuclear safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, BNFL did not inform the NH about it.

  My Department first became aware of a problem concerning MOX supplied by BNFL to the Swiss utility NOK on 14 September 1999.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the case of BNFL staff who have been dismissed in connection with allegations of falsifying quality control data for MOX fuel; [105832]

  (2) if BNFL plans further disciplinary measures against members of their staff following the falsification of MOX fuel quality control data. [105831]

  Mrs. Liddell:
  [holding answers 20 January 2000]: These are matters for BNFL's management. To date, three workers have been dismissed, and further disciplinary actions have been taken, or are in train, against a number of individuals.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent research reports he has received on the global economic impact of the first five years of the World Trade Organisation trading regime on(a) developed and (b) developing countries. [105586]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department receives many academic articles which seek to analyse developments in the world trading system since the formation of the WTO and the contributions made by that institution to these developments. These articles appear in academic journals including The World Economy and Journal of World Trade.

  Aero-engines
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about launch investment contracts in the aero-engine sector. [107147]
  197W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Under previous launch aid contracts between the Government and Rolls-Royce plc, that company is entitled to a reduction in the amount of levy which it pays in respect of engines which are derivatives of engines which have previously benefited from launch aid, in recognition of the extra investment which the company has made in producing those derivatives. Agreement has recently been reached between my Department and Rolls-Royce plc on the revised rates of levy which are payable on certain derivatives of the RB211–524, V2500, Spey, Tay and Industrial RB211 engines. My Department will be seeking a Spring Supplementary Estimate in due course which will include provision for the repayment to Rolls-Royce plc of certain of the amounts which have been overpaid by that company in respect of these derivative engines.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what orders his Department has made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 in each year since 1994; and what plans it has to introduce such orders. [106085]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 contains two order-making powers: for deregulation orders (Sections 1–4 of the Act) and contracting out orders (Sections 69–70). The Department has made use of the powers as follows:

  Deregulation Orders
  The Deregulation (Fair Trading Act 1973) (Amendment) (Merger Reference Time Limits) Order 1996 SI 1996/345
  The Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act) (Amendment) (Variation of Exempt Agreements) Order 1996 SI 1996/346
  The Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act) (Amendment) (Time Limits) Order 1996 SI 1996/347
  The Deregulation (Long Pull) Order 1996 SI 1996/1339
  The Deregulation (Resolutions of Private Companies) Order 1996 SI 1996/1471
  The Deregulation (Gun Barrel Proving) Order 1996 SI 1996/1576
  The Deregulation (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Order 1996 SI 1996/2102
  The Deregulation (Rag Flock and other Fillings Material Act 1951) (Repeal) Order 1996 SI 1996/3097
  The Deregulation (Non-Fossil Fuel) Order 1997 SI 1997/1185
  The Deregulation (Deduction from Pay of Union Subscriptions) Order 1998 SI 1998/1529
  The Deregulation (Weights and Measures) Order 1999 SI 1999/503
  The Deregulation (Pipelines) Order 1999 SI 1999/742.

  In addition the Department has consulted on proposals to use the deregulation order-making power to provide a mechanism for redenominating share capital.

  Contracting Out Orders
  The Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Registration of Companies) Order 1995 SI 1995/1013
  The Contracting Out (Functions of the Official Receiver) Order 1995 SI 1995/1386
  The Contracting Out (Functions relating to Wireless Telegraphy) Order 1995 SI 1996/2290.

  In addition the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to Petroleum Royalty Payments) Order 2000 is currently being considered by Parliament.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from overseas investors in the United Kingdom in respect of the UK's non-adoption of the single currency. [106312]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly receives views from overseas investors in the UK on a range of issues, including the single currency. The Government's position on EMU membership is well understood by investors.

  The UK remains the premier location in Europe for inward investment and the Government are committed to providing a stable economic framework to ensure that this remains the case.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made to extend the law in relation to a cooling off period to protect consumers who(a) purchase holidays and (b) join a holiday club following a high pressure intensive sales presentation. [106933]

  Dr. Howells
  As announced in our White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers", the Government plan to review aspects of timeshare legislation and whether it needs updating. Among the issues to be reviewed will be holiday/vacation club schemes. However, my Department has received no representations for a cooling off period for consumers generally purchasing holidays and we have no plans to introduce one. We will be consulting on our timeshare proposals shortly.

  Garment Industry
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed in the garment industry in the United Kingdom(a) in the last 12 months in which figures are available, (b) in 1979 and (c) in 1992. [106922]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The information is available in the following table:

  United Kingdom employee jobs—Wearing Apparel

  Monthly data

  Thousand

  1979

  June

  317.3

  1992

  June

  165.3

  1998

  November

  139.8

  December

  137.2

  1999

  January

  136.2

  February

  132.8

  March

  130.2

  April

  127.2

  May

  125.5

  June

  124.5

  July

  123.2

  199W

  United Kingdom employee jobs—Wearing Apparel

  Monthly data

  Thousand

  August

  121.9

  September

  120.4

  October

  120.6

  Notes:

  1. Comprises Standard Industrial Classification division 18—manufacture of wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur

  2. Rounded to thousands

  3. Not seasonally adjusted

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  UK imports of soya from countries other than the USA

  £000

  SITC/CN and description

  1996

  1997

  1998

  January to September 1999

  08131

  Oil cake and residues of soya beans

  231,866

  210,606

  166,801

  109,028

  22220

  Soya beans

  124,461

  104,795

  88,509

  54,706

  120810000

  Flours and meals of soya beans

  3,903

  16,070

  9,370

  596

  42111

  Crude soya bean oil

  17,405

  10,711

  8,728

  3,762

  42119

  Refined soya bean oil

  19,971

  24,926

  26,094

  10,091

  Total

  397,606

  367,108

  299,502

  178,183

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise

  Postal Services Commission
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Chief Executive of the Postal Services Commission will be appointed. [107146]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Mr. Martin Stanley has been appointed as Chief Executive of the Postal Services Commission. He is a serving senior civil servant with considerable experience of working with industry.

  Shipbuilding
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the availability of Shipbuilding Intervention Fund grants for 2000. [107148]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have decided to extend the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund for currently eligible shipbuilding yards until 31 December 2000. Last year's rates were the highest possible within the EU' s Shipbuilding Regulation for new-build orders—and the Government will be keeping those rates for this year in a bid to help UK shipbuilders win more contracts and compete overseas.

  The rates of support will be unchanged from those in 1999, namely 9 per cent. for large ships and 4 per cent. for small ships. Both rates are inclusive of Shipbuilders' Relief of 2 per cent. I will also be extending the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund for conversion contracts at 2.25 per cent.

  Science
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action has been taken since May 1997

  Soya Imports
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry further to his answer of 20 January 2000,Official Report, columns 520–21W, how much soya was imported from countries other than the United States of America in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999; and how much was GM soya. [106962]

  Mr. Caborn
  The available information is given in the following table. Statistics compiled by HM Customs and Excise do not distinguish between GM soya and non-GM soya.

  by each of the research councils to improve participation, retention and progression in science of (a) women and (b) members of the ethnic minorities. [106052]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Research Councils are equal opportunities employers and actively monitor both gender and ethnicity in recruitment, salaries and staff performance. They have implemented specific activities to support this policy including: training staff of recruitment panels; support for the Daphne Jackson Fellowship scheme for women returnees; and participation in the Research Council-Wellcome study to investigate why fewer women than men apply for research funds. The Councils are also considering setting up an Equal Opportunities management group to share good practice and expertise.

  In 1997 the Research Careers Concordat signatories set up the Research Councils' initiative to implement improved terms and conditions of award for grant holders, students and fellows taking maternity leave.

  All Councils make efforts to ensure that women are nominated for committees and public bodies and collectively sponsor the publication of the AWISE (Association for Women in Science and Engineering) magazine.

  Further detail is available on the specific activities of each Council in its Annual Report.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the items in the National Asset Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 22 February
  201W
  1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104491]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not available in the form requested.

  The Department estimates that assets totalling approximately £6 million will be sold in the year beginning 1 April 1999 as set out in Table 3 of the Departmental Investment Strategy available in the Library of the House.

  Although not comprehensive in terms of all receipts, those from the sale of major assets, eg property, investments are separately identified in the Department's Appropriation Accounts which are published annually. Details of other asset sales are unavailable and could be extracted from records only at disproportionate cost. The Department's Resource accounts for 1999–2000 which will contain information about asset holdings and disposals will be published for the first time in autumn 2000. The Department's Executive Agencies already produce Annual Reports and Accounts, which contain similar information relating to assets. These Accounts are laid before Parliament and are available in the Library of the House. Accounts for our other associated public bodies are also available in the Library of the House.

  EU Copyright Directive
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what was discussed at the DTI-sponsored meeting on 7 October 1999, on the draft EU Directive on Copyright in the Information Society; [106054]

  (2) if it is the Government's policy to support the European Parliament's authorised wording of the draft EU Directive on Copyright in the Information Society. [106055]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: We are not convinced that the mandatory exception for certain temporary copies as proposed in Article 5.1 of the draft Directive is the right approach, and we feel that the European Parliament's proposal to limit this exception to cases where use of protected material has been authorised by right owners would achieve a fairer balance between the different interests involved. We do not consider that this amendment would prevent or inhibit caching or other acts by intermediaries, which would clearly be inappropriate. However, the Commission and several other Member States are opposed to the European Parliament amendment, and its seems unlikely that it will receive sufficient support to be adopted. We have therefore encouraged dialogue between intermediaries and right owners, who are concerned that Article 5.1 will impair their ability to control illegal uses of their material, in order to establish whether other approaches can be found which are mutually acceptable.

  We have no record of any meeting on the draft Directive arranged by the Department on 7 October 1999. However, we have facilitated several meetings between intermediaries and right owners on Article 5.1, and these discussions are continuing. We have also had numerous other meetings with a wide range of interested parties on various aspects of the Directive. We will, of course, continue with these consultation processes until negotiations on the Directive are completed.

  Military Exports (Pakistan)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for(a) standard and (b) open individual export licences for (i) military list and (ii) dual-use goods for proposed exports to Pakistan are currently awaiting a decision; and how many of these applications were made before 12 October 1999. [106645]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. As of 14 January 2000, decisions had not yet been taken on 76 applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) and 29 applications for an Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) to export to consignees or end-users in Pakistan goods listed in Part HI of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List, entered in the Council Regulation (EC) 3381/94 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use goods, or in Schedule 2 to the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996. Applications for individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings (and applications for OIELs may also cover a range of countries). Where this is so, the application is included in the table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Applications for individual licences pending as of 14 January 2000 covering the export of military goods to Pakistan

  Rating

  Number of applications for a SIEL pending covering goods with this rating

  Number of applications an OIEL pending for covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  5

  0

  ML2

  2

  0

  ML3

  3

  0

  ML4

  2

  0

  ML5

  1

  0

  ML6

  4

  2

  ML9

  10

  5

  ML10

  17

  6

  ML11

  2

  2

  ML13

  0

  4

  ML15

  0

  1

  ML16

  4

  1

  ML17

  2

  1

  ML18

  8

  0

  ML22

  0

  2

  PL5001

  0

  1

  PL5017

  2

  1

  End use

  15

  0

  Applications for individual licences pending as of 14 January 2000 covering the export of dual-use goods to Pakistan

  Rating

  Number of applications for a SIEL pending covering goods with this rating

  Number of applications for an OIEL pending covering goods with this rating

  S1 P1 G2

  0

  3

  1A005

  0

  3

  1C950

  0

  1

  2B350

  0

  1

  3A002

  1

  0

  5A002

  0

  1

  5D002

  0

  1

  203W

  Applications for individual licences pending as of 14 January 2000 covering the export of dual-use goods to Pakistan

  Rating

  Number of applications for a SIEL pending covering goods with this rating

  Number of applications for an OIEL pending covering goods with this rating

  6A001

  0

  1

  6A003

  0

  3

  7A101

  0

  1

  9A110

  0

  1

  Of these pending applications, 41 of those for SIELs and all of those for OIELs were received before 12 October 1999.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08W.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what categories of(a) standard and (b) open individual export licences have been (i) granted and (ii) refused for proposed exports of controlled goods to Pakistan since 12 October 1999. [106644]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 12 October 1999 and 14 January 2000, no Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and no Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Pakistan of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List, and goods entered in the Council regulation (EC) 3381/94 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use goods, or in Schedule 2 to the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996.

  In the same period two SIELs were refused covering goods with the rating end use, and no OIELs were refused.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08W.

  Export Licences (RDX)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many different United Kingdom companies or organisations have applied for export licences in respect of RDX in its raw form in the last two years. [106441]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 January 20001: The entry in the legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating and most ratings cover a range of goods. RDX in its raw form is controlled under entry ML8 in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 1999, the Export Control Organisation
  204W
  received 112 applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) and five applications for an Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) covering the export of goods with the rating ML8.

  These applications were made by 23 different United Kingdom companies or organisations. It would entail disproportionate cost to undertake an examination of the paper records of each of the 117 individual applications to establish which covered the export of RDX in its raw form.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08W.

  All applications for licences to export goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 are assessed against the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29W, and the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Labour Market (Stafford)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department makes available to businesses and local government agencies seeking to(a) diversify the labour market in and (b) promote inward investment to Stafford. [106673]

  Mr. Caborn
  Some £280 million European Social Funding under Objective 3 is being made available for training-related activities in the West Midlands. These can be targeted particularly at the disadvantaged in the labour market, including those made redundant or with outdated skills.

  My Department provides core funding for the inward investment activities of Advantage West Midlands. AWM works in partnership with InStaffs in Staffordshire and other local agencies to attract new investment from overseas and to support existing businesses.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of the opportunities for diversification of the labour market in Stafford. [106672]

  Mr. Caborn
  On 17 January I announced a team which will be drawn from local agencies to investigate the problems facing local businesses and communities in Stoke and North Staffordshire.

  I am pleased to confirm that I have asked Advantage West Midlands (The Development Agency) to extend this work to include Stafford.

  The first meeting of local partners and the team is on 26 January. I have asked for an interim report to be completed by 11 February.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is visiting the West Midlands on 25 February and has asked officials to see if it is possible to include a visit to Stafford in his programme.
  205W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will visit Stafford to meet representatives of local government agencies and businesses to discuss diversification of the labour market in Stafford and promotion of inward investment. [106674]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am always prepared to meet with colleagues to discuss such issues and I recognise the particular problems in Stafford resulting from the recent redundancies announced by Alstom.

  My Department provides core funding for the inward investment activities of Advantage West Midlands (The Development Agency). AWM works in partnership with InStaffs in Staffordshire and other local agencies to attract new investment from overseas and to support existing businesses.

  Alstom
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the restructuring by Alstom of its operations in Stafford on the local labour market. [106677]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is too early to assess the impact on Stafford's labour market of the proposed redundancies at Alstom. Officials from Staffordshire Training and Enterprise Council and the Employment Service will be meeting the company on 25 January. Following that meeting a clearer picture of the company's plans should emerge.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support his Department will make available to(a) Alstom, (b) the Employment Service and (c) the local authorities following the announcement of job losses at Alstom's Stafford sites. [106678]

  Mr. Caborn
  I understand that representatives of the Employment Service and Staffordshire Training and Enterprise Council are to meet with the Company on 25 January to determine the precise nature of the support package required for those people who may be made redundant at Alstom.

  They will then consider with the local authorities and Advantage West Midlands whether to apply for additional support from the Government's Rapid Response Fund to supplement what they are currently able to offer redundant workers. These include guidance interviews, retraining and job search facilities.

  Synchrotron
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requests the Office of Science and Technology has received from the Wellcome Trust to host an open competition to decide the location of the new synchrotron. [105626]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: According to the records of the Office of Science and Technology there have been no formal requests from the Wellcome Trust on hosting an open competition to decide the location of the new synchrotron. However, this issue was raised by the Wellcome Trust in a number of meetings with the Office of Science and Technology early in 1999, specifically on the 19 January and on the 26 January. Later discussions with the Wellcome Trust concerning the location of the new synchrotron have
  206W
  focused on the outcome of the investment appraisal that was undertaken for the Office of Science and Technology in June 1999. This study concluded that the current CCLRC sites would be more cost effective than a "green-field" site.

  Mirror Group
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from other Government departments in respect of the cost of the inquiry into Mirror Group Newspapers. [106352]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: I have received no such representation.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the representations he has received calling on him to conclude his Department's inquiry into Mirror Group on the grounds of cost. [106021]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: I have received no such representations.

  TransTec
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what departmental scrutiny has been applied to the Department for Trade and Industry grant awarded to TransTec for new premises at Coleshill, Birmingham, in 1988 since it was awarded. [106345]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Department operates established procedures to verify that businesses comply with the conditions attached to payments of grant. These include visits to premises and project reports with independent certification. There is provision for grant to be reclaimed if the conditions are not met. Following newspaper allegations, the Department is inviting Mr. Ayriss and Mr. Dickinson in for interview concerning the circumstances surrounding grants to the Trans Tec group of companies.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department first received reports of the financial difficulties of TransTec. [106347]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: Following the announcement of the suspension of shares on 24 December 1999.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the Government grants received by TransTec, since 1987. [106346]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Department's Selective Assistance database has no records of any grants or loans having been made to TransTec plc.

  In order to give as full a reply as possible I asked officials to identify grants paid to subsidiary companies which, according to TransTec plc's Annual Report for 1998 principally affected the results of the Group and its assets in that year. The Department has not been able to establish whether these companies were subsidiaries of TransTec plc at the time offers and payments of grants were made.

  The Department has no record in the database of any loans having been made to these companies.
  207W

  Companies from TransTec plc Annual Report who have had grant payments since 1 January 1987

  Company

  Scheme

  Amount paid (£)

  Date paid

  Transfer Technology Ltd.

  LINK1

  50,624

  1994 to 1995

  LINK1

  121,939

  1990 to 1992

  GICP2

  164,554

  1988 to 1989

  CA3

  4,354

  1989

  GICP2

  153,796

  1987 to 1988

  S74

  90,000

  1987 to 1989

  Elliott Plastic Components Ltd. (formerly Caradon Elliott Ltd.)

  S74

  200,000

  1989 to 1991

  A. L. Dunn & Co. Ltd.

  SFMP5

  29,799

  1987

  B. S. K. Aluminium Ltd.

  S74

  60,000

  1993 to 1995

  S74

  175,000

  1997

  Plasmar Ltd.

  CA3

  3,795

  1991

  CA3

  3,723

  1990

  S74

  75,000

  1988 to 1990

  Amchem Co. Ltd.

  CA3

  1,164

  1990

  SFI6

  29,275

  1987 to 1988

  Marwin Production Systems Ltd.

  CA3

  4,025

  1990

  Sarclad International Ltd.

  SPUR7

  111,226

  1993 to 1995

  SFI6

  24,650

  1987

  1 LINK: Collaborative research

  2 GICP: General Industrial Collaborative Projects

  3 CA: Consultancy Initiative

  4 S7: Regional Selective Assistance (Section 7)

  5 SFMP: Support For Major Projects (S8)

  6 SFI: Support for Innovation

  7 SPUR: Support for Projects Under Research

  In light of recent allegations I have asked officials to verify that for each of the grants listed in the table the conditions attached to the payment of grant have been complied with.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the meetings and events that Ministers and officials of his Department attended at which directors and personnel of TransTec were present in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998 and (e) 1999. [106351]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: No central record is maintained which could provide the information in the form requested.

  Ministerial Conflicts of Interest
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last reviewed his Department's guidance on ministerial conflicts of interest; and if he will publish the outcome of that review. [106350]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: Guidance on the avoidance of conflicts of interest by Ministers is contained in the Ministerial Code, published by the Prime Minister in July 1997.

  Misuse of Government Grants
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a list of his Department's procedures for dealing with reports of misuse of(a) DTI grants and (b) other Government grants. [106348]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: (a) The Department's Finance Handbook requires that whenever there is a suspected case of external fraud it should be notified immediately to Internal Audit Directorate, the Finance and Resource Management Directorate and Solicitors.
  208W
  (b) The procedures adopted by other Departments are a matter for each Department.

  Inquiries (Independent Inspection)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the DTI inquiries since 1985 that have been subject to independent inspection under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985. [106349]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The following schedule lists those appointments under section 432 which have been announced and where one or more of the inspectors were non-Departmental staff. However, all inspectors have a statutory authority separate from the Department.

  Company

  Date of appointment

  Milbury plc

  27 August 1985

  Guinness plc

  28 November 1986

  House of Fraser Holdings plc

  9 April 1987

  The Animal Defence Society Ltd.

  20 November 1987

  James Furguson Holdings plc

  10 June 1988

  Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd.

  10 June 1988

  Aldermanbury Trust plc

  1 September 1988

  County NatWest Ltd.

  19 December 1988

  County NatWest Securities Ltd.

  19 December 1988

  Sound Diffusion plc

  9 March 1989

  Blue Arrow plc

  26 May 1989

  The Bestwood plc

  23 June 1989

  Atlanta Fund Managers Ltd.

  23 June 1989

  The Milford Docks Company

  30 June 1989

  BOM Holdings Ltd.

  6 February 1990

  Atlantic Computers plc

  15 June 1990

  Atlantic Computer Systems plc

  15 June 1990

  London United Investments plc

  2 November 1990

  CR Driver and Company Ltd.

  2 November 1990

  Norton Group plc

  7 January 1991

  National Westminster Bank plc

  12 March 1992

  Mirror Group Newspapers plc

  8 June 1992

  Chancery plc

  5 August 1993

  Queens Moat Houses plc

  12 November 1993

  TransTec plc

  20 January 2000

  Lord Archer
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department expects to conclude its investigations of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare's share dealing. [106006]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: Inspectors were appointed by the then Secretary of State on 8 February 1994 to inquire into dealings in the shares of Anglia Television Group plc between 10 and 21 January 1994. The inspectors reported on 19 July 1994.

  The inspectors were reappointed by the Secretary of State on 4 May 1995 to inquire into dealings in the shares of Anglia between 20 December 1993 and 21 January 1994. The inspectors reported on 26 July 1996.

  On both occasions, in accordance with established procedures and legal constraints followed by successive Governments, the reports were not made public.

  Hollis Industries plc
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the cost was of the investigation into Hollis Industries plc; [106024]
  209W
  (2) what were the grades of the officials who investigated Hollis Industries plc; [106028]

  (3) when he received the result of the inquiry into Hollis Industries plc; [106022]

  (4) how many hours his Department's officials spent investigating Hollis Industries plc; [106026]

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 465W, concerning Hollis Industries plc, if he will place in the Library the documents setting out the normal procedures adopted by his Department in respect of internal DTI inquiries; [106097]

  (6) what steps were taken by his predecessor to examine the options available under the Companies Act 1985 to determine the appropriate method of inquiry into Hollis Industries plc; [106027]

  (7) if his Department's inquiry into Hollis Industries plc included examination of the disposal of Lock and PSS to TransTec; [106025]

  (8) if, upon taking office, he reviewed the terms of reference of the investigation into the affairs of Hollis Industries plc. [106023]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]: In line with normal procedures on such matters neither my predecessor nor myself took part in deciding the terms of reference of the investigation or the procedures or options under the Companies Act in relations to Hollis Industries inquiries.

  The procedures adopted in relation to the investigation into Hollis Industries were conducted in accordance with "the Investigation handbook" and "Investigations—how they work", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Records are not maintained in a way which enables figures to be given for the costs incurred. Staff at various grades were involved.

  I was informed on 9 December 1999 that the investigation was complete.

  In relation to the disposal of Lock and PSS to TransTec it is the long-established practice under successive Governments not to disclose details of individual investigations. However, when I appointed independent inspectors under Section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 on 20 January I asked them to investigate and report on the affairs of TransTec plc. It will be for the independent inspector to determine the detailed approach of the investigation.

  If they think it necessary for the purpose of their inspection they have the power to investigate other companies in the TransTec group and events from earlier in the company's history, including its acquisition of the assets of Lock and PSS.

  Indonesia (Military Exports)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by(a) type of equipment and (b) date of export the (i) military aircraft, (ii) light tanks and (iii) armoured vehicles which have been exported
  210W
  from the United Kingdom to Indonesia (a) from January 1998 to 16 September 1999 and (b) from 17 September 1999 to date. [105889]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details of major equipment exported to Indonesia in 1998 are included in Part 3 of the Government's second Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. This information is taken from the UK entry to the UN Arms Register. Details of exports from 1 January 1999 to 16 September 1999 will be published in due course in the next Annual Report. There was an EU embargo on export of military goods between 17 September 1999 and 16 January 2000.

  Information on the date of export is not published by Customs and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual revenue yield from increasing stamp duty rates on properties selling at(a) £500,000 and over and (b) £1 million and over, by 1 per cent. from existing levels in each case. [106506]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The 1999 Pre-Budget Report projection of stamp duty yield from land and property transactions was £3.2 billion for 2000–01. The estimates of extra revenue that would be raised from increasing the existing rate of duty of 3.5 per cent. to 4.5 per cent. are given in the table below:

  £ million

  Increasing rate on:

  Estimated yield

  Properties over £500,0001 (including those over £1 million)

  400

  Properties over £1 million1

  300

  1 Land and property including both residential and commercial

  VAT (Vehicle Repairs)
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has completed the review into the VAT treatment of vehicle repairs carried out by motor insurers; and if he will make a statement. [107039]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise have completed their review after consulting insurers, car repairers, and motoring organisations, including the Association of British Insurers and the Automobile Association, as well as the Office of Fair Trading. The insurers' investment in productivity helps the competitive development of the car repair market and I do not propose any change to the current rules.

  Poinding and Warrant Sales
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive concerning the implications of the Abolition of Poinding
  211W
  and Warrant Sales Bill for the debt-recovery procedure of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement. [105748]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Officials in the Revenue Departments and the Scottish Executive have discussed the implications of this Bill. They will also be considering the Scottish Law Commission's discussion paper on Poinding and Warrant Sales published in November last year. This raises similar considerations and looks at options for reform, and will be considered very carefully. Our main concern is to ensure that there will remain an adequate power of recovery in Scotland for the Revenue Departments.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the EU's budget, broken down by substantial composite budget category, is taken up by administrative costs (i) in real terms and (ii) expressed as a percentage. [106393]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 1998 (the most recent year for which final data are available) total administrative costs in the EU were 4,250 million euros in real terms.

  Total administrative costs as a percentage of the total Community budget in 1998 were 4.8 per cent.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received regarding the regulation of permanent health insurance companies by the Financial Services Authority; and if he will make a statement; [106494]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding third party access to the Financial Services Authority's single ombudsman service for employees covered by permanent health insurance; and if he will make a statement; [106497]

  (3) if permanent health insurers will be required to be authorised by the Financial Services Authority; [106498]

  (4) if he will list the criteria under which businesses with group permanent health insurance policies can complain to the insurance industry's ombudsman service; and if he will make a statement; [106502]

  (5) if group permanent health insurance policies will be covered by the Financial Services Authority's ombudsman scheme; [106499]

  (6) how many businesses have complained to the insurance industry's ombudsman service during the last year for which statistics are available; and how many complaints were successful. [106503]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Permanent health insurers carrying on business in the United Kingdom will be required to be authorised either by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) or, in the case of European Community companies incorporated and with their head offices in another member state, to be authorised in accordance with Article 6 of the first long term insurance Directive.

  No data are available which would distinguish enquiries and complaints brought by businesses as distinct from individuals.
  212W
  The Treasury receives considerable correspondence on a range of issues concerning the insurance industry, but representations about the regulation of permanent health insurance companies have not been especially prominent.

  The criteria that render a complaint eligible for consideration under the rules of the two main Ombudsmen schemes are determined by the schemes' terms of reference and by the interpretation of those terms by the parties to those arrangements.

  The Financial Services Authority and the Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme issued a consultation paper (FSA Consultation Paper 33) last November on various aspects of the proposed scheme. The consultation ends on 10 February 2000. Copies of the consultation document are available from the FSA.

  Departmental Productivity
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of his Department's activity, as targeted under Objective Ten of the PSA productivity targets, has been reviewed. [106800]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury's Public Service Agreement committed it to draw up a forward programme for reviewing services and activities systematically over five years under the Better Quality Services initiative by September 1999 and this has been achieved. Activities representing 34 per cent. of costs will have been reviewed by the end of the first year, and 60 per cent. of reviews should be complete by March 2003.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees of his Department took early retirement packages; and at what total cost in the financial year 1996–97. [104100]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Eight Treasury staff left the Department on early retirement terms in the financial year 1996–97. The Department incurred costs in respect of five of these totalling £195,324.63 in 1996–97.

  Venture Capital
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue yield for(a) the first year and (b) a full year from abolishing the (i) enterprise investment scheme and (ii) venture capital trusts; and if he will make a statement. [106463]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The estimated costs of tax reliefs for the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trusts are £100 million and £80 million respectively for 1999–2000. Investors generally claim tax relief under these schemes in their tax returns so the first year yield from abolition would be small. In practice it is unlikely that a yield of this order would be realised as the money which would have been invested in the schemes would be diverted elsewhere with a knock-on effect on other reliefs. The Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trust

  213W
  scheme play a valuable role in encouraging investment in small higher risk trading companies which have difficulty in raising capital from other sources to develop and grow.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) first year and (b) full year revenue yield from introducing a single, untapered, rate of capital gains tax of 40 per cent.; how this yield would change over each of the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [106508]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The full year yields, first year and medium terms, of charging a 40 per cent. tax rate, irrespective of income, on the untapered gains of all individuals and trusts are shown in the table. Estimates are given after taking into account the likely effect on capital gains tax yield of changes to the volume and timing of disposals in a full year, caused by changes in taxpayers' behaviour. Capital Gains Tax liabilities for 2000–01 will normally be payable in 2001–02.

  Capital gains made

  Charge all untapered gains to tax at 40 per cent.

  Full year yield 2000–01 £ million

  Full year yield Medium term £ million

  With behavioural effects (volume and timing)

  600

  800

  Capital gains made by companies, including those gains of insurance companies which are attributable to policy holders, are chargeable to corporation tax and, as such, excluded from the above figures.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue yield from abolishing capital gains tax relief on gains accrued but unrealised at death; and if he will make a statement. [106460]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The latest available estimate of the cost of Capital Gains Tax relief for gains accrued but unrealised at death is £850 million for 1999–2000.

  In practice, the yield from abolition of the relief may be significantly different from the existing cost owing to changes in taxpayers' behaviour.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual(a) first year and (b) full year revenue yield from reducing the capital gains tax annual exempt amount for individuals to (i) £5,000, (ii) £2,500 and (iii) zero; and if he will make a statement. [106507]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The full year yields from reducing the Annual Exempt Amount to £5,000 and £2,500 respectively from 2000–01 are shown in the table. Estimates are given after taking into account the likely effect on capital gains tax yield of changes to the volume of disposals in a full year, caused by changes in taxpayers' behaviour. Capital Gains Tax liabilities for 2000–01 will normally be payable in 2001–02.
  214W

  Reducing annual exempt amount to:

  Full year yield 2000–01 £ million

  Full year yield medium term £ million

  With behavioural effects

  £5,000

  100

  150

  £2,500

  350

  450

  Comparable estimates for very low levels of the AEA, and zero in particular, cannot be made with sufficient precision as some of the underlying assumptions become increasingly inappropriate and the effect of taxpayers' behaviour cannot be estimated reliably.

  However, the latest estimate of the cost of the Annual Exempt Amount is £2,000 million for 1999–2000.

  Child Benefits
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are the(a) post-tax earnings and (b) total child-related benefits of a dual-earner couple with two children under the age of 11 years, both earning the minimum wage and where one works (i) full-time and (ii) 16 hours a week; [106137]

  (2) what are the (a) post-tax earnings and (b) total child-related benefits of a single parent with two children under the age of 11 years, earning the minimum wage and working (i) full-time and (ii) 16 hours a week. [106136]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Figures for those earning the minimum wage and with two children under 11 are given in the table. Child benefit is the only child-related benefit.

  £/week

  Earnings, less income tax and National Insurance contributions, plus Working Families Tax Credit

  Child Benefit

  Couple

  Both working full time

  256.80

  24.00

  One working full time, one working 16 hours per week

  231.45

  24.00

  Lone Parent

  Working full time

  205.53

  124.00

  Working 16 hours per week

  149.60

  124.00

  1 Lone parents who claimed child benefit before July 1998 and have claimed continuously as lone parents are entitled to a higher rate of child benefit. It can also be claimed by lone parents in continuous receipt of the lone parent premium in IS/JSA moving off benefit into work; or who come off certain other benefits providing the claim is made within one month of coming off the other benefit. With two children under 11 such lone parents would receive £26.70 instead of £24.00.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional yield for National Insurance contributions in each of the next five financial years if the upper earnings limit for employee contributions and the upper profits limit for self-employed contributions were to be raised in line with average earnings. [103142]
  215W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The levels of upper earnings limits have been announced for 2000–01 and 2001–02. However, if the limits were increased in the following three years by average earnings instead of inflation then the additional yield this would generate is shown in the table:

  Weekly level of the UEL/UPL if increased by average earnings from 2001–02 (£)

  Yield against current proposals (£ million)

  2002–03

  600

  130

  2003–04

  625

  200

  2004–05

  650

  335

  The estimates are consistent with projections given in the November 1999 pre-Budget Report.

  Tax and Benefits Reform
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his tax and benefits reforms in making work pay. [106862]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to creating employment opportunities for those who want to work while providing security for those who cannot.

  A key element of this strategy is to ensure that work pays by creating the right incentives, through the tax and benefit system, at every level of the labour market.

  The Working Families Tax Credit, combined with the reforms to income tax and National Insurance Contributions, extends employment opportunity for all and increases the rewards from work.
  Combined with the National Minimum Wage and other tax and benefit reforms the WFTC will guarantee a minimum income of £200 a week for a family with someone in full-time employment—£80 a week more than a couple would receive on Income Support;
  The Working Families Tax Credit helps make work pay for 1.4 million low and middle income working families with children who gain, on average, £24 a week more than under Family Credit;
  The 10p rate of income tax halves the marginal tax rate for 2.3 million people of which 1.7 million are low paid;
  Reforms to National Insurance Contributions will remove 1 million low paid people from national insurance.

  Taxes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of its income an average family paid in direct and indirect taxes from 1970–71 to date; what estimate he has made of the proportion from 2000–01 to 2001 05; and on what assumptions these figures are based. [104278]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available data are as follows:

  Percentage of income paid in direct taxes by an average family

  Year

  Percentage

  1970–71

  18.8

  1971–72

  17.7

  1972–73

  17.5

  1973–74

  19.6

  216W

  Percentage of income paid in direct taxes by an average family

  Year

  Percentage

  1974–75

  22.2

  1975–76

  25.7

  1976–77

  24.6

  1977–78

  22.5

  1978–79

  20.9

  1979–80

  18.9

  1980–81

  20.8

  1981–82

  22.5

  1982–83

  22.8

  1983–84

  22.4

  1984–85

  22.0

  1985–86

  22.0

  1986–87

  21.9

  1987–88

  21.4

  1988–89

  20.7

  1989–90

  20.8

  1990–91

  20.8

  1991–92

  20.7

  1992–93

  20.2

  1993–94

  20.3

  1994–95

  21.7

  1995–96

  22.4

  1996–97

  21.5

  1997–98

  20.9

  1998–99

  21.0

  1999–2000

  20.4

  2000–01

  20.5

  2001–02

  18.9

  Direct taxes are defined as Income Tax plus National Insurance minus Child Benefit. In line with long-standing convention, Child Benefit is treated as a negative component of income tax, making it consistent with child tax allowances prior to 1976. In order to provide data back to 1970 figures provided are for a one earner married couple on male mean earnings with two children.

  No estimates of the tax burden at the detailed household level are available beyond 2001–02.

  Estimating the impact of indirect taxes is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income. The level of council tax payments will also vary depending on where families live.

  VAT
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 352W, on VAT, what assessment he has made of the feasibility of making further reductions on the level of VAT charged on the installation of energy saving measures. [106696]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government have already introduced a reduced rate of 5 per cent., the lowest rate possible in EC law, for grant-funded installations of energy saving materials. EC law does not permit us to introduce a reduced rate for supplies of energy saving materials for do-it-yourself installation.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to use all the receipts from the windfall tax by May 2002. [106797]
  217W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Table 4.1 of the 1999 Pre-Budget Report sets out the latest estimated allocation of the windfall tax receipts between different welfare-to-work programmes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a licensed establishment would need to obtain permission from his Department to cut the vocal cords of dogs. [106656]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Any procedure performed on a living animal at an establishment designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for an experimental or other scientific purpose that might have the effect of causing pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to that animal would require a licence. This would include the cutting of the vocal cords of dogs. However, if that procedure was performed as an act of veterinary surgery, and not for an experimental or other scientific purpose, a licence under the 1986 Act would not be required.

  Commercial dog breeding establishments and licensed pet shops, that sell dogs to the general public, are subject to licensing control under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 as amended by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999. The Home Office has issued detailed guidance to local authorities on the legislation but it has no role to play in enforcing this legislation, which is the responsibility of the local authorities.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many pigs were used in the xenotransplantation research carried out in the UK during(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999; [106659]

  (2) how many deaths of primates there were in kidney and heart xenotransplantation research carried out in the UK during (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999; and what was the reason for each death. [106658]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My officials are seeking to collate these data but require more time. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to review and improve the regulations concerning the standards of care and welfare of circus animals; and if he will make a statement; [106662]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to require circus trainers to undertake formal courses in animal care and welfare; and if he will make a statement; [106664]

  (3) if he intends to restrict circus trainers to the use of a positive reinforcement approach when training animals; and if he will make a statement; [106667]

  (4) if he will take steps to require more precise record-keeping in respect of the welfare of individual circus animals; and if he will make a statement; [106663]

  (5) if he will introduce standards of care and welfare for circus animals to ensure that all performance routines are extensions of natural behaviour and within the capability of the animal; and if he will make a statement. [106666]
  218W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are considering recommendations about circus animals submitted by the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, at this time. We have not prepared new regulations or requirements concerning the training and welfare of such animals, but a draft code has been prepared by the Association of Circus Proprietors. This seeks to promote best practice on all aspects of the care of circus animals and, as part of that approach, it requires trainers to be suitably qualified and to use positive reinforcement methods. We are examining the draft.

  There is likely to be little opportunity for Government legislation on the matter in the near future, but it is already an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering. Further protection is provided by the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925. Under this, police and local authority officers have inspection powers and recourse to magistrates courts, which may make orders prohibiting or restricting the use of performing animals that have been cruelly treated when trained or exhibited.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of controls on pet suppliers; and if he will make a statement. [106660]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We consider the existing controls to be adequate and have no plan to review them at the moment.

  Pet shops are licensed by local authorities under the Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended in 1983), and subject to licence conditions to safeguard the health and welfare of the animals in their charge. In addition, it is an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal—this applies to pet shop keepers as to anyone else. Certain endangered animals imported for the pet trade are also protected under European Wildlife Regulations, which implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). In addition, some exotic pets can only lawfully be sold to people subject to stringent licence controls imposed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, and there are statutory restrictions on trade in United Kingdom wildlife species.

  The Pet Care Trust has produced a code of practice for retailers of pets. This highlights key licence conditions, and includes a recommendation that, where appropriate, customers of pet shops should be given leaflets or other literature containing advice on how to care for the animals they have purchased.

  Internet Betting
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans have been made by the Tote to establish an Internet-based betting centre offshore. [106705]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Pluto (Alderney) Limited, in which the Tote is a minority partner, has obtained a licence to operate an electronic betting site in Alderney; further steps remain under consideration.

  Drug Use (Prisons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of drug use have been detected in prisons for each year since 1997. [106580]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table gives figures on the number of samples that have tested positive for drugs under the mandatory drug testing programme for each financial year since 1997. The figures include the results of both random and targeted testing.

  Number of mandatory drug test samples testing positive

  1997–98

  20,346

  1998–99

  19,318

  1999–20001

  11,658

  1 Year to date figures, April-November 1999

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters dated 23 September, 11 November and 16 December from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Munir Alam. [106836]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, wrote to my right hon. Friend today. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters dated 28 September, 11 November and 16 December from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Muzzamil Hussain. [106835]

  Mr. Boateng
  I offer unreserved apologies to my right hon. Friend for the failure to reply on time to his letters of 28 September, 11 November and 16 December with regard to Muzzamil Hussain a prisoner currently in Sudbury prison. Performance of this kind in relation to correspondence from hon. Members is, of course, unacceptable and I have taken steps to ensure that the circumstances of this particular case are not repeated.

  In keeping with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend in his correspondence, the prisoner concerned was released from Wealdstun prison on 28 September on compassionate grounds and again on 29 September 1999 to enable him to attend his father's funeral.

  Alexander Schweidler
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what investigation his Department has undertaken into the war-time activities of Alexander Schweidler; [106828]

  (2) when Alexander Schweidler received UK citizenship; and if he will review the information given in the application for naturalisation; [106827]

  (3) what police investigations have taken place in relation to Alexander Schweidler under the War Crimes Act 1991; and if he will make a statement. [106829]

  Mr. Straw
  Mr. Schweidler was granted British citizenship in 1964. I understand that he died on 24 January. His case was one of just under 400 cases involving allegations of offences under the War Crimes Act 1991 220W
  investigated by the Metropolitan police service War Crimes Unit during the 1990s. Police investigations into allegations against Mr. Schweidler started in 1994. I understand there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution. There have been no investigations separate to these.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the draft of the Data Protection (Crown Appointments) Order 1999, for what reasons it is proposed to make personal data about the Provost of Eton, the Poet Laureate and the Astronomer Royal subject to an exemption. [106060]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Order exempts from the subject information provisions personal data processed for the purposes of assessing any person's suitability for certain offices. Like the other positions cited in the draft Order, these are Crown appointments. They typically involve communications between the Sovereign and the Prime Minister and involve information and judgments on individuals, often provided in confidence by third parties.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the draft of the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 1999, for what reasons each exemption is necessary; if he will provide examples illustrating the distinction between public interest and substantial public interest wherever the latter term is used in the Order; what discussions he had on paragraph 5 of the Order with those authorities responsible for advising the Government on matters relating to genetics; and if he has notified the European Commission of the effect of the Order. [106058]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Each provision in the Schedule to the draft order is necessary to permit the processing of sensitive personal data in connection with the purpose or function referred to in the paragraph. Without such an order the first data protection principle in Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 would prohibit the processing. As required by article 8.4 of the European Commission Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), the processing may be carried out only if it is in the substantial public interest. There is no express reference to the substantial public interest in paragraphs in the Schedule to the draft order where the categories of processing described are considered always to be in the substantial public interest. Where there is such a reference, this is required to meet the requirements of article 8.4, as the general category of processing described may otherwise include some processing which may not be in the substantial public interest. The draft order has been prepared following a public consultation exercise and discussions with many organisations which process sensitive data and with the Data Protection Registrar. The Government have not expressly sought the views of genetics advisory bodies. The Government do not intend to inform the European Commission of the provision made in the draft order prior to it being considered by Parliament.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub-post offices. [105864]
  221W
  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 520W.

  Ronnie Biggs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant an amnesty to Mr. Ronnie Biggs on grounds of the state of his health to enable him to return to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [106073]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to grant any form of "amnesty" to Mr. Ronnie Biggs.

  Police Salaries
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees in the police are in the salary bands(a) less than £10,000, (b) £10,000 to £12,500, (c) £12,500 to £15,000, (d) £15,000 to £17,500, (e) £17,500 to £20,000, (f) £20,000 to £22,500, (g) £22,500 to £25,000, (h) £25,000 to £30,000, (i) £30,000 to £35,000, (j) £35,000 to £40,000, (k) £40,000 to £45,000, (l) £45,000 to £50,000, (m) £50,000 to £55,000, (n) £55,000 to £60,000 and (o) more than £60,000. [106049]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not held centrally on the numbers of police officers and police support staff paid within these specific salary bands. It is possible, however, to give the numbers of police officers serving in each rank, using figures correct at 31 March 1999, together with the range of salaries in each rank effective from 1 September 1999. The salary ranges given are for officers serving in provincial forces; officers serving in London receive additional allowances. The salary figures do not include overtime (where applicable) or other allowances.

  As at 31 March 1999 the total number of police officers (including those at the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad) was 125,417 comprising:
  51 at Chief Constable rank on a salary of £73,617 or above.
  157 at Assistant Chief Constable rank on a salary range of £61,428 to £74,040.
  1,241 at Superintendent rank on a salary range of £43,143 to £53,556.
  6,039 at Inspector and 1,651 at Chief Inspector rank on a salary range of £32,862 to £39,687.
  19,039 at Sergeant rank on a salary range of £25,407 to £29,634.
  97,239 at Constable rank on a salary range of £16,635 to £26,325.

  As at 31 March 1999 there were 53,031 full-time equivalent civilian police support staff (excluding traffic wardens). There is no centrally held data on the gradings and salaries of these staff.

  Police Officers (Benefits)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of police officers who are in receipt of means-tested benefits; and if he will make a statement. [105605]
  222W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no data held centrally on the numbers of police officers who may be in receipt of means-tested benefits.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his policy to encourage these with experience of other professions and with skills developed in other careers to join the police; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of police rates of pay to attract such recruits; [105610]

  (2) what account is taken of their prior skills and experience in setting the starting pay of new entrants to the police forces of England and Wales; [105607]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the recruitment of mature individuals by the police and of the pay levels of such new entrants in their previous employment. [105614]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The recruitment of police officers is a matter for individual forces. There is no upper age limit for recruits, and applicants of all ages and background who fulfil the force entry criteria are encouraged to join. Clearly there is value in recruiting people with a wide range of skills and experience. Centrally held data are not available on the ages of recruits or their previous work experience.

  Police rates of pay are contained within Police Regulations. There is an annual pay award for federated ranks, settled by a formula which keeps police pay in line with inflation. In 1998, pay was increased by 4.0 per cent. and in 1999 by 3.6 per cent.

  Starting pay for recruits has been raised as a possible deterrent to applications from mature candidates who would be otherwise suitable for appointment. We are considering the issue and will refer it to the Police Negotiating Board if this seems warranted.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of starting salary was for new recruits to the police forces of England and Wales in each of the last three years(a) in cash terms and (b) as a proportion of earnings. [105604]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The annual pay award for federated ranks is paid with effect from 1 September each year. The starting salary for appointments on probation (new recruits to the police service) in the year from 1 September 1997 was £15,438; it was £16,056 in the year from 1 September 1988 and £16,635 in the year from 1 September 1999.

  At current rates of pay, a recruit will receive a pay rise to £18,612 on completion of 32 weeks initial training and a further rise, on completion of 2 years probation, to £19,713.

  In 1997, the starting pay of appointments on probation (£15,438) was 80 per cent. of national average earnings; in 1998 (£16,056), 81 per cent. and in 1999 (£16,635), 79 per cent.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Reading: Key Stage 2 Assessments
Lord Quirkasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the adequacy of information on reading ability provided by the tests at key stage 2.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we have confidence in the assessment arrangements to provide reliable results of pupil attainment at all key stages. The reading test at key stage 2 is designed to provide information about children's ability to read for accuracy and knowledge of language as well as reading for meaning. The Government are fully satisfied that the outcomes from the reading tests provide the information needed for the improvement of literacy skills.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I have no doubt that she recognises the crucial importance of key stage 2; that is the point at which children move from primary schools, where the teachers know them, to secondary schools where the teachers do not.
First, is it not the case that the present SATs at key stage 2 (which blandly lump together all four of the English skills) provide secondary schools with next to no help in identifying what may be 20 per cent of the new intake who will need special reading lessons in order to engage properly in secondary education?
Secondly, is the Minister aware that, in consequence, secondary schools—not least specialist schools like the John Cabot in Bristol with an intake from literally scores of primary feeder schools—have to use their resources and time to set their own reading tests and assessments in order to identify those who need help?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is not true to say that the SATs scores lump everything together. Children's performances are looked at in terms of a whole range of different aspects of English. Indeed, the reading scores, for example, have improved rather more than the writing scores. But I entirely accept that it is important that, when children transfer from primary to secondary schools, the secondary school teachers are given the maximum amount of information about the performance of those pupils so that they can work with them to improve the areas where they are weakest. It is important to remember also that the SATs are not the only measure of a child's
1412
performance; the teacher's assessment is equally important. That is particularly valuable and of significance in planning future learning. Both sets of results have to be reported to parents as well as to the secondary schools.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, this may be anecdotal evidence, but many noble Lords will not understand the technicalities of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and the Minister. What worries us, and what teachers tell me, is that literacy is less than it was in 1900. Do the Government worry about that?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is difficult to come to any firm conclusion as to whether or not literacy is worse now than it was in 1900. I do not know what anecdotal information the noble Lord is basing his statement on. I do not know how many people he knows who learnt to read before 1900, though there are a few of them around.
However, the noble Lord is right in drawing attention to the fact that we all need to be concerned about levels of literacy in our schools. Indeed, with that in mind the Government introduced a national literacy strategy in order to put more emphasis on the teaching of reading, not just in our primary schools, but also in our secondary schools where young people do not perform at the level they should.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can the Minister advise me whether, in her opinion, the literacy hour has been a success? If she evaluates it as a success, perhaps she can give us her view as to how that success has been manifested.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that question. It is early days to judge the literacy strategy but so far it seems to be working. The percentage of pupils achieving the expected level for their age at key stage 2—in other words, at the age of 11—rose by 5 per cent last year up to 70 per cent. But we must not be complacent about that. We have an ambitious target to take that figure of 70 per cent to 80 per cent and will want to raise it even further when we reach 80 per cent.
Lord Tope: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while reading ability is obviously important, so too is understanding what is read and the two do not necessarily go together? Can the Minister tell us what information she has in relation to an increase in standards or otherwise at key stage 2 in comprehension as distinct from simply reading ability?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the tests do not simply measure an ability to read; they also measure comprehension. The improvement to which I referred applies to comprehension as well as straight reading skills.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that dyslexia can seriously impede the academic development of a child and therefore interfere also

1413
with their personality and behaviour? It is suprisingly difficult to diagnose. Can she assure us that tests for dyslexia or the means of diagnosing it are available at all the key stages?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about the importance of early identification of children who are dyslexic. We must ensure that we identify them as soon as possible and give them the extra support and help that they need. This is a difficult area where teachers obviously need as much training as they can possibly get, together with the experience of knowing how to apply that training. I believe that a considerable amount of work is being done in this respect, including in-service training of primary school teachers in particular and the making available of tests that will help to diagnose this impediment.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, again, this is anecdotal, although I cannot go back to 1900. However, does my noble friend the Minister accept that between the 1950s and the 1970s the proportion of primary school children who entered secondary education as free readers improved dramatically? If there is a weakness in the present situation, is that not due to the fact that there may not be the time or the opportunity in secondary schools to promote reading as much as it should be?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords; I accept that. However, we must not forget the huge importance of primary education from this point of view. Secondary schools should not have to be teaching reading. They should really be getting on with the business of developing the National Curriculum for key stages 3 and 4. If they have to spend a lot of time on remedial work teaching children to read, it gets in the way of progress in other areas.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the reading section of English key stage 2 has nine parts and that they, in turn, contain a total of 48 areas of study—areas which cover a very wide range of topics? Can my noble friend say what degree of success is being achieved in what appears to be a very demanding range of study? I have to say that I thought I heard perhaps a little over-confidence in my noble friend's first reply. I should like to have further information in that respect.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in order to test children adequately it is right to consider a wide range of different skills; otherwise it would be very easy to accuse the QCA and others who are involved in developing these tests of focusing too narrowly and on too-limited a range of items. However, I have to tell my noble friend that I do not believe that I was being in any way over-confident. I recognise that we still have
1414
a very long way to go. As far as concerns reading, we have to get well above the 70 per cent of children who reached the expected target in 1999.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that some of the very best of our primary schools, which are achieving very well for their children, find the literacy strategy much too prescriptive and inhibiting in that it does not allow enough professional freedom, whereas those schools that could do with improving welcome it? Instead of having a blanket policy, would it not be better to allow the schools that are achieving very well by their pupils the possibility of varying the literacy strategy?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, when establishing a strategy of this kind, it is more important to make sure that it is universally being adhered to. I take the point that the noble Baroness is making. We need to make the system sufficiently flexible to enable those schools that are already reaching the target to go beyond it. Indeed, that is what we are working to achieve.

Penalty Fares
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to review the penalty fares systems currently in use on the railways.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to review the penalty fares system. Train operators' penalty fares schemes are a matter for the Rail Regulator.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, the noble Lord will be aware that railway penalty fares schemes arouse some anger among passengers who think they are unfair. One reason why they believe them to be unfair is that it is so often quite difficult to buy a ticket in the first place. Can the noble Lord tell us whether the Government feel that they can use the franchising arrangements to ensure that the levying of penalty fares will only be allowed for train companies that provide adequate and convenient ticket purchasing facilities?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I know from the reaction in the House today that many noble Lords share the sentiments that lie behind the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. However, under the Transport Bill, which is presently going through its Committee stage in another place, responsibility for penalty fares schemes will be transferred from the Office of the Rail Regulator to the strategic rail authority. We feel that the interests of consumers are better placed there. But

1415
that is not in any way to undermine the splendid efforts that the Office of the Rail Regulator has made to ensure that there is a high degree of assurance in the present schemes and that inspectors exercise their discretion properly. We would also ask, quite reasonably, that passengers allow sufficient time for purchase of their tickets. Let us be clear: if there are no facilities available for the purchase of a ticket, there is no liability.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I introduced a private Bill on this subject some years ago and therefore I have a particular interest in it. Is the Minister aware that at that time there was much discussion as regards the necessity of providing machines which issue permits to travel? When these machines are available they work well. The machines are meant to record the station of embarkation and the date and time of embarkation. Will the regulator insist, or can it be provided for in the Bill at present before Parliament or in regulations, that every station has such a machine? Such a system would certainly distinguish between those who deliberately seek to evade paying their fare and those who simply cannot buy a ticket because the facilities to do so are not available.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, that is certainly a suggestion that the Rail Regulator and the strategic rail authority might bear in mind. I know that where these machines are in operation they seem to work well. However, we should also be aware that where any penalty is about to be imposed it is possible under the present system for checks to be made to ascertain whether ticket offices were open and facilities for buying a ticket available. When a penalty is imposed, information is issued on how an appeal may be made against that penalty.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a considerable difference between a penalty fare and a fine imposed by a court for deliberately attempting to evade payment, and that no criminal stigma whatever is attached to the many distinguished public figures who cheerfully pay up when they find that, because of an honest mistake, they do not have a ticket? However, will my noble friend confirm that deliberate fare evasion is stealing by another name and that penalty fares were introduced in the 1980s on what used to be called Network SouthEast because the railways were losing in excess of£50 million a year and people who did not pay their fares were being subsidised by those of us who did?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I readily confirm that a penalty fare is a supplementary fare and is not a fine and that fare evasion is a criminal offence. However, the amount of moneys raised—I think of London Transport rather than the railways in this connection— are small in the context of the overall revenues raised by London Underground, for
1416
example. However, I take my noble friend's point about the importance of deterrence. That deterrence must, of course, always be mediated by discretion.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the situation not confusing for passengers? On the Gatwick Express and the Heathrow Express one is positively encouraged to buy one's ticket on the train, but on the Stansted train, if one does not have a ticket, one is liable to a penalty fare. How can the average passenger know what he is supposed to do on those trains? How can foreign visitors in particular know what they are supposed to do?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am, of course, grateful to the previous government for the thorough work they undertook when instituting the present system in 1996. I accept that there can be differences, but there is no appropriate system that fits all train services. For example, guards travel on InterCity train services, but the majority of branch line stations are unstaffed. I accept that there is inevitably confusion, particularly for those new to our transport systems. However, I hope that advances in technology, and in smartcard travel and so on, will begin to minimise the kind of inconvenience that is too often experienced.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that in a few years' time, if Britain belonged to the single currency, tourists coming pinto the United Kingdom, or British tourists returning, say, from Portugal with escudos jingling in their pockets, would not be embarrassed at barriers trying to buy tickets for trains?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the question of the euro is just slightly less sensitive than the question relating to the escudos. Therefore I shall reply by saying, "In all probability, yes".

Directors' Remuneration: Consultative Document
2.54 p.m.
Lord Smith of Cliftonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the response of companies in implementing the recommendations of the combined code issued by the Department of Trade and Industry in July 1999 requiring shareholder involvement in the determination of executive directors' remuneration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultative document on directors' remuneration in July last year which set out the Government's proposals for strengthening the current regulatory and best practice frameworks in this area. The consultative document made it clear that the Government are

1417
concerned that some quoted companies have failed to comply in full with the spirit of the recommendations made by the Greenbury Group in 1995. The responses to the consultative document have been carefully considered and the Secretary of State expects to announce his conclusions next month.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. I am glad to learn that the Secretary of State will make an announcement on this matter. However, only last month the Pensions & Investment Research consultancy showed that about 27 per cent, or 500 companies in this country, were putting directors' remuneration to their shareholders at general meetings. That is a low degree of compliance. I should like further assurance that the Government will take this matter seriously when the Secretary of State makes his announcement next month.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figures that the noble Lord mentioned are an improvement on the PriceWaterhouse conclusions of May 1999 which were reported to the House by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury in October last. However, the noble Lord is quite right to say that the position is not satisfactory. I give him the assurance that this is one of the issues that will be addressed when the Secretary of State makes his announcement.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, given that executive remuneration has been growing by 10 to 15 per cent year on year for many years now, while the remuneration of other people has grown by only 3 to 5 per cent—in other words, the result of this is growing inequality—and given the resulting scepticism when it is suggested that shareholders should blow the whistle, does not my noble friend the Minister agree that there will be a need for Ministers to revisit the basic parameters of public policy when they undertake the review which the Minister mentioned?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure what my noble friend means by revisiting the basic parameters of public policy. Certainly the statement which the Secretary of State will make next month will cover all of the issues which were addressed in the consultative document last year. In the end it must be for shareholders to determine remuneration, but it is for government to ensure a framework for remuneration which supports the need for directors to be accountable to shareholders. My noble friend refers to the rise in directors' remuneration over the years at a rate higher than inflation and higher than the rise in remuneration of their employees. Clearly an increase in differentials between directors and employees, except in exceptional circumstances, is not in the best interests of a company or its shareholders.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the Government announce their conclusions on the matter of directors' remuneration, will the Minister undertake
1418
that the Government will consult with some of his noble friends who have experience of high salaries, share options and golden handshakes? Is he aware that many of them are singularly absent today?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has never been my view that socialists have to be bad at their jobs.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the phrase "shareholder involvement" can have a number of different meanings? It may mean the influence of major institutional shareholders, who, I should have thought, have a lot of "clout" already with the board of the company concerned. Alternatively, it may mean the mass of ordinary shareholders who might number tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands and whose views are difficult to ascertain. It may also mean—this may be the meaning of the phrase in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Smith—shareholders at general meetings who comprise a self-selecting group who may be there for the refreshments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one of the considerations that has been put forward in all seriousness is that if you have a shareholders' vote on directors' remuneration more shareholders will come to meetings and refreshment costs will rise. I do not think that is a very serious consideration. My noble friend is right, there are a number of ways in which accountability of directors to shareholders could be improved. It could be by a shareholders' vote; it could be by new disclosure requirements on remuneration; it could be in the way the listing rules are framed; it could be in the role of independent non-executive directors; or it could be in a strengthening of the combined code. These are all matters that the Secretary of State can address in his Statement.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the advice of the late J. Peter Grace, who used to tell his most highly paid executives, "I do not have a problem paying you that sort of money; you just have a problem earning it"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that sounds like very good advice. Of course there are exceptional people for whom exceptional earnings are appropriate. But far too often we see exceptional earnings being given to mediocre people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as we have time, perhaps I may come back on this. I thank the Minister for his answer, with which I absolutely agree. Do I therefore take it that if people do a good job they deserve their high salaries and their share options? I am not quite so sure about the golden handshakes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that there are exceptional people for whom exceptional remuneration—which can include all kinds of

1419
considerations other than basic salary—would be appropriate. However, the problem, as I think the noble Lord will recognise, is that in respect of too many people high remuneration is accompanied by mediocre performance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does that apply to Ministers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Ministers are not directors. They are certainly not directors of quoted companies They do not come within the scope of the review.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whiny.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Promotion of well-being]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("they consider").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment standing in my name, I should like to begin with a heart-felt tribute to the party opposite. I do not think that, as yet, the patty I support has acquired the great skills which the party now in government had when it was in opposition and which it so frequently displayed. It was really very good. if I may so, at mustering indignation when a measure which it regarded as being incompetent and inadequate was put before it by the government of the day.
Today I am left wondering what on earth that party would have said if it had been confronted with this Bill. I believe this Bill is a rotten one. It is an example to any government and to any student of government of how a government ought not to proceed.
I begin by referring the Committee to the Second and Third Reports of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We are all indebted to that committee for its singularly valuable work. It states in paragraph 2 of the Second Report of 15th December that,
"The Department's Memorandum states that the Government is already proposing to table a number of amendments to the Bill at committee stage which will confer new powers or affect powers already in the bill".
If the Minister has not already done so, I hope that he will take note of the sentence that follows:
"We do not think it satisfactory to proceed in this way".
In the following Third Report of the same committee, we are informed that the Government have to date tabled 140 amendments. Perhaps there are more, I do not know. My noble friend on the Front Bench is indicating that there are many more. Some 140 amendments are enough to start with, and quite enough for the Government to be thoroughly ashamed of. I am waiting until I have the Minister's attention. I am much obliged. There were 140 amendments at the time of the Third Report of the Select Committee. I do not know how many there are now. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench knows.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My noble friend will be interested to hear that there are now 284 government amendments. I am not sure whether that will be the final tally.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I apologise to the Committee for being so out of date. I had obviously underrated hopelessly the Government's incompetence, their disregard of Parliament and their generally sloppy ways of handling legislation. There are some 285 amendments so far to this already bad Bill. It would be exceeding all the bounds of optimism if one were to suppose that even a very small proportion of those amendments would result in any acceptable improvement. I hope that when the Minister replies we will hear him speak on the subject of the number of amendments that are now before us and about whether he expects to table a lot more before the end of the Committee stage.
I am moving Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List. The clause that I seek to amend contains the words,
"Every local authority is to have power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one … of the following objects".
Local authorities are being given huge powers here. My amendment seeks to place some onus on them to prove that their actions are necessary and sensible. As the Bill stands, all they have to do is to say, "We think it likely" or "We thought it likely". In other words, they can consider themselves the judges of the worth of their own legislation.
I have always found this kind of proposal very objectionable, from whichever side of the House or from whichever party it may come. I hope that the Government will be minded to accept this very modest, small amendment.
Amendment No. 16, which is grouped with Amendment No. 1, has exactly the same purpose. It seems to me not in any way injurious to the purpose that the Government have in mind or to the sense of the Bill.
This habit of taking more than is necessary in legislation is totally unacceptable. For that reason, at this early point in the Committee stage, I very much hope the Minister will consider that he would not be ill-advised to make a modest concession. It will cost the Government nothing. It will make no difference to the sense of what has been provided for in the Bill. The amendment will introduce a sensible limit to the

1421
powers conferred upon local government. Such powers cannot be left entirely to the purely subjective judgment of local authorities. I find that course unpleasant and unacceptable.
I hope that the Minister will not respond by saying that this is the kind of objection he always hears from the Opposition. In the past I made speeches of this kind when I sat on the Government side of the House. If necessary, I shall do so again. My future speeches will be conditioned by the reply that I receive from the Minister today. If he cannot give me the impression that he takes the matter seriously, I shall take the opportunity again and again to raise this and other similar points throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I rise briefly to draw the attention of noble Lords to the back of the Bill where it says that the legislation was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as the Local Government Bill, "House of Lords". When the noble Lord comes to reply to this interesting debate, I hope that he shall be able to explain how such an astonishing number of amendments have arisen in the department without the aid of any debate in the other place? Normally when one receives an enormous raft of amendments, it is as a result of debates in another place where the Government have had matters drawn to their attention which, sensibly, they then seek to put right. However, in the case of this Bill, who convinced the Government that what they have drafted is wrong or inadequate? Furthermore, why were these amendments not suggested before the Bill was printed and put before your Lordships' House?
Lord Bridges: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because I, too, feel that the words "they consider" go much too far. If the Bill goes on to the statute book in its present form, it will introduce new and undesirable conflict between local and central government. Using the terminology in Clause 2, it would be possible, for example, for a local authority to overrule and ignore a policy planning guidance on an important matter issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Surely that would be undesirable? A local authority should have reasonable freedom to operate within the framework set down by central government. As drafted, this clause will lead to chaos.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment and all that has been said in support of it by my noble friend Lord Peyton. The phrase "they consider" confers an absolute delegation and subjective dispensation of discretionary power. It is wholly unacceptable, in particular when taken in conjunction with the concept of promotion, upon which I shall speak in a subsequent amendment. I support the amendment and hope that it shall be taken seriously.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Before I turn to Amendment No. 1, I should like to add my voice to the critical comments that have been made on the number of government amendments to the Bill. At the time of the debate on Second Reading we were aware that whole swathes of amendments would be coming from the Minister. I then asked the Minister to ensure that we were given a period of 14 days from when we knew exactly which Bill the Government wished to promote until the start of the Committee stage. That has not proved possible, although I thank the Minister for the efforts made by himself and those in his office so that, at any rate, the Front Benches were made aware of the changes a little over a week ago. However, I stress that only the Front Benches were so informed and even then only with the aid of fax machines.
I acknowledge that, following my request for the revised Bill, the Minister's office has made sterling efforts to produce a version of the Bill incorporating all the proposed changes. However, I am sorry to say that the Minister's office was forced to use old-fashioned physical cut-and-paste methods rather than modern technology. I had already mentioned to a number of interested outside organisations that the Minister had agreed to produce a revised version. Those organisations were pleased because their lives would have been made easier and they had expected to be able to see that version through electronic means. I am sure noble Lords will agree that such outside bodies often provide invaluable assistance with their comments on how proposed legislation may affect their areas. I am sad that in this case the Government were unable to make use of modern technology and I hope that they will ensure that a version will shortly be made available using the appropriate technology.
I should like to make a few comments on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. My noble friend Lord Tope recently discovered that "Wednesbury" is a place as well as a principle. For that reason I assume—and I hope that the Minister can confirm this—that that principle will apply here. In other words, one must read into this provision the term "reasonably". The matters which form the subject of the clause are points of judgment. We on these Benches would always prefer a local authority to be able to be the judge—within reasonable constraints—of what is proper and appropriate and what will achieve the objectives provided for in legislation. Local authorities are not being offered a blank sheet here. However, we would prefer to see local government being able to take a reasonable view of local circumstances without too much imposition from central government.
As in other legislation, many provisions in the Bill provide for the Secretary of State to issue directions and generally refer to what the Secretary of State "considers appropriate". If every decision was made so prescriptive that it had to be passed to a court for consideration, progress would become very difficult.
Lord Filkin: I rise to support the thrust of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I should also like to express my concern that we might

1423
be in danger of taking away with one hand what we are seeking to give with the other here. I believe that this clause is particularly important because it recognises the need to give local authorities the general power to promote the well-being of their area rather than having always to seek a legal opinion as to whether they have vires.
A consequence of the very limited scope within which English and Welsh authorities have operated to date has been that, on occasion, they have proceeded with excessive caution and, as a consequence, have incurred excessive legal costs when trying to validate the question of whether they have legal powers. In some cases, such as major property deals, the costs of such validation have been quite astronomical. We should bear in mind that the amendment before us would take us straight back into that quagmire. That is not in the general interest of local authorities. In my opinion, it might be of interest to certain lawyers, but by no means all. For that reason, I believe that the form of words used in the Bill is well tried and tested—it is similar to that already used in Section 137 of the 1989 Act.
The provision marks an important new beginning for the relationship between central and local government. Does the Minister recognise that we should stand firm with the Bill as presently drafted and try to move forward towards a more positive relationship than perhaps has been the case in the past?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hope that the Committee will grant me a few moments' indulgence to follow the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is an interesting—if somewhat salutary—thought that the Greater London Authority Bill, which comprised 300-odd pages, only attracted around 850 government amendments, and even then only after a great deal of work. On this Bill, the ratio of amendment to page of legislation is considerably worse. I feel sorry for the Minister, although I do not sympathise with him, if one may make that distinction.
The fact is that the Bill, as the noble Lord would like to see it amended, is an extremely useful document. It enables me to make yet another comparison, which is that the Bill will go from 51 pages to 64, an increase of the order of 20 per cent, as a result of the Government's amendments alone. That is not the end of our problems. I am well aware that it is a diversion, but there is also a document, 160 pages of it—The Local Government Bill Consultative Drafts of Proposed Guidance and Regulations on New constitutions for Councils ( Part II and Clauses 66, 67) So not only are we dealing with a major Bill which is to be changed in a dramatic way; much of the detail, the body and the substance of what is going to affect local councils is in another document which is not before us. That is highly regrettable.
1424
We can only deal with the situation we are in. As I said, I feel sorry for the Minister, but I do not sympathise with him. I add my protest to those already made. This is not a proper or an appropriate way to legislate. Still less is it a proper or appropriate way to treat local councils which are democratically elected. I should add here, I suppose in parenthesis, "as we are not", but, of course, the other place will plead democratic superiority as it does over us. However, local councils are democratic. They have a right to their own opinions and they should have a right to organise their own affairs. The Bill seeks to impose a form of organisation on their administration. However, as I said at Second Reading, if my memory is correct, it is outwith the convention on freedom for European local authorities.
That is as may be. As I say, we have to live with it. I make one point in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I suspect that that there are not many local authorities that could not have produced the Bill, as revised, straight off their own computers. Here we are with the Government unable to do that and yet seeking to force change down their throats. I do not think that that is satisfactory.
When one comes to the amendment itself, the difference between what the Government want and what my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil would like might appear to be marginal. But if the amendment were accepted, Clause 2(1) would read:
"Every local authority is to have power to do anything which is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects".
Thought is a wonderful thing. I have all kinds of random thoughts. But the idea that local authorities might act on the basis of random thoughts—I am sure they would not because I believe they are extremely responsible organisations with very good members—which they considered appropriate to this action seems to me wholly inappropriate. If nothing else, it is unnecessary wording. As someone who prefers to see plain English—we have some fairly obscure stuff coming towards us later on—I would prefer to see this little consideration considered inappropriate. I support my noble friend.
Lord Mishcon: Many of us who have served in local government have had cause to regret what has happened to local government over recent years. We have seen a falling off in the capabilities—let us be frank—of members of council and of officers. That is due, I suggest, almost entirely to the fact that powers and discretion have been removed from local authorities until we have reached the stage where, frankly, men and women of ability do not even apply to become members of local authorities.
I was delighted to see the wording that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and others have criticised. Otherwise one asks oneself who is to judge whether these things are likely to benefit the area for which the local authority stands. Who is to judge? Is it the Minister? Is it a court of law? Who is to say whether, in the face of a challenge, what has been done by the local authority is right or wrong? The clause says that the local authority will consider what is likely to be for

1425
the good of its area. What is wrong with that? It is completely clear that discretion is vested in the local authority. If this House were to say, "We do not trust that discretion", that will be one more removal of power from local government, which I personally would hate to see.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, I rise with hesitation to cross swords with so eminent a lawyer. I suspect that we are discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I hope that if the noble Lord looks at the effect of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton, he will see that it does nothing to remove the local authority's responsibility or indeed its discretion. It removes only some somewhat lax and unnecessary words.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has been very kind in promoting me—I hope it has been heard by the Chief Whip. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House is not here; nor is the Prime Minister. If the only argument against the provision is that the words are superfluous, and if I, as a humble lawyer, think that they are not superfluous but mean something, what harm is done by their inclusion?
Lord Whitty: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Mishcon for raising the sights of the Committee about the Bill. This is a very important turning point for local government in terms of broadening flexibility, broadening the freedom of choice and putting back responsibility on to local government for looking after the well-being of their communities. I had thought from the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in earlier debates on local government that he was also of that persuasion and concerned about the need to get local government back to the position where it genuinely leads its communities and takes decisions on behalf of its communities. That is what the power of well-being is really about.
I am not prepared to be abashed today over criticism of the tabling of amendments. The Committee will know that on previous occasions I have been slightly shamefaced in terms of our producing rather late amendments in relation to the GLA Bill when it had passed several days of Committee in another place and several days here. However, on this occasion I must say—it is perhaps presumptuous of me to say so—that I do think the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is being a little disingenuous. He will know that Bills, and perhaps in particular local government Bills, whichever House they are introduced in, are often subject to detailed amendment before they are finally considered in Committee by that first House. That was the case under various regimes of the party opposite, and it is the case now. I am not saying that it is perfect, but it is hardly unprecedented.
In particular, I justify the procedure in this respect. I explained at Second Reading the necessity of coming forward with detailed amendments, many areas of the
1426
Bill having been subjected to a new and very important innovation in the way we approach legislation in this Parliament. The legislation has been looked at in great detail by a Joint Committee of both Houses, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. A number of points were raised to which we had to give a response. The proposals have also been subject to a high degree of consultation with local government and other parties. That, in addition to the normal tidying up in which governments of all persuasions have always been involved, has produced a significant number of amendments, some of which are very important.
Although the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is anxious that the House of Lords oversees the Government in their modernising agenda—I regret that we are only as far as fax machines and not as far as a complete new version of the Bill—it is important that the House understands that the changes we intend to make as a result of the amendments, subject to the views of the Committee, will strengthen the outline of the Bill which we provided at first print and which we discussed at Second Reading. Those changes will be informed both by a better assessment of what is necessary and, more importantly, by the opinion of the Joint Committee and by the opinion of local government itself.
Therefore, on this occasion I make no apology for the large number of amendments. When we come to specific amendments, noble Lords will no doubt have particular points to make which I shall take seriously, as always. However, I do not accept the general criticism with regard to the number of amendments.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he clarify this point? I understand that we shall not be receiving amendments to the Bill in so far as it relates to Wales until Report stage and possibly Third Reading. That is because the National Assembly for Wales has not yet completed its consideration of the Bill. Will he confirm that?
Lord Whitty: Yes, I am happy to do so. The general theme of the Bill applies to Wales as it does to England. But where there are order-making powers which rest with the National Assembly for Wales, in parallel with the Secretary of State in relation to England, the precise details of those order-making powers have yet to be agreed with the National Assembly. That is a consequence of devolution. It means some slight delay in my being able to lay those amendments until the situation in Wales has been clarified. The Welsh dimension is the only major area where there would be amendments made by the Government beyond the Committee stage.
Lord Elton: While the noble Lord is on the subject of procedure and before we return to the subject of the amendment, perhaps I may leave something on the record which may be considered by the Procedure Committee when it comes to look at how all this works out. First, a procedure which enabled the Government to draft the Bill as they intended to debate it in

1427
Committee would be much more useful than one in which discussion took place against the rather misleading matrix of the Bill as it originally stood. Secondly, there would be sense in delaying the later stages if amendments are to be deliberated on by devolved assemblies so that those amendments receive a Committee stage discussion rather than only a Report stage discussion. The only alternative to that is to re-commit parts of the Bill when that becomes necessary. I do not want to delay the Committee, but I do not know of any other opportunity to put forward that idea.
Lord Whitty: I note the noble Lord's first point. Clearly, we are still on a learning curve in relation to pre-legislative scrutiny and the way in which both Houses of Parliament will engage in much more detailed consideration of Bills before they reach their formal stages. I accept his point in part, although I suspect that the business managers will find it hard to guarantee that we always meet the optimum timing in these respects.
As regards the position on Wales, I suspect that the amendments which arise as a result of our consultation with the Welsh Assembly will not be a huge surprise to noble Lords but they need to go through the process of agreement with our colleagues in Wales. Therefore, I should not have thought that there was a need to re-commit them. However, we are not at that point and noble Lords will no doubt reserve their judgment in that respect. I believe that this is not such a big issue. There is no conflict between ourselves and the Welsh Assembly. But we need to get matters right and ensure that the procedures agreed between central government and the devolved administrations are observed.
Perhaps I may now turn to the substance of the noble Lord's amendment. Clause 2 confers a broad power on local authorities in the promotion and improvement of the well-being of their area. That is a major step in the direction outlined by my noble friend Lord Mishcon in giving back to local authorities the ability to decide the priorities within their communities. The Government very much want local authorities to be able to act in the interests of, and react to the needs and concerns of, their communities, free from threat of intervention by the courts. Clause 2(5) makes clear that this can include action outside the authority's designated area if, in the opinion of the local authority, such action would promote or improve the well-being of its own community.
I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that perhaps he is being slightly disingenuous in that this phraseology is quite familiar in local government Acts. If I remember rightly, the noble Lord was a member of the 1970–74 government. This precise phraseology was used in Section 137—a fairly wide-ranging section—of the Local Government Act 1972 which allowed local authorities to use that power if, in their opinion, it was in the interests of their area to do so.
As the Bill is drafted, the lawfulness of any activity would depend on the local authority being able to prove that in its opinion the activity promoted or
1428
improved the community's well-being. This is a well tried and trusted formulation in local government. It is not an innovation in that respect.
Of course, the local authority's opinion might differ from the opinion of some of its ratepayers, some of its political opponents, and no doubt other community interests. But at the end of the day, it is the local authority's responsibility to make that judgment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is a problem here and I want to ask the noble Lord about it. "In its opinion" always gives the opportunity to go to judicial review on a decision and the court can say that it was not reasonably entertained. If one looks at the wording of the Bill, without my noble friend's amendment, it could well preclude judicial review—I think it probably would unless there were bias or ill will. Is that the intention of the clause?
Lord Whitty: If I understand the question correctly, no. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it is clear that the Wednesbury rules apply in this respect, as in all other respects, in terms of the decisions of local authorities. In another words, local authorities are required to act reasonably. It is true that in the last resort judicial review could apply where the authority was regarded as not acting reasonably. The point is this: whose opinion is it that informs the decision? Local authorities must reasonably reach that opinion and reasonably implement that decision. If we were to take out the words as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, suggests, it would leave the courts, and not the local authorities, directly to decide what activities could be undertaken within that area. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I assume that all local authorities do act reasonably and not randomly. I am sure that that is the case, even in Essex. Nevertheless, the reasonableness criterion continues to be applied.
I was asked whether this would allow local authorities to avoid, for example, planning policy guidance or other statutory measures. They could not do so because they are prevented by Clause 3(1) from doing anything which they cannot do because of restrictions or other legislation. Therefore, authorities' duties around planning issues are prescribed in other pieces of legislation and this is not the open door suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Nor is it open to local authorities to use the clause to take unreasonable actions or have unreasonable opinions. The provision does, however, give a great deal of additional discretion to local authorities to act in the interest of the communities that they represent. If the two amendments promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, were carried, that would greatly confuse the exercise of that new power and would open it to detailed litigation. I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his thoughts on the subject. At least he has paused to think for a moment. It may be that I have misunderstood the whole purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny. I had supposed, perhaps rather simplistically, that the pre-legislative scrutiny would avoid, not precipitate, the need for the torrent of amendments that we find on the Marshalled List before even a word of the Committee stage has been delivered. That is what bothers me.
I am slightly surprised, and more than a little disappointed, to find the noble Lord declaring himself not at all abashed. I remember previous occasions when he had good reason to be abashed and when he said so. He did himself a great deal of credit. There is nothing to be ashamed of in saying that a slight mistake has been made. I was impressed on the previous occasion when that happened, and I am depressed on this one.
I hope that the noble Lord will make the effort to understand the position. I certainly have no petty intention of being hostile to local government. If I may again be slightly autobiographical, I recall, when I was on the Benches opposite, making a speech one more than one occasion about what I believed was the then government's deplorable messing about with local government. So I do not accept that I should be put in the position of someone who is prejudiced against local government and is determined to shackle it at every turn. All I am saying, and it is not too much to ask, is that local government should produce something that is likely to be of benefit. If it does that, that is sufficient. Under the Bill as drafted, all local government has to do is say that it thinks it is likely to be of benefit. That is not quite enough.
The noble Lord spoke rather as though it were the intention of the Government to preclude any possibility of intervention by the courts. I am glad to see the noble Lord shaking his head, but that was the impression that he gave. His remarks could easily be construed as meaning that any interference by the courts is to be resisted and avoided at all cost, whenever possible. If the noble Lord wants to intervene, I am happy to give way.
Lord Whitty: I hoped that I had made it clear that if the reasonableness of a local authority's action is in question, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned, the question of judicial review comes into account. I do not exclude the courts from every decision. I am saying that if we accepted this wording, it would be open to the courts to intervene on almost every decision of a local authority to clarify whether the opinion of the local authority or that of someone else was better.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to the Minister and am slightly reassured by his remarks. I do not want to prolong my remarks, but one noble Lord opposite,
1430
who is not now in his place, said that if my amendment were passed, we should be returning to some old quagmire. I did not understand quite what that was about. I thought it rather extreme to say that this modest amendment would put local government back in some imaginary quagmire. That is certainly not my intention and I do not believe that it would be the effect of the amendment. When I find the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, opposing an amendment of mine, I realise that I am up against very serious skills. I have nothing to offer which can possibly compete with the skills used with such ease by the noble Lord. Nevertheless, despite what the noble Lord has said, I still think that the amendment that I propose is quite a modest one.
I am sorry that the Minister should take such a lofty view in dismissing the amendment and saying that it would be greatly prejudicial to local government. I do not see that. If the noble Lord persists in that view, I shall, with some reluctance, press the amendment. The noble Lord does not respond. I should therefore like to take the opinion of the House.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Attlee, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Jopling, L.

Biffen, L.

Laird, L.

Blatch, B.

Laming, L.

Blood, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Boardman, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Bridges, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Byford, B.

Montrose, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Naseby, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cockfield, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Cox, B.

Palmer, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Peel, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cuckney, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Plumb, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Denham, L.

Prior, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

1431

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L

Strathclyde, L.

Weatherill, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wilcox, B.

Vinson, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Addington, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Ahmed, L.

Levy, L.

Alli, L.

Lockwood, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Amos, B.

Longford, E

Archer of Sandwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

[Teller]

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Bach, L.

Maddock, B.

Barnett, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Borrie, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Bradshaw, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brightman, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Brookman, L.

Nicol, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Northbourne, L.

Burlison, L.

Paul, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Perry of Walton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Crawley, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

David, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Dealing, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Desai, L.

Richard, L.

Dixon, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Dubs, L.

Russell, E.

Elder, L.

Sandberg, L.

Evaas of Watford, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Ezra, L.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Farrington of Ribbletor, B.

Shepherd, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Gavron, L.

Smith of Leigh, L

Geraint, L.

South wark, Bp.

Gibson, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goodhart, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thornton, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tope, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harrison, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Haskel, L.

Varley, L.

Hayman, B.

Wakefield, Bp.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wharton, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Whitty, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Wigoder, L.

Chancellor)

Wilkins, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Williams of Crosby, B.

Privy Seal)

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.55 p.m.
The deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi):I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No.2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amentment Nos. 3to 7.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 19, leave out from ("consider") to end of line 2 on page 2 and insert ("will further any one or more of its principal purposes, namely—

(a) promoting economic development and wealth creation in their area or improving the economic well-being of their area,

(b) promoting social development in their area or improving the social well-being of their area,

(c) promoting the improvement of the environment in their area or improving the environmental well-being of their area.").

The noble Baroness said: The intention of Amendment No. 2 is to explore exactly what powers the Bill proposes to confer on local government. My amendment, which I freely accept is not a particularly elegant piece of drafting, is based on the provisions of the Greater London Authority Act. It allows local authorities not merely to promote the matters which are the subject of the amendment, as is the case with the GLA, but to act directly. I have combined the provisions of the GLA Act with this Bill because I should like to explore with the Government the difference between economic well-being and economic development and wealth creation (to use the terminology of the Act), social well-being and social development and environmental well-being and the environment of a local authority's area.
There are two principal reasons for tabling the amendment. First, I am concerned that if there is slightly different wording in different pieces of legislation, which the average reader might expect to mean much the same thing, it may be interpreted as significant. If there are significant differences between the matters dealt with in the GLA Act and those set out in this Bill, the Committee will be assisted if it is made aware of them. In particular, can the Minister assure the Committee that, other than the explicit limits spelt out in the following clauses—we shall come to those constraints and restraints later this evening—there are no limits on the powers; in other words, that the wording of the Bill does not contain inherent limits that may be read into the legislation as a result of terminology which is different from that used in other statutes? The term "well-being" in Clause 2 is very general and is welcome to Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber who are great enthusiasts for local government. However, it may be argued that it is so wide as to be almost meaningless. I hope that that is not so.
The second principal reason for the amendment is to ask: what is the purpose of local government? When the Greater London Authority was established, one began with a completely clean sheet of paper. One had several hundred sheets of paper to deal with in the case of that Act! Local government as it is now is an agglomeration—perhaps conglomeration—of powers and duties that have been built up by statute, case law and custom.
I confess that I should like to see a single over-arching purpose: sustainable development—an issue that we shall debate later. However, it is relevant here because it confines the three types of well-being spelt out in the clause. It is not a balancing act but a process. Sustainable development is not just outcome; it is a way of achieving a combination of different types of well-being. It is not a matter of picking and mixing. The clause states:
"Every local authority is to have power to do anything … likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects".
Sustainable development is about all those objects. That is why I chose to approach the matter in this way and to use the term "purposes".
A subsidiary but important question, which I believe is linked to this issue, is this. Can the Minister tell us why the "objects" of town and parish councils are not included in Clause 1? I understand that the definition does not extend to them.
The Government acknowledge the role of local authorities in delivering many of their key measures which can be regarded as achieving a better quality of life. We believe, therefore, that Clause 2 should be as strong as possible. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support my noble friend's amendment. The amendment strengthens the message that I believe the Minister would wish local government to receive: that, after years of being undermined, local government has the power to do things for its local community.
The inclusion of the words "principal purposes" is important. Some have argued over past decades, and some cynics still say, that the private sector could deliver all the services that local government deliver without the bureaucracy. Of course, those who so argue may not be interested in the democratic process. But it leaves out an important piece of the jigsaw. It is the way those services fit together which differentiates between how they serve the community.
When I began to speak, I should have declared an interest as a county councillor in Somerset. I should like that interest to be recorded for all the times that I speak on the Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is not in his place now. I wanted to ask him why he had formed such a cynical view of members currently serving in local government. I do not wish to be seen to defend myself, but I meet many members and councillors who are extremely committed and energetic. They have virtually given up any form of meaningful life outside their jobs in order to serve their
1434
local communities. I do not believe that the quality of members is on the whole poor. I accept that members can always do with more training. I am glad that through the Improvement and Development Agency the Government are committed to delivering that training. But we should be pleased with the quality of members and young members coming in.
My noble friend mentioned that what we sought to achieve would be better covered by the term "sustainable development". However, to define the principal purposes of local government would be a step in the right direction.
Lord Whitty: It became clear from her remarks that the main point of the noble Baroness's amendment is that what is good enough for the GLA should be good enough for everywhere else. I suspect that the rest of the country views the issue the other way round.
As the noble Baroness indicated, in the case of the GLA Act we started virtually from scratch. The GLA was a new body with no existing functions, although it took some over from other statutory bodies. While we might have chosen to give that body a raft of specific powers, that would undoubtedly have lengthened the GLA Act. I do not think that that would have been appreciated in this House or by those who subsequently had to interpret the powers of the GLA. Instead, we gave the GLA a broad purpose.
It is not appropriate to apply the wording of the GLA Act to local authorities which already have statutory duties, powers and obligations through hundreds of years of local authority legislation. It is unclear how those would be affected if local authorities were now given principal purposes, as proposed in the amendment. Would the authorities' duties carry equal weight with these purposes? If there are principal purposes, what are the non-principal purposes, and so on?
The noble Baroness suggested that it was not the most elegant piece of drafting. However, the drafting is simple and the intention is clear, but with wide ramifications. I do not think that it is sensible to read across from the GLA Act in order to restate the purposes of local authorities which have existed for many decades.
The wording of the clause has been drafted to work effectively alongside existing local government statutes. For the same reasons, it is not possible successfully to transplant the wording from the GLA Act into this Bill.
The noble Baroness referred to parish councils and town councils. We are not giving powers to parish councils, but we want parish councils to engage in the kind of community strategies to which we refer here. To assist them, they will be able to use their existing powers under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. We did not feel, therefore, that the new power should be reflected in parish and town councils.

1435
If the amendment were accepted, it would simply add to the confusion regarding local authority powers. The practical effect would be unclear and subject to serious problems of definition. We do not think that it would be prudent for us to accept a new definition of principal powers for local authorities. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I had not intended to put the amendment to the vote. I shall consider the Minister's remarks on parish councils. I am concerned that they should have all the powers they might reasonably expect in order to take a full part in the community, and in leading those communities. I shall read in Hansard the precise words used, but I am not sure that the Minister answered my point about the distinction between, for example, economic well-being and economic development and wealth creation. I should like an assurance that the objects—the term used in the clause—are at least as wide as the parallel terminology in the GLA Act and that local government is not constrained by the words in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1. line 20, leave out ("promotion or').
The noble Lord said: The intention of Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 7 is to remove the words "promotion or" from paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 2(1). I suggest that the word "promotion" is unnecessary. If it is removed, the Bill would read:
"Every local authority is to have the power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects … the improvement of the economic well-being of their area … the improvement of the social well-being of their area, and … the improvement of the environmental well-being of their area".
The word "promotion" has various meanings. The Oxford English Dictionary gives "preferment"; "furtherance"; "advancement"; and "encouragement". Some of those definitions apply and some do not. The dictionary has not yet got around to "advertisement" as promotion, but I have a son-in-law who makes an extremely good living out of advertisement and he would tell me that he advertises in order to promote products. So what does "promotion" mean in this context? I believe that the word is a little ambiguous because it has a diversity of meaning and that Clause 2(1) would be happy without it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I, too, looked in the Oxford English Dictionary and saw that the word "promotion" is a vague term. The concept has no precise meaning for the purpose of legal draftsmanship. The largest edition of the dictionary contains pages on it, but the definition I found was:
"to put forward into notice or attention, to publish, promulgate or advance".
1436
That is rather vague. In the context of the Bill, in particular Clause 2, which contains a massive delegation of power and a serious erosion of the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts under judicial review, it is not satisfactory to retain the term.
In any event, without pre-empting debate on Clause 68 and Amendment No. 365, which is not my intention, there is no doubt that the clause and the use of the word "promotion" must be seen in context with Clause 68 and Schedule 5, which repeal Section 2A of the 1986 Act and Section 28 of the 1988 Act. The concept of promotion was brought into the realms of local government law relatively recently. Its origins are in the Private Member's Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to amend Section 2 of the 1986 Act. It passed through this House, went to another place and was defeated. The concept of promotion was then taken up in local government law by Section 28 of the 1988 Act.
Surely, on an objective standard, it is only sufficient for the due discharge of the proper functions of a local authority on public funds that there should be the improvement of economic and social well-being in its area and that there is no need to import the inevitable ambiguity of "promotion".
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like briefly to refer to my Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. It is my most earnest hope that the Minister will take me seriously when I say that the amendments appear for no other reason than the desire to help and to abbreviate a Bill which is already overlong.
The Government want to give local authorities the power to do anything which will have economic, social and environmental benefits. I cannot think of a benefit which local government could produce which would not fall in one of those three categories. Therefore, the Bill would have the same effect if all three adjectives were left out and we state that local authorities can do anything they want to do.
I have tabled my amendments in an attempt to shorten the clause. I hope that the Minister will regard them as helpful. That is what is intended. The measures would simplify the Bill, making it briefer and more easily understood.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I must first declare my interest as leader of a local council. I am somewhat disappointed with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because having agreed that the purpose of the clause is to give local authorities the opportunity to act in the interests of their local communities and to tackle problems and issues which may arise in their local areas, he seeks to make what he regards as a simple amendment. It would remove the discretion which local authorities are given in this clause.
The noble Lord has looked in the Oxford English Dictionary and has missed the definition of "promotion" which most people in my area would recognise. In thinking of promotion, they would be worrying about who is changing divisions in rugby or football.

1437
The definitions of the word in this context advance the interests of the local community in the broad areas of economic, social and environmental well-being. Furthermore, in achieving many of the objectives of the clause, local authorities will be working in partnership with many other agencies and organisations. The idea of indirect activity is also encompassed in the word "promotion". That is why it needs to remain in the Bill.
I was somewhat relieved when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, explain his amendments because I was concerned that in seeking to reduce the number of paragraphs, he was further reducing the amount of power and discretion which local authorities could exercise. In some ways, the consequences of the policies of the party opposite in relation to mining in the early 1980s still remain. Only yesterday in my authority, a local firm which makes mining machinery closed with the loss of 200 jobs. That is the kind of situation in which I, as a leader of a local council, need powers to be able to act and intervene, not only directly, but also in partnership with local business and training organisations to make sure that those 200 people may soon be absorbed back into the labour force. I hope that we may accept the phraseology of the clause as it is laid down.
Lord Whitty: Like my noble friend Lord Smith, I recall a time when, for me, "promotion" meant solely the way out of the Third Division South! These days, "promotion" has a much wider meaning. It indicates a range of methods whereby a local authority could achieve the objectives set out in the Bill. Therefore, far from resulting in a degree of ambiguity, it is intended to provide a degree of comprehensiveness. If the local authorities' ability to promote economic, social and environmental well-being was removed, it could imply that the authorities could take action directly only if they themselves provided the intervention or the service.
There is generally held to be a difference between the provision of a function and the promotion of a function, because the promotion of a function involves other public and private bodies within the community, as my noble friend Lord Smith indicated. If we were to accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it is clear that the authorities themselves could still take direct action to improve well-being but it is less certain that they could encourage or facilitate others to take such action. Moreover, the amendments might prevent local authorities taking any action which maintained current levels of well-being or which prevented current levels deteriorating, because such action would be promoting, but not improving, the well-being of the local area. Therefore, the terminology in the Bill as it stands is more appropriate.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. We considered whether we should simply use the term "well-being" rather than any qualifying words. We believe that the formulation, "economic, social and environmental well-being"
1438
invokes the idea better than leaving it open to as wide an interpretation as may be made by referring simply to "well-being", which could theoretically be interpreted in a different way. While in general we welcome any amendments—this may not be borne out by my view on the previous clause—from the noble Lord which reduce the wording of the Bill, on this occasion his amendment could make the Bill's meaning slightly more obscure. That is why here and in other pieces of legislation before the House we have used the terms "economic", "social" and "environmental" in relation to "well-being". That gives a clearer idea of what we are about and what we expect local authorities to do in using those powers.
I therefore hope that noble Lords will not pursue those changes because I believe we are all agreed that they would not achieve their objectives.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits down, I have a query relating to his last point. The example of highways occurred to me; for instance, the creation of footpaths. Is that economic, social or environmental?
A noble Lord: Environmental, I believe.
Lord Northbourne: No, I believe it is social.
Lord Whitty: It is probably all.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which I shall consider carefully. If I feel the need to return to the matter at a later stage, there are still plenty of opportunities to do so. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("or present").
The noble Lord said: This is really a probing amendment to try and tease out from the Government precisely what is the meaning of the paragraph which states,
"all or any persons resident or present in a local authority's area".
Subsection (2) states:
"The power under subsection (1)"—
which we have just been discussing—
"may be exercised in relation to or for the benefit of …
(b) all or any persons resident or present in a local authority's area".
The phrase "or present" might be a little difficult. No one would have any problem with the local authority acting on behalf of its residents in such matters. "Or present" in the area, however, implies anyone who happens to be visiting the authority's area. If they were tourists, businessmen or whatever, one would have no difficulty with that. But there are on occasions other types of visitor; a friend of mine lives in a house which was for a time occupied by people of North African extraction who were in fact members of a competent

1439
terrorist organisation under MI5 supervision, as I understand it. I wonder whether there is not a slight conflict of interest. Those people were resident in the area; they were there for several years, as it happens. I am not absolutely convinced that we should believe it reasonable that the local authority should be acting in relation to such matters.
One could equally conceive of a situation in which a major road improvement was to be carried out within a local authority's area and, before that improvement commenced, the site was invaded by what I believe are termed "eco-warriors". Indeed, a situation might well arise where the police had to do their utmost to remove them. Sometimes, I believe we should regard the action required to do so as rather less than fortunate, but it is none the less necessary.
I believed that it would be worth tabling the amendment to invite the Minister—who, I am glad to say, readily accepts such invitations—to discuss for a little while exactly what is meant by being "present" in a local authority's area. We should not want there to be any confusion about that. I know that the Bill is drafted in a benign sense, but someone else might be able to interpret it in a different way which would cause problems. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is coming up with some colourful examples of situations with which local authorities might have to deal. My query is quite simple: as I read subsection (2), it gives a power to the local authority to carry out actions. It does not say that a local authority must prefer certain groups of people to those which comprise its residents. It is in the spirit of supporting local government and the autonomy of local authorities that their scope for taking rounded decisions should he in the interests of all those who might properly seek to benefit from them. Simply to allow local authorities to take decisions for the benefit of persons resident but not for other persons who might be in its area would be a regrettable restriction.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I want to give the Committee two or three examples of large groups of people which, certainly in the south-west, would be massively disadvantaged if the noble Lord's amendment were to be accepted. Some examples which spring to mind are seasonal workers who come to work in horticulture or agriculture; students who frequently have to cross county boundaries, for instance, to go to appropriate colleges; or even tourists in the summer season. Such groups number far more than would occasional eco-warriors or terrorists.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend might have added homeless people and, indeed, people who are sleeping rough on the streets. I am sure that local authorities, among other agencies, would not want to be forced to ignore their interests.
Lord Whitty: I believe that on this occasion noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have made my point for me. Clearly, the provision is not a requirement on local authorities to act on behalf of the North African terrorists mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, or Swampy and his friends; rather, it provides an ability to act on behalf of exactly the types of group to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Hamwee, have referred. I believe that almost every local authority has some, if not all, of the groups which we have mentioned. Therefore, it is important that they have the power to act on their behalf.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply because he has helped me, even if he believes that he has done so unwittingly. Of course, I accept all the examples that were given by the noble Baronesses on my right. However, the Minister has said that the provision is not a requirement. That will now be written into the record of the proceedings in this House because it will be reported in Hansard. If this matter becomes an issue in one of those ridiculous cases which I mentioned and of which we have all seen or know of examples, at some point the Minister's words in this House may be important. I am grateful to him for those words. They are helpful and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 9 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10 to 12.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment and one which, again, is designed to help the Minister and to be helpful to local government. To say that a local authority must have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power would have on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom seems to me to ask the local authority to make a judgment on a matter which is for national government rather than for the authority. I do not in any way belittle the capacity of local government. I seek simply to avoid putting upon them a burden which is beyond their competence to discharge. Unless this duty is put upon local government so as to give the Minister a locus on which he can intervene and restrain the local authority in what it intends to do, I do not understand why the burden should be imposed. Therefore, I propose that it should not be. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I have no difficulty with there being written into this part of the Bill references to the importance of the achievement of sustainable development. I believe that that is a fundamental objective towards which local government should be working. However, although I do not favour the

1441
removal of the subsection in its entirety, I have some difficulties with the wording and I should be grateful for the guidance of my noble friend.
Could the words,
"have regard to the effect … on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom",
be deemed to mean that if a local authority were pursuing something which would lead to the opening of a particular group of businesses, it would be necessary for the local authority to demonstrate that that would not affect the sustainable development of similar businesses engaged in similar work anywhere else in the United Kingdom? I am concerned that the phraseology "in the United Kingdom" will somehow create a kind of lawyers' playground. Although I understand that lawyers need playgrounds and that ambiguity in legislation is no doubt helpful, I am worried that this will produce a substantial restraint on local authorities pursuing and using the power in a sensible fashion. I am sure that that is not the intention.
I believe that the intention is try to ensure that, in pursuing the well-being of the people of their area, local authorities do so in a way which does not have a major negative impact on, say, residents of surrounding areas, and that they pursue that well-being in a fashion which can be sustained for future generations. Those are important principles. However, I am not sure that the subsection as drafted will necessarily achieve that. I hope that my noble friend can satisfy me that my fears of how lawyers might interpret this issue are completely wrong.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: While I, too, am interested in the Minister's reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on the intention of the drafting, we would certainly be sad if this clause were to be removed. Indeed, through our Amendment No. 36, to which I shall speak later, we express a wish to strengthen substantially the sustainable development duty of local authorities.
I had not read anything so sinister into the clause. I believed that it was attempting to make a building block of local authorities in an effort to make sustainable development occur nationally and to recognise that local authorities are the only building blocks that can deliver a national sustainable development strategy. They are, after all, the planning authorities. They will be responsible for how the Transport Bill is implemented. Virtually everything that they touch has an immediate bearing on sustainable development in the most obvious sense. Much of what they do has a longer-term and perhaps less obvious impact on sustainable development. Therefore, I believe that this subsection should remain. Indeed, we look forward to the sustainable development power of local authorities being considerably strengthened.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My name also appears in support of the amendment. I must confess to slightly different motives from those of my noble friend when
1442
I added my name, in that, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, I wished to probe this aspect of the meaning of "sustainable development" and particularly the relationship as regards local authorities and sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
Regrettably, "sustainable development" is not a precise phrase. If we were to enter a detailed discussion—I hope that we shall not—we should probably find that there are as many meanings to those two words as there are Members in this Chamber tonight. Therefore, we believe that we should once again invite the Minister to help us to clarify precisely what is meant because local authorities rightly are subject to public supervision of their actions.
It is not inconceivable that one of the environmental pressure groups might choose to take a different view of what a local authority does in the context of the meaning of the two words "sustainable development". Having taken that view, they would, I believe, perhaps be entitled to call for a judicial review of the matter if they felt sufficiently strongly about the issue. Therefore, if we are not careful we could involve local authorities in considerable expenditure which really should not be necessary. If we can do anything at this or, indeed, any other stage of the Bill which will avoid that situation, we should do it. It is for that reason that I added my name in support of the amendment. I was not in collusion with my noble friend Lord Peyton. We find ourselves arguing the same point but from different perspectives. However, I believe, and very much hope, that the Minister will be able to help us.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, pointed out, the decisions and actions of local authorities may well have repercussions well beyond their own boundaries. In particular, they may well have an effect on the infrastructure, climate and economic development beyond their own boundaries.
This clause merely provides that in reaching their decisions under this power, local authorities must have regard to the broader picture in relation to sustainable development. Having had that regard, they must take that reasonably into account. It does not say, as my noble friend Lord Harris perhaps implied, that were a decision of a local authority to come into conflict with the decision of another local authority, that decision would be overriden.
The Government, like those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, consider the objective of sustainable development to be very important. Once a local authority has taken a view as to how its actions would affect sustainable development, it must then act reasonably. Therefore, this provision writes into the decision-making process that local authorities must take into account sustainable development for the United Kingdom as a whole. It has no broader implication. We believe that it is important that that should be written in as part of the way in which local authorities should reasonably exercise the powers.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Before my noble friend sits down, I should be grateful for further clarification.

1443
For example, a local authority in London may wish to create a series of units for small technological businesses. That would seem extremely sensible in terms of the economic well-being of its own area. It might appear to be very good in terms of the sustainable development of its own area, but because of the nature of the businesses being attracted, it might have a serious effect on the future well-being and sustainable development of other parts of the United Kingdom.
I am concerned that the local authority might be required to carry out major research into the markets of the firms which it was encouraging to come into those units and that unless it had done so and could demonstrate that it had done so, it would be failing to take into account the implication; of sustainable development for the United Kingdom as a whole.
I am not against what my noble friend says is the objective of the amendment; namely, that we should look at the implications of sustainable development for the UK as a whole. But I am concerned that it might create the expectation of an enormous research effort going into what could be quite small decisions with relatively minor implications. I want to be reassured that in practice local authorities will not find that their use of the power is hamstrung by a requirement to carry out a major exercise in demonstrating whether or not sustainable development in the United Kingdom as a whole, or in different parts of the United Kingdom, is affected by the subsection.
Lord Whitty: Clearly, the interpretation of the clause is giving rise to concerns which I do not believe should exist. We are certainly not attempting to use the clause to override the ability of local authorities, as part of their own sustainable development, to engage in some degree of competition with other local authorities. That is bound to happen. We are saying that local authorities must have regard to the broad objectives of sustainable development in the country as a whole.
It is clear that further guidance will be needed, and we intend to issue guidance. We shall consult widely with bodies with which my noble friend Lord Harris is extremely familiar in order to reach consensus. But we believe that some reference to the objective should be made on the face of the Bill and I hope that the guidance will clarify the matter.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I thank my noble friend for the undertaking to issue further guidance. However, I hope that he will follow up the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because I have some sympathy for what he said. We all support the principle of sustainable development and wish to see it included as an objective in the Bill. Those of us who have served on local authorities know that such matters may become the subject of legal challenge by individuals or groups who very effectively use the processes of the law to delay and damage developments. It is right that local authorities should consider sustainable development but we do not want
1444
decisions to be hamstrung by a small group of objectors who use the processes of the law to cause delay. Perhaps that can be examined in relation to the point made by my noble friend Lord Harris.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: We have had a very interesting debate. I have been able to control my own excitement and I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 10
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("determine").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for what I consider to be a thoroughly bad amendment. I do not mean that in the sense of my intentions but it is the most appalling alliteration. I did not realise that until I had tabled the amendment. In fact, the word "ascertain" would be better than the word "determine".
The Bill states that,
"a local authority must have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power would have on the achievement".
We hear the phrase "have regard to" often enough in this Chamber. I should prefer local authorities to have to sort out what the effect will be. I have used the word "determine" in the amendment although I do not like it. The word "ascertain" would be better so I shall quite understand if the amendment is thrown out. However, we should have something rather more positive than "have regard to", which, in the context, is rather loose as a phrase. "Ascertain" is rather more positive and, on occasion, may persuade a local authority to be rather more cautious than it might otherwise have been in relation to an action which somebody at some stage may come to regret. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: On the last amendment, I expressed concern that we might be creating a lawyers' playground and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, agreed. He now seems intent on making that lawyers' playground potentially worse by requiring that local authorities determine or ascertain the effects of sustainable development on the United Kingdom. I suggest that that makes the clause even more of a potential minefield in terms of litigation. When the noble Lord listens to my noble friend's response, I am sure that he will rapidly wish to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty: I am not even sure whether we are dealing with the amendment on the Marshalled List or that deftly corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in the course of his remarks.
However, the position is as my noble friend Lord Harris indicated. What is proposed is a much more onerous requirement on local authorities to engage in precisely the degree of detailed research into specific proposals which my noble friend feared would

1445
hamstring local authorities. Like him, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was also concerned about that.
Clearly, we want local authorities to have regard to the broad objective of sustainable development. We do not wish to impose on local authorities a huge research task to ascertain, determine, or whatever, the precise effect on all other local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. That would be too much. I do not suggest that, and I hope that the wording on the face of the Bill does not suggest it.
Baroness Hanham: I believe that the mischief lies in the words, "in the United Kingdom". The more I am told that there is to be guidance on the matter, the more nervous I become. I question—and I hope that the Minister will take this into account—whether each individual local authority will have to ascertain, determine or look at everything that is going on in the United Kingdom before it takes any decisions under this power. By removing the words, "in the United Kingdom", you remove the lawyers' paradise. You make a perfectly reasonable statement that local authorities should pay attention to sustainable development. At present it is almost like asking them to pay attention to sustainable development in Europe. The Government are making it nearly as bad by inserting the words "in the United Kingdom". Rather than adding another 15 pages to the large and voluminous guidance already issued, perhaps we should just omit those four words.
Lord Bridges: This amendment seems to trespass somewhat on the territory of environmental impact assessments that are already obligatory in certain spheres of local authority activity including planning applications. I am not sure how the amendment will affect the existing situation.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps it is in order for me to speak again. In part, I take the points made in relation to this matter. If sustainable development is to be looked at only within the area of a local authority, that will constrain the aim of the clause. Clearly, quite a number of decisions will affect at least enabling authorities and perhaps beyond. I do not believe that the amendment is intended to have quite the ramifications suggested by noble Lords. I am happy to consider what has been said in this debate and to look at whether there is a better way of dealing with the matter. I believe that noble Lords understand the objectives behind the clause and I hope that some anxieties have been allayed.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am again grateful to the Minister for his reply. His words will become part of the record and, therefore, they will have validity and an importance beyond this Chamber. In that sense I am grateful to him. After a useful little debate,
1446
surprisingly, I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 9, after ("on") insert ("the health of persons in their area and").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, which seeks to add the words,
"the health of persons in their area"—
that is the local authority area—to,
"the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom",
about which we have just been talking. Those are factors to which local authorities must have regard when deciding whether, or how, to exercise their powers under Clause 2(1).
The health of the local population ought to be, and already is, a matter of importance to local authorities. Many local authorities already have quite important powers in the field of public health. Their responsibilities in housing, planning and social services can have considerable impacts on the health of local people. They now have an obligation to co-operate with local NHS organisations on health matters. The health of local people, like benefit to the environment, provides an excellent litmus test of the wider impact and benefit of the exercise of powers to promote economic, social or environmental improvement. Noble Lords have discussed exactly that in relation to the previous amendment.
A government amendment introduced a similar provision to the GLA Act. During its passage, we introduced amendments to give powers to the mayor to create a health strategy for London and/or to publish a regular report on the health of Londoners. In responding to those amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, said on 21st June 1999:
"The effect of those amendments is that health considerations will be a top priority for the mayor in discharging his or her two most important functions—the preparation of strategies and the exercise of the general power. For example, in deciding whether or not to exercise the authority's general power, the mayor must have regard to the effect that the proposed exercise of the power would have on the health of Londoners".—[Official Report, 21/6/99; col. 766.]
Two days later she said:
"the GLA will be under a duty, both in the exercise of its powers and the preparation of its strategies, to consider their effect on the health of people in London and to promote improvements in their health".—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 979.]
Our amendment does not go quite as far as that. Despite what the Minister has said in reply to my noble friend, we submit that this duty should apply to all local authorities and not just to the GLA. If the amendment is accepted, the clause would be almost identical in its wording to the relevant provision—Section 30(4)—in the Greater London Authority Act. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 12 standing in my name. The

1447
amendment requires local authorities, in exercising the new power relating to well-being, to have regard to the achievement of social inclusion in their areas. That is an important provision because I take the view that the creation of a socially cohesive community in a local authority area is a central part of the work of local government. Local government should be about delivering for all the people of the area represented by a local authority. As many local authorities have diverse areas, including extremes of poverty and wealth—many less deprived areas contain pockets of severe deprivation—it is critically important that a local authority in carrying out its functions, particularly in considering the exercise of these new powers, should try to achieve social cohesion. Local authorities should consider the social inclusion of people in such areas.
Social cohesion requires service delivery and the effective delivery of well-being for everyone in the area. In particular, it should require special efforts to be made to deliver well-being to those who suffer from deprivation. In practice, that is about making sure that the local authority delivers for all the people in that community, whether black or white, rich or poor, young or old. That seems to me to be a fundamental requirement. For that reason I believe that there should be an expectation that local authorities, in considering the exercise of these new powers, should have regard to their effect in relation to achieving social inclusion in their areas.
I take the view that this subsumes the implications of Amendment No. 11 in that a key part of social inclusion is to ensure that the health of all those in the community is taken account of and respected. I have heard the points already made in this debate. It seems that the matters of social inclusion and health go closely together. I hope that the Minister can take those matters on board and consider them at a later stage in the course of this legislation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I speak to Amendment No. 14 in this group. It is designed to make local authorities, in particular, consider the impact of their decisions on their neighbours. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment seriously. It states:
"In determining whether or how to exercise the power under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power would have on neighbouring authorities".
Of course, this is a simple and basic: matter: do unto others as you would that they do unto you. It is a simple exercise in "neighbourliness".
There is a serious purpose behind the amendment. In some circumstances, development in one area may have a dramatic effect on another. In relation to economic development, a small laboratory may potentially pose a major industrial accident hazard. We all know of such installations because they have to be inspected properly and they operate under strict regulations. In fact, if a local authority has such an installation within its boundaries, it is necessary to have a major accident plan to deal with the consequences of something going wrong. If there is an
1448
oil refinery, such as we have in Essex, major evacuation plans are put in place to deal with the consequences of something going wrong.
Such a disaster could occur, for the sake of argument, in a small laboratory working in the bio-medical field, causing a huge disease hazard. Again, if that happens a major plan must be involved. Such plans do not stop at local authority boundaries. In Essex we have a nuclear power station. If that went "bang", Ipswich and the county of Suffolk would also have to evacuate if the prevailing wind was blowing in its normal direction, to say nothing of a great deal of Essex and possibly a considerable proportion of Norfolk.
It may be said that those are extraordinary events. The big issues, which I used for illustrative purposes only, would normally be dealt with by somebody other than just a local authority. But when a local authority gives permission to a developer to develop a small industrial estate consisting of 20 or 30 units, it does not seek to control who goes into that estate. That is when problems can arise. Of course, the authority soon finds out because a laboratory of the type I described would have to be registered with the appropriate authorities.
That is not to say that local authorities should not permit that kind of development. We need that kind of development if the economy is to move forward. But as a matter of prudence, and indeed of neighbourliness—to go back to where we began—it would be wise if the local authority consulted the neighbours it placed in that situation. Amendment No. 14 is tabled with that in mind and I hope the Minister will consider it with slightly more favour than he has been able to dismiss the previous amendments.
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It is with trepidation that I intervene among so many experts on local government. My experience is obviously many years out of date and was only that of an ordinary constituency Member of Parliament. But I do so because, at enormous expense, the statute book continues to swell more and more through the insertion of a number of quite unnecessary provisions. The main classes of unnecessary provision are twofold: first, line after line teaching grandmothers how to suck eggs; secondly, page after page of departmental standing orders. That is cumulatively at great expense, and cumulatively far more than the£105 million which so concerned Members of your Lordships' Chamber last Thursday.
At great expense, Amendment No. 11 seems to fall clearly in the first class; that of teaching grandmothers how to suck eggs. Of course, any local authority will have regard to the health of persons in its area. If it does not do so, the members are not suitable to be members of a local authority and are highly unlikely to be re-elected as such. The provision is entirely unnecessary.
Amendment No. 12 is barely more acceptable. Amendment No. 14 is arguable because it asks a local authority not merely to concern itself with its own

1449
affairs, but with the repercussions of its actions on neighbouring affairs. However, I feel obliged to venture to warn the Committee that such a provision is bound to encourage massive, expensive litigation. With those observations, I hope the Minister will look charily on these amendments, in the same spirit in which he looked on previous amendments.
Lord Whitty: I regret that in relation to these amendments I have to exhibit a degree of chariness. They are unnecessary and could lead to confusion.
Reference to having regard to sustainable development and to social well-being subsume very much the matters with which my noble friend Lord Harris and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, were concerned. We do not therefore need a further specific amendment in relation to health or social exclusion. Clearly the Government are concerned about social exclusion, health and well-being, but spelling them out in this way is not necessary. There is no direct read-over from the GLA Bill, where we were dealing with a new authority with strategic powers. Here we are talking of the duties, when exerting their power, of all local authorities.
Clearly it is important that local authorities, in exerting their powers, pay some attention to their effect on neighbouring authorities, as I said in the previous debate. That is integral to sustainable development. We shall need to issue some guidance in that area. Whether or not that is teaching grandmothers to suck eggs, some guidance is probably necessary, though not on the face of the Bill. We shall also return to this issue of neighbouring councils under Amendment No. 17.
Therefore, while I understand the spirit behind this group of amendments—to which I am sympathetic—I do not believe they fulfil those objectives. I hope therefore that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am devastated to be the target of the extremely skilled advocacy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I would have done almost anything to avoid such condemnation. Nevertheless, I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's response. I shall read carefully what he said and consider the context in which the clause appears in the GLA Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) In determining whether or how to exercise the power under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power would have on equal opportunities and on the promotion of harmonious race relations in that local authority's area.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33. I have just spoken on the subject of social inclusion and hope that I am not already pre-judging my noble friend's response to this group of amendments.
Clearly, social inclusion and social well-being could be deemed to cover issues surrounding race and equal opportunities. But Amendment No. 13 would have the effect of placing at the centre of the new power an obligation to have regard to the effects of the exercise of that power on equal opportunities and the promotion of harmonious race relations. That is something which should be explicitly reflected on the face of the Bill. It is important to do that given the discussions which have taken place following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the implications of the Macpherson Report, not just for the police service but for all public services.
Quite clearly, that report was saying to local government, as it was saying to other public services and to the police, that local government needs to look at the way it operates and that part of the exercise of its powers should be promoting equal opportunities and thereby helping to achieve harmonious race relations. That is a critical responsibility of local government.
Britain is certainly a multi-racial society. That is something I am sure Members of the Committee would wish to welcome and foster. By the same token, local authorities should welcome and foster that multi-racial society within their boundaries. In practice, this means that at the centre of the power should be the expectation of promoting harmonious race relations, coupled with the achievement of equal opportunities and progress made towards that end.
Amendment No. 33 would require local authorities to publish an annual report on the use of their power under the clause and its effectiveness in promoting well-being, equal opportunities and harmonious race relations. I submit that it is a rather helpful requirement in the legislation that there should be an annual report on the use to which the general power of "well-being" is put. Whether or not Members of the Committee accept Amendment No. 13, I believe that the requirement for an annual report on how that power is used would be a very salutary exercise for local authorities in considering what they have done in the preceding year to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their communities. The production of such an annual report would enable the community at large to assess the extent to which the local authority is being effective in that regard.
If the powers have been exercised, the way in which Amendment No. 33 is phrased would also require the local authorities to report back to their communities on whether or not they regarded those powers as having been effective in achieving what they set out to do. Again, that seems to me a salutary requirement on local government. But, specifically, in that amendment are expectations to report on the implications for equal opportunities and for the promotion of harmonious race relations. In the spirit of the lessons learnt from the Stephen Lawrence case and in line with the recommendations of the Macpherson inquiry, it

1451
would be very valuable for local authorities to be required to report regularly to their communities on the way in which they have looked at these matters and promoted harmonious race relations in their area. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 57, which is grouped with the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. In doing so, perhaps I may say that I agree with all that the noble Lord said. This is not the stage at which we argue whose amendment is best. I believe that we are trying to achieve the same objective. Amendment No. 57 encapsulates all that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is trying to achieve, although it goes a little further in tackling all areas of discrimination.
I know that the wording of Amendment No. 57 will be very familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to the Minister and, indeed, to all of us who spent many happy hours working on the GLA Bill, as it was at that stage. We debated this issue at every stage of the legislation and made a little progress each time until we reached the Third Reading when the Minister said:
"The outcome of those discussions has been in my view to alter the approach of the Government to the matter and to improve the provisions".—[Official Report. 1/11/99; col. 584.]
So we have built on that experience and we have taken the amendment, almost word for word, from Clauses 33 and 404 of what is now the Greater London Authority Act. Having been so moved during the passage of the GLA legislation, I hope that the Minister will be moved to act rapidly today rather than making us wait three months before we achieve the same objective.
For all the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, it is important to have a duty imposed on all local authorities similar to one imposed on the GLA. Amendment No. 57 suggests that it should be a duty of all local authorities to have due regard to the principle of equality of opportunity for all people. It requires each local authority to have regard to the need.
"to promote equality of opportunity",
but specifically mentions,
"persons irrespective of their race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion".
Those are the definitions of discrimination used within the European Union. That is why they appear in the GLA Act and why I believe them to be appropriate for all local authorities. Finally, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the amendment would require each local authority to publish a report each year stating what it had done to further those aims.
As we debated this issue so many times and with such eventual success only a few months ago, I am confident in speaking to the amendment now—and as I shall be when moving it at the appropriate time—that the Minister will feel able to accept it. Indeed, he may recognise the wording, as he proposed some of it himself. If that is rushing things a little too much and if the Government do not feel at this stage that they
1452
want to accept the amendment, I hope that the Minister, who, I know, takes these issues very seriously, will at least tell us how they propose to tackle the issue during the passage of the Bill. We shall certainly be returning to it if necessary, as I am sure will others.
When the Bill leaves this Chamber it needs to contain a proper, wide-ranging equalities clause. I suggest that this is the clause, borrowing as it does from a duty already imposed on one authority. I trust that the Minister will respond positively to the intentions behind this group of amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I may declare my interest at this stage as I am a member of a local authority. In case I happen to intervene on a few more occasions, I ask that that be recorded and noted for the rest of the proceedings on the Bill.
Basically, I wish to comment on the amendments that include reference to annual reports. Local authorities are falling under the weight of having to make reports. Therefore, can I ask that this is not made a specific issue. Perhaps something can be included in the annual reports that already have to be produced. But, please, let us not have another one.
Lord Whitty: I recognise many of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Harris have advanced. Although I accept that it is important that the power of well-being and the rest of the reform of local authorities encapsulated in the Bill should clearly have regard to equalities and to the effect on race relations within the authority, I am not sure that any of the amendments in this group sets out the appropriate way forward.
I am not sure that we should directly link the question of the promotion of race relations and equality to the physical exercise of the power of well-being, as suggested by Amendments Nos. 13 and 33. Moreover, Amendment No. 57 replicates in part Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. However, it only does so in part and, therefore, there is an ambiguity as to how it applies to local authorities compared with other public authorities. Again, that is a discussion that we had in the GLA context.
As certain Members of the Committee, I expect, are aware, the Government will be publishing a consultation paper within the next few months, which will look at equality issues. That paper will discuss placing a general duty of equality on all public sector organisations. Therefore, it is difficult for me to agree to an amendment to the Bill inserting a form of words relating to equality that might well be generalised as regards all public sector authorities at a later stage.
Nevertheless, I understand the breadth of feeling within this area and take note of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, regarding yet another annual report, along with other concerns. However, I think it would probably be better for me to consider whether there is a more appropriate way of achieving the objectives to which noble Lords have referred.

1453
Alternatively, I may indicate at a later stage that it would be better for us to proceed in relation to public sector authorities in general rather than specifically in terms of this Bill. I undertake to comment on the matter at a later stage in the proceedings.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, responds to the Minister's comments, I ask the Minister to understand—from the tone of his response I am sure that he does understand this—that many of us within this Chamber and elsewhere hope to see the Government build on the good example that they set in relation to this issue—with all-party consensus—in the Greater London Authority Act. It does not seem to me a complete answer to say that the matter is being considered in regard to all public sector bodies. We now have an example in legislation of how to deal with the issue.
Following their consultation the Government may propose changes to the Greater London Authority Act. They may also propose changes to what will be the Local Government Act 2000. In the context of the new powers that are proposed for local government—which are welcome—it is important to set down provisions with regard to the importance of equality, which are generally accepted, on the understanding that peripheral points arise with regard to the mechanisms that may be established. That is an important statement for the Government to make and it is one that we should like to see on the face of this Bill when it reaches the statute book.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. However, I am not entirely satisfied as yet with what he has said. It is pleasing that the Government accept the importance of the amendments that have been proposed. It would be helpful at a later stage to be given an indication of how the Government feel that it would be appropriate to deal with these matters. I accept the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as regards the precedent contained in the Greater London Authority Act. That precedent was much discussed in amendments that were tabled in Committee and at every stage of that measure in this Chamber. As a result of that, a provision emerged which distilled the objectives which we were all trying to achieve. Those objectives apply just as much to individual London boroughs as to individual local authority districts and individual county councils. I should have thought that the same principles could be included in an amendment to this Bill which would achieve those objectives.
I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on annual reports. I accept that a proliferation of annual reports does not necessarily achieve the purpose of informing the local community. However, if local authorities were required to comment on this matter in their other annual reports, or in an appropriate annual report, that would meet the requirement.
1454
I note also what my noble friend has said about a consultation paper that is to be produced that concerns a wider duty with regard to public services in terms of the matter we are discussing. That would clearly be valuable. However, I submit—I hope that my noble friend will consider this—that local government is central to the delivery of so many public services in a local area. The whole philosophy of this Bill concerns community leadership. We shall debate the principle of community planning and other matters at a later stage. If there is to be the expectation that local government will offer community leadership, there should be an expectation—perhaps in advance of the wider consultation—that local government should promote equal opportunities and create harmonious race relations. Whatever form that provision may take, it should be included on the face of the Bill. However, having listened carefully to what my noble friend has said, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this point at a later stage in the passage of this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (4), a person includes another local authority.").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 15, which stands in the name of my noble friends Lord Tope and Lady Hamwee. The amendment seeks to link the power in Clause 2(1) to promote and improve the well-being of an area with joint working between local authorities. This link is extremely important.
Amendment No. 15 states:
"For the purposes of subsection (4), a person includes another local authority".
The Government may ask why we have chosen the words,
"a person includes another local authority".
We have chosen that wording because the powers in the Bill have been conferred specifically on local authorities but not on partner organisations. We believe that the amendment is necessary because the drafting of this Bill and of the Local Government Act 1999 relates primarily to unitary areas. It is only through local authorities working together—in the case of adjoining local authorities—or working through the tiers of authorities that the concept of best value will be delivered. In some places there are four tiers of authorities. Devon County Council, for example, has to contend with two national parks and, I believe, nine districts and many parish councils.
We must be more rigorous in ensuring that local authorities are enabled to work together and are given every encouragement to do so. If the Government wish best value and community planning to work, they must ensure that where the Bill's wording and

1455
structures seem to threaten those concepts they will consider those points closely. Has the Minister considered—I am sure that he has—the three or four pages of regulations regarding joint working arrangements? I have read them several times. They are extremely difficult and convoluted. I am sure that when we reach the appropriate part of the Bill the Minister will be able to explain them to me.
The amendment would at least ensure that local authorities regard co-operation and joint working as concepts that the Government recognise and seek to encourage. If accepted, the amendment would underline the basic right of local authorities to co-operate with others in the matter that we are discussing. I beg to move.
Lord Bowness: I have some sympathy with the proposal that local authorities should be able to co-operate with other local authorities. However, I hope that the noble Baroness who has moved the amendment which stands in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, could help me at least, and perhaps also the Committee, as regards the implications of substituting or including in the definition of "person" a local authority in connection with Clause 2(4)(b) and (f). It seems to me that to make a specific provision for one local authority to be able to give financial assistance to another and to,
"provide staff, goods, services or accommodation"
to another local authority is fraught with difficulty. It is a matter that I believe would distort the already imperfect financial regime and national support for local authorities. I cannot support the amendment as it stands at present. I hope that at the end of the debate we can discuss how co-operation can be achieved between local authorities, as I believe that it can—Clause 2(5) goes some way towards underlining that—without the specific reference to financial support of one authority by another.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 39, which stands in my name, is grouped with Amendment No. 15. It deals with what I can describe only as a parallel situation although it is in fact rather a different situation. It would not have mattered if the amendments had not been grouped together. However, I am quite happy to discuss them as grouped amendments.
Amendment No. 39 relates to Clause 4, which deals with strategies for promoting the well-being of local authorities, the subject under discussion. Subsection (2) states:
"In preparing any strategy under this section, a local authority—
(a) may consult or seek the participation of such persons as they consider appropriate".
My amendment seeks to insert the words "or organisations".
The question arises as to whether "persons" are or can be organisations or whether they might be deemed to be singular. I have always taken the view that
1456
"persons" were persons, referred to on the whole as individuals, and that "organisations" can cover everything from businesses, to pressure groups, to residents' groups, to tenants' groups, and any other group of which we can think.
The insertion of the words "or organisations" will help the Bill quite considerably. It is for that reason that I have tabled Amendment No. 39.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand the intention behind Amendment No. 15 and Amendment No. 39, which is grouped with it. However, I hope that I am in a position to reassure both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the amendments are not necessary to achieve the objectives they have outlined.
The term "person" is a well-established legal shorthand and is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 to include a body of persons corporate or incorporate. So, of course, local authorities will be able to provide the whole range of assistance envisaged in paragraphs(4)(a) to (e) to other local authorities. The only effect of these amendments would be to cast doubt on the scope of the term "person" throughout the rest of the Bill.
I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured that the clause, as drafted, already meets her objective in this area and that she will therefore withdraw her amendment. I hope also that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will not feel it necessary to move his amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her reply. It is very reassuring and I am glad that we now have a clear definition from the Government of the legal meaning of the term "person".
I shall not dwell on the issue at length but I do not believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Although at the best of times local authorities work together unchallenged, perhaps in times of hostile opposition to such co-operation from within their own ranks there might be questions as to whether or not they are giving financial support to each other, or perhaps questions about arrangements whereby staff move between the two authorities. In such cases, it is necessary to have a very clear track of decision-making and accountability to ensure that they are not informal, casual arrangements but that they are properly accounted for by each authority. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("and, prior to the exercise of the power outside their own boundaries, they shall consult, and receive agreement from, the authority within whose boundaries the power is to be exercised").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 concerns a different point. It is a probing amendment which seeks to discover the meaning of Clause 2(5) and what are its limitations.
Clause 2(5) is somewhat unusual It states:
"The power under subsection (1) includes power for a local authority to do anything in relation to, or for the benefit of, any person or area situated outside their area if they consider that it is likely to achieve any one or more of the objects in that subsection".
That is providing a very open power for a local authority to undertake particular actions in neighbouring authorities, and even in authorities that are not neighbouring authorities. Presumably—although we shall come later to matters of finance—it will give them power, as is stated in subsection (4), to give financial assistance outside their own area.
My amendment would require a local authority to consult the local authority in whose area it intends to take such extra-territorial action, if I may put it that way. Again, that seems to me to be a matter of simple neighbourliness. I have also said that they should get the agreement of that authority. That is not unreasonable.
Clause 2(5) as drafted appears to contain an extremely open power. I am all for giving local authorities powers and, generally speaking, I would not wish in any way to restrict that. But a power which may be operated in another authority's area—possibly even at the expense of that authority, if only through inadvertency—should be questioned at this stage. I move Amendment No. 17 in order to tempt the Minister to rise to the bait once again and to tell us exactly what are the limitations on the power and how it will work. Unless we are extremely careful, we shall be putting into the Bill at this point a power which might at some time in the future cause considerable dissension between particular authorities. That is something about which we should be very cautious. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The Bill allows local authorities to pursue actions which would have an effect outside their areas. We obviously would not expect them to do that without consultation and without adopting a sensible and responsible attitude. Local authorities already have powers to act outside their areas—economic development powers, housing powers and, in some cases, education powers—so there are precedents.
We need to make it clear that we expect local authorities to co-operate. On the other hand, we do not want to be over-prescriptive on the face of the Bill. We would not want to be quite as limiting as the noble Lord is tempting us to be. None the less, I am happy to go away and to look at the matter in order to see whether there is a better way in which we can make it absolutely clear that local authorities should act in co-operation. I know that there are anxieties about that and we should like to be as reassuring as we can be. If the noble Lord will accept that reassurance, we can come back to the matter.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for the words he has used; they are extremely helpful. As
1458
I said, it is a probing amendment. I am glad that he acknowledges that there is an issue and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 18 seeks to delete subsection (6) from Clause 2. I read subsection (6) and I had difficulty in understanding what it is supposed to mean. It states:
"Nothing in subsection (4) or (5) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1)".
Although subsections (4) and (5) may not deal with the generality of the power, they give powers to the local authority and state how they may be used. I do not see why we need subsection (6), which states that those subsections do not affect the power. They do affect the power, albeit beneficially. For that reason, I feel that subsection (6) is a strange little sentence and I wonder whether the Bill would not in fact be better off without it. Having decided that the Bill would be better without the subsection, I have sought to persuade the Minister of that. The subsection does not help the Bill or provide any useful service. Indeed, it might add a certain degree of confusion here. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I regret to say that on this occasion the noble Lord has not convinced me with his argument. The point of the power of well-being is that it makes a broad range of activities available for local authorities to promote. We have set out some of those activities in Clause 2(4), but that is not intended to be an exhaustive list.
If we were to accept Amendment No. 18, it could potentially cast significant doubt on the scope of the power. We need to make it absolutely clear that Clause 2(4) is simply indicative and not exhaustive. It is included principally to remove some of the doubts that currently exist about some of the activities referred to in Clause 2(4).
There are restrictions on the power in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 3, but we do not wish to draft the power in such a way that it is unduly restricted. Subsection (6) leaves no doubt that the power is wide. Its deletion would unnecessarily restrict the power and damage the purpose of the Bill. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue this amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which I shall study with care. Should I need to return to the matter, the noble Lord will find out in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Limits on power to promote well-being]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 27, after ("any") insert ("specific").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 19 I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 20. In Clause 3 we move on from the extension of local authority powers to restrictions on those powers. My first point on this clause concerns subsection (1), where it is made clear that the new power of well-being is not to enable a local authority to do anything that it would be unable to do by virtue of a prohibition, restriction or limitation contained in another enactment.
Amendment No. 19 seeks to make the position clear as to when prohibitions, restrictions and limitations may apply by inserting the word, "specific". I have little hope that the Government will find this an attractive amendment because I appreciate that, in future legislation, they would not want to have to return constantly to this enactment in order to spell out those restrictions, notwithstanding Clause 2 of this Bill. Nevertheless, I should like to make the point that it would be unfortunate if, in the future, confusion were to arise as to whether a restriction is one that will bite for the purposes of Clauses 3 and 2.
The purpose of Amendment No. 20 is to clarify what is meant by the term "limitation", and in effect the amendment deletes that word. The words "prohibition", "restriction" and "limitation" could amount to a long list of circumstances in which the new powers could not be exercised. What is a limitation if it is not a restriction or a prohibition?
In particular, in explaining the aim of the clause and its impact in terms of achieving the laudable aims of the White Paper, can the Minister assure the Committee that the impact of Clause 2 would not be significantly reduced? Are the limitations both explicit and implicit? If Clause 2 is intended to give councils greater flexibility, will their community well-being powers be undermined by allowing implicit limitations?
Finally, how will this relate to resources? Councils will need to find resources for the process of checking whether there are any limitations. We are concerned at the expense and delay that might be incurred if councils wished to exercise the new well-being power but felt that they needed to be careful about the question of limitations. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Unfortunately, the Government cannot accept Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. The wording of Clause 3(1) is very clear as to which restrictions in other legislation will limit the scope of the well-being power in Clause 2.
Local authorities may not use the ell-being power to get round any prohibition, restriction or limitation contained in any other enactment; in other words, any prohibition spelt out within another piece of local government statute. These are restrictions that have been expressly laid down by Parliament as necessary checks on authorities' various activities.
These checks may take a variety of forms. For example, some statutes expressly prohibit an authority from undertaking a particular activity. Those
1460
prohibitions will apply also to the well-being power. In other cases, local authorities are expressly restricted in the action they may take. For example, conditions may be attached which restrict authorities' freedom of action by requiring them to do things in a certain way. Finally, powers may be limited by the express requirements of other legislation. For example, the requirement to achieve best value under the terms of the Local Government Act 1999.
I suspect that it is these express, rather than specific, prohibitions and restrictions that formed the basis for the noble Baroness tabling Amendment No. 19. This amendment would not add anything to what is already enshrined in the Bill, nor would a reference to express restrictions. Both are unnecessary and would be more likely to confuse the very objective that the Government and the noble Baroness want to achieve.
The use of the words "prohibition", "restriction" and "limitation" is purposely broad. It is supposed to avoid future legal argument about whether a condition—expressly stated in other legislation—is a "restriction" or a "limitation". I hope that answers the question of the noble Baroness. It appears that the noble Baroness is seeking a definition as to why the terms were used in previous legislation. I fear that that could very considerably lengthen my reply, which nobody would wish.
If accepted, Amendment No. 20 might open up the scope for such arguments, and as such we feel unable to accept it. With these explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness can be persuaded to withdraw Amendment No. 19 and not to move Amendment No. 20.
Baroness Hamwee: I can tell the Minister that I shall withdraw Amendment No. 19 because her response has not surprised me. However, I reiterate my concern that, given the increasing pace of legislation, Parliament should be clear on how new legislation affects previous enactments.
As regards Amendment No. 20, I remain unclear about the difference between a restriction and a limitation. Here I am expressing not only a lack of understanding on my part, because this point has been raised by local government bodies. I take the Minister's point that a long explanation might prove rather tedious for the Committee, but I believe that it is an important matter. I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness to write to me following this stage. It is a matter of considerable concern, and I should not like to let the concern linger if there is a way of dealing with it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We shall be delighted to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, leave out line 29 and insert ("passed or made after the enactment of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: I can be even briefer in moving this amendment. Clause 3(1) makes it clear that the enactments with which we are dealing, which might provide prohibitions, restrictions and limitations, are enactments, whenever passed or made. My amendment would seek to change that to enactments made or passed after the enactment of this Act. This is again a plea for certainty and clarity. If there are already prohibitions, restrictions and limitations which would apply, I think that they should be recorded, not necessarily on the face of the Bill but at this or at a subsequent stage, through guidance to local authorities as to where they might find the prohibitions, restrictions and limitations which are relevant. I think that the Government have a responsibility to assist local authorities in assessing what existing enactments will affect them. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As we have always indicated, we wish to give local authorities a fairly wide-ranging power in relation to well-being. Nevertheless, we have always indicated that it would not be a power to do absolutely everything and anything. There have to be some safeguards. Those safeguards must include areas which have already been limited by preceding legislation. That is why Clause 3(1) keeps in place those restrictions which have been laid down by Parliament, subject to something else I wish to say in a moment.
Were we to go through all the areas of previous legislation which qualify or restrict the role of local authorities, I suspect that the kind of schedule the noble Baroness is looking for would be somewhat lengthy. Therefore I think we have to rely on this being expressed in general terms. One very obvious provision that her deletion would remove is the restriction on local authorities being able to publish material of a party political nature. Clearly that is not the intention of the power of well-being. Likewise there will be more detailed aspects which exist to restrict local authority activity within existing legislation.
We do recognise the need to remove some of this legislation. That is indeed why we have included the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 for the Secretary of State to do so. We are already engaged in a raft of initiatives to identify suitable candidates for removal from the statute book. We believe that it is only right that any proposals to legislate in this way to remove those restrictions must be scrutinised by Parliament rather than, as the amendment of the noble Baroness would do, simply wipe out all previous legislation and start from day zero.
On reflection I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may feel she does not wish to pursue this amendment and will recognise the importance of retaining this cross-reference to existing legislation.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sure the Minister will understand that one has to find a device to ask the
1462
question, even if one does not have particular faith in one's own drafting. It is not an amendment that I would wish seriously to see incorporated in the final form of the Bill. However, it has enabled me to make the point that this might be an occasion for guidance. No doubt there will be occasions when local authorities will be unclear as to whether or not they are already prohibited by existing legislation from pursuing the power which they were so happy to have received a few lines earlier in the Bill. I am not sure whether I have taken the argument further, but I have only taken four minutes over it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 22, I should point out that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 23 or 24.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 22 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 stand in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. At some point during the proceedings on the Bill I am sure that someone will mix up our names.
Amendment No. 22 deals with Clause 3(2), which provides that the power of well-being does not enable a local authority to raise money, whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise. We on these Benches have objections in principle and indeed in detail to this subsection. Our objection in principle is the tight grip which central government keeps on local government expenditure, a degree of control which we think is wrong, unnecessary and not appropriate for good government. I recognise that the clause, if less formal language was being used, might say that the power under Clause 2(1) does not of itself enable a local authority to raise money, or something similar. What the subsection says is that it does not actually alter the situation one way or the other. To that extent it is neutral. If I am right in saying that it is neutral, my objection in principle is to raise a concern about what it might add to Clause 3(1). For instance, does it stop a local authority charging at its discretion to cover its costs for activities to promote well-being, or is a local authority perhaps to be in the position of having to operate such activities at a loss?
This point has been made to me by those who are far more expert than I am in the local government world. They point out that discretionary initiatives, particularly those developed in partnership-working, may well depend on recovering costs. Charging is the most effective way to recover costs. One of the examples given is the village shop initiative which rural authorities may seek to pursue—the type of, as it is described, "social handyman service" that councils have wanted to provide to assist elderly people and others in need who would not otherwise be entitled to this type of service.
Are local authorities to be restricted by this provision from generating a surplus? I think that clarity in this matter would be helpful. There is a real anxiety that the subsection will prevent councils from raising partnership contributions to activities and could undo the good that the earlier part of the Bill will undoubtedly do. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on getting to the Public Bill Office with this amendment before we did. As a result, her name appears, quite properly, to lead on the amendment. Nonetheless, it is an amendment which we too have tabled for precisely similar reasons, although I shall hope to use somewhat different arguments to support the case for removing subsection (2) of Clause 3 from the Bill.
We are back in the position that we were in on the Greater London Authority Bill. That Bill gave the Greater London Authority powers and then the Government immediately prescribed what I described as an "anti-power". Here we are again. The Bill gives local authorities the power to promote well-being—it is not an absolute power of general competence but it goes a long way towards that—and then in the next clause it says, "Well, you have this power but you cannot spend anything on this matter". One might think that that is what the clause means, but that is not what it says. It says that a local authority may not raise money, whether by precept, borrowing or otherwise.
The noble Bareness, Lady Hamwee, referred to one or two benefits which local authorities in rural areas might wish to provide, such as community shops. A local authority might well wish to provide community buses under the power. The ones that I know are run by parish councils, which operate under a different remit. With this power I can see local authorities wishing to undertake a number of such actions. We would wish them to undertake such actions.
It occurred to me that in subsection (2) the Government are somewhat cynically seeking to control what will happen. It is an easy presumption to make that if an authority cannot raise money, whether by precept, borrowing or otherwise, and cannot spend anything, it cannot do very much at all. However, on reflection, I came to the conclusion that that is not so, which gives me even more reason to believe that the clause should not be in the Bill.
A cynic might say that with this power the Government are seeking to control what is spent by local authorities, by trickling money down to them through the revenue support grant. That may be what is in the Government's mind. But the revenue support grant is, largely speaking, a general grant. A local authority has the power to do with a large chunk of the revenue support grant what it chooses to do with it. It could very well choose to spend some of the general part of the revenue support grant on exercising the power under Clause 2. If that caused it to have marginally to raise its precept to deal with its normal line of business, that would be perfectly proper. I see nods of agreement coming from one or two noble
1464
Lords who are members of local authorities. One or two of them are already thinking that that is how they will have to operate.
During the proceedings on the Greater London Authority Bill we debated this issue almost to the point of exhaustion. The Government were not inclined to give way then and so I am not hopeful that they will give way now. But I think that they should. They have plenty of other powers by which they can constrain local government expenditure if that is required. In the previous Session we passed a Bill specifically to give them that power. We resisted it then and I think that we should resist it again on this occasion. I cannot see that subsection (2) adds anything useful or constructive to the Bill. The worst aspect of it is that it will treat councils and councillors as if they are babes, as if they are irresponsible and as if they are not to be trusted. Worse than that, it treats their electorates with the same contempt. Councillors are responsible to their electorates for their actions. Their electorates can discriminate; they are discriminating; and they know how to take action if local authorities do not behave responsibly.
The worst aspect of subsection (2) is that it destroys the amour propre of local government and local communities. If one wants people to behave responsibly, one must make them responsible. If one wants to make them responsible, one must take Clause 3(2) out of the Bill and let them make their own judgment. I am happy to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I may speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 23, which is in the same group. My amendment expands on what has already been proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and on some of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Where one has a power of well-being, the power to charge must be a sine qua non of that. My amendment would address as well the problems which have occurred since the House of Lords' decision in 1992 in the case of R v. London Borough Richmond-upon-Thames ex parte McCarthy and Stone—I am sure that all noble Lords will be familiar with it—that it was unlawful for a local authority to charge for planning advice. Although there is a power for local authorities to give planning advice, in relation to which they make take a substantial amount of time and have detailed discussion, they may not charge for that time. That example could be relevant to any aspect of what has been included in Clause 2(1) and the powers of competence and well-being.
The decision in that case has resulted in doubts as to whether local authorities can charge for other matters, such as commercial filming in their streets—something which they may want to do—inspection of works by statutory undertakers and supervision of parking bays; for example, the suspension of parking bays for contractors. My amendment would enable councils to

1465
collect reasonable payments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested, for work done under these clauses.
It is reasonable to give local authorities the opportunity to charge for what they do. Although under statute they are able to charge for some services, they cannot charge for all. I have cited some of those services to the Committee. Although what I have suggested may stretch what is proposed just a trifle, I wonder whether it could be taken into account.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I have some sympathy with what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The noble Baroness referred to the tight grip on local government. I should remind the Committee that the tight grip is loosening a little, but it is perhaps not quite loose enough yet. It is not the purpose of the Bill to review the arrangements for local government finance. I am confident that my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are considering that matter and will report at the end of the three-year period.
In seeking what are proper restrictions on the use of the powers of local authorities, we should ensure that we are not too prescriptive. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, when he says that local authorities are acting democratically and in public. I am particularly concerned by the words "or otherwise". If the Government seek to restrain the raising of money by precepts or borrowing, I think it is proper to do so. There may be other areas which the Government seek to restrict, but rather than adding the words "or otherwise", they should come clean now and list what those restrictions will be.
In recent years, when the party opposite was in government, local authorities were forced to get used to a certain amount of creativity as regards funding. But there are concerns, particularly given the function of well-being, that additional services that we begin to provide should be charged on a proper basis. We already charge for certain services that we provide, and we need to understand to what extent the restriction will apply. If there is joint activity with another partner, to what extent will partners be able to fund into that? Is that raising money? What about European funding, and so on? The phrase is rather too much of a catch-all. I should welcome the Minister's assurance that there could be greater precision in the limitation.
Lord Hanningfield: I support my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. In a recent debate, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, talked about developing a small industrial site, which could be an important issue in this area of development and promoting the economic well-being of an area. The inclusion of "otherwise" could mean that rents could not even be charged for the building of the properties. The whole area is of great concern.
Earlier today, we debated the extra powers being given to local government. I feel, as most speakers have said, that the provision constrains our powers so
1466
much that perhaps the power might not be worth having. I support my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith in his call for the removal of the subsection.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: There is no limit on what local authorities can spend under the well-being power, but the point of the power is to give them discretion. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the proposals are neutral; all we are saying is that authorities may not use the power itself to raise money.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raised the question of whether this was a kind of "anti-power". It certainly is not. Local authorities have plenty of specific powers which allow them to raise money, and there is nothing to stop them using those powers in tandem with the well-being power.
The noble Lord is very effective in putting across the case of someone who was not a gamekeeper and has not become a poacher. All I can say is that he walked, talked, lived, supported and encouraged others to support the gamekeepers during his time. I pay tribute to the fact that the noble Lord challenged his own government on parts of their policy relating to expenditure and local authorities. However, he cannot deny that there is at least a little of the gamekeeper in his history, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, too, would readily accept.
The limitation in subsection (2) merely stops local authorities using the well-being power to raise money, whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise. There are good reasons for that, which mean that the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 22 or Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25. We do not believe that authorities should be able to use the well-being power to impose new taxes on individuals or business. The power to tax should be subject to the specific approval of Parliament. Arguably, Amendment No. 22 would place that decision in the hands of local authorities.
Nor do we see merit in allowing authorities to use the well-being power in itself as a means of borrowing. There are specific terms and conditions around local government's power to borrow. There are two clear reasons for such controls, as my noble friend Lord Smith generously indicated. First, they ensure that authorities act prudently, so that local communities are not faced with an excessive burden of debt charges in future years; secondly, they help to ensure that the Chancellor's objectives for the national economy are achieved—both the "golden rule" that borrowing should only be for investment, not for day-to-day spending, and the rule that public sector debt should be kept at a prudent and stable level over the years.
However, we are keen to look for alternatives to the present system of controls on local government capital finance, which would continue to meet the same broad prudential and macro-economic objectives but in a simpler and less restrictive way. We are exploring that with the LGA as part of our wider review of local government and it will be included in this summer's Green Paper.

1467
My noble friend Lord Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly emphasised the difficult issues and complexities that surround the issue of charging. We accept that the current basis on which authorities can or cannot charge for the services that they provide is confused and unduly restrictive. The problems were clearly highlighted in the recent report of the Audit Commission, The Price is Right: charges for council services.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Government are determined to place charging on a more rational footing. To that end we are looking at the issues as part of the wider review of local government finance that is under way. As I said, local government is fully involved in the process. I believe that representatives of the LGA are meeting tomorrow with the department as part of a joint task group examining the issues around local authority charging. In response to my noble friend Lord Smith, we are determined to make rapid progress on this issue and to bring forward proposals in the local government finance review Green Paper this summer.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, let me make it absolutely clear that the well-being power does not prevent local authorities from charging for services. They simply cannot use the power itself as a means for doing so. Under Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 the Government can make regulations to allow authorities to charge for services that they provide, although that power cannot be used in respect of some specified functions, including education in schools and fire-fighting. Local authorities can continue to use their powers under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 to charge for services that they provide to other public sector bodies.
I apologise for responding at length. I hope that it has been helpful to set out the way in which the Government intend to tackle as a matter of urgency some of the issues raised in the debate. I hope that, with the assurances that I have given, the noble Baroness will be persuaded to withdraw Amendment No. 22 and that Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 will not be moved.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will accept that we are stepping on thin ice when we get into the business of metaphors. "Poacher turned gamekeeper" is all very well, but I prefer "pots" and "kettles". If I have a touch of the gamekeeper in my history, the noble Baroness has a considerable amount of the poacher in hers. I have tried very hard to see whether I can add a fourth metaphor so as to have real mixture, but I cannot.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I feared for a moment that the noble Lord was going to look at me and in all innocence say, "Set a thief to catch a thief".
Lord Hanningfield: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. As vice-chairman of the
1468
Local Government Association I am involved in some of the discussions that are taking place. My understanding is that some of these matters will take some years to deal with, and that there will even be legislation before there is any new kind of local government finance Act. Is the noble Baroness saying that it may take that long to sort out the charging policy? If so, the wording in the clause as presently drafted needs to be examined. We want this Local Government Bill to be actionable before very long. Can the noble Baroness give a possible timetable on the local government finance review?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I informed the Committee earlier that the Government hoped to bring forward proposals in the summer.
Baroness Hamwee: I cannot think of any suitable metaphors. I am sure that comments can be made about choosing friends but not relations, but I cannot work out what they are. As to charging, I am very familiar with R v. LB Richmond-upon-Thames ex parte McCarthy and Stone. I believe that the charge was only £25 per hour. I always understood the former Department of the Environment, now the DETR, to be very sympathetic to the problems that faced local authorities as a result of the restrictions on charging. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I believe that it would be sad if the opportunity was not taken to correct the position. There appears to be little opposition to the underlying proposal.
The Minister has confirmed that Clause 3(2) does not make any difference either way, and that is the assurance that I seek. However, having listened to the debate, doubt has been cast on it—I am sure the Minister understands that I do not attack her integrityߞby the words in parenthesis. If the position is neutral and Clause 2 does not of itself allow a local authority to raise money or restrict it so doing, why is it necessary to say,
"whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise"?
Clearly, those words trouble Members of the Committee who have sought to understand the thrust of the provision. I do not ask the noble Baroness to comment further on that matter, but at a later stage I shall seek to table an amendment to remove the words in parenthesis. If the provision is neutral, those words appear to be unnecessary. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it the Committee's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Dixon-Smith: Not-Content.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kimball, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Belstead, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Biffen, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Bowness, L.

Montrose, D.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Moynihan, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Buscombe, B.

Norfolk, D.

Byford, B.

Northbrook, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Northesk, E.

Carr of Hadley.L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Courtown, E.

Palmer, L.

Cox, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Peel, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Denham, L.

Plumb, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Elton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Feldman, L.

Rees, L.

Fookes, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Glentoran, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Greenway, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hanham, B

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hogg, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hunt ofWirral, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hurd ofWestwell, L.

Wakeham, L.

Jopling, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Alli, L.

Dubs, L.

Amos, B.

Elder, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B

Bach, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Barnett, L.

Filkin, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gale, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gavron, L.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bragg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gregson, L.

Brookman, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Burlison, L.

Harrison, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hayman, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Crawley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hoyle, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Desai, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dixon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord chancellor)

Donoughue, L.

1470

Jeger, B.

Rea, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Laird, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Sawyer, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lipsey, L.

Serota, B.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Simon, V.

McCarthy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

[Teller]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Strange, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Thornton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Varley, L.

Nicol, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Orme, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B

Patel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Peston, L.

Whitty, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Wilkins, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.32 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 3 which states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing local authorities from doing, by virtue of section 2(1)"—
the well-being power—
"anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order".
I feel strongly about the extensive powers that the Government reserve to themselves—they are clear and obvious—by giving with one hand and reserving the right to take away with the other through secondary legislation. I accept that the Government have tabled an amendment which provides that that is to be by affirmative resolution.
What happened to trust by central government of local government, and confidence of central government in themselves? Government will claim the credit for allowing local authorities to exercise new powers. They will claim the credit, and rightly, for addressing the issue of the extent of local authority powers and for assisting local authorities to act in a community leadership role. But they cannot help but retain to themselves the control provided by this clause.
I am not alone in tabling the amendment. I do not suggest that the Conservative Front Bench has the same thoughts as me; I am sure it has better thoughts. However, the effect is the same. By this amendment, I

1471
seek to ask what the Government have in mind. During the passage of the Bill, are we likely to see draft orders; or is there some general reserve power that the Government feel they had better have in case they have made a mistake in Clause 2? It might be a long debate but it need be only a short debate. As we have said on many occasions previously, the issue comes back to the question of trust. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: As with the previous amendment, the noble Baroness got to the Government Public Bill Office before us with the amendment. She covered much of what I wish to say. However, I shall take the time of the Committee to say it slightly differently.
It is depressing to find such a provision in a Bill because it reveals a sad fact: that Government have no faith in local government. If they had such faith, the provision would not be in the Bill. I sometimes wonder whether, by their actions, Government have faith in anything. I suppose that in the nature of politics, politicians become cynical and governments are probably the most cynical of all. That is regrettable and sad, and I think that the country would be a happier, more con tented place if we did not see this kind of provision in legislation, and if local authorities, which are constituted to undertake certain functions, that we seek to extend, were permitted to get on quietly with their business and to behave as adults. Subsection (3) takes away that status from local government. I find that very sad.
We do not know what the Secretary of State will order under the clause. We have the huge volumes of information in the book which deals with Part II and Clauses 66 and 67. But we have nothing on Part I and most of the other parts of the Bill. We have no guidance as to what the Secretary of State may do. By some freak of good fortune, one could hope that he might do nothing. He has that option. If so, I am sure we should all be content.
Unfortunately, people who have served in local government find that after a time they become cynical. Even worse, they become cynical about government and their motives. I am careful not to ascribe any political connotation to those motivations. This is one of the facts of life. In reality, it is sad that that is so because it is an area where Government and local government have a community of interest. They should be able to work together amicably. Just as local government would prefer not to see this provision on the face of the statute, central government should feel, equally, that it was not necessary to have it there. I suspect that it will take a great change of attitudes by both sides before that somewhat Utopian situation arises. In the meantime, the cynics have it. I support the amendment. I hope that the Government will listen with care to what we have said, and agree with us.
Baroness Maddock: As one who served in local government under the previous government, it takes my breath away to hear protestations about the powers of Ministers. Can the noble Lord say whether the Secretary of State will have the power to repeal
1472
previous legislation as regards the power of local government and the requirement to produce reports and so forth? It is important to know whether that is the case. If the noble Lord cannot answer today, perhaps he can provide a list of measures that the Secretary of State can repeal.
Lord Whitty: It is the case that under this clause the Minister can repeal existing legislation if he is convinced that it is inhibiting the proper exercise of powers of well-being. However, the amendment does not address that power; it addresses a power to restrict in extremis the role of local authorities in pursuing the power. Clearly, there are some restrictions, which are the areas of legislation that have not been removed by the Secretary of State. This is a reserve power.
I slightly resent the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, calling my noble friend Lady Farrington and myself cynics. We may be worldly wise, but we are not cynics. Indeed, I maintain that the whole Bill is a leap of faith in relation to local authorities and a big indication of the Government's confidence that they can rise to the challenge. But even a leap of faith requires the occasional emergency parachute.
On this occasion, it is this power. It is a reserve power and not one that should be used frequently, if ever. It provides for an unforeseen situation that is not covered by the restrictions in the Bill. Despite all the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and Members on all sides of the Committee have in the common sense of local government, it provides for a decision conceivably taken at some time in the future, exercised under the well-being power, but patently against the interests of either the inhabitants of the locality or the nation as a whole. Therefore, the Secretary of State requires a reserve power.
I must say that for the life of me I cannot give an example. Indeed, this morning I asked my advisers to do so and they looked at me patiently and said, "How can we possibly give you an example of an unforeseen circumstance?". Nevertheless—
Lord Dixon-Smith: Would the Minister consider Ken Livingstone to be an unforeseen circumstance?
Lord Whitty: I must be careful about how I respond to that, but I do not believe that Ken Livingstone could conceivably be an unforeseen circumstance. The way in which people view that circumstance may vary.
To underline the fact that this is a reserve power, the Government have put forward an amendment to make it clear that it will be exercised only through the specific or affirmative resolution procedure. That indicates to the Committee the rarity with which we would use it and the safeguards which Parliament has on its use. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I should be happier if the Government could come up not only with proposals for affirmative resolutions, but also with a way of saying that, despite the extreme power they propose to

1473
give to the Secretary of State—perhaps one less enamoured of local government than the current one—this is just a parachute; it is to provide for an extreme position, or in extremis, as the Minister said. There is nothing in the clause or in reserve powers written into other legislation which can give the cynical tendency of the Committee—and I admit to being a member—the confidence that it is to be exercised only in extremis. That is why I find a provision such as subsection (3) offensive.
I shall not seek to press the matter now. I hope that the Government will find language to express the fact that it is a reserve power. We might have to return to the issue, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 32, after ("order") insert ("laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment will be overtaken by the Government's Amendment No. 368, which I shall be happy to support. However, it is worth saying a few words about Amendment No. 29. I tabled it as an alternative, but it deals with an important point. Before an order is made, the Secretary of State will consult in particular representatives of local government. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to give the Committee assurances about that. I beg to move Amendment No. 28 as a curtain raiser to Amendment No. 368.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me a curtain raiser. I hope that during the previous debate and in our memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee the Government indicated their belief that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise any proposal made under Clause 3(3). Amendment No. 368 gives effect to this, providing that any order made under the clause will not take effect until it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for indicating that in the light of that she will withdraw her amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 29. The Government would expect as a matter of course to consult local government and any other bodies likely to be affected by regulations brought forward under Clause 3(3). I recognise that elsewhere in Part I we have spelt out the requirement to consult and I therefore have some sympathy with Amendment No. 29 and the intentions behind it. If the noble Baroness is amenable to the suggestion, I should like to reflect on the matter and consider how best the intention can be worded. I hope that on that basis she will not move the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am happy to proceed on that basis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 30 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 31.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 2, line 35, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 30 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 40 which deals with the same issue. When I saw the guidance for Part II of the Bill this morning, I thought that without doubt the Government would accept my amendment on the basis that that was all the guidance that would appear. However, I fear that it may not be the beginning and the end of the guidance which may fall on the heads of local authorities. It is therefore to try to prevent too much guidance from being dished out on this part of the Bill that I seek to remove the powers which enable the Government to provide guidance on it.
If we have now given the power relating to well-being to local authorities, we must trust local authorities to carry out that power without telling them in minute detail how to do so or what to do. I therefore hope that no guidance will be issued on that power and that there will be no nannying of local authorities. As was said about a previous provision, I hope that the Government will trust local authorities to carry out their power relating to well-being. I hope that we shall delete subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 3 and subsections (2)(b) and (3) of Clause 4. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendments Nos. 32 and 41 are grouped with this amendment. They are two small amendments which will not take up the Committee's time for more than a few moments. The first seeks to state that guidance under this section will be regarded as advisory. Guidance is in my view perforce advisory and I suspect that that is what the Minister will say. If one has to deal with planning guidance, so many issues are involved that a planning authority has to strike the best balance it can between them. The guidance cannot be in any way mandatory.
That said, there is a tendency for local authorities to regard guidance as the tablets of stone come down from Mount Sinai. In the days when those tablets were written, life was rather more simple; there were not so many people about and not so many conflicting interests. Some fairly straight precepts of behaviour were perfectly practical. Without knowing in what state the Israelites lived and their ethical standards as they left Egypt on their long trek, I have no doubt that those tablets of stone had validity at the time, as indeed they still do today. But government guidance is another matter. It is not in quite the same category, despite the tendency of some local authorities to believe that it might be.
Amendment No. 41 seeks to change the word "must" to "may", simply to provide flexibility. Instead of using the word "must", which is mandatory, we

1475
suggest changing it to "may", which is optional. Local authorities may then listen and consider carefully what the guidance says but they will have a little more responsibility for what they do with it. That is one of the provisions for which I have been pressing for a long time and for which I shall no doubt continue to press. We may have this debate on many occasions in the future.
Lord Whitty: I am afraid that I take a different view on guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the tablets of stone; for a moment he probably thought that we were in the Moses Room.
If I remember my scriptures rightly, the tribes of Israel then took 40 years to reach the promised land on the basis of the information on the tablets of stone. I believe that we need to guide local authorities a little more gently and in a little more detail for them to be able to exercise their powers in relation to community planning and well-being. We therefore need to have some greater certainty and clarity about what we are after; not only for local authorities themselves but also for their partners in the public and private sectors with which the powers give them greater scope to work. They need to have some degree of certainty as to which powers are available and we should do better to spell it out in guidance rather than have a colossal amount of information on the face of the Bill.
We have in mind two distinct areas where there should be further guidance in respect of the well-being power. The first relates to the fact that the closest approximation to the new broad power under pre-existing legislation is the power under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. A number of difficult decisions and a certain amount of confusion have ensued over whether or not local authorities actually have that power. That particularly applies to partner bodies. We need to ensure that people are clear about that. It is therefore the Government's intention that authorities should be able to use their new broad powers to engage in a range of activities, but also that they and others should be clear which powers they have and which they do not.
Secondly, it is important to note that local authorities have a key role to play in delivering many of the Government's objectives on issues such as social exclusion, neighbourhood renewal and supporting vulnerable groups, where a wide range of bodies are involved. It is important that the statutory guidance sets out the priorities for action and the general principles which should underpin action in those areas. With regard to community planning, the Government may want also to set out in guidance some of the principles which should underpin the preparation of community strategies.
I recognise a degree of irritation in local authorities at the length and detail of some of the guidance they receive. Nevertheless, I feel that in that new area some degree of greater clarity than we may possibly prescribe on the face of the Bill or in the schedules to the Bill would be helpful to local authorities and others. Therefore, I should resist moves by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to remove the
1476
requirement on issuing guidance under those provisions. I hope that they will not pursue the amendments.
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I shall consider it and hope that his brevity will be apparent in the guidance notes which are published on this provision, if not on Part II. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 39, leave out first ("such").
The noble Lord said: I regret that I have managed to lose myself because I have two amendments tabled adjacently.
The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State power to consult only those whom he chooses. We have had this debate before. It does not require him to consult local government at large, but such local authorities as he chooses. At this stage, he should in fact be consulting local government at large. The word "such" makes matters too selective. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 31. It is grouped with Amendment No. 42 which deals with exactly the same point; they are identical amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to ensure that all relevant local government bodies are consulted on any draft guidance on the use of the well-being power and the production of community strategies. There has never been any suggestion that the Government would do otherwise. Indeed, our memorandum to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation made clear our commitment to consulting local authority representatives and others likely to be affected by regulations or guidance issued under Part I of the Bill.
The only practical effect of Amendments Nos. 31 and 42 would be to confuse an otherwise simple issue. It could leave the Secretary of State open to legal challenge for failure to consult certain people who claimed to be representative of a sectional interest or grouping. There is a well-established legal precedent for this formulation—most recently in the Local Government Act 1999—which for practical purposes merely retains a sensible level of discretion for the Secretary of State.
I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 31 and not move Amendment No. 42, when we reach it.
7 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to the House for my confusion. Because we had been dealing with Amendments Nos. 40 and 41, I had got ahead of myself. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, which I shall study with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Strategies for promoting well-being]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("is to have power to prepare") and insert ("shall prepare and keep under review").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 4 takes us to the part of the Bill which deals with strategies for promoting well-being. In this amendment I propose that, rather than merely giving local authorities the power to prepare such a strategy, we should require them to do so and, indeed, to keep the strategy under review. I would not normally seek to impose duties on local authorities. As your Lordships know, I argue frequently that they should be allowed to take decisions for themselves. However, as with the case of equalities, it seems to me that this strategy is so central to the purpose of the Bill that it is an exception.
The Local Government Association makes the point that a statutory basis is an essential prerequisite for establishing the community planning process across the country and, importantly, for ensuring that other partners have due regard to the process. Therefore, as I say, unusually I seek to impose a duty. I believe that that is not very far away from what the Government themselves propose. After all, I believe that the community strategy is intended to replace a number of other strategies which currently are required. I propose, too, that the strategy should be kept under review. It should be implicit in the word "prepare" that in this situation one does not simply write a document, agree it and then put it on a shelf. It would be sad if such an important document were treated in that way.
As with best value, it seems to me that strategies for promoting well-being must be treated as something of a rolling process. The very process itself is important to the value of the strategy. It must involve a range of different partners, and life does not stand still. Therefore, without wishing to suggest that it should be so formulaic as to be prepared in one year and reviewed on every third anniversary or anything of that kind, nevertheless I believe that, having created the strategy, it is appropriate for local authorities to keep it fresh in their minds and in the minds of their communities.
With regard to the regulations, in my notes I have written down "paragraph 11/", but that may not be sufficient to identify them. Therefore, I apologise to the Minister. I shall not shuffle through my papers
1478
now to look for them. However, I have written myself a note to ask him whether it is the community strategy that is referred to in paragraph 11.7 of the draft regulations. In any event, that is perhaps a side issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Will the Minister tell the Committee how many statutory duties the Government currently expect local authorities to prepare? Are there any additional duties which may not be statutory but which none the less the Government expect to see from good local authorities? Although this amendment may be criticised for imposing an extra duty, I believe that in the longer term it will have the effect of removing an extremely onerous duty of producing dozens—something in the order of three dozen—different strategies, which may not be joined up in a coherent way.
If local authorities have the powers that they will have if the Bill is passed, how will a community see and influence the way in which those powers are applied? How will it comment on them? In real life, even the most interested members of a community do not usually gather together 36 strategies and go through them laboriously. Thirty-six strategies would pile up by their beds to well beyond the height of the bedside table. If members of a community had one coherent document, perhaps available on CD, they might go through that. I believe that that is the way forward. It is very confusing to have many different strategies. I know that I do not usually want to burden local authorities with extra duties. However, I believe that, if they have been given those powers, they should be obliged to make it plain to their communities exactly what they are doing with them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am shocked that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, does not read piled-up strategies late at night!
Baroness Hamwee: In defence of my noble friend, she did not say that she did not; she said that members of the community might not.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I should set the record straight and say that for relaxation very late at night I prefer the books of my noble friend Lady Rendell rather than community strategies.
Amendment No. 35 would turn the power of community planning into a duty. We do not believe that such a duty would lead to better community planning. It would raise questions about how exactly that function was to be discharged. Inevitably, the Government would be drawn into prescribing minimum requirements for such strategies. That approach would run counter to the genuinely inclusive process that we want to see. If community planning is to operate effectively, local authorities must have real flexibility over the precise nature of the strategy, the level of detailed action which it contains, and how they should go about preparing it in partnership with others. They should be able to demonstrate to their communities and partners that there are real benefits

1479
for them in taking part in the preparation of those strategies. The discussions around community strategies will be important in establishing a consensus around what is a local priority and for mapping the action that each body will take to address those priorities and to improve local well-being.
Authorities are already required by central government to produce approximately 40 different plans or strategies. We agree that those requirements need rationalising. Clause 6 provides some opportunity to do that.
The discussions will be important. It is extremely important that community strategies are the vehicle for ensuring that all public bodies pull together. The guidance to local authorities under Clause 4(2)(b) will enable the Government to set out very broad parameters for community strategies.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I should say that, of course, we expect local authorities to keep their strategies under review and we shall make that point in the guidance. But the 1998 local government White Paper made clear that the Government do not intend to impose upon councils any particular approach to that task. Councils will have flexibility as to the precise nature, scope and coverage of the strategy, the level of detailed actions it contains and how they go about preparing it in partnership with other organisations. The new regional development agencies and local people are clearly involved. Community strategies are required under Clause 4 and are listed in the regulations as a plan that must be adopted by the full council. I hope that that answers one of the points raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, drew attention to the fact that a number of authorities are involved with local strategic partnerships which bring together councils, the public sector, local businesses, voluntary organisations and local communities to tackle neighbourhood problems. We believe that the, new commitment to regeneration pathfinders is just one example. As I know the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, recognises, the nature of those partnerships varies from place to place, reflecting local circumstances and needs. We want to encourage local authorities and their partners to build on those arrangements. We believe that such an enabling approach is more likely to lead to worthwhile community planning than would the imposition of a further duty. We do not believe that that would aid the sort of co-operation and consensus that good and deep community planning needs if it is to succeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about another paragraph. If she will permit me, I shall write to her about that.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder which of the noble Baronesses sleeps the more soundly with her chosen bed-time reading material. It is probably my noble friend!
Perhaps I am becoming poacher turned gamekeeper. It seems to me rather odd that the Minister is allowing local authorities to be in a position
1480
where, with merely a permissive power, they can choose not to exercise it which will mean that they need not have regard to the guidance which applies when they exercise the power. In other words, by exempting themselves by choice from Clause 4(1), they also set themselves free from Clause 4(2)(b) which refers to having regard to the Secretary of State's guidance. I shall reflect on that.
The Minister suggested that my amendment imposed a level of detail on local authorities. That was certainly not the intention and I do not believe that that is the effect of the amendment. The level of detail is contained in Clause 4(2). That is the "how". My amendment does not seek to alter that in any way. We shall reflect on this matter and we may want to return to it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave; withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 36 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 37.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3 leave out line 2 and insert ("the sustainable development").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks in particular to understand and perhaps to develop what is meant by the well-being strategy but also to put on the agenda the issue of sustainable development.
It seems to me that the sum total of these aspects of well-being and, indeed, the process of achieving them amount to sustainable development. Perhaps I may put the matter in another way and ask how those three aspects of well-being differ from sustainable development in Clause 2(3). Perhaps I may add to that mix and ask what is the relationship between the provisions of this Bill and the Government of Wales Act which, under Section 121, requires the Assembly to make a scheme setting out how it proposes to promote sustainable development. Incidentally, that is not sustainable development in Wales, or of Wales, or in the UK; it is sustainable development period.
The question of sustainable development has exercised Parliament and many others for some time. It was suggested earlier today that we do not know what is meant by sustainable development. I believe that the debate has moved on and that there is quite a consensus around what it means. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, were here, she would describe to the Committee the importance of the various aspects of it far more eloquently than I can do.
If this strategy is not the sustainable development strategy, then where do we have sustainable development in relation to those powers of well-being? It is important in many areas, not least that of planning.
I said earlier that I am beginning to move to a view where I believe that the principal purpose of local government is to achieve sustainable development. Perhaps I may take planning as an example. If one were to write this onto the face of the Bill as the strategy, it would be much easier for planning decisions to take account of social and environmental impacts along with economic impacts. It would be easier to judge them as a package, which is the direction in which planning should be going. It is not just a matter of the environment; it relates to all aspects of society.
I hope that the Government will at least explain the distinction between this piece of legislation and the Government of Wales Act. If my amendment achieves no more than that, it will have been worth floating. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Whether we can describe such strategies as being for the purposes of well-being or for sustainable development is, to some extent, a matter of judgment. I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness and those who are attempting to establish the term "sustainable development" in its widest sense.
However, in the context of this Bill and, indeed, probably in relation to the Government of Wales Act, there is no distinction. They amount to much the same thing. The guidance on community strategies will emphasise that point. But there are strong reasons for retaining the clause as currently drafted. By using the words "economic, social and environmental", it is immediately clear that the strategy is to encompass all of those three dimensions in all an authority's functions, whether in relation to the local economy, social welfare or the environment.
Regrettably, the connection is less clear if one refers only to sustainable development. That is the case, as I am sure those in local government who are trying to set up and develop Local Agenda 21 will bear witness. It is true also that in the drafting structure of the Bill, the wording here reflects the wording of Clause 2(1), which is the key clause, whereas the noble Baroness referred to Clause 2(3) which comes later. Therefore, it is important that in the earlier clause we reflect the objectives in this part of the Bill as well. The point is reinforced that the new well-being will be an important tool in ensuring that local authorities can deliver sustainable growth.
Although I am slightly torn—I understand why the amendment was moved—for the sake of consistency throughout the Bill, we are not in favour of this. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before my noble friend replies, will the Minister define for me a matter that is not apparent? On Amendment No. 11 we proposed specifying the health of people as well as sustainable development. The Minister reassured us—tomorrow I shall check his exact words in Hansard—that the reference to sustainable development
1482
subsumed the need for explicit references to health and social inclusion, thereby accepting that sustainable development neatly encompasses many aspects and allows them to be balanced.
If that applied on Amendment No. 11, I do not understand why it is now better to specify all three different areas of work and not subsume them in that all-encompassing phrase which allows for the three to be balanced. As drafted, I am not sure how the Government can prevent an authority from pursuing one of those areas through its community plan, should it choose to, at the expense of the other two.
Lord Whitty: The subsuming of social inclusion and health applies equally to both social well-being and sustainable development. Clearly, therefore, those dimensions to community planning apply whichever phraseology is used. Sustainable development is, as yet, not as widely understood as the noble Baroness and I would like. The three-pronged strategy is one that is reflected in other legislation and in the key subsection of this legislation. We want consistency through the Bill. I should have hoped that sustainable development would be understood more clearly and more comprehensively than, regrettably, it is. For the purposes of this legislation I believe that some clarity is achieved by making reference to all three. Of course, there is no differentiation in terms of priority between the three. There has to be a balance, as there will have to be a balance within a single sustainable development framework.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry that the Government do not feel confident enough to lead the way by including that terminology. This is an interesting and important area. In my mind I do not separate the issue of sustainable development strategy from what I would prefer to see as a mandatory requirement. I shall not pursue the matter now, although I shall reflect on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("promoting or").
The noble Lord said: On Amendment No. 37 I shall not detain the House for long. It covers ground that we debated on Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 7 standing in my name. I see no point in reiterating those arguments to the extreme boredom of the Committee. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, never bores the Committee, particularly when he speaks as briefly as he has on this amendment. I shall try to be as brief.
The amendment seeks to remove from local authorities the ability to plan for actions that merely maintain the existing levels of well-being within their areas. If a local authority identified actions that prevented a deterioration in the current state of its

1483
community well-being when preparing its community strategy it would be preparing to promote, but not improve, the well-being of the local area.
By removing the word "promote" local authorities would be prevented from taking any action which maintained current levels of well-being, or prevent a slide in the current levels of well-being. Clearly, we would not want to exclude such actions. Therefore, the amendment of the noble Lord would have a perverse effect. I hope that he will not press it
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which I shall study. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 38 strikes out the word "may" and inserts the word "shall". As drafted, the Bill provides that local authorities may consult people in their area. Unusually for me, I feel that that is not strong enough. All noble Lords know that all good local authorities consult and they do not need telling nor do they need legislation to tell them to consult. However, I do not believe that we should give the impression that there may be circumstances in which it may not be necessary to consult. Using the word "may" could lead to misinterpretation. Therefore, I believe that the word "shall" has some merit. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I entirely agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 38. Many times the Government have said that effective community planning depends on engaging local people in an assessment of local needs and bringing together local authorities, other public sector bodies and the private and voluntary sectors, to determine what needs to be done to secure the economic, social and environmental well-being of local communities.
As the legislation makes clear, these are not strategies for the local authority but for the whole community. Without the participation of the community and local bodies, they are merely more bits of paper. We want to see local strategic partnerships preparing community strategies that are inclusive, reflect local aspirations and recognise the potential for all sections of the community to contribute ideas and resources.
The process of community planning should lead naturally to authorities and others working closely together to ensure better delivery of local services. Issues such as social exclusion faced by many of our communities can be tackled only in this way. Those are all points that we intend to cover in guidance.
We do not believe that legislating in the way that the noble Lord proposes is the right way to achieve the outcome that both he and the Government wish to see. That sort of compulsion would go against the grain of the legislation, which is based on encouraging and facilitating action at the local community level.
1484
However, we want to ensure that the message to local authorities from the debate and from Government will be one of encouraging the sort of good practice that we seek to achieve. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. I shall study it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 42 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 5 [Power to amend or repeal enactments]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No.43:
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 43, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45.
Subsection 5(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to amend or repeal any enactment, whenever passed or made, which prevents or obstructs local authorities from exercising their power under subsection 2(1). Clause 6 works similarly in respect of statutory requirements on local authorities to produce or publish plans or strategies. Amendment No. 43 and the others grouped with it aim to align those two powers so that they can be used in similar ways. The Government want local authorities to be able to act in, and react to, the interests and needs of their communities without unnecessary obstructions. These amendments are designed to bring into line the two parts of the Bill. By this means, the Government will be able to facilitate the innovative approaches necessary to tackle some of the worst problems of social exclusion and neighbourhood deprivation. Where modern local councils wish to test new ideas on a small scale before rolling such ideas out more widely, the Government are keen that they should be able to do so.
In various contexts, local authorities are working closely with other bodies to pilot innovative new approaches to service delivery as part of the Health Action Zones and as part of the LGA's New Commitment to Regeneration Pathfinders. As these partnerships develop, they are discovering legislative obstacles to effective joint working. Those obstacles are sometimes the same; more often they are different, reflecting differences in objectives and approaches between different local authorities. There is considerable merit in being able to use the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 to tailor a response to individual problems and to remove the particular legislative obstacles that are inhibiting effective working. That would allow us to try out different approaches and see how they work in practice before extending them to authorities more generally.
These amendments will allow enactments to be amended, revoked or disapplied for all authorities, particular authorities, or particular descriptions of authority if it is decided that it would be more beneficial to pilot new ideas with certain authorities before removing restrictions from all authorities. Amendment No. 45 will specifically allow enactments to be amended or disapplied for specific time limits.
Amendment No. 50 is a minor technical amendment to bring the wording of subsection 6(1) into line with that in subsection 5(1). I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 52 is grouped with these amendments. It seeks to remove "particular" authorities so as to prevent the Secretary of State having the power to make regulations in respect of a single authority. It seemed to me, when I first thought about this, that the Minister's amendment was too discriminatory. However, I do not intend to move my amendment because I then had another thought; that is, that perhaps local authorities will find the shoe pinching and it would be useful if they had the right to apply to the Secretary of State to have the point being pinched relaxed. If I were to move Amendment No. 52, the Minister would quite properly be able to accuse me of all sorts of inconsistencies.
Baroness Hamwee: I intended to ask the Minister for some further explanation with regard to this list of hierarchical local authorities and the exercise of power in relation to all or some of them. Can the Minister give the Committee some indication of the circumstances which would prompt the Secretary of State to exercise the power either in respect of "particular local authorities"—I assume that that could mean one or two local authorities—and,
"particular descriptions of local authority"?
For instance, would this be the basis on which provisions were disapplied to enable beacon authorities to do things which other authorities might not be allowed to do? It would be helpful to have a little more detail on the matter.
Perhaps I may ask also about the terminology. Amendment No. 52 and Clause 6 talk of,
"particular descriptions of local authority".
In other legislation with which I have been concerned, I have been accustomed to seeing the word "category". Is that what "description" means in this case, or does it mean authorities which are very good or very bad, as distinct from all unitary authorities or all London boroughs? A little explanation would be welcome, despite the fact that I appreciate we are all keen to allow our colleagues to go on with the next debate.
Lord Whitty: As I understand it, had we used the term "class of authority", it would have restricted the term to those which are described as district authorities or shire authorities. Whereas,
"particular descriptions of authority",
1486
could mean authorities which have rivers or repairing responsibilities, if I think of the environmental legislation. We can think of other groups of authorities which are not necessarily designated by the level of authority but by their geographical or economic position.
While the amendment would of itself facilitate moves towards beacon authorities, I understand that it would not mean that we could describe authorities as "beacon authorities". It would be one aspect of a clause relating to "particular local authorities" where, in order to promote a scheme facilitating an innovative way of meeting some of the objectives—particularly that of well-being—we would need to remove the restrictions from those authorities, effectively as a pilot, to see if that worked in those authorities. It could be subsequently rolled out, or not rolled out, to other authorities.
Clearly, the provision relating to time limits also facilitates using a pilot approach to this. Therefore some discrimination is required under this legislation. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised that by saying he would not move his amendment though we shall come back to the consequences of his not doing that at a later stage. We consider that we need these powers in order to facilitate innovative approaches and in particular pilot studies. I hope the Committee understands that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 3, line 14, after ("revoke") insert ("or disapply").
Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
("(1 A) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to—

(a) all local authorities,

(b) particular local authorities, or

(c) particular descriptions of local authority.

(1B) The power under subsection (1) to amend or disapply an enactment includes a power to amend or disapply an enactment for a particular period.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Betting on Horse Racing
7.38 p.m.
Viscount Falklandrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to improve and

1487
increase the control and regulation of betting on horse racing in order to combat any increase in criminal activity.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a debate about racing and betting. I readily acknowledge that it is not an easy subject for the Minister who has the difficult task of replying to the debate. I can encourage him only to the extent that the small group of speakers tonight—I am grateful to all of them for contributing to this debate—will give various areas of expertise. No doubt he will have a full brief.
I do not know whether the Minister is a racing man, although part of his title is taken from the excellent town of Brighton which has a racecourse which is well known to me. I have had many enjoyable, if not desperately comfortable, days there. It was infamous at one time—no doubt we shall touch on these matters in a moment—principally just after the war years when the betting arrangements in this country were in some disarray and race gangs were found to be operating in London and elsewhere. Whether because of the sea air or the attractions of that town, their presence in Brighton was immortalised by Graham Greene, Patrick Hamilton and other writers.
My debate this evening was really prompted by the remarks of the chief senior steward of the Jockey Club in his speech at the Gimcrack Dinner—an important annual speech—in which he made a particular point of talking about the changes facing racing and the way in which gambling will be organising itself, not just nationally but globally. He drew attention to the need for proper legislation and control of those activities. I carry that thought into the debate tonight.
However, because of the time limit, perhaps I may briefly run through a not entirely unsuccessful story for Britain as regards the legislation pertaining to racing and the organising of gambling, which has become increasingly the engine of the financing of racing over the years. Those who received a very helpful brief from the British Horseracing Board setting out the background to racing and its importance to our culture and to British life will know that racing in this country and the way that it has been run, together with the operation of gambling, have had a great influence on what has happened in the rest of the world.
Racing as we know it in this country began in the 18th century. It started with friends of owners and owners and their relations racing their horses against one another, often in matches. The prosperity which came in the 18th century led to a wider interest in racing and gambling and, as we shall develop later on, attracted a good deal of sinister activity by way of people striking bets, welchers, other confidence tricksters, and so on. They are always evident where there are large sums of money, especially as concerns gambling. Indeed, the situation is no different today from what it was in the 18th century.
However, in the 19th century it seemed to be a good idea to bring in some legislation to govern the unsatisfactory elements involved. The ironic thing about that is that the experiences before the 1853 Act
1488
(which, by setting up a structure for betting, made it extremely difficult for those tricksters, fraudsters and others to operate in the way that they had been) meant that those concerned went across and plied their trade in France. The French took steps to deal with that by creating a Tote monopoly at the end of the 19th century, known as the Pari-mutuel that operates to this day. It is actually a very simple and effective way of operating through a monopoly the money that is bet on race horses.
We did not opt for that course of action. As a result of orderly behaviour by regulated bookmakers—and there was an element of reward for bookmakers for the way that they conducted themselves in a relatively peaceful period—we decided in 1928 for various reasons to introduce for them a competition status with the Tote. I have to say that the Tote was introduced with the major purpose of offering to poorer people the opportunity to bet on horses, and to offer people who were not acquainted with the rather more obscure and complicated ways of betting through bookmakers the opportunity to partake in a pool, which still exists. That pool has run on through the years and was given statutory status. Indeed, in 1928, which was really the key period of legislation, we had the Racehorse Betting Control Board with bookmakers set up in competition with the Tote, and the National Association of Bookmakers was founded.
This went on until the war years, which caused some disruption. However, the whole situation changed in 1963 when we had the legalisation of off-course betting. Before that time, off-course betting was illegal. Various reasons, some spurious and others logical, led to the decision. Such betting resulted in the growth of betting shops and the multiples that we know today; for example, the famous high street names, such as Ladbrokes, Coral and now the bookmaking side of the Tote operation. The levy board was set up to take money from gambling in an organised way for the improvement of the breed and for contributions to veterinary science. It was given the job of arriving at a decision as to what bookmakers would pay, as well as the Tote, for the privilege of betting.
In 1979 Lord Rothchild's commission on gambling took a good look at all gambling. It produced a very interesting report. Various comments were made in that report. I do not propose to quote widely from it. However, I underlined one comment, which came about as a result of the Gaming Board's evidence:
"There must be constant vigilance to ensure that any legalised gambling activity is not penetrated by criminal interests. who in this connection comprise sophisticated, intelligent, highly organised, well briefed and clever operators with enormous money resources which enable them to hire the best brains in the legal, accountancy, managerial, catering and show business world".
I am not quite sure about the last two; nevertheless, that is as true now as it was then.
I was prompted to table this Unstarred Question because things have accelerated to such an extent over the past few years that the future of betting looks

1489
extremely different. With the arrival of new technologies on the Internet and the introduction of digital communications, we shall see developments in this field that will allow interactive betting through television channels, and so on. All of these will be extremely difficult to control and, at present, they are set against a background where we have a tax rate of 6.75 per cent, which is levied and forms part of the amount that goes to the Treasury each year, along with corporation tax and other things. That gives the Treasury an income of about £½ billion a year.
The recent trend is very worrying and was the subject of a debate in the other place only last week when important points were made. In a way, government and other bodies in the Civil Service will be behind the game because bookmakers are now having to compete rapidly in areas where the tax rate is much less. In fact, the bookmakers have been pushed to the position where they are now having to go abroad in order to profit from all the new technologies that are available to them in a tax-free environment.
The recent Irish experience has been illuminating. The Irish have taken the view that they should cut their rate of duty. As a result of cutting their tax rate from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, they have had an increase of 30 per cent on their turnover in one year. Unless that example is followed here, the situation is likely to lead to bookmakers going abroad and looking into new opportunities there. Indeed, they may move into areas which it would be extremely difficult for the Government to control. That may also lead to possible operations where there is no control, leading to criminal activity. There will be temptations for the weak, and opportunities for criminals. In fact, we shall really be going back to the 18th century when the legislation was produced to allow people to escape from, as it was then put,
"the injury and demoralisation of improvident persons through irregulated gambling on horses".
My 10 minutes or so have now come to an end, but that is the nub of the matter. In my view, it is essential for the Government to catch up with the new technologies and to take decisions quickly. That applies not only to the privatisation—if that is what is to happen to the Tote and the future of the levy board—but also to other matters that are pressing. I note that they plan a gambling review body, but I do not know whether the chairman or members have yet been appointed. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us something in that regard. Can he tell us the reaction of his department to the fears which I have expressed this evening, which no doubt other noble Lords will express also?
7.49 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for raising this important issue. It is a matter of great concern to the racing industry and it gives me a nice opportunity to speak for the first time out of office and from the Back Benches.
1490
There could not be an issue closer to my heart. It is even closer to my heart than BSE and the 30-month scheme.
The noble Viscount spoke mainly about betting. This matter concerns strictly the integrity of betting rather than the integrity of racing, but in Britain the two are totally interrelated. They are almost like Siamese twins. Therefore, blemishes on horse betting inevitably damage the integrity of our horse racing. Therefore I support everything that the noble Viscount said. I also support the calls of the BHB and the Jockey Club for maximum government action on this matter and giving the Jockey Club maximum information on which it might act.
Race betting is becoming a most intricate area. As the noble Viscount said, government regulation was successful for 70 years but that applied mainly to a fairly static betting, gambling and racing landscape. Now dynamic change is affecting the industry. I refer to routine changes in the ring and to the technological revolution with interactive betting via TV and the Internet. Ultimately, betting can, and will to a large extent, be conducted in the home, making betting shops—which are an excellent vehicle and environment for regulation—less used. National boundaries will become irrelevant. The whole environment for government to regulate and control will become diluted. As the noble Viscount suggested, the process has profound implications both as regards the policing of illegalities and the potential for raising revenues.
We note that every week credit betting is moving offshore to avoid tax. If all our private bookmakers move offshore, the Treasury may start to argue for an on course Tote monopoly. For those betting reasons and for regulatory and revenue reasons, the Government must remain involved with racing. I wish to discuss broader aspects of the matter in my firm belief that there is a strong public and governmental interest in having healthy racing, which includes a healthy related betting industry.
Government are not always fully aware of the importance of the racing industry. They are not always fully aware of its economic importance and of the fact that it is a great rural employer. Government are being asked to show greater concern for the rural economy. That should focus their attention on the contribution of racing in particular and of the wider horse industry in general. I refer to the contribution of horse breeding to exports. That industry is experiencing difficulties due to a heavy tax burden. At present the whole industry generates huge tax and duty revenue for the Treasury, although, as I have suggested, technology could change that.
I also stress a matter that is harder to pin down, although in my view it is extremely important; namely, the social and cultural contributions made by the racing industry. Racing provides leisure and pleasure to millions. Historically, our racing industry has been the world's leader. Yet now, I believe, we have problems in terms of international competitiveness. Our prizemoney and our facilities are inferior to those

1491
of some others. In the past two months I have attended races in Dubai and in Japan. One cannot avoid noticing the trend for top horses to be sent elsewhere than the United Kingdom to race and to breed. Our racing must improve; we cannot rest on our past reputation.
Most of the improvements must be introduced by the racing industry itself. It needs radical management and a united approach. It is not enough to talk of what government should do for it. However, there is an important role for government. At present the Government are heavily involved in two major issues. I refer to the Tote. I hope that the Government will transfer the Tote to a racing trust and will do so cheaply to enable the Tote to invest and not be crippled by great debt. I refer also to the review of the levy. I support its phasing out—I have beer saying so for a long time—but rot too abruptly. We need more deregulation, moving towards commercial viability. I hope that the handling of media rights will encourage that. I believe that racecourses and race meetings should constitute a big show and that the media should be able to transmit the fixtures they wish to transmit when they like within certain constraints.
However, those two big issues before the Government also imply withdrawal; namely, the Government getting rid of the Tote and perhaps getting rid of the levy. That is worrying as part of a general trend because I believe that spectators, punters and owners are losing out and big finance and the criminals whom the noble Viscount mentioned are starting to dominate the industry. The industry needs continuing government involvement not as regards the day-to-day finance, such as the levy, but to ensure the integrity and the health of racing.
That leads me to my final point on which my views are well known. For some time I have been concerned about who in government is responsible for the health of racing. We know that the Home Office is responsible for the integrity of gambling. I believe that on the whole it has done a pretty good job. However, the matter goes wider than that. It is quite wrong that there is no Minister or department responsible for racing.
When Sheikh Mohammed expressed concern about British racing and said he was contemplating moving some of his horses, it was noticeable that the French immediately sent someone from the department with responsibility for that matter to negotiate with the sheikh and to offer him racing facilities. I held government office at that time but no one in this country's Government had the responsibility of persuading the sheikh not to move his horses out of this country.
I note that the Home Office has made a bid for responsibility in this area. It has set up a designated unit which I welcome. Not for the first time I note that civil servants are animated by territorial concerns. When they perceived a threat to their territory they took action. A department must take responsibility as regards the disposal of the Tote and as regards the levy and for dealing with money laundering and other matters.
1492
I suspect that racing needs to be controlled by a different department. Sport is different from gambling. I do not believe that the Home Office culture is attuned to sport. The DTI could take responsibility for racing but I think that it would always be lowest on its list of priorities. The Department for Culture has "squeaked" about racing, but it has little clout and no historic interest. MAFF has been advocated. I advocated MAFF when I was a Minister in the department. It also has insufficient clout, resources or interest in the industry but, faute de mieux, would be the best department in this regard. Should we get a new Ministry of rural affairs—I hope that we do get such a Ministry—that might prove a suitable location for this responsibility. After all, as I have said, racing is a great rural industry. A new department might give it a fresh push. It is most important that the Prime Minister should take a decision so that we know which department and which Minister are responsible for racing.
8 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this short debate. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for making it possible and for his extremely authoritative speech. It encapsulated in a very short time all aspects of the problem.
I do not suppose that anyone can remember a time when so few Members of your Lordships' House can speak from experience in support of horse racing. This is especially sad as horse racing is part of a much larger picture in which horses generally occupy an important position in our national life. I warmly support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that the time has come for a "Minister of the British Horse". I hope that that suggestion will be taken forward.
I must declare some personal interests in National Hunt racing. First, for some years I have owned or had a share in one or more horses in training; and, secondly, for a great number of generations Cartmel races in Cumbria have been run on my family's land. For some 20 years I was a director and subsequently I have taken over the running of that racecourse.
In 1974 Cartmel was the venue of a famous betting coup, which attracted huge media attention and was dramatised—not to say glamorised—in a television film. Ironically, the episode only enhanced Cartmel's attendance figures. I suppose it is human nature always to tend to rally to the likeable rogue, especially if he is from Ireland, who takes the bookies to the cleaners.
Having said that, I am second to no one in the belief that we must eliminate crime in all its forms on the racecourse and in the racing industry. It is in the interests of the taxpayer, in the interests of the punter and in the interests of the sport. The sport has no future unless it commands the respect of the public and the public believe in its integrity.
As has been said, horse racing is vulnerable to crime through betting. The chief executive of William Hill estimates illegal betting at £1 billion per annum off

1493
course. If that is true, it represents a significant degree of corruption. Both the taxpayer and racing generally pay a heavy price for that kind of crime.
I understand that both the Jockey Club and the British Horseracing Board are asking the Government to accept that betting is under-regulated as compared to gaming, whereas betting faces exactly the same challenges as gaming. When such eminent bodies call attention to a problem and actually invite regulation, I think we must conclude that there is a real problem to be faced.
However, I have a reservation. We are talking here about the regulation of betting; I hope that that will never be interpreted as a suggestion that the Government should regulate racing itself. I think they would get into deep water. I should like the Minister to confirm that he will resist any temptation to go down that path. When the Minister replies, I, too, shall be interested to know the stage that the Government's review of betting and gaming has reached.
Turning to a related aspect, every administration of this country that I can remember has had a goodly number of racing enthusiasts among its members. Some administrations carry their statutory responsibilities towards racing more cheerfully than others. All seek, I think, to be benign. But it takes more than an enthusiasm for racing to better the Treasury. In the matter of racing the Treasury's appetite is insatiable.
The hard facts bear repetition. They are these. Through tax revenue and the general betting duty from racing and breeding, the Government recover, as has been said, annually around £450 million. But British racing receives a tiny 1.1 per cent from horse race betting turnover back into the sport. Compare that with the lower levels of sophisticated racing countries elsewhere. In Australia the proportion is 4.4 per cent and, at a higher level, it is 15 per cent in Germany.
British racehorse owners receive from prize money on average only 22 per cent of the cost of keeping a horse in training. Again to make comparisons, in Australia the owner, through prize money, will receive 43 per cent; in the United States, 47 per cent; in France, 54 per cent; and in Japan, 87 per cent. I do not suggest that we go to some of those higher numbers—I do not know whether that would be in the best interests of bloodstock or of British racing—but we should advance on 22 per cent. On the present basis, British horse racing is going nowhere very fast.
There is a common misconception that racecourses are subsidised by the levy board or that only the top 12 racecourses generate levy. That is not so. Each day's racing, each fixture at every racecourse, makes a net contribution to racing's finances.
Over the years repeated requests to the Government to be less rapacious with the revenues we generate have gone unheeded, but now it looks as though the widow's cruse has run dry with the arrival of global, offshore and Internet betting.
1494
The BHB has come up with a solution which, it seems to me, could solve everyone's problems. It suggests a reduction in general betting duty from 6.75 per cent to 5 per cent and a simultaneous cut in punter deductions from the present 9 per cent again down to 5 per cent. As the BHB chairman Peter Savill said,
"The proposal recognises the legitimate interests of all 4 groups concerned. It would be good for racing and good for punters. It offers a practical means of protecting government revenues and it would protect bookmaker profitability".
Some commentators go so far as to say that such a reform would inject such confidence into racing that government revenues would increase.
In the time allowed I do not wish to dwell too much on the Tote, except to say that I hope the Minister can assure us of an early decision about the Tote and that I hope it stays in racing. I read with interest the adjournment debate in another place. I noticed that the Minister has given up the attempt to say that the Government own the Tote. However, I do not think that the taxpayer has much of a stake in the Tote—he never put anything into it in the first place, he has never supported it and he does not back it even today.
The big contributors to racing are the racehorse owners. They pay out the most and get in return the least. They do it simply because they enjoy it. The industry would cease to exist without racing enthusiasts. There are currently too many uncertainties for the sport to look forward with confidence. As a racecourse operator, I believe that it is possible to make profits—but it is a high risk venture and, more to the point, it requires a high level of re-investment.
I should be hesitant to say that National Hunt horse racing could survive a serious downturn in the economic cycle. Some certainty and some revenue reforms along the lines suggested by the BHB would go a long way to restoring confidence.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I am sad to say that I have no interest to declare. To my wife's relief, I have no more horses in training. But it is important that we debate the problems facing horseracing, some of which have been mentioned. I think the most serious problem is money laundering. We need to congratulate my noble friend Lord Falkland for raising the matter here.
I shall, if I may, without boring the House, occasionally refer to my experience as chairman of the Hong Kong Jockey Club—in those days it was called the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club—with its almost obscene turnover because of the controls placed on it and the help given to horse owners. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, may be interested to know that owners get back in total—of course, they do not all get it back—100 per cent of what their expenses are likely to be.
As a result, in the old days we might have had a horse whose breeding was announced as, "Out of Black Bess, by unknown". Nowadays in Hong Kong we have group one racing. As I said, the turnover is enormous, and so is the reward for the internal

1495
revenue. Indeed, it has a direct effect on income tax which might otherwise be higher. It also has an effect on turnkey operations such as the entire financing of a third university. I do not suggest that we should do so much in this country, but it proves that the more one gives to the punter, the more one is going to get back.
It has been said in previous debates, and it is a truism, that where there is a great deal of cash, criminals will be lurking around. The racecourse has always had to face such problems. I well recall the amount of time that I, as chairman of the stewards, had to spend seeking to keep one step ahead of those who were trying to make a dishonest living out of racing. It would be naïve to pretend that we were always successful, but we did achieve a good deal. Most important, the public were aware that we were trying hard. It is vital that both the public and the punters realise that the authorities are trying to defend them.
However, it is one thing to try to thwart a nobbled jockey or trainer; it is quite another to attempt to overcome a form of organised crime. When one considers the amount of money now sloshing around in the sport, it cannot be doubted that organised crime has found it to be a good hunting ground. Perhaps I may once again cite Hong Kong. A person who had acquired money from a corrupt deal—be he a government servant or a private individual—might attempt to buy a winning lottery ticket or betting slip in order to justify a recent large credit in his bank account. However, I think we have moved on from that kind of crime over here. It is not only Mr X who is trying to conceal his criminally earned income in horse racing. Organised crime is also attempting to do it. The figures involved can be very large indeed. Furthermore, there is the threat of far more vicious retaliation if someone tries to report or obstruct such activities. These people are not gentle.
In previous debates I have said that I am in favour of making changes to the structure of racing. I support changes in the Tote. However, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I am against any suggestion that the Government should distance themselves from the racing industry, especially as regards the Tote. Those involved in the industry do not want the Government even to attempt to say that this matter is no longer anything to do with them. Horse racing must be a matter for government. We need a representative in government who is directly responsible. Furthermore, the industry should not be seen as a secondary duty of a Minister. It has become too important to be hidden away in the Ministry of Agriculture, for example.
I have suggested that the sums of money involved can be large, attracting people who wield great power and who can be violent. It is necessary that bookies on the racecourse, who can find themselves in a most vulnerable position, should feel that there is someone to whom they can turn. It is not good enough to report an incident to the local security people if their only reward is a physical attack on them or their families.
1496
Horse racing is always a fascinating subject, but I think we must accept that it is a new ball game today. Nowadays people can bet through the Internet and important bookies travel to places like Gibraltar. I do not believe that the public expect to pay no tax: indeed most people are prepared to pay a small tax because, if they wish to bet legitimately, they need to know that they will be protected. Government may need to take a cut in their return, but, as I said, I have found that the less the punters have to pay, the bigger the turnover. In the end, the income evens out.
Finally, I reiterate my hope that the Government will take an active part in this matter. I should like the Minister to confirm that the Government plan to keep a close eye on racing and that they will consider the difficult new problem of money laundering at the racecourse. Plans should be put in place to recognise the difficulties and to combat them.
8.16 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for initiating this debate. It is with considerable diffidence that I follow such a distinguished and expert group of speakers.
In his Question, the noble Viscount referred to the threat of criminal activity in racing in this country. Indeed, that has formed the main theme of our debate. Let it be repeated again, as several speakers have made the point, that racing in the United Kingdom is overwhelmingly carried out with an integrity that is the envy of the world. Racing and betting are so closely inter-related that it occurred to me, when the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to prize money, to recall that that money comes from the betting levy. There we see but one of many connections.
However, we have to face the fact that betting malpractice is as old as racing itself. The urgent problem facing us today is the huge sums involved, the increasing sophistication on the part of criminals, advances in technology—the Internet and so forth—and, behind it all, the insidious onset of the drugs trade. Money laundering hasbeen referred to as a considerable danger. The noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, gave us a chilling reminder of what this can involve in another environment.
Turning to the racing element for a moment, the Jockey Club, as the regulator of racing, has a demanding job. One of the problems in the—it is hoped—rare criminal activities in racing is that it may well involve jockeys, trainers, bookmakers, the racecourse and the underworld, each of whom could be in different police jurisdictions. Use is now made of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but what is really required here is a specialised racing unit formed along the lines of the drugs unit.
A further problem is that many of racing's malpractices are not in fact criminal offences. Among those are doping and attempting to influence the result of a race, or corrupting a racecourse official. I understand that there is an important submission by the British Horse Racing Board and the Jockey Club

1497
that the criminal law should be amended to correct this handicap, under which the regulator suffers. There is also the more contentious issue of seeking exemption for the racing industry from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister has anything to say on that.
Another point that the Government should address is the under-regulation of the racehorse betting industry. This is in marked contrast to the gaming industry, to which my noble friend Lord Cavendish referred. With the current menace of organised crime, the Government would do well to be aware of the very prompt steps that were necessary some 25 years ago to prevent the London casinos being taken over by organised crime.
There is a recent welcome initiative by the recently formed National Joint Pitch Council, which reports to the levy board. Its important functions include checking that large bets are hedged with licensed, not illegal, operators. Also, to expose recent moves, of which there is more than anecdotal evidence, for organised crime to buy bookmakers to operate pitches on their behalf—a tidy either way option where the backers get the money, win or lose.
I also welcome the role of the NJPC in monitoring unusual betting activity, which over the years has alerted racing to many potential betting coups. I was hesitant about referring to Cartmel Racecourse, and was very relieved that mynoble friend, Lord Cavendish, enlightened us on that.
I now turn to the question of the general betting duty and the move to betting offshore to avoid it. In this respect Gibraltar has become a substantial centre. However, only this morning William Hill announced that it was offering a facility in Ireland. These developments are, of course, serious for the Treasury. They are also of concern to the racing industry levy board in that it can, and almost certainly does, attract considerable illegal betting by this route.
I very much support the British Horseracing Board in its submission to the Government that general betting duty should be reduced from 6.5 per cent to 5 per cent. That has been mentioned. I should very much welcome the views of the Minister on that. If that had the effect of bringing offshore betting back to this country there could be a number of winners: racing through the levy board, the bookmakers, the punters, and even the Treasury would not be as big a loser as it might appear.
The Irish experience has been referred to. If my arithmetic is correct, the increase in betting volume would need to be 100 per cent to mitigate the loss of revenue to the Irish Treasury. It is in fact 30 per cent. That is not the whole story. The reductions should be seen in the light of the regularisation of hitherto illegal betting and other indirect benefits to racing.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the review of gambling legislation which was announced by the Home Secretary on 8th December 1999. I would welcome from the Minister any information he can give us as to the composition of the committee, its terms of
1498
reference and when it will commence its hearings. I remind the Minister that the practice of bookmakers offering hospitality to jockeys and trainers is widely accepted. The comparison with croupiers may not be an exact one. However, for the record, croupiers are forbidden to have any social contact with clients. I also suggest to the Minister that bookmakers' hospitality, were it put in a commercial context, might well be seen as insider trading. I hope that that will be addressed by the Committee.
Finally, perhaps I may revert to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on the question of a government department which would have overall responsibility for supervision of matters relating to horses. That matter was very well covered in an excellent brief from the British Horseracing Board. Whether that was MAFF or whether a proposed department of rural affairs, it is important that thatsubject is addressed by one body. I very much look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I must declare an interest as an owner and manager of racehorses and a member of the Jockey Club. I speak in the gap to underline two points. As a member of the Joint Bloodstock and Racing Committee of both Houses, I can say that both these points are unanimously supported. They have been referred to today. One is a request from the Jockey Club, which is responsible for the rules of racing, for access to criminal records by exemption from certain provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. Of course, a government department or Minister responsible for the horse is necessary. I think that mention has been made not only of a Minister for the horse, but also of a Minister for racing. However, it is very much a ministry for the horse right across the equine world that is wanted, and not one isolated for racing alone.
The Minister will know, I am sure, that I have been in touch with his colleague the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on the subject of criminal records, and no doubt he will have had access to the letters that have been written to the Home Office from the Jockey Club.
8.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I feel very humble and a novice in entering this debate this evening. I thought that when I ceased being the leader of Brighton and Hove Council towards the end of last summer, I had probably ceased my direct hands-on experience of horse racing. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made reference to Brighton racecourse. For 13 long years I was very involved with it through our racecourse ownership, the famous "racecourse lessees". I think that we made a good contribution to improving a municipal racecourse. Ultimately, we went into private partnership to secure long-term benefits, and those have been profound indeed. So I

1499
speak from some experience, but not with the breadth of experience expressed in your Lordships' House this evening.
Important issues have been raised in the debate, which has come at a useful moment. It is important for us to pause, reflect and take stock of matters. I say this not to make a bid to be the Minister for the horse, interesting though that might be; but perhaps given my past interests it is something in which I ought to take a greater interest. The question raised in today's debate iswhether the Government's general approach with regard to the regulation of betting on horse racing is right and what more we might need to do to combat any increase in criminal activity.
There are currently a range of mechanisms in place, as your Lordships well understand, to control and regulate betting on horse racing. Off-course betting is regulated through the issue of bookmakers' permits, by licensing justices under the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. On-course bookmakers also require such permits. In addition, the activities of bookmakers operating in on-course betting rings are subject to regulations and controls operated by the National Joint Pitch Council. The Jockey Club in its role as the industry's own regulator has a very key part to play. Any criminal activity relating to betting on horse racing is a matter for the police and the criminal law. That much is clear. That much is obvious.
The Government have, as has been recognised in the debate this evening, recently announced an independent review of gambling. I shall say a little more about that later. The terms of reference will be published shortly, and the review body will have a wide-ranging remit.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made a very interesting and valuable contribution to the debate. I was particularly taken by his points about the changes in technology and the way in which that will increase the difficulties of controlling criminal activity in the racing field. He was absolutely right to point to the problems of technology, offshore betting and the way in which interactive media, the Internet and so on, will force us to take stock of those matters and look for a way forward.
The noble Viscount also raised a number of other questions. With regard to offshore betting and the level of UK betting duty, what has happened thus far is that the Treasury has consulted very widely with the major bookmaking trade associations. The Treasury is alert to the very profound impact on UK bookmakers of offshore betting and is considering what other measures might be used to safeguard bookmakers here and the important revenue streams to both the racing industry and the Exchequer. The Chancellor has already announced that he will be tightening the legislation on advertising offshore betting services. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed.
The noble Viscount also asked about the review of gambling. Its members have not yet been announced; that much is clear. We hope to announce shortly the name of the chair of the gambling review and the terms
1500
of reference. The names of other members will follow. We want the review to start in the spring and we would expect the review to take about a year. We see no sense in hanging around. The review will need to be thorough and it will need to be conscious of the need to modernise our system of regulation for gambling. That much will be welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and others referred to the Jockey Club's request to have access to criminal information. Access to criminal records is a sensitive area. We think that the application has some merit and it will be considered by the Home Office this year. But the matter will certainly have to be resolved before the new criminal records bureau becomes operational in 2001. We are keeping the matter under serious review.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, raised the issue of a Minister for racing. We do not have any plans currently to appoint a Minister for the horse industry. I have noted the powerful arguments made in that context. Although the Home Office has an important co-ordinating role, there are issues which need to be taken up more widely across Whitehall. Given the contribution racing makes and betting contributes to the Exchequer, these are important concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to the phasing out of the levy and to more emphasis being needed on media rights and other forms of funding. Again, the noble Lord put forward a compelling set of arguments. They are certainly not ones with which we would take great issue. We note the noble Lord's reference to changes to the levy system. We intend to announce soon the outcome of the Home Office review of the levy board together with our proposals for the sale of the Tote. We recognise the importance of both to the financial health of racing. These issues need to be taken together. They need to be considered strategically. They are very important to the future of the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, asked about the regulation of racing. The Government have no plans to take over the regulation of horse racing. I trust that the noble Lord is reassured on that issue. The noble Lord raised the question of the timing of the sale of the Tote and the taxpayers' interest. We expect to make an announcement soon. We recognise racing's legitimate stake in the Tote. But it has also to be said that the Tote is a public body and it is therefore not unreasonable that taxpayers should obtain some benefit from its sale.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, raised the issue of the impact of current criminal law on the ability of the Jockey Club to do its regulatory job. We recognise that. We would be happy to receive proposals from the Jockey Club or any other contributor to this debate. Those will be important matters in what is a difficult area.
As I said earlier, this has been an interesting and stimulating debate. It has provided ample evidence of the breadth of knowledge in this House on horse

1501
racing matters and a most welcome opportunity to air many of the important issues that are of current concern to the racing industry.
As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mike O'Brien, said in an other place only last week, British horse racing is an industry, and a sport, of major national and international importance. We want it to retain that international importance. After all, the industry employs, directly and indirectly, some 60,000 people and makes a £600 million contribution to the Treasury. In our rural areas, one in eight agricultural workers are employed in horse racing. In 1999, some 5.1 million people attended race meetings, the largest attendance at race meetings since 1965. Horse racing clearly has an important financial impact on our country and it is an important part of our culture.
The variety and diversity of our 59 racecourses are without equal anywhere in the world, and British racing continues to set the standards by which others measure the quality of their racing product, not only in terms of the ability of our horses, but also our jockeys, our trainers and the many other dedicated and very professional people who work within or support the industry.
Equally important to the success of British racing have been its integrity and its credibility, not only in the eyes of those who see it as a uniquely exciting sporting spectacle, but also to those millions of people, both in this country and overseas, who look upon it as an honest and safe sport on which to bet.
Racing and betting are inextricably linked, a point made by several noble Lords, and we must remain alert to the very real and continuing threat that this represents to the honesty and integrity of the sport. Your Lordships have, quite rightly, drawn attention to the concerns that have been expressed by the Jockey Club and others within the industry about the vulnerability of racing to criminal activity and corruption. I am totally aware of that. Brighton Rock is very much a legend in racing circles. We accept that the statutory framework within which horse race betting takes place has remained largely unaltered for several decades. In many respects, it has stood the test of time, and our racing and bookmaking industries continue to enjoy an enviable reputation, both at home and overseas, for their honesty and integrity.
But we cannot afford to be complacent. Race fixing, in any form, strikes at the very fabric of the sport. Illegal betting is an ever-present threat, as the sums mentioned in the debate indicate, to the viability of the industry. It has the potential to undermine our gambling policy objectives. It also reduces the financial returns to the taxpayer, racing and the legitimate bookmaking industry.
As I have indicated, the Government have decided that the time has come for a thorough and wide-ranging review of all forms of gambling in this country. This independent review will provide us with an opportunity to consider whether the current regulatory framework for horse race betting is the
1502
right one in today's world. It will enable interested industries and groups to put forward their own views and proposals for change. We welcome those. The prevention of criminal activity is fundamental to government policy on the regulation of gambling. If there are arguments for strengthening controls in a particular area, now is the time to consider them.
Individual cases of criminal activity must continue to be dealt by the police who, I know, have a close and important working relationship with racing's regulators. Thankfully, such cases are few and far between, but if investigations throw up evidence of wider and more systematic problems, they must be addressed. Alarmist speculation about the level of criminal infiltration into the racing and bookmaking industries is unhelpful and counterproductive. It does both industries an enormous disservice.
The Government are committed to maintaining a close and constructive dialogue with both racing and bookmaking representatives on these and other matters. Only by working together can we be confident that British racing will continue to enjoy its well deserved and much envied reputation for sporting excellence and integrity. That must be our objective; it must be one that we share; and it must surely be one that all Members of your Lordships' House will endorse.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
8.39 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 46:
Page3, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Before exercising the power under this section the Secretary of State shall consult representatives of local government and such other persons as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: I note that we are all in a hurry this evening. Amendment No. 46 requires the Secretary of State to consult local government representatives and appropriate people so that the consultation is open and wide.
Clause 5 states that,
"if the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment … prevents or obstructs local authorities from exercising their power … he may by order"—
here we enter once again into the business of ministerial orders—
"amend, repeal or revoke that enactment".
The amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to consult with representatives of local government. Proper consultation is a two-way stream of information, and that is always helpful. It is very useful if local government is able to make a contribution before the Secretary of State begins exercising his power.
If we have joined-up government, we must recognise the reality that local government is a part of government. Whatever the politics of the situation,

1503
local government is in many ways the executive arm of government at local level. That has long been the situation. The amendment would strengthen the ability of the Secretary of State in making these regulations.
The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 54. The Secretary of State is enabled to consult people who "appear to him to be likely" to be able to make a contribution. But such phrases as "appear to him to be likely" would seem to make the question of consultation optional. We do not believe that consultation should be optional: the Secretary of State should be obliged to consult. That being so, we have tabled Amendment No. 54. These proposals are in the interest of good governance.
Whether the Minister is prepared to accept the amendments is a moot point. He may assure me that the Government would, as good governments do, always consult and that they do not need telling, just as good local government does not need telling to consult its neighbours, and so on. But the trouble with legislation is that it invites people like myself to think about motivations and about the reasons behind the wording on the face of the Bill, and to think how the content of the Bill might be improved. We believe that both these amendments would strengthen the Bill and that there is therefore a case for the Minister to answer. I have no doubt that he will attempt to explain away my doubts and concerns, and I shall listen with care to his reply. However, we believe that the two amendments would improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I agree that the Secretary of State should consult such representatives of local authorities and such other persons as appear likely to be affected by any of the actions that he takes under the powers in Clause 5. That is why the Government have already made provision for such consultation to take place as part of the detailed scrutiny procedures set out in Clause 8. Clause 8(1) specifically requires the Secretary of State, before bringing forward an order under either this clause or Clause 6, to consult local authorities, local government bodies and any other persons likely to be affected.
We have already debated in the context of earlier clauses the issues raised by the noble Lord's second amendment. I reiterate that we want to ensure that all relevant bodies are consulted on any proposals that are likely to affect them. Clause 8(1) will indeed ensure that that happens, while for practical purposes maintaining a sensible level of discretion for the Secretary of State.
I would add that Amendment No. 54 would have the effect of reducing the range of bodies that the Secretary of State would be required to consult. It would exclude all bodies other than those clearly affected by the proposals; whereas Clause 8(1) goes further, in that it includes also those bodies that are "likely to be affected". That being the case, I am sure
1504
the noble Lord will agree that his objective is already covered in the Bill and that he will not press the amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am pleased to hear the Minister's explanation, which I shall study with care. If I need to return to the matter, there are two remaining stages of the Bill when I shall have the opportunity to do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) If local authorities consider that an enactment (whenever passed or made) prevents or obstructs them from exercising their power under section 2(1) they may apply to the Secretary of State for that enactment to he amended, repealed or revoked.").
The noble Lord said: this amendment is slightly different. It is the amendment I referred to earlier and is the reason why I withdrew a previous amendment.
The Bill appears to assume that the initiative is all on one side. However, local authorities have to deal with the consequences of all government legislation. They may well find that a point of existing legislation causes them some difficulties in relation to the operation of Clause 2(1). The purpose of the amendment is to enable authorities in that particular situation to apply to the Secretary of State in order to have the point that causes them difficulty at any rate considered for amendment or repeal.
This is a worthwhile provision. The Minister may say in his response that that is what he intends shall happen. But if it is what he intends shall happen, there is no reason why it should not be on the face of the Bill. If it is not what he intends shall happen, we may see something different.
Amendment No. 47 raises a point which I hope the Minister will consider seriously. If he does not like the wording, he might consider whether some other wording is suitable or whether he would choose to deal with the matter in the huge compendium of regulations that we are not yet in a position to consider.
Amendment No. 53 follows exactly the same line. It seeks to insert a new sub-paragraph, (c), stating that the Secretary of State may act upon the application of, and justification by, a particular authority. Again, from the point of view of local government such a provision would be worth while. It would also be worth while from the point of view of governance generally. Respect for local authorities would be considerably enhanced if it was felt that they were in a position to take the initiative in this way.
These two amendments raise a very serious issue. It would give me the greatest pleasure if the Minister could at least utter some conciliatory words, even if he was unable to accept the wording of this amendment. The Government are immensely wise but not infinitely

1505
wise. If they were infinitely wise I should not need to table these amendments. While I recognise the general proposition as to the wisdom of government, the principle behind these two amendments is worth serious consideration by the Government. I hope that in his response the Minister can give some encouragement, even if he does not like the precise way we have attempted to deal with the point. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I accept at least half of the noble Lord's observations about the wisdom of government. The Government intend that something similar to what the noble Lord indicates in the amendment should happen. In no way do we intend this to be a one-way process. We envisage that there will be initiatives within the framework set by local government itself both individually and collectively. The initiatives which already exist in this form—health action zones, the Local Government Association's commitment to regeneration and so forth—are examples of those cases where effectively local authorities already trigger these arrangements or propose that they join. A broad range of authorities, both urban and rural, will be involved in the process, and it is important that we make provision for such authorities to take the initiative. However, as the noble Lord anticipated, I am not convinced that we need to do so in precisely this way or that this is appropriate for the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I shall consider what the noble Lord has said.
We envisage a rather different procedure whereby more informal arrangements are put in place so that, once the powers are in place, central and local government representatives can assess possible barriers on a regular basis. We have in mind making this matter a regular agenda item at central/local partnership meetings between senior local government people and Ministers. That will give local government collectively a way of looking at these measures. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent local authorities individually or as a group putting forward proposals that the Secretary of State should regulate or alter barriers under the powers in Clauses 5 and 6; indeed, we actively encourage them to do so.
In those circumstances, since there are a number of practical and slightly more informal ways to trigger this mechanism—we do not want to close any avenue—we see no great advantage in legislating in the way that the noble Lord proposes, although we fully accept the objective that he has spelt out.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am delighted to hear the Minister's response to these two amendments, and I shall study his words with care. I note that he makes reference to informal arrangements. When considering legislation one is dealing with matters formally. It may be that what he says is satisfactory, but there is nothing like having something on the face of a Bill to ensure that it happens. However, I put aside my cynical tendency for the moment and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO AMEND OR REPEAL ENACTMENTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 4 POWERS
(" .—(1) If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment (whenever passed or made) or a requirement (whenever imposed) is unnecessary following the enactment of section 4, he shall by order amend, repeal, revoke or withdraw it.
(2) In this section "enactment" has the same meaning as in section 5(2) and "requirement" includes guidance and directions.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 48, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 51. As we have already discussed this evening, it is anticipated that the Clause 4 strategy will supersede a number of other plans and strategies. I hope that that will turn out to be the case, that the decks can be cleared and that there will be fewer detailed obligations on local authorities. Amendment No. 48 attempts to build on Clause 5. That clause enables the Secretary of State to amend, repeal or revoke enactments. Amendment No. 48 seeks to provide that, if he has addressed his mind to it and comes to the view that an enactment is unnecessary, he shall amend, repeal or revoke it, or, in the case of a requirement, withdraw it. This is the positive side of the coin whose reverse is the permissive provision in Clause 5.
Clause 6, which Amendment No. 51 seeks to amend, deals with the modification of enactments which apply to local authorities. I may well be told by the Minister that it is outside the scope of the Long Title to extend this provision to public bodies. Nevertheless, I believe that it is worth floating. The power of community planning is based on a partnership of all the relevant entities or, to adopt jargon less often used these days, stakeholders. The exercise of the powers in Clause 6(1) could be a great incentive for a range of entities to join a partnership. The prospect of bureaucratic requirements for the production of plans being removed is a powerful incentive. It has been suggested to me that this provision should extend to other public bodies such as health authorities as well as to local authorities to improve the process and thereby, it is hoped, the strategy. I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Lord Whitty: I understand the reasoning that the noble Baroness has explained. I am, however, slightly bemused by the fact that the noble Baroness, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, proposes two amendments which greatly widen the scope of the Secretary of State's powers in respect of all kinds of public bodies and require him always to exercise them. That seems to be slightly contrary to the tone of some of the contributions from both Front Benches opposite.
The noble Baroness is right in relation to Amendment No. 48, in that it would allow the Secretary of State to repeal or amend any unnecessary

1507
enactment. That seems to us to go beyond the scope of the Long Title of the Bill. Technically, since other statutory bodies may be party to community strategies—I understand the reasoning behind it—it would allow us to deal with legislation that related to them as well as to local authorities. The proposal greatly extends the Secretary of State's powers.
Similarly, I understand why the noble Baroness regards Amendment No. 51 as desirable. Certainly, we want local authorities to work with other statutory bodies, but this takes us into wider territory than we would wish to enter. It would be improper to make such amendments without first engaging in the kind of detailed consultation with those bodies that we have had with representatives of local government about the powers in Clauses 5 and 6.
We have not yet considered the implications of such a wide power. That does not mean that we are necessarily unsympathetic to aspects of this issue. Indeed, we have already consulted quite widely on amendments to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 with particular reference to public authorities. We hope to bring forward. legislation later this Session which may deal with aspects of this matter.
However, the noble Baroness is too ambitious on the part of the Secretary of State. I suspect that in that regard she will not wish to pursue the amendment.
9 p.m
Baroness Hamwee: My ambition on the part of the Secretary of State was to revoke legislation. That is rather different from providing for the Secretary of State to make more impositions. I defend myself in that way.
I am glad to hear the Minister's remarks about considering extending the approach to other public bodies. The suggestion for the amendment came from the local government world. It is because of the experience of working with other public bodies in the partnership which the Government are promoting that the amendment appears desirable.
The Minister did not say that it was cheeky to seek to extend the provision, but I accept that it is somewhat cheeky to read over the provision to other public bodies. However, given that the amendment arises from experience in local government, it has relevance. To hear at later stages of the Bill about enabling other public bodies to work more easily with local government would be good.
I shall read what was said about Clauses 4 and 5 with regard to requiring the Secretary of State to revoke enactments, and so on. One has to consider those clauses together. I hope that we can look forward to the Government clearing the decks a good deal and reducing the amount of legislation which will apply to community leadership. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Power to modify enactments concerning plans etc.]:
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 50:
Page3, line 20, after ("repeal") insert (", revoke").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Procedure for orders under section 5 or 6]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 4, line 26, at end insert ("working").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the period for which an order lies before Parliament before it may be approved. It requires that the order may not be approved until the expiry of a period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid. I understand that in the context of legislation of this kind, 60 days excludes periods when Parliament is in recess or public holidays.
Amendment No. 55 requires the period to be 60 working days. We think that the slightly longer period would not sacrifice a great deal of time and might give more opportunity for proper, mature consideration of any orders brought forward under this part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 56 requires the Government not only to state what they have received as a consequence of consultation but also to give their decisions. In other words, if there are serious objections, they have to spell out why they have rejected those objections. There is less of a problem if the consultation reveals happy and universal agreement. That may happen on occasion; and I think that we would all be delighted and surprised if that were the case.
These two minor amendments are intended to be helpful to the Government, local government and anyone interested. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 8 provides for the procedures to be followed by the Secretary of State in making orders under Clauses 5 and 6. Those powers are very wide-ranging and it is right that Parliament should properly scrutinise their use. The procedures to be followed are designed to ensure that. Parliament is provided with sufficient information about the purpose of the orders and the reaction of those who will be affected by them; and to allow Parliament time for proper consideration. They are modelled closely on the procedures adopted in the Local Government Act 1999 and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
Following consultation with local authorities, representatives of local government and other persons likely to be affected by the proposals, the Secretary of State is required to lay before Parliament a document explaining his proposals and setting them out in the form of a draft order. He must also provide details of

1509
the consultation exercise. Parliament has 60 days in which to consider this document after which the Secretary of State may formally lay an order.
Amendment No. 55 would change the period to "60 working days". Clause 8(4) makes clear that the period of 60 days does not include any time during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days. The amendment would extend that period by effectively excluding weekends.
I have to say that it might have been easier to achieve the same effect by simply extending the period to 75 days. But the real point at issue is whether 60 days represents sufficient time for Parliament properly to scrutinise such proposals as are likely to be brought forward under Clauses 5 and 6. In the Government's view, it is. This House previously thought that 60 days was sufficient for orders brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act and for orders that might in future be brought forward under Section 16 of the Local Government Act 1999. Like Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, those Acts allow for primary legislation to be amended by means of order. If 60 days were sufficient in those cases, we are not convinced that they should not be sufficient in this.
Amendment No. 56 would also require the Secretary of State to provide a response to any representations received during the 60-day period when he lays the final order. I can understand the noble Lord's concern to ensure that Parliament has as much information as possible when it is considering the final order. However, I believe that on this occasion his concerns are misplaced. I cannot conceive of a situation in which the Secretary of State, in providing details of the representations and any changes to the draft order, would not also explain why he had accepted or rejected those representations.
I hope that as I have been able to clarify the position the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment No. 55 and not move Amendment No. 56.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation, which goes a long way towards setting my mind at rest. I shall study what she said and hope that I need not return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Executive arrangements]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 5, line 4, at beginning insert—
("( ) A local authority may make executive arrangements for the discharge of certain of its functions.").
The noble Lord said: With Clause 9 we move to a different part of the Bill which contains fundamental problems. It deals with arrangements with respect to executives. Clause 9 and those following require local
1510
authorities to change their system of management to one which complies with the systems established in Clause 10.
The European convention on local self-government, to which the Government signed up, also states that authorities shall be free to decide their own administrative arrangements. The convention requires something which this Bill denies. That is a serious point.
Amendment No. 58 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 61, 168 to 170, 177, 190 and 191. It suggests as a preamble to the clause:
"A local authority may make executive arrangements for the discharge of certain of its functions".
It is not the Government's intention that all local government functions shall be dealt with by executive arrangements. They acknowledge that that would not be appropriate, which at least is the beginnings of progress. Our amendment specifically gives local authorities a power rather than a duty to comply with Clause 10.
If the amendment is agreed to, a local authority not putting in place executive arrangements would still be able to continue to discharge its functions and take its decisions in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 and later legislation which has refined and defined that Act and which the Government do not propose to repeal.
In Clause 11 of the Bill, the Secretary of State is empowered to exclude certain functions from executive arrangements and to specify functions which at the discretion of the local authority could be subject to traditional arrangements. The amendment we propose provides further flexibility and discretion and is not a complete departure from the spirit of the Bill, although it is fundamentally important because the Bill as drafted makes the change to executive arrangements virtually compulsory. We submit that, particularly under the European convention, that should be a matter for local authorities to decide.
The Joint Committee which sat in consultation on the draft Bill was of the same view and was concerned about the over-prescriptive arrangements which the Bill makes. Curiously, the amendment is in line with the views of the Labour campaign for open local government, reported in the minutes of evidence of the Joint Committee at Appendix 27. This is therefore a fairly fundamental and important matter. I must say that if one reads what one receives from the Local Government Association, it certainly approves the principle behind the amendment.
We are back to issues that cover ground we have already debated. Are local authorities to be trusted and respected to do their job as they should? Do they have a view which has merit and deserves respect? Do their electorates have views which deserve merit and respect? Are electorates to be trusted? Maybe not, because they are local electorates. However, I remind the Minister that local electorates are also part of the national electorate. If they are not trusted in one regard, how can they be trusted in any other? There are

1511
serious implications in Part II of the Bill which merit the deepest consideration of all their aspects before we give way to what appears before us.
I do not believe that the Bill as drafted, which makes it virtually compulsory for local authorities to change their internal administrative arrangements, is a proper way of proceeding. I remember numerous occasions during my career in local government when government wished to see changes in local authorities' procedures and arrangements. They were not handled in this way. One of my first jobs in local government, way back in the late 1960s was to consider the implications of a Royal Commission on management services in local government. A small group of us worked in my authority as a result of that commission to see how we could streamline the authority's business and affairs. At the end of it, the chairman of the study group and I looked at each other and said, "We're a pair of asses—we've done ourselves out of a job!" And we had. The fact of the matter is that most local government members, given a task to do, will look at that task and study it objectively. If there is merit in it, they will do what is required.
It must be said that some local authorities see merit in the proposals suggested in Clause 10 and are already on the way to putting in place the structures required. That is as it should be. If those structures and procedures are so superior, it will not be long before the vast majority of local authorities follow. One does not need compulsory legislation to bring that about; still less does one need all the mechanisms of petitions, referenda and all the rest of it. That is simply not necessary.
I happen to believe that local government and local people are sensible. There are some merits in proposing a more streamlined executive system in local government, but I well remember that in my own authority, if the chips were down, there was a small group of six members, including members of all opposition parties, who could do almost anything on behalf of that authority. They could do it because they had the trust of the members of their groups and the general trust of the members of the council. And if they had to act in such a way, they could be confident that the council would back them. That is right. We did not call it a "cabinet"; we did not call it "executive arrangements" or anything else. But it worked, and that is in the structure of many years ago.
I remember occasions when that structure was able to act so quickly that, when necessary, it could do so considerably more rapidly than private industry. Some people criticise local government as being hidebound, committee-bound and always waiting for excuses not to do things. It is true that in an element of local government that attitude is not only the appearance but the reality. However, the truth is that good local government works, and works extremely well and extremely efficiently.
We tabled Amendment No. 58 because we do not believe that it is right that "executive arrangements" should be compelled on local government. We do not believe that that is the appropriate way to proceed. As
1512
I said, the other amendments flow from, and reinforce, this amendment, which makes the provision a power rather than a duty. I commend them to the Committee.
I believe that we are at a crux point with the difference in approach between this side of the Chamber now—I use the word "now" because unfortunately it was not always so with regard to local government—and the views of the Government. It is rather sad that this clause of the Bill is in this form. I wish that it were not. I believe that I have said everything that it is essential to say on this group of amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I have tabled a similar amendment which is not grouped with these amendments but is to the same effect; that is, to allow local authorities to take the decision for themselves as to how they should best perform their functions. I shall consider later whether I wish to move that amendment. However, I support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said.
Later in the Bill we shall come to the effect of the particular executive arrangements which are on offer. It is quite a short menu. However, our particular objection to this narrow part of the Bill is the complete refusal—apparently almost a closed mind—on the part of the Government to listen to debate at local authority level and to heed the very real objections being made to the proposals which are to be imposed. I can understand the Government saying to themselves, "Well, if it's members and councillors who are objecting, they are just thinking about their own positions. They are not really concerned about the wider good or the real outcomes." I would not say that that is how most councillors approach matters, but I can see that a government, looking at an interest group, would say that that was the attitude. However that does not seem to me the end of the story. Local authorities have been talking—not every local authority but many local authorities—to their communities and reviewing how they should go about conducting their business. Camden is one recent example. That is not an authority of which I should expect the Government to say that they disapprove. They have recently awarded it Beacon status in two service areas—housing benefit administration and schools.
Ten days ago Camden passed a resolution, part of which referred to the major consultation exercise which it has conducted with the people of Camden,
"which showed that there was no majority for any of the Government's models, rejects the Government's proposals relating to the 'executive/scrutiny split' as set out in the Bill, on the grounds that they will reduce democracy, lessen effective decision-making and seriously weaken accountability".
That was one of two resolutions passed that night to the same effect.
I am sad that we seem not to have a programme of piloting, of incremental change, of seeing how things work out other than that some authorities have—within the extent that it is possible under the law as it currently stands—put new arrangements into effect. It does not seem to me that other local authorities are yet

1513
in a position to assess the effect of those pilots, if they can be called that. The Government are seeking to leap straight into a narrow selection of possibilities because they know that those are the only possibilities which can be appropriate for the most enormous range of local authorities. Those local authorities have very different characteristics not only in terms of functions but also in relation to size, geographic and socio-economic demographic matters.
It is a great pity that having done such good work in Part I, the Government have now divided Members of this Chamber who wish the best for local government.
Lord Filkin: I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this amendment is absolutely central to the debate about the Bill, although I differ from him as to the conclusion to be reached.
What is being proposed is a major opt-out clause for those local authorities which do not think it appropriate or necessary to change their structures. Perhaps I may touch on one or two reasons why I think that we cannot and should not support that.
First, it is a slight misinterpretation of the Council of Europe's charter of local self-government to imply that local authorities in the rest of Europe can choose the fundamental structures of their political arrangements. They cannot. They are either set within their constitutions or determined by federal or national governments. The local authorities in the different Lander in Germany cannot decide how they structure themselves. That is set by a higher authority for obvious reasons.
Secondly, the argument that is put that many local authorities are already embracing the need for change is true. It is impressively true on a cross-party basis. Authorities of all political complexions can be found to demonstrate acceptance of the need for change that emerged slowly following publication of the White Paper on local government modernisation and developed through the Bill piloted in the summer.
One cannot grossly generalise but there is a sign that many of the better authorities—I think of Herefordshire, Sutton, Kent and Hertfordshire—are already moving positively towards recognising that they want to, and will make, those changes. The thrust of the argument is that those not wishing to do so should be allowed that freedom. That is flawed. We are not talking about a situation where local government in England is seen as being in sound health, having strong public confidence and the confidence of the government of the day, whether the current Government or previous ones. That is not the case. There has been a major failure of confidence and leadership.
In the late 1980s, the Audit Commission pointed out that the way local authorities conducted their business through the committee system was long-winded and often a sham because decisions had been made elsewhere, led to virtually no scrutiny in practice, and was due for reform. That was revisited some six years later, and it found that nothing whatever had changed.
1514
I do not want to imply that all the local authorities that would opt out if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, were carried, are necessarily the most sleepy of hollows and the most in need of reform, but neither, from my direct experience, would I guarantee that the reverse is true.
It is not as if this is an unannounced form of change. A lot of preparation has taken place in relation to this change and, as we shall debate later, there is considerable scope for variation. The current law only allows one option. The legislation, if passed, will allow for a substantial increase in the number of options that, in practice, will be available to local authorities. Therefore, if we as a Committee are in favour of a strengthened system of local government, with stronger scrutiny and no longer having decision-making taking place in a sham system but in one in which decisions are properly challenged through a vigorous process, we must not allow opt-outs to take place in the way proposed.
Lord Hanningfield: I speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said. Come this May I shall have been in local government for 30 years—in a large authority, Essex County Council, as was my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, so we have something in common.
During that time, the situation has changed immensely. The structure or the processes in Essex are nothing like they were 30 years ago. Every two or three years we have changed our structures and we have looked at our committee system. We have tried to speed up our decision-making. I would be one of the first to admit that sometimes in local government we are not quick enough in coming to conclusions or decisions. Often that is because we want to discuss matters and to consult the public further. In local democracy there is nothing wrong with that.
I am concerned about the executive arrangements. Since the White Paper was published, I have looked at several other systems throughout the world. There are several such executive models. I have looked at New Zealand and the United States and I know a lot about what happens in Europe. Where there is an executive system, there are fewer councillors. In Essex we have 79 councillors, all with large electorates. My own electorate comprises nearly 20,000 people which is almost as big as some parliamentary electorates. To have an executive of 10 would perhaps mean that the other 69 could have a scrutiny role, but they would not have an effective role in running the county council. That is just not on!
The United States has executive arrangements. Fairfax County, south of Washington, is similar to Essex. It has over 1 million people and a budget similar to that of Essex County Council. It has an executive, but only 11 elected members form the executive. That system works well for that county in the United States.
New Zealand has elected mayors. There is an elected mayor in Auckland which is a city of over 1 million people, but there are 18 elected members. The system

1515
works well in that kind of area. To say that 10 members will form the executive will not work in a large local authority like Essex County Council where 79 members, with large constituencies, play a prominent role in making decisions in the county.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said the geographical situations of councils can be so different. Essex has an elect orate of 1.5 million, but large rural districts in Northumberland have far fewer people. How can it be said that there should be one or two systems for those different situations? It would be most restrictive. I disagree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that there would be more options. We have many options now. We have, as we should have, a diverse system of focal government.
I support elected mayors. I am in favour of elected mayors—if people want them—as I believe that they provide a good system. I also support an executive where appropriate. However, in certain places it is just not appropriate, so we need another option.
As vice-chairman of the LGA, which is all-party, I travel around the country all the time, and I have never found as much unhappiness and unease as I have about the description of the executive system—the cabinet system—in authorities that do not want it. The Government have to give a bit. They should not alienate all local government members. I urge the Government to think again and to accept the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I support my noble friend's amendment. I have a number of major concerns about what is proposed for the executive system, but the one that is most relevant—it follows on even after I look at the guidance produced—is the fact that most of the decisions made in local government under the executive system will be made by one party, and made in secret. There is no way of getting round that. The power is there for the executive—indeed, it is almost a diktat—to allow decisions to be taken by individual members, in private, and those views will only be able to be scrutinised by the scrutiny committee if it is able to call in those decisions before they have been implemented.
There have been suggestions that in the current system councillors are not really making decisions at all. But is that correct? At the moment we have a committee system 'whereby all councillors are involved in some way or another in making—some would say in rubber-stamping in some councils—decisions in the open. If the public decide to come to those meetings, they can do so and see how and when those decisions are made and what is said. That will not happen. It does not happen everywhere. It does not happen now where those executive arrangements have already been implemented. I believe it was Widdicombe who changed the system whereby decisions could be taken in secret and said that they had to be taken as far as possible in the open. We have all followed that advice ever since.
1516
This is a major problem in relation to the executive system. As my noble friend Lord Hanningfield said, to leave a small number of councillors, perhaps only one-fifth of those on the council, doing all the major work and taking all the major decisions, is not an option that we should allow to be carried through without thinking about alternatives. No system will be perfect. Indeed, the Government said that this system is not perfect, and that is why these amendments are being put forward. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water; do not let us end up with a system of local government that people do not want to join.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Members of the Committee have spoken eloquently as to why this Bill is a divisive Bill in relation to local councils. It is divisive because what is being proposed is a false split. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that few councillors will be taking decisions. But in authorities that presently work well, councillors sometimes play a senior role and take the chair in one matter and in another play a more back-bench role.
The amendment will preclude an easy movement for any councillor between those roles. Though we have heard a great deal as to how the system will increase the representational role, there is not yet any evidence of that happening. I am an optimist and believe it may happen. But it is extremely regrettable that we have been presented with a model which will place those representational councillors in what may be seen as a second-class role, though the Government are promoting the matter in a different way.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said the fact that many local authorities have already gone down this road is an indication that they are keen on this model. I think it is more likely that they are keen on embracing change and that they do not want to be seen to be stagnating. However, until this Bill is passed, they are able to experiment with change in a way that they want; indeed, they may do so in an incremental way, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, pointed out, unless we have PR for local government, this will encourage the one-party state that can meet in secret, behind closed doors. It seems incomprehensible to me that we could be moving from something that was supposed to open up local government and to allow more consultation to a model that allows a one-party cabinet to meet behind closed doors.
We have talked a good deal about councillors in this debate. Many worries have been expressed by officers about this model. They feel that they will be put under a similar strain and that they will be asked to fulfil the almost impossible task of supporting both the executive and the scrutiny roles at the same time. Therefore, because no council will be able to afford or want to employ a duplicate staff, it is likely that those officers will one day have to wear one hat and the next day wear another.
It is true that the best of officers have always maintained a scrupulous ability to be impartial and offer the appropriate advice in each position. But

1517
because of the way that this model so starkly divides councillors, I believe that more and more of a strain is likely to be imposed on officers working within the system. It is regrettable that models have been laid down in so very precise a form. As we move into some of the detail and begin to look at the regulations controlling the way in which scrutiny and executive will work with area committees, we shall begin to see some of the great difficulties that these particularly strict proposals will produce.
The Earl of Carnarvon: I should like to pick up the point in relation to the independence of local authorities which will find this a very difficult situation. There are a large number of them—two borough councils, eight district councils and two county councils, as well as the City of London. They are not at all happy with the idea of an executive, especially one comprising 10 people. I wonder about this astonishing view of the Government that it has to be 10 people when there are authorities like Birmingham with 117 councillors, Bradford with 90, Leeds with 99, Liverpool with 100 and Manchester with 100, which is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Smith. It will not allow the other parties to be represented at the centre of things, and that is something which I believe has been very important in the whole of my life in local government. There might have been a majority of the majority party, but Liberal, Labour, Conservative and independents were all members of the executive of Hampshire County Council.
I am talking about Hampshire County Council when it had well over 100 members and was even bigger than Essex. We always had a situation where all parties were represented on what in those days we would have called "executive committees" such as are now envisaged. Ten members is much too small. I have tabled two amendments but I do not know whether we shall reach that stage this evening. I want to underline the worry that has been expressed to me by the county councils that are independent. They are extremely worried about being made to have an executive in the way outlined in the Bill.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: In expressing some disagreement with the amendment as moved, perhaps I may reflect a little upon my experience, which is not entirely the same as that of noble Lords opposite. In Leeds they have already moved to the system that is now being put forward in a legislative manner. The executive was established with members of the opposition within it. The legislation as formulated entirely permits that. It simply is not the case that there must be a one-party executive.
If anything is demonstrated by the experience to date, it is that in different circumstances people still have a lot to learn. It is difficult for opposition members to stop acting as opposition members and to form a collective executive. Therefore there are problems in these areas. Leeds, which is one of the larger cities in this country, has demonstrated its
1518
willingness to experiment and not to be dogmatic or ideological in this matter but to seek the best outcome for its inhabitants.
The impression has been given that the mayors or executives that we are discussing would be extremely strong and dictatorial. In the guidance notes that the Government have provided, Members of the Committee will have noted that a distinction—this is not phrased in language that I would have chosen to use—is made between a strong leader and a weak leader. That is not an entirely fortunate use of words, as the so-called "weak leader" would be a leader determined by the council as a whole. The executive membership can be determined by the council as a whole and can be removed by the council as a whole. In other words, the formats that are possible under the legislation are much more varied than may have been indicated.
Like many others who are present this evening, I have had many years' experience of large city politics. I see a richness of provision in this area which is capable of dealing with a variety of situations. When the noble Lord reflects on whether to test the opinion of the Committee on the amendment, I ask him to recognise that there is far more richness of provision in this area than may appear to be the case.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right to say that this is an important part of the Bill. We have heard a variety of views expressed in this Chamber and have heard a variety of experiences of Members of the Committee and of local government as a whole. That highlights the importance of the revolution in local government which this Bill hopes to bring about.
The aim of all the amendments in this group is to make the move to executive arrangements optional; in other words—as my noble friend Lord Filkin said—to provide an opt-out so that local authorities could opt for the status quo.The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that that was contrary to the European charter of local self-government. We do not believe that to be the case. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Filkin also said, it is clear that the constitutional structure of local authorities is determined by statute or constitution in all countries. The administrative arrangements are another matter.
The constitutional arrangements that we propose here provide not only three different models but many varieties within those different models. That contrasts dramatically with the previous situation that had existed for many decades; namely, a single system, constitutionally speaking, with no option. We are therefore providing a wider option than exists at present. We are also providing an option which we believe allows local authorities to tackle the kind of difficult modern problems that confront them.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is correct to say that even under the old system many councils moved towards a system which constituted, de facto, pretty much an executive council well before they were

1519
stimulated to do so by the knowledge that this Bill was to be produced. Far more have done so since they learnt that this Bill was to be produced. However, they have done so despite the constraints of the old system. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, say that in many councils the committee system and the old structure inhibited change and the reaching of decisions and inhibited their—although he did not quite use the term—modernisation to cope with the problems of the modern world.
The Government in no way believe that one form of executive decision making will be necessarily appropriate or desired across the board. That is the current situation and clearly the lack of choice is imperfect. The committee system—which may well have had its merits 100 years ago—was established to involve all interests in decision making, all on an equal basis. That has in the end, in effect, become a fairly opaque system and a constraint cm clear decision making.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, suggests that the reality is that under this system we shall have one party making decisions in private. I believe that in many parts of the country—and, frankly, in parties on all sides of the House—that has been very much the situation in the past. The public have not had a clear, transparent and accountable system of government and it is not correct to pretend that they have. Councillors have not all been equal. Many of them have spent a lot of time on committees dealing with decisions which have already been taken elsewhere. Even councillors in a majority group may have little influence over decisions, and yet they are required to explain the actions of the council to the people they represent as if they were effectively executively responsible for them.
Nor has there been much of a push within councils to provide for clear political leadership within their structures. That is not a reflection on the quality of council members or of council leaders—to return to an earlier discussion which was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer—but is caused by the structures under which they operate. The current system does not serve to provide accountability; it does not serve to provide innovation; it does not serve to provide speed and effectiveness of decision making; arid it does not serve to provide the transparency necessary for the real exercise of democracy.
That is why we do not wish to maintain the status quo.. We believe that we need to move away from the status quo to a new form of government which rests on transparency; where it is clear where the decisions are taken, who takes them and who is accountable for them; and which, at the same time, allows the electorate, the population of the local authority, to be represented by councillors in questioning and in effective scrutiny of that executive system.
The Government have brought forward the Bill because we believe that all councils have to face up to this change. We do not believe that the status quo is serving the populations whom those councils
1520
represent. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it was implicit in some of his comments that those councils which are least inclined to change the status quo under the old system, and which are least inclined to move on a voluntary basis, would fairly obviously be the same councils which would choose the status quo option were there to be one.
These arrangements are designed to enable councils to adopt the executive arrangements they wish within the overall structure. That structure is not—as was alleged—a false split. It is a division of the council which indicates where responsibility lies. We want to see local government which is responsive to its people and to produce councils which will do—and will be seen to be doing—what the local community wishes.
A key feature of our proposals is that authorities, in reaching their choice of structures, will consult widely with the local people and other stakeholders on their proposals. It is clearly not true that the options are narrow. Councils, even if they choose one of the three options, do not have a tight and structured option to which they have to stick absolutely. My noble friend Lord Woolmer spelled out the way in which Leeds, for example, is choosing to interpret the models we have presented. In that particular case—and in any other case—there is a possibility of involving members of more than one party in the structure of decision making. Under the present system where there is a majority in the council, that very rarely, if ever, happens.
I understand the genuine anxieties which have been expressed that opposition parties, independents or particular parts of the local authority would not be effectively represented in the decision-making structure. But that ignores the fact that the roles we are giving to non-executive councillors are much enhanced; they have a higher status and the provisions for scrutiny are much more effective than the present committee structure, where, in effect, all councillors on committees are party to the executive decisions and share the responsibility and accountability for those executive decisions.
In our approach there are two key differences and benefits. First, because of the provisions we propose in relation to consultation, involving the detailed provisions in the Bill relating to petitions and referendums, councils will know that they are governing through structures and constitutions that will, clearly and recently, have received public support. Secondly, whatever form the executive arrangements take, people will also know, from that point, who is taking decisions. Those decision takers will be subject to rigorous arrangements for the overview and scrutiny of the executive, providing greater transparency and accountability.
I repeat, it is a fallacy to say that those councillors who are outside the executive will have no role. Indeed, under the new structure, all councillors will have an enhanced role.
I shall not go into detail on the range of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I recognise that he has raised a fundamental point, but

1521
I hope that he will consider the arguments that I have put to him and also consider the experience of my noble friend Lord Filkin, who has long experience of local government from a somewhat different perspective from that of many other noble Lords. The noble Lord should also consider the fact that the range of options within the three options has been and is being considered by local councils. Those provisions give enormous flexibility as to exactly how an individual council can implement its decisions so that they are appropriate to that particular form of council, whether it be a county council, a district council, an urban or a rural area. Clearly, many different patterns will emerge from this structure.
However, it would be wrong for the Government to allow councils that have failed to modernise themselves to take a further option of opting out of this process. It is important that every council and the electorates of every council have the opportunity to move to the new structure and to be able to comment and consult upon the exact form a local council will take.
No doubt as the Bill progresses through the House we shall return to the matters that have been raised tonight. However, having aired many of our differences, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed. Should noble Lords wish to take my words into account, no doubt they will wish to return to these issues at later stages. A difference of option exists here, but I hope that I have convinced at least some Members of the Committee that our proposals to avoid the option of a status quo have some merit.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him one question. I very much agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, concerning the right of the Government to prescribe the form of local government. After all, in the committee system itself the requirements for political balance and so forth are enshrined in legislation. Furthermore, I cannot join the school of thought that says, "Let all the flowers bloom" and allow a council to set up any arrangement that it thinks best. Powerful arguments have been advanced that the executive/scrutiny split will probably provide, in most cases, the best balance of transparency, efficiency and accountability.
However, what appears to worry many people is the fact that in a relatively few cases—whether because councils are of an independent composition or they are small—it may well not suit their circumstances. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State can approve other models. However, as I understand it—although this is not in the Bill—the intention is not to approve any model which does not involve that split. Can the Minister say whether my understanding is correct and whether there is a measure of flexibility on this? I believe that it is crucial to say explicitly that the three
1522
models are in place, that it is possible to look at others, but not if it does not involve the executive split, which might not be suitable for some councils.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has given a correct exposition of the case. The Government believe that there is wide scope for different balances within the executive structures that we have proposed. As the noble Lord said, we are prepared to consider further models and we shall be open-minded towards proposals for further categories, but with a structure of executives. We do believe that that is the sine qua non of the kind of structures that are necessary for local authorities in the 21st century. Therefore, we are open to other proposals within and outside the three models, but the executive structure is important to us and we believe that it is important to local government.
10 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a most interesting debate. I am grateful to those who have taken part in it. I shall run through what seem to me to be some of the salient points, because this is truly one of the crunch points in our debate on the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was generous in her support for the principle of the amendments. I suspect that she and I could debate the detail for some time. The fact of the matter is that we come down on the same side of the fence—that is, essentially against the Government. The noble Baroness said that there have been some particularly successful pilot schemes. It is good to acknowledge that, but pilot schemes of volunteers have been moving in this direction anyway. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for all the points that she made.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, rightly said that local government is not in particularly sound health; nor does it enjoy strong public confidence. That is an immensely sad fact. I regret it, but it is something we all have to live with. I have to say—I say it with immense regret—that those who have done most to erode public confidence in local government have been in central Government. Again I ascribe no political blame for that; but nothing in the Bill will remove that. That is sad.
My noble friend Lord Hanningfield mentioned the changes that are already taking place. Indeed, authorities of all political persuasions are moving in the direction in which the Government would like to see local government move. They do not need legislation if there is merit in the proposals. That is a reality. When you come to compare what we do in this country with what is done in other countries, it is as well to remember that that comparison must include the totality of the systems that exist abroad. The fact of the matter is that in other countries there are far fewer members in all major authorities. I once went to Essex County in Massachusetts. It was a very interesting experience. There were five county commissioners. In order to be a county commissioner in Essex, Massachusetts, you had to have 10,000 signatures on your nomination paper. That was a little political device by the Democratic Party to keep out the

1523
Republicans. I had some very interesting discussions with the first Republican Member who managed to achieve that target and be elected. But the systems are not always what they appear to be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, mentioned two points. She referred to councillors' fear of this enforced change. She may well be right to suggest that it is a disincentive to stand for election. She is also right to mention the possibility, not to say probability, that this will impose considerable strain on the allegiance, loyalty and, indeed, enthusiasm of officers. That is particularly so in smaller authorities where the staff is not sufficiently large to permit the easy building of "Chinese walls" between the executive function and the function of oversight and supervision.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, mentioned the views of independents who, likewise, are concerned about their prospects. Unlike national government, with the exception of this House, they are a rare and special commodity. If the independents are concerned, we should be concerned.
My noble friend Lady Hanham gave me general support. My noble friend is concerned about the impact the provision will have on both the members and staff of authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, made a most interesting point. He said that opposition members are always opposition members. That is sad but true. I remember impassioned argument with the previous government behind closed doors—trying to tell them that that was a fact of life. Noble Lords sitting opposite would do well to remember that. There was a time when all three local government associations, as they then existed, were under Conservative control. If one looks at the pattern of results in local government elections, we are moving in that direction. That is a political reality. The political reality is that this country deals in participative democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, expressed concern about the Government's approach, which appears to be that one size fits all—or all three sizes fit all. I am not sure whether that is appropriate. In his remarks the Minister acknowledged that there is room for tweaking at the edges as long as it is within an executive system so that there will perhaps be a number of variations on a theme. Of course, the criticisms of the existing system are valid. They are valid because local authorities vary immensely across the country. Some are good; some are less good; some are not good; and some are probably something worse than that. But we are talking about human organisations. We are talking about people. If we in this Chamber are all good, we are extremely fortunate. Some of us are good; some of us will be less good; and some of us will certainly be less good than that. That is the nature of mankind.
What concerns me about the Minister's remarks is that he did not say why we need to compel this revolution. There was a revolution in 1917 in another country. It had painful effects both in the short-term and in the long-term. That, of course, has nothing to
1524
do with the Bill. However, when one sets about compelling change, the law of unforeseen consequences usually comes into play. We do not know what the law of unforeseen consequences will do as a result of this part of the Bill. Evolution would be better than revolution. The Minister hinted at it in his response, but he did not say that he would accept the theory of evolution, even though it may receive general scientific acceptance nowadays in a somewhat different context.
We have had an interesting debate. I do not intend to take up the Committee's time further except to say that this is a matter to which we shall undoubtedly have to return. I do not think that there will be any ducking of the issue. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. It helps us to be informed in our response to the debate. I am sure that there will he a further response. However, the Minister will be glad to hear that it will not come tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 5, line 6, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 7 and insert (", and
(b) under which certain functions of the authority are the responsibility of the executive.
(2) Executive arrangements by a local authority must conform with any provisions made by or under this Part which relate to such arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall refer to the large number of other amendments in my name in this group. The amendments make provision on the definition, construction and detailed operation of the executive arrangements and the public availability of the details as part of the council's constitution.
Amendment No. 59 clarifies the meaning of "executive arrangements". Amendment No. 237 introduces a new clause requiring an authority that is operating executive arrangements to maintain a copy of its constitution available for inspection. Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 66, 76, 153, 157 and 158 are intended to improve the Bill by providing clearer labels for the different types of executive provided for in Clause 10 and using those labels in later provisions of this part of the Bill for the sake of consistency.
Amendment No. 82 provides that only the full council may discharge certain functions. These are: the election of the leader of the authority in the leader and cabinet form of constitution; the appointment of the other members of the executive in those authorities where these appointments are made by the council rather than the leader in that form of constitution; and the appointment of the council manager in the mayor and council manager form of constitution. Amendments Nos. 261 and 262 are technical.
Amendments Nos. 154, 155, 156, 159, 160, 161 and 162 provide for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor who must be (and continue to be) a member of the authority. The mayor may bring to an end the appointment of a deputy mayor and appoint a

1525
replacement at any time. The deputy mayor will act in the place of the elected mayor if that post becomes vacant. In the case where the mayor and the cabinet form an executive, the whole executive will act in their place and arrange for representation in the mayor's place or on any bodies on which he or she was a member on behalf of the authority. In the case of the mayor and council manager form of executive, the council manager will act in the mayor's place.
Amendment No. 242 provides that where an elected mayor is a councillor of his or her authority, the circumstances of his absence will be short-lived. If the post of elected mayor is vacant, there should, under the existing law as it relates to councillors, be a by-election unless the next normal election is due within the next six months. Amendment No. 242 also has the wider effect of bringing elected mayors within the legislation on allowances.
Amendment No. 165 makes provision for a political assistant for a directly elected mayor. Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 clarify the rights of the council manager to attend and speak at meetings.
Amendment No. 238 makes it clear that the statutory guidance that may be issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 24 can apply to any provision in, or made under, Part II of the Bill.
All of these amendments spell out the Bill's general approach and do not raise many new issues. If noble Lords have any questions on the amendments I hope that I can respond to them. There are a number of other amendments to which I shall refer when I wind up the debate. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I have a lone amendment in this group, Amendment No. 240, which seeks clarification of a point that I have raised already this evening. Clause 24 provides for guidance—what a surprise!—and under subsection (3) that guidance
"may make different provision for different cases or descriptions of local authority".
Amendment No. 240 seeks to replace "cases or descriptions" with "categories" for reasons that I have already given; namely, that for the purposes of parliamentary drafting "categories" is accepted as a clear term in this situation. I wondered what a different case of local authority might be.
I should like to put to the Minister a question the answer to which I should perhaps know already. In Amendment No. 242 provision is made for the elected mayor to be treated as a member and councillor of the authority. Can the noble Lord explain to the Committee the difference between a member and a councillor? I have used those terms interchangeably and I must have been wrong all these years.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise for not rising earlier. I thought that the Minister would rise to answer the question just put. My Amendment No. 239 is in this group and deals with a very small point in Clause 24, which provides that:
1526
"(1) A local authority must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State …
(2) The provision which may be included in guidance under this section includes, in particular, provision with respect to—
(a) the time within which local authorities must draw up proposals under section 18".
We believe that "must" should be "may" and that we are back in the business of compulsion versus responsible optional action.
This is a very simple little amendment. I shall not take up any further time other than to state what the amendment seeks to do and why it is there. I hope that the amendment will attract the Minister's attention and sympathy, although on current form he is not in the most sympathetic mood this evening.
Lord Whitty: If the noble Lord finds me unsympathetic towards this little amendment it is because Amendment No. 238 in this group would, if accepted by the Committee, delete the subsection to which his amendment applies. Therefore, there would be a certain illogicality in my accepting it. However, if Amendment No. 238 were to be rejected by the Committee I would oppose the noble Lord's amendment. As the noble Lord implies, effectively this is a return to a degree of voluntarism which ensures that there is a method by which local authorities may not draw up proposals after a certain date; in other words, if the deadline is removed they do not have to comply with the legislation. We are not prepared to allow that loophole.
In relation to Amendment No. 240 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Clause 24(3) gives the Secretary of State power to include different provisions for the different circumstances of authorities. As I explained in relation to an earlier group of amendments, "categories of authorities" tends to imply kinds of authorities, for example district authorities, county authorities and so on. We may wish to differentiate between different classes of authority, if I may use the more normal term, to define districts, counties, London boroughs and so on. We also want to differentiate in some cases between authorities which are operating different kinds of executive systems. We might wish to distinguish between authorities of different populations or different geographical size—rural, urban or riparian. Such flexibility is important because certain details of an authority's constitution may well be different because of the size, nature or geographical location of the authority. That is why we have used the formulation "cases or descriptions" which is fairly commonly used in local government legislation to provide such flexibility. There is no more sinister reason for it than that.
As regards why Amendment No. 242 refers to the mayor being a member and a councillor, I am told that for historic reasons legislation sometimes talks about members and sometimes about councillors. We wish to ensure that both references would apply to the mayor in those circumstances. There is nothing more sinister or complex in it than that. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Local authority executives]:
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert—
("Such an executive is referred to in this Part as a mayor and cabinet executive.").
Page 5, line 21, at end insert—
("Such an executive is referred to in this Part as a leader and cabinet executive.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath moved Amendment No. 64:
Pages, line 25, at end insert (", and
(c) one or more councillors of the authority").
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to detain the Committee. I tabled the amendment because it reflects serious anxieties and fears held by a number of councillors. The fears may be misguided but they are serious. There is anxiety about the risk of continued centralised power; the power of the cabinets within councils; and the nature of the mayor's executive.
I believe that to a large extent the fears are misplaced, but they exist. Perhaps the Minister can say more on the amendment in response to my comments. I think that the fears are misplaced because I do not believe that we shall have from this Government the kind of legislation that was inflicted upon local administration in Britain over the previous 20 or 30 years, largely by the party opposite I cannot envisage this Government reorganising local government in the inflationary way that occurred in 1974. I do not envisage this Government introducing legislation of the kind which gave us the poll tax—one of the most expensive exercises in British history. I do not believe that most councillors would be prepared to allow a cabinet in their authority to conduct itself with disregard for good sense or to allow unbridled error or excess. There has to be the structure and arrangement within each council which ensures that sanity is served. I note that the Government issue appropriate advice to local authorities.
I am a little concerned about the possibility that an executive role might be filled by a mayor and an officer. I do not criticise many of the devoted people who serve in senior positions in local government. But there must be a democratic base. I do not think it wise to have an executive of two: t he mayor and, presumably, the chief officer of the local authority. I do not believe that that would help to meet the basic need of local government today: to restore public regard and respect.
I have no direct modern or recent experience of local government but I recall with some affection my own service as a young man. Between 1947 and 1974, in an authority with five wards and annual elections, our local council had over 140 elections, or possible elections, in that period; and my friends and I won every single one. That is quite a good record.
We won because we conducted our affairs responsibly and openly and were ever mindful of the democratic basis of our existence as local authority representatives. We must ensure that that democratic base is well served. If it is, not only can we ensure that standards remain high and that, where they do not, more prompt attention is given, but that public respect and regard for local government, which has diminished, is strengthened. In the areas which I know best, regard has fallen, as is illustrated by the decline in election turn-out, which is a disgrace. If we are to counter that tendency, we need to ensure that the democratic base is fully served. There should be no democratic deficit in the structure of executives in British local government. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I rise to speak to my Amendments Nos. 65 and 69. The first seeks to extend the number of possible forms of executive and builds on terminology used by the Local Government Association in giving evidence to the Joint Select Committee which considered the draft legislation. It provides for,
"a form of executive which meets prescribed requirements of transparency, accountability and efficiency".
I readily accept that I am going down the route of enabling the Secretary of State to prescribe matters in regulations, but, if we are to extend the number of forms and have an input into what they might be, I realise that without lengthy amendments that is the way to approach the matter.
I am sure that issues of transparency, accountability and efficiency will not divide the Committee. They are, as has been said tonight, the sine qua non of local government. Although we and many people outside the Chamber are concerned about the forms of executive we may be forced to adopt, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's defence of a system which will not incorporate the approach I have proposed, even if the drafting is incorrect.
Amendment No. 69 provides for a form on which the local authority has consulted its electors and other people in its area. The form enhances the decision-making process and meets the principles which I have set out. I have no doubt that the Committee could extend this debate to the length of our first debate today. I may have tempted it to do so, but I shall not speak longer tonight. However, it is part and parcel of the larger argument with which we began today.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am slightly perplexed by my noble friend's amendment. Despite the objectives, which he set out cogently, relating to the importance of democratic accountability for any new system, his proposal appears to end up with a messy hybrid which satisfies none of those objectives.
When the Government consulted through their White Paper on the proposals, it was always clear that there was a third model which comprised a directly elected mayor and a city manager who would be responsible for many of the day-to-day executive functions. That is a clear model. I must say that it is not a model in which I am aware that many, if any, local

1529
authorities around the country have expressed the slightest interest. However, it has a certain purity, although not one I find particularly attractive.
If my noble friend's amendment were passed, one would end up with an executive which consisted both of paid officials appointed by the authority and elected representatives. That seems a hybrid form of government which would lack the clarity of one where there is direct election of an executive or an elected mayor or the executive consists entirely of elected councillors. For those reasons, the amendment is in my view misguided. It does not seem to satisfy the concerns apparently expressed by some people about the way in which executives function.
In any event, it makes the situation more complex, because as far as the public are concerned the executive responsible for decisions is a mixture of a directly elected mayor, some directly elected councilors—not necessarily elected for the function of being on an executive—and an official appointed by the council for that purpose. That seems a messy arrangement and one which does not really satisfy the objectives of transparency to which Members of the Committee have already referred.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendments Nos. 67 and 70 are in this group. I shall not take up the Committee's time for long but they need mentioning in passing, so to speak, although it is in passing in the light of the previous major debate we had.
Amendment No. 67 provides at page 5, line 25, that there should be a fourth option which would give local authorities the opportunity to pick their own form, which they consider, after proper consultation with their electorate, to be appropriate to their particular circumstances. We have debated the principle behind the amendment and I am in a sense slightly surprised that the amendment survives to this group. I have no intention of going over that ground again.
Amendment No. 70 removes subsections (5) and (6) from the clause. In effect it removes the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations because the regulations,
"may, in particular, provide for"
the form of the executive, and so on and so forth. We have covered that ground extremely well; I do not see any point in covering it in detail again. It is not appropriate that the Secretary of State should have that power. We may have a wonderful volume of draft regulations, but if anyone in the Committee has read them in detail and understood them, they are better men—or ladies, as the case may be—than I. These amendments are significant. I am happy to see them on the Marshalled List and I commend them to the Committee.
The Earl of Carnarvon: The independent councils greatly support Amendment No. 67 in the name of the
1530
noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because they feel that it gives them the opportunity to have a slightly different mix of executive and scrutiny functions.
Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 68 stands in my name. It brings in from further on in the Bill, in Clause 21, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as a part of the formal structure. In Clause 21 it appears as a possibility only after a referendum and after regulation. I believe that it should be brought forward in the Bill to provide the fourth option, the fourth way that a local authority might decide to try to structure its arrangements not totally in the executive mode.
We had a long debate on the executive structure earlier. I know that we are—it would be fair to say—not at one over the proposals as to how a council should be structured. However, I should like to leave this amendment as a fourth option—a way forward for those authorities which do not want to embrace totally the three models already produced by the Government—which could be adapted and, indeed, might be adapted, if necessary, within an executive structure. However, I believe that it is right and proper that local authorities should have that other possibility. Therefore, I leave the amendment for further consideration.
Lord Whitty: All the amendments in this group propose or give the facility for providing additional forms of structure beyond those which we have provided. I have already indicated that there is scope for substantial diversity within power structures and scope for other alternatives to come through. I do not believe that those alternative forms of structure would deliver the objectives that the Government have set out.
Amendment No. 65 requires effectively that any form of executive could be acceptable were it to meet the requirements for transparency, accountability and efficiency. However, that may well involve structures that are outside our prescription of executive scrutiny split. For the reasons that I spelt out earlier, that would not be acceptable to the Government.
My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath wishes to introduce an amendment to what, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, has been the least remarked on of those options; namely, the elected mayor and council manager. Not only has that been the least remarked on, I suspect that it has been one of the most misunderstood. It is based on a separation between policy determination and policy implementation—the first for the council and the latter for the council manager.
However, particularly where councils are not very small, it is becoming increasingly common in many parts of the world for that form of government to include a directly elected mayor to give leadership to the council. That form of government has been adopted quite widely in the United States and also throughout New Zealand. In that sense, the elected mayor does not have an executive role. That is for the council manager. However, he or she is in a position to

1531
reflect the mandate given to the council as a whole and to the directly elected mayor through the election process.
I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Harris that if one was to add further councillors separately elected into that executive, that would muddy the water yet more. Three classes of person from different perspectives would form a single executive. Members of the Committee may have noticed that the mayor in that form of executive will be under a duty to appoint a deputy mayor, who will take the place of a mayor when the mayor cannot fulfil his duties or when the post becomes vacant. That deputy will not be part of the executive. That is deliberate because, once again, it would muddy the waters were that deputy to become a party to the executive. The same must apply a fortiori to councillors who have a different basis of election than the mayor.
Therefore, I fear that we are not attracted by the proposals of my noble friend Lord Hardy. I understand the motivation behind them; that is, to spread the elected basis of people who are within the executive. It may well be that councils feel that they cannot adopt that structure for that very reason. However, if they do adopt that structure, that is what is intended and that is the clarity of structure that it provides. It may not yet have proved hugely attractive to a large number of councils, but that is what is intended. I believe that the proposition changes the nature of that option.
In relation to Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and, to some extent, Amendment No. 69, if the objectives of those amendments is to promote greater diversity, I fear that they do not achieve that. I wish to add only that many authorities already operate shadow executive arrangements under current legislation. However, effectively the amendment would allow remnants of the previous, or existing, system to be retained and the executive structure would not have the clarity of distinction from the scrutiny structure that we seek.
The same applies to Amendment No. 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. In a sense, that is effectively grafting the possibility of an executive role on to something very like the existing committee structure. Again, I do not believe that that has the clarity of accountability and responsibility which we seek under the new arrangements.
The Government's reason for proposing a move away from the traditional committee structure is precisely to provide such identifiable and accountable executive responsibilities. I covered that on the previous group of amendments. I do not believe that any of the proposed alternatives fall in with our objectives as set out under the three options which we have proposed which make the clear distinction between the executive and scrutiny functions which we wish to see in all councils. There may be other options
1532
which achieve that, but these options do not do so. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will not he pursued this evening.
Baroness Hanham: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may draw his attention to Clause 21 where the arrangements which I propose are word for word what is included in government amendments to Clause 21.
Lord Whitty: To which amendment is the noble Baroness referring?
Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 197.
Lord Whitty: We shall deal with Amendment No. 197 later in our proceedings. The arrangement which we provide there is possible only in the circumstances in which there has been a referendum on the proposition from the authority that there should be an elected mayor and where the executive arrangements have been rejected by the electorate. In that situation, we are allowing some flexibility as regards the models which would apply in those circumstances.
The prime requirement is that all authorities should go through the process of finding a structure which they believe is suitable for them and which makes a clear distinction between the executive and scrutiny functions. If they do so and the electorate rejects it, they are in a somewhat different situation. But we require all authorities to undertake that process.
Baroness Hanham: The point is that if that provision was moved to the position in the Bill to which my Amendment No. 68 applies and the referendum were abandoned, we could have the fourth option.
Lord Hardy of Wath: From the debate that has taken place, it seems clear that the option which I found most offensive is hardly likely to be enthusiastically supported. I certainly hope that it will not be.
I am grateful for the consideration which has been given to this matter. I am happy to have the information from my noble friend that this particular option seems less likely to be popular in London than some people in the north of England may fear. In view of the comments which have been made and the fact that this matter has received serious consideration, I shall withdraw the amendment. But I trust that the Government will in no way push this particular structure down the throats of British local government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 66:
Pages, line 25, at end insert—
("Such an executive is referred to in this Part as a mayor and council manager executive.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 71 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 71A:
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("each member of which is") and insert ("not more than 60 per cent. of the members of which are").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 71A I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 72 and 73. On these amendments we look in more detail at the form of cabinet which may be proposed in regulations that the Secretary of State may make under Clause 10(6). The subsection provides for a form of executive, each member of which is elected by the local government electors to a specified post associated with the discharge of particular functions.
I attempt to skin this particular cat in a couple of different ways. The first is to propose that not more than 60 per cent of the executive—I accept that that is a figure plucked out of the air for the purposes of the debate—be elected to specified posts. The second, and the point I want to explore, is to suggest that the executive may be directly elected but not elected to specific posts.
I am concerned about the lack of flexibility if there were direct elections not just of the mayor, but also of members of the cabinet who would not be in a position, if I read the clause correctly, to move between different posts. I do not believe that that would be healthy for local government. Depending on the frequency of elections, cabinet members would be stuck in positions for, say, four years with no career structure. One could go into a cabinet with responsibility for, say, leisure services, but not be able to develop one's interest in transport or environmental matters, thus allowing someone else who has or is developing expertise in leisure services to come into that area.
I do not understand why the Government have seen fit to be so careful not to allow movement. I assume that regulations would provide for a by-election if a member resigned or died. Nevertheless, it seems an odd cabinet where the leader or senior members cannot be part of a discussion about how to reorganise the split of functions and the responsibilities for functions.
Can the Minister give the Committee further explanation of the reasoning behind this model and why the Government spell out on the face of the Bill what is not now permitted but may be proposed under regulation made by the Secretary of State? In other words, a possibility is being dangled in front of us, but it will not happen yet. I would be grateful for such an explanation as I do not fully follow the Government's thinking. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid that the Government cannot support Amendments Nos. 71A, 72 or 73. When I explain the reasoning, it is possible that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will understand our position more clearly.
1534
I should explain that the Government do not have any particular form of executive in mind based on the provisions of Clause 10(6). It is there to ensure the widest scope for forms of executive which may be requested by local authorities or others which the Secretary of State believes will meet the aims of the Bill. But the amendments would prevent the Secretary of State providing for executives in which all the members were directly elected, or some were elected to specified posts and others elected on a slate basis, for example.
I stress again that we do not have any plans to provide for such forms of executive. If we had a clear idea about further forms of executive which we should like to see in place, we would have placed them on the face of the Bill before the current subsection (5) of this clause. We merely seek to ensure that no potentially valid forms of executive are closed off by unwarranted restrictions to the power in this clause to add further forms of executive in due course. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: It may be the time of night, but I confess that I do not understand the answer.
Clause 10(5) says that the executive,
"may take any such form as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State".
Members of the Committee may have objections to that; we voiced them in other contexts. Clause 10(6) says that,
"Regulations … may, in particular, provide for",
a form of executive which the Government may not want to propose. It is suggested that if the provision is amended, it will limit the options under Clause 10(5). Unless Clause 10(6) sets out exclusively the totality of the forms that can be prescribed under Clause 10(5)—clearly it does not if English means anything—I fail to follow how my amendments have narrowed the possibilities. Indeed, I do not understand why Clause 10(6) appears on the face of the Bill at all if the situation remains as open as the noble Baroness said.
I am genuinely concerned that the cabinet that this model appears to be promoting is one which will be so restrictive as to constrain the operation of an authority which adopted it. That is one argument as to the validity and desirability of this model. The wider point is the relationship between subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 10 which, although I shall go back and read the answer, does not appear so far to have been satisfactorily explained.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am happy to write to the noble Baroness. My understanding is that part of her proposal deletes some of the variety of options. However, it may be more satisfactory for me to write to her, place a copy in the Library and send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Baroness Hamwee: The amendment does delete some of the options. That in part was for the purpose of debate. One has to find some form of words in order

1535
to explore the principle. My underlying point is the relationship between those two subsections. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 74 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) The authority may determine the title to be used for the position of mayor elected under this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: In case the Government feel that they have, so to speak, "bought" an argument on Amendment No. 74, I can say that it covered the same ground as that spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. That is why I did not move it.
Amendment No. 75 takes us to what I suspect may be a rather vexed question among the little group of people who are concerned about matters of ceremony, and so on. I refer to the possible confusion between the elected mayor and the ceremonial mayor to whom we are all accustomed.
I believe that many members of the public set high value on the work done by ceremonial mayors; indeed, I do. My observation of the activity of mayors is that they are frequently extremely hard working and spend an awful lot of time within the community. I do not think that I have ever heard a former mayor saying, "I didn't actually learn anything during that year". They all tend to say, "I met so many groups of people and learnt so much about my own area that I didn't realise I didn't know". They are valued by members of the public: as representing the council and the government of that area.
Like other noble Lords, I consulted a dictionary to see how the word "mayor" is defined. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the one to which I had access, was not very helpful, because it defines a mayor as being the,
"head or chief officer of the municipal corporation".
So it was ahead of fits time, but not very helpful in this context.
I believe that the Government take the view that there should he flexibility at local level to combine the functions of an elected mayor with the ceremonial role. I am not arguing against that, although I have to say that I am rather doubtful as to whether it would work. They also say that the elected mayor must—and this is where I find some difficulty—be called "mayor". I would prefer to see the continuation of some old traditions and not have our language distorted in this area by the "modernisation" that is being applied through this process. If and when the public is told that it may have two mayors, I believe it will add to the confusion and not assist matters. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This takes me hack. Indeed, very many years ago I remember a television programme that included Ernest the Policeman and, if my memory serves me correctly, Larry and Mr Mayor.
1536
We already have this position with regard to London. We debated the point at great length in that respect. Looking carefully round the Committee to see which Members are present, I should like to refer to the time when I was—and the Lancashire terminology was in use—chairman of Lancashire County Council. Many district councils already have more than one mayor, because there is a town council mayor, as well as a borough mayor. Other boroughs have chairmen. So a wide variety of terminology is in use. Before speaking in detail to this amendment, perhaps as I come from Preston I may register the fact that nothing would prevent Preston from being able to opt to have either a charter mayor or a guild mayor.
There are attractions to Amendment No. 75, but we feel that it is important for there to be certainty about what a person operating under that particular title is responsible for and how he or she may be held to account. On balance, we think that there should be clear provision in the Bill as to the type of mayor.
As I said, where an authority is entitled by virtue of borough status to call its chairman a mayor, it will he clear, if there is also a leader in the form of executive under this Bill, that the mayor is the chairman rather than any directly-elected figure. If such an authority were to move to arrangements that included an elected mayor and it wished to retain the title of mayor for the chairman, the Government would either need to find a different title for the elected mayor or let local authorities choose a variety of titles for that figure. We believe that greater certainty would be delivered if there were a clear rule that if there is an elected mayor under this legislation, it is that figure who is known as the mayor and the chairman as the chairman. or the chair as the chair, depending on the wishes of the local authority.
I should therefore be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, felt able to withdraw her amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I cannot say that I am persuaded by that response. In the situation that is to pertain in London there will be a number of mayors. There will be mayors of different authorities. However, I am concerned about confusion within one authority. I cannot readily anticipate the same level of excitement among some groups if they believe that they are to be visited by the chair rather than the mayor as representing the local authority.
I shall not pursue the matter for the moment but I believe that it is a sensitive one. As people outside this building begin to be aware of what is proposed, I shall be surprised if the Government do not receive some emotional lobbying on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 5, line 38, leave out ("local authority executive which takes the form specified in subsection (2) or (3)") and insert ("mayor and cabinet executive or a leader and cabinet executive").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 5, line 39, after ("not") insert ("be fewer than 5 nor").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 77 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 80 and 81. In moving Amendment No. 77, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 79 and 80.
Here we are discussing the size of the executive and the size of the cabinet. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, has tabled important amendments in this group. His amendments and my Amendment No. 77, and Amendment No. 80, which stands also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, probably share the same concern; namely, a concern about there being a small clique of members who will have inappropriate power.
Amendment No. 77 seeks to include a minimum number of members of a local authority executive. At present the Bill states that the maximum number may not exceed 10. I believe that a cabinet of two or three members should not be permitted. A further amendment in the group in my name seeks to delete a provision with regard to the maximum number. I have strong doubts as the appropriateness of the Secretary of State having the power to prescribe the maximum number. That seems to me to be a great extension of the control that is being imposed.
My Amendment No. 79 seeks to clarify the position with regard to deputies and substitutes. I accept that there may not be much of a distinction as between those terms. It may come as a surprise to the Committee to hear that the amendment is intended for clarification. I was rather surprised by that notion when I reread the amendment. However, I am unclear—I seek an explanation from the Government on this point—as to what scope exists for members of the executive to bring in other people to deputise for them.
I have already expressed my concern about the lack of flexibility that may exist within the tight models that are proposed. I believe that it would be sad if it were not possible for other members of an authority to be brought in to act as deputy to a member of the executive. We shall discuss this at far greater length when we debate the overview and scrutiny committees. Such a provision would permit some experience of executive responsibility and go some way towards furthering the career structure and breadth of experience of councillors. A number of us have concerns about that. I do not think that it is healthy—particularly if there is a very small executive—for there to be no possibility of deputising. As a matter of sheer practicality, I wonder whether the system will work if there can be no deputies. I believe that the Government's thinking at the moment is against the possibility of deputies acting on the executive. I beg to move Amendment No. 77.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In responding to Amendment No. 77 I shall speak also to Amendments 78 to 81, which are grouped with it.
1538
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the joint effect of Amendments Nos. 77 and 80 is to place a firm minimum on the size of cabinet—that is to say, the number of members—but to allow flexibility in either direction on the maximum number of members possible. In practice, the latter flexibility is likely to be used to increase the maximum size of cabinet as many might argue—as have some noble Lords—that restricting cabinet size to a range which is narrower than from five to 10 would be over-prescriptive.
The firm minimum seems undesirable to the Government. It would make impossible any arrangements based on a very small cabinet and very wide delegation to officers, for example. Neither would the Government wish to see executives any larger than 10. This is already a large number in terms of managing meetings and it could be a significant proportion of a medium-sized authority. Given the bar on members of the executive serving on the overview and scrutiny committees, providing for a higher maximum could render proper rigorous scrutiny of the executive impossible, thus losing much of the enhanced accountability that is the objective of the legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has referred on several occasions to the issue of flexibility and moving between roles. She seems to imply that the scrutiny role is a subordinate role, that career progression is to be seen as inevitable and that it is desirable for all councillors to be able to move between the two roles. The purpose of the legislation—I am sure all noble Lords who have had experience in local government will be aware of this—is to ensure that those who wish to fulfil a proper scrutiny role on behalf of the people who elect them, but who do not wish to turn their council service into a full-time career and wish to be able to maintain their other life outside local authority service, should be given the opportunity to do so. I hope that the Committee will not see scrutiny as being a lesser role. For this reason Amendments Nos. 78 and 81 cannot be supported either.
Amendment No. 79, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, deals with deputising for members of the executive. The Government are opposed to any kind of deputisation or substitution because we believe that it is extremely important that there should not be conflicts of interest. It would be very difficult for a genuine scrutiny role to be undertaken by someone who had been a party to the taking of the executive decision and who was then asked to make a judgment on it.
We do not intend that the executive should be some kind of sealed unit. We do not believe that there should be entire separation between the executive and other councillors. The executive will wish to take advice from other councillors, either informally or, for example, in committee meetings, and of course they will all come together in full council to determine the policy of the authority. However, the Government feel that it is important to avoid the possibility of conflict and we would not be in favour of formal arrangements for councillors outside the executive to stand in for executive councillors.

1539
I realise, from the contribution made by the noble Baroness, that she may find this response neither totally acceptable nor one with which she agrees. Nevertheless, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Carnarvon: I understand that the Government do not wish to move on Amendments Nos. 78 and 81. However, I believe that to have 10 people on the executive is very few on a large authority, such as the City of London with 155 members and Birmingham with 117. Altogether, 13 authorities have over 80 members. In some cases I believe that exceptions must be made. Obviously, I was not aiming for 15, but I wondered whether there was an opportunity to agree a figure somewhere between 10 and 15 if an authority felt that to be necessary. I wished to invite the Government to comment on those suggestions.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope that, on reflection, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, will feel that the earlier reply I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, covers the points that he has raised. However, I should like to make the point that the size of the executive is not directly and proportionately related to the number of elected members on the authority. The point that the noble Earl made did not envisage the executive and strategic roles that would be fulfilled by the executive. If, however, there are further points that the noble Earl wishes to raise, I shall be only too happy to write to him.
Baroness Hamwee: I fear that the practical result of these measures may be that we are heading for authorities which do not comprise 117 or 150 members. Without commenting on whether the executive, overview and scrutiny roles differ in their seniority or worth, I remain concerned that it will not be possible for individuals to swap between the different roles. I accept that it would be awkward for individuals with lobs outside the local authority to take on an executive role. Nevertheless, I say again that I do not think it healthy to preclude the variety of experience that may be brought to bear in the cross-fertilisation of the contribution of different councillors serving on an authority. Their experience in different roles informs each successive role they take on.
The Minister is right to say that I am not entirely happy, but I shall not pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 81 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 5, line 43, at end insert—
("(10) Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities) does not apply to the function of electing a leader under subsection (3)(a) or appointing councillors or an officer to the executive under subsection (3)(b)(ii) or (4)(b).'').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Executive functions]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 6, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
The noble Lord said: I must confess to the Committee that I allowed my eye to be seduced by the heading of Clause 11. It states "Executive functions". Indeed, it is repeated with added force in the margin. It seems to me slightly odd that it needs to be repeated in precisely the same terms. Perhaps the amendment was put down without sufficient care and perusal.
I need to say something about this matter because the clause made me think of a grammar exercise I was given at a relatively young age at school. It was handed to all members of the class. It was all in lower case—evenly spaced, no capitals, no nothing. It went like this: that that is is that that is not is not is not that it. We were invited to punctuate it so that it made sense. I see from the nods and laughter around the Committee that other Members were set precisely the same puzzle. It represents a fairly simple philosophy of life, because things that are, are, and things that are not, are not. This amendment actually sets that on its head because it says that that is, is not, and that that is not, is. So I have some difficulty in following it. If it is specified in regulations, it is not susceptible to executive function; and if it is not specified in regulations, then it is. I do wish that the Government could find a more felicitous way of framing these clauses so that one does not have to deal with that illogicality.
The Minister has withdrawn the clause that was originally on the face of the Bill and has replaced it with something that is immediately and immensely longer. I think that his amendment falls into precisely the same trap. I invite him to consider that point.
That said, if I were to press the amendment I would be in danger of putting myself in the position of proposing an illogicality. Therefore, when the time comes, I may well decide that it should not be pursued. However, we need to reach that point before I can do so.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 85, 86, 123 and 127 which are grouped with this amendment. It is regrettable that at 11.15 at night we should be starting on a part of the Bill which deals with a new form of working for local authorities. The amended clause is long and was set down very recently. Earlier today we said that we had not had much chance to look at the amendments and comment on them. That is certainly the case for the local authorities which want to see what these provisions mean for them.
It is in no way satisfactory to introduce amendments on the functions of something that is already new to us and where the guidance provided is very far from clear. I want to concentrate on some of the guidance to see how it relates to the functions explained here. I should like particularly to ask the Minister about the section that concerns area committees. The guidance says that unless area committees are politically balanced they cannot fulfil the scrutiny function. Some Members of

1541
the Committee may be aware of how area committees work in different parts of the country. The one thing they have is fairly widespread public support. It is perhaps the only form of council committee that has recently enthused the public to attend and take part, even quite frequently. For that reason it is important that the Government are quite sure about what they are doing when they make this kind of statement.
To require that area committees should be politically balanced shows a complete misunderstanding of how they come to be set up. They are directly elected by the electors of their area. Therefore, it is difficult for the council to make them politically balanced unless it ships in councillors from another area. That has happened in some cases, but I would regard it as a discredited model for an area committee.
Will area committees be allowed to scrutinise the area services? Surely they must be allowed to scrutinise those services at a local level. This should not preclude an overview or scrutiny committee taking a wider view of the council's performance in ensuring, for example, that services are consistent throughout the authority. That is an important function for an authority-wide scrutiny committee.
The guidance states that if members are taking part in an overview or scrutiny committee and they are members of an area committee, they must first declare an interest. In some authorities, all members are members of area committees, so they will all have to declare an interest. That will take a good deal of time. The guidance seems to say that, subsequently, they should not vote in the scrutiny committee. It may be that I have misread the guidance, but it is important that the Government are clear about where area committees fit into the system. They should ensure, as Amendment No. 123 attempts to do, that nothing in this part of the Bill or in the guidance adversely affects the way that area committees which are working well can continue to operate.
I turn now to partnership working with other authorities, an issue specifically addressed by our Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. They seek to ensure that the committees which are set up jointly between local authorities are not straitjacketed or disempowered by anything in this part of the Bill or in the regulations. If such a joint committee is to have an executive function, must it consist of executive members of authorities that are putting members on to the joint committee? This is a complicated issue. If eight members of a county council are to form partnerships with all the council's districts and take one district each, only 1.4 members will be available from the county council to serve on that joint executive. If it is a 10-member joint committee, it would not be able to send enough executive members. I hope that the Minister can enlighten me and reassure me that the Government's proposals will not disallow these ways of working. They are new in many places, but are so far working well.
1542
What is of most interest to all councillors and their constituents is that the budget and level of council tax should not be decided only by the executive but must be a matter for the full council.
Lord Whitty: First, I shall speak to the government amendments in this group which deal with functions which are the responsibility of the executive and with ways in which they can be delegated to area committees. These amendments are necessary to enable more flexibility in how executive functions are discharged and to clarify some of the provisions of the Bill as originally drafted.
Amendment No. 84 would, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, correctly indicated, replace Clause 11, to which his amendment and others relate, with a clause which enables the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to provide for functions which are or may be the responsibility of the executive and for functions which are not. In many ways, the main features of the previous clause would remain but the new clause would also provide for flexibility, enabling powers to allow regulations to specify the extent to which certain functions are the responsibility of the executive, including specifying steps in the course of exercising those functions.
The Government consider these provisions to be necessary so as to define properly the respective roles of the full council and the executive in setting, for example, the council's budget and policy framework, and in particular to ensure that the ultimate responsibility for setting the budget, council tax levels and overall policy lies with the full council following consideration of the proposals from the executive. I think that that probably answers the last point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The new clause would also allow local councils greater flexibility in determining similar roles in the discharge of functions specified as "local choice" functions under subsection (2)(b).
Government Amendments Nos. 122, 125 and 126 introduce new powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling an executive to delegate to area committees; delegate to another authority or enter into joint arrangements with other authorities or with area committees for the discharge of executive functions.
The Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, which considered the draft Bill recommended that the Bill should be capable of accommodating, within executive arrangements, area committees and joint arrangements. These provisions now do that. The other government amendments are consequential on those amendments.
To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, it is clear that area committees have an important function. I may wish to write to the noble Baroness in more detail. It is not true that the guidance implies that the area committees should in each case themselves be politically balanced, but that the overview and scrutiny of the policy must be politically balanced. There is no requirement for the area committees which

1543
discharge the functions necessarily to be balanced, although the noble Baroness seemed rather over-keen to approve of one-party states at area level and not at authority level. The guidance does not preclude area committees being of one party, so long as the oversight of the policy under which they operate is politically balanced in reflection of the balance on the council. Area committees are clearly important in that respect. They will have executive functions. Therefore, if a council member is a member of an area committee and of an overview and scrutiny committee, in that situation there would be a conflict of interest and he or she would have to stand aside. Joint committees to discharge executive functions must be drawn from members of the executive. That is important, so that there is a clear line of accountability.
Without going through the syntactical points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, at the beginning of the debate, even were the Committee not to accept Amendment No. 84 deleting the appropriate clause, if I interpret the proposal correctly it would cut across the overall objective of these parts of the Bill, which is to provide a clear and visible separate executive. That means that the executive must be clearly responsible for the majority of the council's functions, particularly the major services. The clause is intended to clarify that. Given the noble Lord's expression, it is obvious that it has not entirely succeeded and further clarification may be necessary at later stages of the Bill. I hope, however, that the government amendments are acceptable to the Committee and that noble Lords will not pursue the other amendments at this stage.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise briefly to clarify two points. First, certainly I am not in favour of one-party states, which was why earlier this evening I advocated that PR was a much better way to ensure that they never existed in local government. That is something in which I firmly believe. Secondly, I do not believe that the Minister has wholly answered my concern about area and scrutiny committees, and I shall welcome clarification of that matter in writing before Report stage so that we may examine it further.
Baroness Hamnee: I do not know whether the Government have considered the following. New Clause 11 would be more comprehensible to a number of those who have tried to understand it, and have made similar comments to me, if the Government provided something like a flow chart or matrix to show the order in which decisions are to be taken and dealt with. I refer to all the "what ifs" and the sequences.
I have a number of questions related to two of the Government's amendments. First, as to Amendment No. 125, subsection (1) of the new clause provides that,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for … the discharge of any functions …
"(a) by another local authority (within the meaning of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972)".
1544
Can the Minister say to which words the words in parenthesis apply? Do they apply to "local authority" or to the discharge of functions by another authority within the meaning of Section 101? I was temporarily away from my seat and did not hear the whole of the Minister's explanation, but I do not believe that the Committee has as yet had a full explanation of how these provisions relate to Section 101 of the 1972 Act.
My second question is related to Amendment No. 126. Subsection (2)(a) refers to,
"circumstances in which the executive, or a committee or specified member of the executive, is to be a party to the arrangements in place of the authority".
Can the Minister explain what is meant by "party" in that context? Is the executive, individual member, and so on, the agent or principal? In that connection, can the Minister say whether currently there are regulations in place made by the Secretary of State which affect Section 101? If not, why is it necessary to provide for them here?
Finally, subsection (2)(e) provides for,
"the circumstances in which appointments to any such joint committee … need not be made in accordance with the political balance requirements".
Why is that provision necessary in view of Clause 17, which no doubt we shall reach on the next day of the Committee stage?
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness raises some very good questions. I do not believe that this evening she will receive a full explanation of the cross-relationship between these amendments and Section 101. I should offer the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, an explanation of that relationship. Since I have sought to follow the matter very carefully perhaps I should answer all the questions of the noble Baroness in writing. I apologise for not being able to do so instantaneously. I hope that, nevertheless, the overall objective of the Government's amendments in this group is clear. I shall clarify the position further between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my particular amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 84:
Leave out Clause 11, and insert the following new clause—
FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF AN EXECUTIVE
(".—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of determining the functions of a local authority which are the responsibility of an executive of the authority under executive arrangements.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for any function of a local authority specified in the regulations—

(a) to be a function which is not to be the responsibility of an executive of the authority under executive arrangements,

(b) to be a function which may be the responsibility of such an executive under such arrangements, or

1545

(c) to be a function which—

(i)to the extent provided by the regulations is to be the responsibility of such an executive under such arrangements, and

(ii)to the extent provided by the regulations is not to be the responsibility of such an executive under such arrangements.

(3) Any functions of a local authority which are not specified in regulations under subsection (2) are to be the responsibility of an executive of the authority under executive arrangements.
(4) Executive arrangements may make provision for any function of a local authority falling within subsection (2)(b)—

(a) to be a function which is to be the responsibility of an executive of the authority, or

(b) to be a function which—

(i) to the extent provided by the arrangements is to be the responsibility of such an executive, and

(ii)to the extent provided by the arrangements is not to be the responsibility of such an executive.

(5) The power under subsection (2)(c) or (4)(b) includes power in relation to any function of a local authority—

(a) to designate any action in connection with the discharge of that function which is to be the responsibility of an executive of a local authority, and

(b) to designate any action in connection with the discharge of that function which is not to be the responsibility of such an executive.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify cases or circumstances in which any function of a local authority which, by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section, would otherwise be the responsibility of an executive of the authority to any extent is not to be the responsibility of such an executive to that or any particular extent.
(7) A function of a local authority may, by virtue of this section, be the responsibility of an executive of the authority to any extent notwithstanding that section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, or any provision of that section, does not apply to that function.
(8) Any reference in the following provisions of this Part to any functions which are, or are not, the responsibility of an executive of a local authority under executive arrangements is a reference to the functions of the authority to the extent to which they are or (as the case may be) are not, by virtue of this section, the responsibility of the executive under such arrangements.
(9) Any function which is the responsibility of an executive of a local authority under executive arrangements—

(a) is to be regarded as exercisable by the executive on behalf of the authority, and

(b) is to be discharged in accordance with any provisions made by or under this Part which relate to the discharge of any such function.

1546
(10) Any function which is the responsibility of an executive of a local authority under executive arrangements—

(a) may not be discharged by the authority,

(b) is not to be a function to which section 101(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 applies, and

(c) may be the subject of arrangements made under section 101(5) of that Act only if permitted by any provision made under section (Joint exercise of functions).

(11) Subject to any provision made under subsection (12), any function which, under executive arrangements, is not the responsibility of an executive of a local authority is to be discharged in any way which would be permitted or required apart from the provisions made by or under this Part.
(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the discharge of any function which, under executive arrangements, is not the responsibility of an executive of a local authority (including provision disapplying section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 or any provision of that section).
(13) In this section—
"action" in relation to any function includes any action (of whatever nature and whether or not separately identified by any enactment) involving—

(a) the taking of any step in the course of, or otherwise for the purposes of or in connection with, the discharge of the function,

(b) the doing of anything incidental or conducive to the discharge of the function, or

(c) the doing of anything expedient in connection with the discharge of the function or any action falling within paragraph (a) or (b),

"function" means a function of any nature, whether conferred or otherwise arising before, on or after the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 84.
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86, as amendments to Amendment No. 84, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 84 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before midnight.

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: UK Delegation
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: UK Delegation
  NHS Trust Appointments
  NHS Trust Appointments
  Critical Care: Lines to Take: NHS Document
  Critical Care: Lines to Take: NHS Document
  CJD and Fertility Treatment
  CJD and Fertility Treatment
  Organophosphate Working Group: Membership of Professor Blain
  Organophosphate Working Group: Membership of Professor Blain
  Primary Care Groups and Maternity Services
  Primary Care Groups and Maternity Services
  Hospital Waiting List Reduction: Cost
  Hospital Waiting List Reduction: Cost
  Arms Sales Export Credits Ban
  Arms Sales Export Credits Ban
  Field Boundary Widths and IACS Rules
  Field Boundary Widths and IACS Rules
  School Milk Scheme
  School Milk Scheme
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Yugoslavia: Export of Demining Equipment
  Yugoslavia: Export of Demining Equipment
  Kosovo Joint Interim Administrative Council
  Kosovo Joint Interim Administrative Council
  Kosovo: UK Support to UNMIK
  Kosovo: UK Support to UNMIK
  Kosovo: Police Secondments
  Kosovo: Police Secondments
  East Timor: UNTAET Funding
  East Timor: UNTAET Funding
  Peers Appointed to Quangos, Task Forces and Working Parties
  Peers Appointed to Quangos, Task Forces and Working Parties
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Task Forces
  Task Forces
  Wembley Stadium: Lottery Funding Agreement
  Wembley Stadium: Lottery Funding Agreement
  Non-EU Imports: Duties Received
  Non-EU Imports: Duties Received
  Devolved Administrations: Guidance to Officials
  Devolved Administrations: Guidance to Officials
  Prison Service and Human Rights Act 1998
  Prison Service and Human Rights Act 1998
  Boeing 747 Crash, Essex: Missing Depleted Uranium Counterweights
  Boeing 747 Crash, Essex: Missing Depleted Uranium Counterweights
  Jubilee Line Signal Failures
  Jubilee Line Signal Failures
  Vehicles Taken Off Roads
  Vehicles Taken Off Roads
  Vehicles Purchased
  Vehicles Purchased
  Education Adjudicator's Costs
  Education Adjudicator's Costs
  Access Funds and Hardship Loans: Review
  Access Funds and Hardship Loans: Review